Category: Impeachment

Adam Schiff Claims ‘I Don’t Know Who the Whistleblower Is’

Posted on by Guest Author

On Wednesday, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff insisted that he did not know the identity of the so-called “whistleblower” who filed the original complaint about President Donald Trump that led to the impeachment trial.

‘I don’t know who the whistleblower is’

“First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way,” Schiff said Wednesday during the Senate impeachment trial.

What Schiff failed to mention was that the “whistleblower” approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with supposed details about Trump’s phone call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

RELATED: Chris Wallace Hosts Republican Will Hurd of Texas, Who Breaks with GOP on Whistleblower Identity

The New York Times reported that a Schiff committee staffer told the “whistleblower” to meet with the inspector general and file a whistleblower complaint.

Schiff Denies His Staff Did Anything to Help Whistleblower

Yet Schiff is still denying that any member of his staff did anything to help the “whistleblower.”

“The committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint,” Schiff said.

Schiff condemned what he called a “conspiracy theory” that someone on his committee staff allegedly “colluded” with the whistleblower to craft a complaint that launched the impeachment investigation.

A spokesman for Schiff told the NYT that the whistleblower, “contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community.”

Schiff said his staff has shown “complete professionalism,” adding that members of his staff had become subject to threats on social media thanks to “smears” committed by President Trump and his allies.

Schiff Vowed Not to Reveal Identity

Schiff vowed he would not do anything to reveal or endanger the identity of the “whistleblower” as the trial continues.

Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York accused Schiff on Twitter of lying about the “whistleblower.”

“Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower,” she wrote. “He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower because he coordinated with the individual before the whistleblower’s complaint! His staff helped write it!”

RELATED: ‘This Ain’t Over’: Doug Collins Challenges Schiff To Testify About Whistleblower

Many Republicans have called for the “whistleblower” to testify as part of the impeachment process, with Schiff repeatedly refusing at each turn.

On Wednesday, Schiff told the Senate that the “whistleblower” testifying was no longer relevant because President Trump released the transcript of the call.

“There’s no need for that whistleblower any more except to further endanger that person’s life,” Schiff said.

The post Adam Schiff Claims ‘I Don’t Know Who the Whistleblower Is’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Senate Republicans make clear: It’s not about Ukraine. It’s about ending American democracy for good

Posted on by Mark Sumner

On Wednesday, the Senate conducted the first of two days of question-and-answer in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, with the House managers and Trump’s legal team. Throughout the sessions, Trump’s team made it clear that any attempt to get at the truth of what happened would result in retaliation in the form of asking for an endless stream of witnesses, fighting every request in court, and holding up activity in the Senate “for a very long time.” Meanwhile, the House managers continued to swing for the fences with a number of stirring moments, sharp responses, and ringing calls for the Senate to do its job for the country.

From the start of this session, it was clear that Republicans were not taking the day seriously. Confident that enough of their members had fallen in line to suppress any possibility of subpoenaing a witness, the Republican side indulged in question after question written for no other reason than to promote conspiracy theories and smears by having Chief Justice John Roberts read them aloud. But even that wasn’t the worst damage done during the course of the evening.

As the night wore on, Trump legal team member Alan Dershowitz rose repeatedly to make it very clear what Republicans were authorizing: They were not just embracing foreign interference, but literally allowing Donald Trump to do anything in pursuit of reelection.

Much of the evening seemed to be the Ted Cruz Show. Having abandoned any pretense that they were seeking information, Republicans allowed the Texas assassin to have a hand in at least eight questions, all of them designed to spread ridiculous, corrosive smears against the whistleblower, Rep. Adam Schiff, and former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump’s defense team joined in eagerly, citing information from the worst of right-wing sites as “public information” to justify repeating claims. By the end of the night, Senate Republicans had endorsed every aspect of the conspiracy theory that Trump had tried to extort from Ukraine, and they had gone on to indict the whistleblower as having a hand in the “double bribery.”

Again and again, Republicans such as Cruz and Josh Hawley demonstrated that they were laughing up their sleeves, playing the “Roberts will repeat anything” game. That included using questions to make statements that Adam Schiff had collaborated with the whistleblower, long after Schiff had explained—again—that he had not met the whistleblower, that he did not know the whistleblower, and that no member of his staff was involved in preparing the whistleblower’s complaint. It didn’t matter, because for Cruz, getting out the facts was never the point of the exercise.

A special award goes to Kentucky Republican Rand Paul. At one point in the late afternoon, he managed to concoct a question so vile that Roberts refused to read it—the only time that happened, even though some of the questions from Cruz included recitations of multiple false charges.

