House Republican leaders privately conceded in a closed meeting Tuesday morning that they are in the midst of a full-blown fundraising crisis, which would imperil any chance they have at regaining their majority in 2020.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) put it bluntly: "They are kicking our ass," he said, in a meeting at the Capitol Hill Club, the private GOP haunt around the corner from the Capitol, referring to Democrats.

Indeed, McCarthy is right. The DCCC outraised the NRCC by $40 million in 2019, and individual Democratic candidates are besting their GOP opponents at an alarming rate. Democrats currently hold a 35-seat majority in the House, and there are five vacancies. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a House GOP-aligned super PAC, raised $32.6 million in 2019, and has a $28-million cash stash.

The disparity is even more shocking because the NRCC had a record off-year fundraising haul, but the DCCC has proven much more prolific.

McCarthy wasn't the only one who tried to jolt the Republicans to life. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) said, "You've gotta be raising your own money," and implored the lawmakers to pay their dues.

"My intention today is to sound a loud alarm," NRCC Chairman Tom Emmer of Minnesota said in the meeting. "We can't ignore the campaigns that need to get better with their individual fundraising. ... They're crushing us," Emmer said, referring to the DCCC.

At least one person was roused to action. Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.) -- who is leaving Congress to run for his state's governorship -- wrote a $250,000 check to the party committee during an altar call.

Coincidentally, Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, the chair of the DCCC, showed a closed meeting of Democrats a video of Emmer telling the Ripon Society that Democrats raised $40 million more than Republicans last year.

Amid growing anxieties about winning back the House this cycle, the NRCC recently tapped GOP strategist Jon Reedy to serve as a senior adviser — an unusual move in the middle of an election cycle.

The House GOP has been rocked by a slew of retirements this year: 22 and counting, including Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), the head of the NRCC’s recruitment efforts, as well as several veteran Republicans and GOP committee leaders.

Republicans, however, are hoping impeachment will energize the base in November. And some of the leading GOP players in the impeachment battle brought in record-breaking fundraising hauls in the last quarter.

“We have people doing good and great, but we need everyone to be exceptional,” Emmer told members, according to a source inside the room.

Melanie Zanona contributed to this story.

Senator Doug Jones (D., Ala.) told reporters Monday night that President Trump’s defense-team lawyer Alan Dershowitz made “some good points” relating to the second article of impeachment against Trump, and implied he could split his vote over concerns with the “obstruction of congress” charge."He did make some good points on a couple of things on factual issues that I've got concerns about with, especially with regard to Article II," Jones told USA Today. But Jones criticized the defense team for its efforts to dispute the first article of “abuse of power.”“They're focusing solely on the [July 25th call] transcript and there's so much more to the story than the transcript, and they continue to talk about cross-examination of witnesses but yet they continue to block witnesses that have first-hand knowledge. That's disingenuous," he continued.The freshman Senator added that he “just don't buy” Dershowitz’s assertion that Trump’s impeachment was based on a non-literal reading of the Constitution.Dershowitz said during arguments Monday that the president did not commit an abuse of power even if he did “demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country” — a claim John Bolton makes in his upcoming memoir. He explained that convicting Trump for abuse of power over the withholding of military aid would require that jurors assume Trump's motive for orchestrating the quid pro quo was self-serving and not in the national interest.Jones, who faces a stiff reelection challenge in Alabama, said last month that “gaps in testimony” after the House’s case left him “trying to see if the dots get connected” before the vote in the Senate.The Alabama Democrat also seemed to imply that he could vote to convict Trump on abuse of power, but could acquit him on obstruction of Congress."I try to keep these separate," he explained. "My training as a judge is saying, each count stands on its own. And that's how I'm trying to continue to look at this."Jones said that he had taken several hundred pages of notes during the trial, but was still not sure how he would vote.“I ask myself a lot of questions and I'll go back, I'll argue with myself a lot tonight," he said. "It's the way I do things."

