Impeachment: GOP leaders reportedly say they lack votes to block witnesses – as it happened
Republican Collins: ‘There’s some gaps that need to be cleared up’
White House counsel to senators: reject articles of impeachment
Schiff says Trump’s lawyers ‘cannot defend president on facts’
Summary
Trump lawyers urge senators to ‘end the age of impeachment’ and acquit Trump – video
Donald Trump’s attorneys concluded their opening arguments in the president’s impeachment trial.
Over the next two days, Senators will submit questions to both legal teams, and lawmakers are expected to debate and vote on whether to call witnesses on Friday.
As Senate Republicans wrestle with whether or not to call in witnesses, Trump’s lawyers argued that testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton was “inadmissible”.
Senate leader Mitch McConnell has reportedly told Republicans they don’t have the votes to block witnesses.
The administration unveiled an Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal, which Palestinian leaders had pre-emptively rejected.
‘Danger! Danger! Danger!’ Is Trump team’s alarm for their own case?
The question of whether or not the Senate will consider additional evidence and testimony loom over the impeachment trial, now that the president’s defense team has concluded its opening arguments.
Trump team’s opening arguments: the key takeaways
FOIA reveals Rick Perry’s talking points for Zelenskiy inauguration
NEW: The Department of Energy just released 139 pages of records to American Oversight in response to our FOIA lawsuit — including what appears to be Secretary Rick Perry’s briefing book for his May 2019 delegation to Ukraine. https://t.co/FvyzrVK8kp pic.twitter.com/xwXWytYth0
— American Oversight (@weareoversight) January 29, 2020
A watchdog group’s FOIA request to the Energy Department yielded emails, messages, and notes as well as the talking point that former energy secretary Rick Perry took to attend the inauguration of Ukrainian president Vlodomry Zelenskiy.
Perry was one of the “three amigos” involved in Ukraine policy, and became a kew figure in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.
As Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders spar on the campaign trail, the former vice president’s campaign maintains that he’s committed to backing the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.
Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at Jeno’s Little Hungary in Davenport, Iowa. Photograph: Matt Rourke/AP
The tension between the former vice president and the progressive Vermont senator has been building as the Iowa caucus approaches next week. Though Biden had previously committed to endorsing the Democratic nominee, “regardless” of who wins the primaries, he appeared to be vacillating on Sanders.
The two have clashed over foreign policy, trade, and social security. Last week, Biden’s campaign released an ad accusing Sanders of negative attacks on the former vice president’s and mischaracterizing his record on social security. Sanders’ campaign lobbed back that it was Biden who was going negative. Sanders did apologize after a supporter’s op-ed in The Guardian called Biden “corrupt”.
The two frontrunners are fighting off Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg ahead of the Iowa caucus.
“I’m not going to make judgments now,” Biden told reporters in Iowa, where he has been campaigning this week. “I just think that it depends upon how we treat one another between now and the time we have a nominee.” The Associated Press and other outlets interpreted this as vacillation.
But Biden’s campaign contested reports that he wouldn’t back the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.
What he actually said:
Reporter: Will the party unite behind Bernie if he’s the nominee? The whole party?
Biden: We have to. I’m not gonna make judgments now but I just think that it depends upon how we treat one another between now and the time we have a nominee.
Though Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has reportedly told senators privately that he doesn’t have votes to block new witnesses in the impeachment trial, per multiple reports, there are still several days till senators would vote on the matter.
Senate Republicans may still block witnesses, and some GOP lawmakers are confident they’ll be able to do so, according to CNN.
While the votes aren’t secured yet, GOP leaders are growing confident they can defeat a vote on witnesses following the initial alarm the Bolton book caused among Senate Rs. Many Rs amenable to argument that witnesses would drag it out with no clear end https://t.co/LKsAaRHEaS
Lev Parnas’ lawyer is expected to attend the Senate trial tomorrow.
Joseph Bondy asked Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer for gallery tickets, according to The Daily Beast, which first reported the news. Bondy’s co-counsel Stephanie Schuman is also expected to appear. Parnas himself may not be able to, as he wears an ankle monitor and electronics are banned in the trial chamber.
Lev Parnas attorney on attending Senate trial: “We are attending the trial w/ or w/o Mr. Parnas bc we believe our presence is important in reminding senators that indeed there should be witnesses heard and evidence taken and that anything short of that would not be a fair trial”
Republicans may not have enough votes to block witnesses, and they know it according to a Wall Street Journal report.