Trump’s team leaned into the chance to spread unfounded information. Despite hours and days of chest-beating over “hearsay” or “second-hand information,” Trump’s attorneys relished every word of the beyond-Q conspiracies that came their way (including a rare appearance from benchwarmer Pam Bondi so bad that it’s already gathered more than two million views). And when not rolling in vile claims with absolutely no foundation, they used much of their time to directly threaten the Senate, stating again and again that any attempt to call a witness would be met with an unending string of requests, privilege claims, and court fights. 

In the middle of the evening, Schiff made a major play and said that, to expedite the process, the House managers would agree to be bound by decisions from Roberts when it came to validating subpoenas, authorizing witnesses, and requesting documents. Citing the way that the House had taken as many as five depositions in a week, Schiff made it clear that there was no reason that a process involving witnesses had to be lengthy. But Trump’s legal team said that it would not agree. Instead, it continued its threat to respond to any call for witnesses by wrecking the Senate, drowning the trial in frivolous requests, and demanding a string of witnesses (including every member of the Biden family, every House manager, the whistleblower, people cited in right-wing media … an unending parade). And Republicans on both sides of the table pretended that this threat wasn’t simply an argument that any legal process can be crushed by the power of the White House.

But it wasn’t the cudgel of delay, or the giggling efforts of Cruz, Hawley, Paul, and others to place their hands under Robert’s robe and make him talk that did the most damage. The worst damage to the evening, the trial, and America’s future came from doddering Alan Dershowitz, who used the evening to expand his previous defense to a degree that didn’t just exonerate Trump in this case, but also exonerated him in any possible case. 

In a pair of appearances, Dershowitz expanded on his theory that abuse of power isn’t a permissible cause for impeachment. Deliberately and directly contradicting the historical sources he cited, Dershowitz called every constitutional expert in America a “never Trumper” for daring to disagree with him. And while claiming to be the only reasonable man in the country, he said he didn’t stand alone … because he had found a single attorney in 1867 whose views were similar. And 1867 is closer to when the Constitution was written, so that view wins. If you ignore all the people involved in the writing of it.

Then, having literally made up dictionary entries to support his redefinition of legal terms, Dershowitz went not just all-in, but completely overboard. According to Trump’s finest legal mind, there is nothing that Trump can’t do in pursuit of reelection. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. So long as Trump believes that his reelection would be good for the nation, he can extort foreign governments for made-up dirt. He can directly threaten an ally. There is no limit.

Along the way, Dershowitz also argued that there is absolutely nothing wrong with launching an investigation into a political opponent. In fact, he asserted that a run for office itself can be justification for investigating an opponent. He directly embraced the idea that a president launching investigations of his political opponents using domestic or foreign sources wasn’t just fine; it was desirable. He argued that daring to run against Trump painted a target on anyone’s back, and that Trump had all the power he needed to shoot at it.

If there was any doubt going into the evening, Dershowitz removed it: voting to acquit Trump means voting not just to dismiss this charge, but to embrace the idea that Trump trumps the law. He didn’t hint that Trump could do anything he wanted in pursuit of reelection; that was the core theme of his whole presentation. That was the point. That was what he said.

The Senate listened to a presentation from Trump’s legal team according to which there is nothing Trump can do in pursuit of reelection that isn’t justified. There is no limit to how Trump can use his power to persecute political opponents. According to the theory that was put forward on the floor of the Senate, Trump could simply lock up every Democratic opponent, or suspend elections indefinitely, and that would be just fine—not only an impeachable offense, but a good thing.

Republicans are going to vote for that. Republicans are going to press the button on not just a step toward autocracy, but a full-on embrace of it. They’re going to do it with a smile.

Thursday brings eight more hours of impeachment question-and-answer

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Thursday brings the second and final day of impeachment question-and-answer. As on Wednesday, senators will submit written questions to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts and answered by the House impeachment managers or Donald Trump’s defense team.

The impeachment trial starts at 1 PM ET and questions could run for another eight hours, unless senators run out of questions first. Which, given the way the questions have been used for positioning and allowing the two sides to air their arguments again, seems unlikely. Then again, since Republicans seem to have decided they’re okay with going through with the full cover-up and refusing witnesses, maybe they’ll also decide there’s no point in continuing.

It’s hard to imagine the level of exhaustion the House managers and, to a lesser extent, the Trump defense team must be feeling. (The lesser extent of exhaustion for the Trump defense team is because of their lesser degree of preparation. If one of these teams has been pulling all-nighters preparing really solid arguments, it ain’t them.) One question for Thursday is if and how much that exhaustion will come through.