(Bloomberg) -- Chief Justice John Roberts may have a chance to play a more visible role in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial as Democrats look for ways to subpoena Senate testimony from John Bolton and, potentially, current presidential advisers.Impeachment supporters are arguing that Roberts has the power to force witness testimony even if a majority of the 100 senators don’t want it. Three leading lawyers said in a New York Times column on Monday that Roberts could issue subpoenas on his own authority. Others say he could at least break a 50-50 tie among senators.Republican Senator Roy Blunt said Tuesday that he expects Roberts to play a role in helping to weed out duplicate questions from senators when the trial moves into the next phase as early as Wednesday.But it’s not clear Roberts is interested in stepping any further into the fray than necessary. Since joining the Supreme Court 15 years ago, the Republican-appointed chief justice has repeatedly cast himself as a nonpartisan figure. Those who know him well say he almost certainly would be loath to takes sides on a sharply political issue.So far, he hasn’t had to do much more than warn each side to tone down the rhetoric. He has followed the example of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who oversaw the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton. Borrowing a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, Rehnquist summed up his work by saying, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”Although the Constitution says the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment trials, the Senate’s standing rules make that role mostly ceremonial. Those rules say a majority of the Senate can override the chief justice’s decisions.The Times article -- written by former Obama administration Supreme Court advocate Neal Katyal, Georgetown University law professor Joshua Geltzer and Mickey Edwards, a former Republican representative from Oklahoma -- contends that the Senate’s power to override is limited. They say senators can reverse Roberts on particular pieces of evidence but not on the decision to call a witness in the first place.The rules “do not restrict the chief justice’s ability to issue subpoenas,” they wrote. “And that’s precisely what the Democrats must ask him to do -- now.”Breaking TiesRoberts could also be forced to decide whether he can break a tie. Walter Dellinger, who served as Clinton’s top Supreme Court lawyer, contends Roberts has that power, pointing to tie-breaking votes cast by Chief Justice Salmon Chase in the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.With Republicans controlling the Senate 53-47, that stance would mean Democrats might need to win over only three Republicans, instead of four, to issue subpoenas for witnesses or documents.Senate Democrats and Republicans alike have suggested they don’t agree that the chief justice can cast a tie-breaking vote. “This will be a subpoena that will have bipartisan support by definition, because you’re going to need 51,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Monday.Roberts is likely to make any decision on his authority in consultation with the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough.The Senate rules also say Roberts can decline to decide an issue himself, and instead put it to a vote by the senators.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters in December: “I would anticipate the chief justice would not actually make any rulings. He would simply submit motions to the body and we would vote.”\--With assistance from Erik Wasson.To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, Laurie Asséo, John HarneyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Republicans have compared the Senate impeachment trial to the 2018 hearing to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The main parallels they see are the leaks from former National Security Adviser John Bolton's forthcoming book or the release of a secret recording of President Trump ordering the dismissal of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. These revelations, the GOP says, are akin to Christine Blasey Ford's allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were high school students in the 1980s.From this point of view, the Ford allegations and Bolton leaks are 11th hour attempts to "undermine" the Senate trial and have no bearing on the facts surrounding the confirmation and impeachment, respectively. But Republican critics have argued the GOP is off base, despite being right about similarities between the two cases.It's not "Democratic gamesmanship" that's reminiscent of the Kavanaugh hearing, but rather "the power of stonewalling," Mother Jones reports.> Republicans' case here is predicated on keeping knowable things unknown and using the levers of power to do that. Sure, there's parallels.> > -- Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 28, 2020The results of the confirmation hearing have left some observers doubtful that Democrats' efforts to bring in new information will be effective. In the Kavanaugh situation, former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) looked like he would change the course of the process, but ultimately "didn't close the deal." Now, those observers say, if Democrats want to achieve their goals, they'll need lawmakers in similar positions to Flake -- like Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- to really follow through, otherwise there's a good chance Republicans will do what they can to keep things sealed as tightly as possible. > Any coalition demanding witnesses and evidence will almost surely have fight for the new process to be broad, real, and open enough to have a chance to work. Based on the Kavanaugh experience, it's unlikely that will be McConnell's first offer.> > -- southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) January 28, 2020More stories from theweek.com John Bolton just vindicated Nancy Pelosi It's 2020 and women are exhausted All the president's turncoats

Here are some of the key moments of the day.

President Donald Trump’s defense team will wrap up their opening arguments Tuesday starting at 1 p.m., though the question of whether Republicans will agree to call for witnesses still hangs over the trial after John Bolton’s stunning revelations.

This story will continue to be updated. Keep scrolling for other recent highlights.

10:34 A.M.

Lindsey Graham supports plan to let senators view Bolton’s manuscript

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Tuesday backed a potential option to break the impeachment trial stalemate over John Bolton's new book: make it available to lawmakers — but keep it secret.

"I totally support @SenatorLankford's proposal that the Bolton manuscript be made available to the Senate, if possible, in a classified setting where each Senator has the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination," Graham tweeted.

It's unclear whether Bolton's publisher would agree to such an arrangement or whether that would be an acceptable alternative to senators who want to call Bolton to testify. — Kyle Cheney

10:25 A.M.

Cory Gardner avoids elevator moment

Sen. Cory Gardner, who is up for reelection this fall in Colorado, made sure to avoid any ridicule on social media on Tuesday morning.

Asked a question on witnesses, the GOP senator noted the last time he answered he was mocked for allowing the Senate elevator doors to close before he gave a complete answer.

"Last time I got in elevator, one of you guys filmed me and really made fun of. So I'm going to stand here and answer that question. And just ask that you don't film me!" Gardner said with a laugh.

As to whether he will vote to hear from new witnesses, Gardner was noncommittal: "We're in the middle of the trial. I'll continue to listen to the arguments put forward." — Burgess Everett

9:50 A.M.

Senate eyes short trial day Tuesday before Q and A session

Senators, House managers and President Donald Trump's defense are weighing a shorter day on Tuesday and taking a brief hiatus before the question and answer period begins.

The president's defense is expected to make a presentation of just two to three hours on Tuesday, and the Senate may then break for the day and return Wednesday for the start of the 16 hour question and answer sessions, according to three people familiar with trial planning. That would likely set up the critical vote on witnesses for Friday after two days of senators' questions. — Burgess Everett, John Bresnahan and Darren Samuelsohn

7:42 A.M.

Biden says Ernst 'spilled the beans' with caucus comments amid impeachment fight

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Monday evening said Sen. Joni Ernst had “spilled the beans” after the Iowa Republican suggested that the Senate impeachment debate surrounding the former vice president could hinder his performance in her state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses next week.

“Iowa caucus-goers take note,” Biden wrote on Twitter. “Joni Ernst just spilled the beans. She and Donald Trump are scared to death I’ll be the nominee. On Feb. 3rd, let’s make their day.”

During their second day of oral arguments Monday, President Donald Trump’s legal defense team in his Senate impeachment trial argued that Biden, not their client, should be investigated for corruption or abuse of power.

“Iowa caucuses, folks, Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening,” Ernst told reporters in the Capitol. “And I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus-goers. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point? Not certain about that.” Read the full story. — Quint Forgey