NEWS from @WSJ: GOP Leaders Say They Don’t Currently Have Enough Votes to Block Witnesses
McConnell told Republicans the vote total wasn’t where it needed to be…He had a card with “yes,” “no,” and “maybes” marked on it, apparently a whip count https://t.co/hzhRunhMoi via @WSJ
Though most Senate Republicans have dismissed the need to call witnesses, a few key members, including Mitt Romney of Utah and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have indicated an openness to hearing new testimony.
Key Republicans signal openness to Bolton testimony in impeachment trial
Feinstein clarifies her statement: ‘It’s clear the president’s actions were wrong’
The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I’d keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.
— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020
An Axios reporter who initially posed a question about acquittal to the senator today further clarified: Feinstein was open to potentially acquitting Donald Trump before, but is less so now.
I think the @latimes has this story backwards. I was the reporter who asked @SenFeinstein these questions. She told me she was initially going to vote against impeachment “before this”
But when I asked her to clarify, she said she’s changed her opinion https://t.co/sJeYl2VkNl
Is Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein open to acquittal?
Dianne Feinstein speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
After the president’s defense team concluded their arguments today, Feinstein, a Democrat of California, seemed to suggest she’s not entirely opposed to acquittal.
“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein told the LA Times. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
Per the LA Times:
Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”
Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”
At 86, Feinstein is the oldest member of the Senate. She’s expected to retire after she completes the remaining four years of her term — so she doesn’t necessarily need to consider how going against the grain will affect her chances of reelection in Blue-state California.
Joe Manchin of West Virginia is the only other Senate Democrat whose vote to remove Trump from office isn’t assured. On Fox News, he said, “I am totally undecided,” on how he’ll vote.
Evening summary
That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours.
Here’s where the day stands so far:
Trump’s lawyers concluded their opening arguments in the impeachment trial, advising senators to vote for acquittal and “end the era of impeachment for good.”
The president’s lawyers argued that John Bolton’s manuscript was “inadmissible” for the impeachment trial because it included an “unsourced allegation,” a claim that impeachment managers said only emphasized the need for the former official to testify.
Senate Republicans continued to wrestle with whether to support calling witnesses in the impeachment trial, although Susan Collins reiterated that she was “very likely” to support the proposal.
John Kelly, the president’s former chief of staff, said he believes Bolton, who reportedly claimed in his forthcoming book that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.
The Trump administration unveiled its Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal, which was automatically rejected by Palestinian leaders.
Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
Speaking to CNN, Jared Kushner, the president’s adviser and son-in-law who spearheaded the crafting of the administration’s Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal, warned Palestinians against rejecting the deal.
“The Palestinian leadership have to ask themselves a question: do they want to have a state? Do they want to have a better life?” Kushner said.
He then presented an ultimatum to the Palestinians. Kushner said, “If they do, we have created a framework for them to have it, and we’re going to treat them in a very respectful manner. If they don’t, then they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.”
Jared Kushner, senior adviser to the President, says the White House’s Middle East plan is “a great deal” and if Palestinians reject it, “they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.” pic.twitter.com/ABAI3gKjig
— CNN (@CNN) January 28, 2020
But the Palestinian president has already rejected any possibility of agreeing to the White House’s proposal.
“We say a thousand times, no, no, no to the deal of the century,” Mahmoud Abbas said. “We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct.”
Echoing her earlier comments, Republican senator Susan Collins told CBS News that she is “very likely” to support calling witnesses for the impeachment trial.
EXCLUSIVE: Republican @SenatorCollins says it’s “very likely” that she will vote to hear witnesses in the Senate Impeachment trial.
“I, for one, believe that there’s some gaps, some ambiguities that need to be cleared up” pic.twitter.com/8Rwbwk9ytm
— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 28, 2020
Collins said she and her Republican colleagues have had “a lot more conversations” about witness testimony since the publications of the report about John Bolton’s book, which reportedly includes an allegation that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.
Asked whether they were four Republicans who would support calling witnesses, Collins said, “I don’t know the answer to that question yet.”
But she added, “I, for one, believe that there’s some gaps, some ambiguities that need to be cleared up, and more information tends to be helpful when you’re making such a weighty decision.”