Clashes Continue in Trial on Wednesday, GOP Holds Advantage

Posted on by LifeZette

By David Kamioner | January 30, 2020

The mood was legal yet the elements of fiery controversy were there on Wednesday during the Democrat Combover Festival and Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.

Most GOP questions were handled by attorney Patrick Philbin. But Alan Dershowitz, Pat Cipollone, Pam Bondi and Jay Sekulow also got their turn at bat. The Democrats inexplicably continued to go with the hard on the ear team of Nadler and Schiff, relegating better litigators like Jeffries and Crow to the general sidelines for most of the day.

The Democrats also continued to let the unintentionally comic Val Demings take the podium. She is so inarticulate that her time on camera has become the designated bathroom break time for Democrat and GOP Hill staffers alike.

RELATED: Warren Wants to Control Your Freedom of Speech

Other developments were as follows:

  • The questions from the senators were mostly contrived set ups to their own party’s lawyers. When they addressed the other side the questions became increasingly aggressive as the day wore on.
  • Supposed swing vote GOP Senator Susan Collins of Maine was seen to be visibly upset at Democrat insults to her and other senators. The Democrats are pushing her towards acquittal.
  • GOP Senator Rand Paul had a question thrown back at him by Chief Justice John Roberts when Paul named Eric Ciaramella as the informer. More details on that in a following article.
  • The Democrats focused on Bolton. Yet the GOP, and you will be sure to hear of this today, unearthed videos where Bolton states there was nothing amiss with the president’s communications with the Ukrainians.
  • A constant GOP theme during the day was that policy or political differences are not sufficient to meet the standard of impeachment set forth by the Founders.The Democrats countered with their usual “big lie” strategy of ignoring reality and focusing on their fictional talking points. Schiff even revisited his old trick of making up lines he then insinuates were the president’s real meanings.
  • The Democrats stoked the fire on their love affair with the hapless Lt. Colonel “Flounder” Vindman, even though his was perhaps the worst and most discredited testimony during the House hearings.
  • Jay Sekulow showcased the poison pill defense, as we predicted. He said he would call both Bidens, Schiff, and Ciaramella to the stand, at the very least, if the Senate voted for witnesses.

RELATED: Alan Dershowitz Hits Back at Elizabeth Warren

  • The New York-California Axis was on display during the Democrat presentations, as the leftist party can’t seem to find very many legal acolytes or elected supporters much distant from the Big Rotten Apple or the Left Coast.
  • Swing vote possibility Democrat Senator John Tester, given the nature of a question he sent to the Chief Justice for the Democrat House managers, may be leaning against the president.

More to follow…

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
More GOP Senators Could Defect in Impeachment Trial
Bolton Manuscript Leaked, Romney and Collins May Vote Against the President
Actress Evan Rachel Wood Gets Major Backlash For Calling Kobe Bryant A ‘Rapist’ After His Death

The post Clashes Continue in Trial on Wednesday, GOP Holds Advantage appeared first on The Political Insider.

Watch this ‘Daily Show’ truck blast clips of Trump mocking senators in downtown Washington D.C.

Posted on by Marissa Higgins

Donald Trump has a long history of insulting people, including senators. Unsurprisingly, he has no problem insulting progressives, like calling Sen. Bernie Sanders “crazy” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pochahontas.” He’s also insulted a number of Republicans, including saying that Sen. Mitt Romney is “not a smart person,” and of course, dubbing Sen. Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Now, The Daily Show has compiled clips of these insults into a loop video that’s playing on the side of a truck that’s bopping around Washington D.C. during his impeachment trial, as reported by the Washingtonian. Because this video focuses on senators, we don’t even need to get into all of the times he has insulted women, including Hillary Clinton.

Here is the original video.

x

Here is what The Daily Show truck driving around downtown Washington D.C. looks like.

x

The Washingtonian reports that The Daily Show has been airing 30- and 60-second versions of this video on local news channels in D.C. The publication says the truck has been on the move in the Capitol since Monday.

“We’re trying to always think of ways to take jokes that we have and take them outside the boundaries of 11:00 to 11:30. Like, how can we exist in the real world? How can we get closer to the people that we’re covering?” Ramin Hedayati, a producer at The Daily Show, told the Washingtonian in an interview. “Literally driving a truck outside of the building they’re in is a way to do that.”

Of course, it’s far from the first time The Daily Show has taken the Trump administration to task. On Monday, host Trevor Noah called out Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, as well as Trump’s defense lawyers.

