After six days of opening arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, senators now get the chance to ask questions. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with answers generally limited to five minutes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:19:16 AM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Ongoing coverage can be found here.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:19:54 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Val Demings rains fire on the Hawley-Cruz smear, not just chopping a their claims about Shokin but pointing out the universal approbation for the corrupt prosecutor. Nice work, Rep. Demings.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:29:51 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And we’re back, believe it or not. 

First up, the Trump team gets a chance to slap down Adam Schiff for saying that there was “something akin to bribery or extortion.” And now Philbin is explaining that no one can be accused of a crime not in the indictment … despite the the claims that Trump can’t be charged with anything. 

Again … Republicans are determined to show that they’re not serious. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:31:10 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Look, papa. The Republicans did some actual research over the dinner break. That’s more work than they’ve done all week.

The chance to attack Adam Schiff inspired them.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:35:56 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question heads for the House managers, and this is a fun one:

“The president’s counsel with Hunter Biden created a conflict of interest for vice president Joe Biden. President Trump, the Trump Organization... retain significant foreign investigations ...” asks if Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump should also be investigation.

Val Demings stands up to give an honorable, “stay focused,” answer “the reason that we’re here has nothing to do with anybody’s children.” Correctly states that Trump tried to “shake down” Ukraine.

But … can’t we investigate Jared just a little? At least someone should look into him hustling top secret information to Mohammed bin Salman.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:41:21 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Oh lord, it’s a Cruz plus Moran plus Crapo question. Drumroll please …

“Should there be an investigation into Burisma/Biden?” And Team Trump gets a chance to just shout “yes” and repeat a bunch of conspiracy theory. A-f’ing-gain.

Once again, Hunter Biden—who was an investor with multiple degrees and fiscal experience, but no expertise in railroads—was also appointed to the board of Amtrak by George W. Bush. Which was one of several boards that Biden served on. Let’s drag W. in to ask about that.

Funny, an “appearance of a conflict” is enough to cause Republicans to scream for an investigation into Hunter Biden. But people coming into the FBI to report concerns about Carter Page was cause for outrage.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:46:47 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Is there a limit to how many times Ted Cruz can stroll around the room and ask the same questions about the Bidens?

No. No there is not.

Now the same question is getting punted to Sylvia Garcia on the other side. Pointing out again that Trump’s only interest in “corruption” was in investigating things that helped him personally, that there was no evidence that Joe Biden did anything inappropriate. Shokin was a corrupt official who was pushed out of his role in large part because he would not investigate Burisma. 

Biden took an act that didn’t protect his son’s job, it put that job at risk. 

And you know who has had plenty of time to look into this? The Republican Senate? And before that the Republican House? And for the last three years? The Justice Department.

Why haven’t they done an investigation through formal steps? Because they know Biden did nothing wrong. They don’t want an investigation, they want a smear.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:51:46 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Donald Trump's legal team is now making a compelling case to investigate Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:56:52 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Question from Democratic senators to Philbin about who is doing the security review on Bolton’s book and when they sent information. Nothing answer.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 12:57:38 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The best sign that this thing is genuinely over? Republicans aren’t even continuing a pretense of interest. They’re using every question to attack Joe Biden and the House managers.

They’ve turned the entire hearing into exactly what Trump wanted from Ukraine — accusations against Joe Biden, with no intention of conducting an actual investigation. Why investigate? Trump has what he wanted.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:00:48 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Pat Cipollone lives. Stands up to repeat the threat that if a single witness gets called, they’ll ask for an unreasonable list, including everyone in America named Biden and, of course, the whistleblower.

There are better than two hours remaining, folks. Sorry.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:07:48 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jason Crow deals with a question about corruption, and the fact that Trump never asked about anything related to corruption—except for demands for investigations into the Bidens and the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.

Crow, along with other House managers, is still pushing hard for facts and witnesses. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:08:40 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Now Sekulow is making an argument that it’s dangerous to actually have witnesses in an impeachment. By golly, that might set a precedent that’s in line with every other impeachment case ever held.

“Are we going to be doing this every three weeks?” asked Sekulow. 