Exiting a meeting with fellow Republican senators, John Cornyn said the caucus had not reached a decision on calling witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial.
“No final decision” on witnesses, Cornyn says after GOP conference meeting
Three-quarters of registered voters support calling witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, according to a newly released poll.
The Quinnipiac survey found that 75% of voters are in favor of calling witnesses in the Senate trial, a figure that includes 49% of Republicans and 75% of independents.
On the question of whether Trump should be removed from office, voters remain divided, with 48% opposing removal and 47% supporting it.
But a majority of voters, 53%, say Trump is not telling the truth about his actions toward Ukraine, and 57% say they would like the president to provide more details about those interactions.
© 2020 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
POLITICO
IMPEACHMENT
Trio of Dem senators considering vote to acquit Trump
A handful of moderate Democrats could deliver Trump a bipartisan impeachment vote
A trio of moderate Senate Democrats is wrestling with whether to vote to convict Donald Trump in his impeachment trial — or give the president the bipartisan acquittal he’s eagerly seeking.
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land. It’s a decision that could have major ramifications for each senator’s legacy and political prospects — as well shape the broader political dynamic surrounding impeachment heading into the 2020 election.
All three senators remain undecided after hearing arguments from the impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team. But they could end up with a creative solution.
One or more senators may end up splitting their votes, borrowing a move from Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who voted for the abuse of power charge but against the one on obstruction of Congress.
Manchin said he will do that only if he “can explain one and not the other.” Jones has been mildly critical of the obstruction impeachment article and says he’s “troubled” the House didn’t fight harder to hear from critical administration witnesses.
Manchin insisted Tuesday he hasn’t figured out where he will come down. And won’t until the trial ends.
“I know it’s hard to believe that. But I really am [undecided]. But I have not made a final decision. Every day, I hear something, I think ‘this is compelling, that’s compelling,’” Manchin said in an interview. “Everyone’s struggling a little bit.”
Many in the Capitol believed Manchin had run his last campaign in 2018, freeing him to vote however he wants. He insisted he still will, but also didn’t rule out running for the Senate again in 2024: “I have no idea. I swear to God. buddy. I don’t.”
“Every day I hear something, I think ‘this is compelling, that’s compelling.’ Everyone’s struggling a little bit.”
- Sen. Joe Manchin.
However, the most immediate pressure is on Jones, an unlikely Democratic senator from the Deep South fighting for his political life this fall with no good options: Republicans will batter him if he votes to convict the president, Democrats will rebel if he votes to acquit. In his front office on Tuesday, his phone rang repeatedly as aides answered questions about impeachment witnesses.
Jones said he hears both from Trump voters and those who loathe the president, but admitted that he hears more from people who support Trump. And he indicated he’s beginning to reach a decision-making end game, though potential consideration of new evidence could scramble any conclusions he’d reached as of Tuesday.
“I don’t think I’ve totally decided. I certainly have [been] leaning one way or the other. That needle moves” depending on the day’s testimony, Jones said in an interview. “I am leaning in certain ways but I want to hear, I truly, honestly, want to hear the entire trial.”
Compared with the chatty Manchin and Jones, Sinema’s stance is a bit of a mystery.
Like those two Democrats, she has occasionally broken with her party, including by supporting the confirmation of Attorney General William Barr in 2019, a vote that demonstrated largely where the fault lines in the Democratic Caucus currently lie. She supported Democrats’ votes for new evidence last week to “make a more fully informed decision at the end of the trial,” a spokesman said, and is undecided during the impeachment trial.
Sinema has made no comments since the trial began. She’s close with many Republicans, and some Democrats privately believe that like Manchin, she leans toward Trump more than Jones does. Still, with no public comments it’s almost impossible to tell where she will land.
There’s no chatter in the caucus about anyone other than Jones, Sinema or Manchin possibly voting to acquit the president on one or both counts, although a number of other Democratic senators say they are still undecided. Sen. Jon Tester of Montana is one and said he’s “absolutely open to being swayed.” Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the only other Democrat up in a Trump-held state this year other than Jones, also said he is undecided.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema has made no comments since the trial began.