Trump attacks everyone from government officials to private citizens seemingly with little regard to the possible consequences. People say that actions speak louder than words, but with Trump, his words and actions actually line up pretty well—and it’s nothing good.

House managers and Trump defense take questions in impeachment trial: Live coverage #6

Posted on (Updated by Laura Clawson

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 · 4:08:05 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And my stream died with apparently one question left on each side. I’m back in time to see everyone packing up.

So … I guess we’re done. And I hope Adam Schiff really killed whatever he was talking about when it became blocky frozen squares on my screen.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 4:14:19 AM +00:00 · Hunter

Schiff does some clean-up on a prior question by Susan Collins asking why ‘bribery’ wasn’t a direct impeachment charge. It’s because ‘abuse of power’ is the higher Constitutional crime, he says, and the House included a description of the elements of bribery matched by Trump’s content in that higher charge. He also notes Sekulow’s prior assertion that the Trump defense would NOT abide by the rulings of Chief Justice Roberts in deciding admissibility or relevance of evidence; Sekulow instead had repeated his threat to drag the impeachment trial out as long as possible with court battles fighting such evidence production. After some brief sputtering by Sekulow, we’re done for the evening.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:20:34 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 · 2:22:23 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jerry Nadler gets the chance to field a question on Rudy Giuliani’s role in Ukraine. In my opinion, we haven’t heard about Giuliani nearly enough today.

There should have been at least as many Giuliani questions as Biden questions — especially since one of these people was genuinely corrupt.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:25:00 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Nadler talking fast in an effort to get maximum Rudy into this reply. Someone on the Democratic side could do him a favor and ask something about Guiliani, Parnas, and Furman again. Maybe give a mention of Dmytro Firtash while they’re at it.

Nadler is never going to make it through all this before Roberts plays him off. And… there it goes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:26:26 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team get to rail against “removing a president on the votes of one party. And now we will spend five minutes pretending that this is possible.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:31:39 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Did I mention that Dershowitz is back again to make claims that are hilariously awful. And sets up a situation in which Obama is getting different advice from different advisers. Because that’s … nothing at all like what happened in this case.

And now Dershowitz is introducing the idea that because Biden is running for election, that makes it okay to persecute his family.

And Roberts mercifully ends this mess.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:37:27 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Amy Klobuchar directs to the House managers a very nice question, saying that the last time she sat on a judicial impeachment there were 26 witnesses, including 17 who didn’t speak in the House.

And by a non-coincidence, Adam Schiff tried that case. Schiff steps up to say that there’s no constitutional difference, and the 

Schiff: “In the impeachment of a judge, how is it possible that, as precious as the time of the Senate is, it’s worth using that time to call witnesses. But in the impeachment of a president, it is not?”

This is another question I wish had come forward sooner. Because it would have provided foundation for additional work to build on this.

Still, I’m happy to see Schiff up and dealing with issue forcefully. Schiff is also taking a moment to take a crack at Dershowitz’s claim that it was somehow valid to investigate Joe Biden because he’s running for president. The idea that running for office “makes you a more valid target for investigation” is a pretty astounding argument.

But honestly, it’s no more silly than anything else Dershowitz has claimed.

Schiff returns to talking about the importance of calling witnesses in this case as opposed to the judicial case Klobuchar cited and makes a nice close.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:42:18 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Langford, Danes, and Hawley … so you know they’re giving the Trump team not a softball, but setting them up for T-ball. And Dershowitz comes back again … Alan Dershowitz answering a question posed by Josh Hawley is as as twisted as this thing is going to get.

Dershowitz is now throwing away English Common Law as a foundation for American law. That’s handy. Again, throw open the jails. And now we’re talking about how the system works in India, because there is not going to be any kind of sensible answer to this question. 

Dershowitz now suggests that a judge can be impeached for being drunk. It’s not possible for Dersh to get through an answer without going off the rails. Heck, he’s never seen the rails.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:45:54 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team gets a chance to defend Trump’s statement that, if he was offered information from Russia or China, he might listen and not tell the FBI. 

Will Philbin shake a finger at Trump? He will not. Instead he will ignore the question and go after the whistleblower.

Oh, he has wandered back to it. Now Philbin is genuinely arguing that Trump can get “mere information” from a foreign government, even if that information benefits him against an opponent.

Hey, isn’t this the same team that’s been screaming about how Christopher Steele is a “foreign agent?”

McConnell hops in to ask for a 15 minute break. About an hour left in the day.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 2:49:22 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Expect Dershowitz's argument that running for office makes you a legitimate target for investigation to become Republican orthodoxy about ... oh, thirty minutes ago.