Hey, we can hope.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:12:26 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schumer passes back the question to Schiff, who is coming loaded for bear.

Schiff: “We can all see what’s going on here. If you want to hear from a single witness, we, the president’s lawyers, are going to make this endless. We’re going to want Adam Schiff, we’re going to want Hunter Biden, we’re going to want Joe Biden, if you dare to want witnesses in a trial.”

Schiff: “We’re not here to indulge in fantasy or distraction. You know what? I trust the man behind me ...” referring to John Roberts “ … to determine if a witness is appropriate.”

Powerful statement from Schiff. “It shouldn’t be a circus, it should be a fair trial. You can’t have a fair trial without witnesses.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:13:52 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

We're deep in the at least the eighth inning of this thing, but Adam Schiff is still swinging for the fences. This guy ... is so good.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:20:04 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now Republicans attempt to kill John Roberts by making him read a question that is half an hour long. That question “Don’t these Democrats just hate our glorious leader?”

Hey, Philbin is quoting from Federalist No 65. Bet he’s not going to talk about the part that says the purpose of impeachment is to deal with abuse of power. Funny how Republicans keep implicitly citing the impeachment of Bill Clinton as a partisan impeachment. Self-awareness, thy name is not Republican.

Hakeem Jeffries rises to to defend the difference between the Democratic Party and the democratic process. “President Trump’s conduct strikes at the very heart of our free and fair elections.” Pulls the killer quote on the need to use impeachment to prevent someone from using office to get themselves reelected. 

I give the House managers one massive heap o’ credit for holding together a semblance of hope and continuing to work hard in this situation.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:24:07 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Bernie Sanders asks a question about the “no quid pro quo” statements that Trump made to Sondland. Manages to squeeze the current number of Trump lies into the question.

Schiff: “If every defendant in a trial could be exonerated by denying the charges, there would be no trial.”

Schiff then points out that Trump used the term quid pro quo, then immediately asked for one. He takes a moment to ponder why Trump would make such demands, repeatedly, with others listening. Says that Trump is a believer in the “Dershowitz argument” and that if it’s good for him, it’s good for the state.

Schiff: “Why do so many people who leave this administration … why do they walk away from this president with a conviction that he’s undermining our security? … Can everybody be disgruntled? Can it all be a matter of bias?”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:28:14 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

For the fifty jillionth time, Republicans set up the Trump team to argue that Trump can deny the House anything he wants because they get to define the law, how the House does impeachment, what constitutes a valid subpoena, and whether or this this is Wednesday.

Holy cow. It’s only Wednesday.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:36:34 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Question from Elizabeth Warren inverts the question and says it would clearly be bribery if Zelensky had called Trump and offered to manufacture dirt on Joe Biden in exchange for millions, so why isn’t it bribery when the situation is reversed.

Nadler handles the question, says that it is bribery, but gets somewhat mangled in his own response. 

Philbin does the response for the Trump team, again giving a claim that the House can’t say the word bribery without making one of the articles bribery.

Can’t say that the bribery-related stuff is really moving the House case forward, because it allows Philbin (who appears to be the only person on the Trump team really doing anything other than set pieces) to make another legalistic argument.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:40:06 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s attorneys get a question as to whether Roberts can actually rule on whether witnesses or documents are admissible. He’s very pointedly not saying whether he believes that Roberts could actually deal with any cases of privilege, etc. Then he tiptoes back to it “with all due respect, sir” to say that Roberts could not rule on subpoenas.

Philbin then talks about rules of evidence being needed … which might be true if those rules weren’t already in place.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:44:27 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Smith asks a nice question: “Trump has said he actions were perfect … but if his actions were so perfect, why wouldn’t he allow fact witnesses to talk about what he has said in public?”

Schiff: “The short answer is, if the president was so confident this was a perfect call, and that the others around him would agree there was nothing nefarious going on, he would want witnesses to testify … I think that’s pretty indicative that he knows what they would have to say.”

Schiff breaks away to say that the chief justice is empowered to make decisions on witnesses and documents, and that the House will agree to expedited process. “We will agree to be bound by the chief justice” promises not to challenge an adverse ruling. Challenges Trump’s team to do the same.