“I think you are seeing moderate Democrats taking the time to talk with their constituents, and in red states that means Trump voters, to hear their concerns and explain the gravity of the charges and need for witnesses and evidence,” said Jon Kott, a former Manchin aide who now runs a centrist advocacy group called Majority Makers. “I don’t think you’ll see any of them make up their minds until the trial is over.”
The Republican side of potential aisle-crossers is equally scarce on a final verdict. Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have been pushing to hear from witnesses and seem to be the only three Republicans who are considering bucking the president, but it’s not clear they’d ultimately vote to convict him .
The small number of wild cards mingled Tuesday on the Senate floor. In a break before the Trump team’s final arguments, Sinema and Manchin huddled for a few minutes and then walked out of the Senate together. After Trump’s defense finished, Manchin spoke to Murkowski and Collins for a few minutes; Sinema spoke to Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), an undecided vote on witnesses.
Breaking with party leaders is becoming increasingly rare on big questions like impeachment and critical confirmation fights.
In the House, there were three divergent Democratic votes on impeachment: Golden’s split, a “present” vote from presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson’s rejection of both articles. Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey switched to the GOP after opposing impeachment as a Democrat while Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan went from Republican to independent and supported the impeachment articles.
A trio of Senate Democrats partially or completely voting to clear Trump of the two charges would be a win for Trump, who has crowed repeatedly about the bipartisan vote to reject the charges in the House.
“My largest, my biggest fear, and what I say to almost every Republican about this, is: If we all vote to acquit, Trump is going to get worse. He’s going to gloat. He’s going to be vengeful. That’s the way he thinks about the world and whatever he’s doing, he’s going to do more of it,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who won reelection in 2018 in a state that Trump won.
In the 1999 Senate trial votes, no Democrats supported removing President Bill Clinton from office, but five Republicans rejected the obstruction of justice charge and 10 opposed the perjury charge. That number of aisle-crossers seems exceedingly unlikely, but in today’s Washington, Republicans would be overjoyed to get any bipartisan support for clearing Trump.
“I think there will be a couple who may vote not to convict Trump,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “I’m guessing there’s an 80 percent chance that two Democrats will not vote to convict.”
Democratic senators say there’s been little discussion of the potential divisions within the party over Trump’s behavior. The party whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois, gestured to Manchin when asked if he’s worried about defections: “I don’t know. Ask somebody else.”
The most immediate pressure is on Sen. Doug Jones, an unlikely Deep South senator fighting for his political life this fall.
“I haven’t queried people. This is something you have to live with historically, yourself,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 Democratic leader. “It’s important to have people come to their own conclusions.”
During the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in fall 2018, Democrats in tough races said they were pushing politics aside and making the decision on the merits. Only Manchin voted to confirm him, winning reelection narrowly a few weeks later.
And there’s still a variable at hand. All Senate Democrats have been pushing for a vote to hear from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Jones said hearing from witnesses could make his mind “change in every number of directions.”
As for Manchin, he says he can’t vote for anything he can’t explain to West Virginians. He suggested that if Republicans reject the bid to add new evidence, it might be hard for him to explain: “I don’t know how you can call it a trial.”
He also broke pointedly with Trump’s description of his call with Ukraine President Volodymr Zelensky, in which Trump pushed for an investigation into Joe Biden: “Make no mistake about it. It was not a perfect call.”
© 2020 POLITICO LLC
///////////////// ////// ///////////////////////
Great economy?
President Trump claims the economy is the greatest ever, but many Americans aren’t personally feeling the benefits. Trump’s $2 trillion tax law has been a boon for billionaires and big corporations, but most working Americans haven’t seen their paychecks grow, despite the president’s promise that they would. In fact, as of August 2018, the average American wage had the same purchasing power as about 40 years ago.
Companies that benefited from the tax cut are making huge profits, but not boosting worker pay.
A recent study found that 62% of jobs do not support a middle-class lifestyle when factoring in today’s wages and cost of living, including things like health care, housing, education, and everyday expenses like groceries and gas. The majority of workers today are living paycheck to paycheck–one medical emergency, job loss, or divorce away from a personal financial crisis. In fact, 40% of Americans don’t have $400 to cover an emergency expense.
Health Care
Health care costs are rising faster than wages, causing families to decide between delaying care or going into debt to afford treatment. Half of working-age adults say they or a close family member has put off or postponed medical care because they can’t afford it. And in 2018 alone, Americans borrowed $88 billion to pay for health care.