This is an attempted end run around McConnell’s stranglehold. It’s a long shot effort, but worth making.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:46:36 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Question from a Sass, Scott and Rubio to Trump’s team … which might seem to be interesting, but nope. Republicans are simply giving Trump’s team the opportunity to define how impeachments should be run, which is another way of asking them to explain how everything about this impeachment is wrong.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:49:09 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Cipollone, who is handling this softest of softballs, is complaining about how Trump’s rights were violated, and saying that warning against doing things that break with precedent — in the same breath he maintains that this should be the first impeachment ever that has no witnesses.

Cipollone claims that not only did Republicans call “no witnesses in the House” but also that they “didn’t get to cross-examine any of the witnesses” that Democrats called. 

The lies only get bigger.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:54:45 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Nadler gets to answer another question about Trump’s broad use of immunity without claiming privilege.

The immunity claim is clearly simply an invention designed to force the House to walk through the steps up to the Supreme Court. At which point the White House gets to start over. And there’s no guarantee they’ll exert privilege then. Trump could claim “indemnity” or “invulnerability.” Is there a legal foundation? Nope. But there’s no legal foundation for immunity. The whole purpose is just to stall.

Nadler gets to do his favorite thing, roll out past legal decision and argue that technical case. But this whole question of immunity is kind of wheel spinning at this point. We know exactly how Trump’s team is going to respond, and Republicans in the Senate seem prepared to allow this nonsense to stand.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 1:57:50 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Romney asks Trump’s team when Trump placed the hold on the military assistance. Pointedly, Trump’s own attorneys can’t — or more accurately, won’t — answer the question. They point to an email from June 24 asking about Ukraine funding. Which Philbin claims is about “burden sharing” (even though it’s not). 

It says something that Trump’s team will not provide an actual fact. They’re refusing to answer the question, mentioning only when “people were aware” in the record.

There is an answer to this. They won’t give it.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:02:10 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Val Demings handles a question on whether Trump had the opportunity to attend House hearings. Demings states what everyone on the Republican side knows but pretends isn’t true—that Trump refused to participate and demanded that the House impeach him “fast” so he could get to the friendly confines of the Senate … why continuing to complain that he didn’t have the opportunity to defend himself.

Demings also notes that Republicans called three witnesses during the Intelligence hearings and another witness for Judiciary —something that the Trump Team has been lying about all day. And also that Republicans had equal opportunity to question all witnesses—something else Trump’s team has been lying about. All day.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:09:07 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The House managers get a question about why they didn’t come groveling to the White House when they were told all their subpoenas were invalid.

Sylvia Garcia defends the House’s authority to define how an impeachment is structured, pointing out that Article I doesn’t require the permission of the people being impeached. Might be worth mentioning, again, that both Oversight and Foreign Affairs had already been authorized to issue subpoenas even before the inquiry began.

Garcia: “The president has assert the power to determine for himself which ones he will respond to … “ On the rule that the House has to vote Garcia says “Trump and his attorneys invented this rule” and points out they’ve already lost this claim in court.

Provides examples of judges who were impeached and removed without there ever being a full House vote. This is a nice defense. Wish it had come earlier. And I’m kind of surprised the House team didn’t get it in there before to cut off dozens of cycles from the Trump Team.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:13:15 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Whitehouse gives the Trump Team a hard smack, catching them out for claiming they could only talk to the record, after they had used newspaper accounts and outside claims to talk about Joe Biden. Demands that Trump’s team answer the question on whether Trump asked about Joe Biden in connection with Ukraine before Biden announced his candidacy.

Philbin still refusing to answer. Then he goes back to his claim that there was always a “vote” of the full House, despite Garcia’s citing multiple cases in which there was no full House vote. 

Again — Trump’s team gets to define both impeachment in the House and impeachment in the Senate.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:16:32 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Oh frack, it’s a Hawley, Cruz team up. Here comes another Joe Biden smear and conspiracy theory jamboree.

This question … Biden, Burisma, Shokin, … Biden, Burisma … something something. 

Kind of a disappointing nothing burger considering the mass quantity of irrationality assembled on the Senate side. Maybe even Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley are running out of new ways to smear Joe Biden.