Trump promised to fix this broken system by taking on the drug and insurance companies, but he has done the opposite. His policies have increased health care premiums by 16% to date.
Trump’s tax law has increased health care premiums while saving health insurance and drug companies billions in taxes.
The administration has rolled back key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that helped keep costs down.
Today, the president is still fighting to repeal the ACA, which would directly eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions like asthma and diabetes and increase health care premiums by 20-25%.
7 million Americans have already lost insurance because of Trump’s policies, with 13 million more set to be uninsured by 2027. Repealing protections for pre-existing conditions would endanger coverage for as many as 134 million Americans.
Premiums and deductibles are crushing families, leading to thousands in out-of-pocket costs.
Housing
Home prices have increased 60% while household income has risen only 30% during that same period. As a result, average Americans are unable to afford a home in 70% of the country. Trump’s tax law has made owning a home even more expensive for middle-class families by greatly reducing the amount homeowners can deduct in property taxes. The Treasury Department estimates 11 million taxpayers lost $323 billion as a result, while corporations and billionaires received billions in tax breaks.
The cost of rent has also outpaced wage growth under the Trump administration, with rental costs rising 3.6% in 2018. Housing expenses for both renters and homeowners drain more than 30% of income — a common metric for home affordability — in more than 20% of metropolitan areas.

Debt
Trump likes to say the economy is great, but it’s not working for everyday people. As health care, education, housing costs and everyday expenses continue to rise in Trump’s economy, millions of working families are falling behind. 40% of families don’t have $400 to cover an emergency expense. Americans are facing increasing levels of credit card debt and delinquency. While middle-class families struggle with debt and soaring interest rates, Trump’s tax law gave banks $29 billion in extra profits.
DEBT: U.S. household debt hit a record $13.54 trillion in 2018 — nearly $1 trillion higher than the peak of the financial crisis. Of that total debt, student loans constitute a record $1.5 trillion, doubling since the recession. The average student loan balance was $35,359 in the first quarter of 2019 — a 26% increase since 2014 alone. And while young Americans face soaring student debt, Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos would actually cut programs that seek to keep college affordable for many Americans.
MISSED PAYMENTS: Under President Trump, interest rates reached their highest point in decades, and rising credit card and auto loan delinquencies caused economists at the New York Fed to warn, “The substantial and growing number of distressed borrowers suggests that not all Americans have benefited from the strong labor market.” 1 in 6 Americans have a past-due medical bill on their credit report. And in February 2019, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported a record 7 million Americans were 90+ days behind on auto loan payments, a total even higher than at the height of the financial crisis.
Child care
Without a pay bump under President Trump, millions of Americans are still struggling to afford even the basic costs associated with raising a family. The annual cost of child care has exploded to over $20,000 in some states, more than in-state college tuition.
Retirement
Lagging wages and difficulty paying for everyday needs mean that many American families can’t afford retirement or worry about if they’ll retire at all. Only 36% of people say their retirement savings are on track, and 23% say they never plan to retire.
/// /////////////////////////////\\/////// \///
Playbook-script
POLITICO
CONGRESS
Trump gets the impeachment payback he wanted
The president’s defense team barely addressed the charges against him. Instead, they attacked his enemies.
President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team knew they were likely to win — and they proceeded accordingly.
With a virtually negligible threat of conviction and removal by a Republican-controlled Senate, Trump’s legal team spent just a sliver of their 11-hour arguments rebutting the House’s charge that Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.
Instead, they tailored a defense that often mirrored the president’s pre-trial demands: to exact pain and revenge against his political enemies, all on the Senate floor.
What ensued was a Who’s Who of the president’s frequent Twitter targets: Obama, Comey, Mueller, Strzok, Page, Ohr — names that had little to no connection to the impeachment charges, but occupy a lot of space on Trump’s list of political enemies and whom Trump perceives as at least a part of the reason he will bear the stain of impeachment.
“That’s what the president’s been living with. And then we’re here today arguing about what — a phone call to Ukraine or Ukraine aid being held? Or a question about corruption?” Trump’s lead personal attorney Jay Sekulow said Tuesday. “I mean, is that what this is? Is that where we are?”
Of the 15 presentations made by Trump’s lawyers over three days, just two were entirely focused on House Democrats’ Ukraine allegations — and both were helmed by White House deputy counsel Michael Purpura.
Three presentations by Purpura’s fellow White House lawyer Patrick Phibin asserted that the House case was procedurally defective and should be rejected for process-related failures, a response to the House’s second impeachment article charging Trump with obstruction of the House impeachment inquiry. Two were high-level overviews by Trump’s lead lawyer Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel. And another two centered on the constitutional cases against removing the president from office, delivered by Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz, two high-profile outside attorneys added for a bit of star power.
That left five speeches that seemed entirely intended to scratch Trump’s itch to drag his political rivals into the impeachment arena, something he repeatedly foreshadowed in the weeks before the trial. It was a consistent tactic for Trump, who has maintained for months that his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president — the conversation at the center of Trump’s impeachment, in which he pushed for an investigation into 2020 challenger Joe Biden — was “perfect.”
Sekulow even echoed Trump’s language throughout his presentation on Tuesday.
“[Democrats] are talking about perfectly lawful actions on their face, but they want to make it impeachable if it’s just a wrong idea inside the president’s head,” he said. “It is our position legally, the president at all times acted with perfect legal authority inquired of matters in our national interest.”
One of Trump’s lawyers, Eric Herschmann, made an argument that former President Barack Obama committed an “abuse of power” akin to the allegations against Trump when Obama was caught on a microphone telling then-Russian President Dmitriy Medevedev he would have more “flexibility” on Russia policy after the 2012 election.
“The case against President Obama would have been far stronger than the allegations against President Trump,” Herschmann said.
Another Trump attorney, Pam Bondi, spent nearly an hour suggesting that Biden’s son Hunter was involved in a corrupt deal with a Ukrainian energy company. She presented no evidence that a crime had been committed but suggested it warranted investigation — into both Hunter and Joe Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy at the time.
Democrats have called the charge baseless and argued that Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate it could only be meant to tarnish a rival he viewed as a political threat. And they noted, with rueful irony, that Trump used his own high-profile impeachment trial to mount the innuendo-laden investigation he initially asked Ukraine to perform. A Ukrainian investigation into Biden was never announced, as allegedly sought by Trump’s allies; but all of the major networks spent hours airing the Trump legal team’s arguments.
And Jane Raskin, who also served on Trump’s defense team in the Mueller inquiry, used her speech primarily to sing the praises of Rudy Giuliani, a central figure in Democrats’ impeachment case. She contrasted him with the House’s lead impeachment manager, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whom she portrayed as the loser in both the Mueller and impeachment cases.
“The score is, Mayor Giuliani 4, Mr. Schiff 0,” Raskin said.
But it was Sekulow’s final speech — the last full presentation in Trump’s entire defense — that became a sort of grand finale of Trump’s grievances, a speech that appeared geared toward his client as opposed to the audience of Senate Republicans looking for reasons to vote to acquit. Some senators left the chamber seemingly bewildered by the performance and tone.
Sekulow lashed out at the FBI over a recent inspector-general report that attorneys there abused their authority to obtain a warrant to surveil a former Trump campaign aide. He slammed former FBI Director James Comey for leaking memos to a New York Times reporter meant to spur the appointment of a special counsel that resulted in the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. And he devoted time to a complaint that Mueller’s team lost text messages between two agents who shared anti-Trump sentiments.
All of it, he said, should be factors in Trump’s acquittal — or else constitutional order in the U.S. would be permanently damaged.
“Danger. Danger. Danger,” he said, part of a refrain he repeated five times. “To lower the bar of impeachment, based on these articles of impeachment, would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that Constitution for generations.”
Democrats contended that the scattershot attacks on Trump’s perceived political enemies suggested a lack of confidence in their overall defense of the president on the Ukraine charge.
“The president’s lawyers today and in the prior presentations really did not, cannot defend the president on the facts,” Schiff told reporters Tuesday. “Instead they used their time on the floor today to go through a list of grievances which I’m sure the president was delighted to hear, but nonetheless, not particularly relevant to the charges against the president here today.”
MOST READ
Democrats are already bracing for a ‘hostile’ Trump transition
Donald Trump Is Not a Doctor. But He Plays One on Twitter.
Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters
Trump claims Bolton book is ‘classified national security risk
© 2020 POLITICO LLC