Congratulations, Democratic candidates. William Barr with be with you shortly. Or Rudy. Same thing.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:13:35 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

We’re back … and so are the conspiracy theories, as the first question describes Schiff as a “fact witness” who coordinated with the whistleblower.

No matter how many times Schiff explains his staff had with the whistleblower won’t matter, because the Republicans knew—and know—the role of the Intelligence Committee is defined in the IC Whistleblower Act. And Philbin doesn’t just claim that the whistleblower is connected to Biden, but suggests that the whistleblower was “involved” in a bribe that never happened.

And now Trump’s team, which hasn’t provided a single document, is complaining about not getting a form from the IC Inspector General. Because that’s the kind of jackassery that Republicans are going to repeat over and over.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:17:11 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Zoe Lofgren gets to answer a question on how getting caught before every step of the plan could be completed doesn’t make Trump innocent. And she points out that Trump is already back at it, feeling empowered by the protection Republicans have given him through ignoring his crimes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:22:14 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Surprisingly, based on the last question, Risch is still awake. Good for him. And the question is … honestly, why don’t they just write a note saying they will have Trump’s shoes shined and waiting outside his door, also they’ll pick up a extra McMuffin for executive time.

The question is, really, can the Senate remove Trump for doing nothing wrong. Asked of Trump’s team.

They should say Yes! Yes, you can! That would be a good twist ending for a long day.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:25:53 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Seriously, Barrasso, a question that overtly butt-kissing should be written in lipstick.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:31:09 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff deals with a question on preventing foreign interference in the 2020 election, running through some of the massive state military supported interference. Schiff points out that the Trump case has moved from it didn’t happen, maybe something happened, Rudy did it on his own, to Trump withheld the money, to it’s all okay.

Based on the claims presented by Trump’s team — especially those forwarded by Dershowitz — if Bob Mueller had found that Trump had conspired with the Russian government effort to interfere in the U.S. election, it still would not be impeachable.

Schiff: “You can’t solicit foreign interference, and the fact that you were unsuccessful in getting it, doesn’t make you innocent.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:32:35 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff: “That’s what they call policy. I’m sorry, but that’s corruption. They can dress it up in fine legalese, but it’s still corruption.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:37:11 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Collins gives the House managers a swing at the “if this is bribery, why isn’t it in the charges” question that the Trump team has gotten to tackle a dozen times now. 

Hakeem Jeffries uses Dershowitz’s claim that something has to be a criminal act, or “akin” to a criminal act. Jeffries details how Trump solicited a thing of value in exchange for two official acts. Late is it is, Jeffries is still on fire. “That’s your standard, sir,” he says to Dershowitz.

Trump repeatedly withheld an official act to solicit something of value, which is akin to bribery.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:41:08 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Gillibrand (hey, I miss her) sends a question to the House managers asking how Trump’s actions differ from other holds on foreign assistance.

That’s an actual substantive question that we have not seen addressed to this point. And a key issue to the case. Amazing that we’re just getting it now.

Jason Crow gets to take the issue. Crow starts off by simply stating that Trump failed to go through an inter-agency review, or to notify Congress, or to notify anyone. Crow points out that not just Obama’s holds, but every other hold that Trump made, included notifying Congress, working with relevant agencies, and announcing the reason for the hold.

The hold to Ukraine was unique, and making the hold without contacting Congress was itself a violation of law.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:45:31 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Blunt, after mistakenly saying McCaskill instead of McSally, punts another question that brings Dershowitz up to meander through his history stylings.

Every time Dershowitz stands up, it’s like one of those one-man shows in which someone pretends to be Mark Twain, or George Washington. Except Dershowitz is pretending to be a constitutional scholar.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:49:13 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Dershowitz talking about how the 2/3 vote rule in the Senate mediates against a partisan impeachment which … yes, that’s true. And now Dershowitz is asking questions of the room. 

He’s now arguing that no one should vote for removal unless he / she thinks there is 2/3 vote. But since the rest of us cannot read minds, votes are kind of required.

Okay, he’s gone again.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:52:14 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Question to Trump’s team about whether they will allow the chief justice to make decisions about witnesses and documents. And nope, of course they are not.

Sekulow is up to claim that both parties following the same rules is unfair. He starts, stops, starts again, tries to figure out how this is uneven. Backs up, and simply decides that Trump isn’t willing to go along with it. The reason, which he never states, is because “we will make this last forever” is a threat Trump’s team will not surrender.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 3:55:57 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Dershowitz gets a personal call out from Wicker. Aww … And Dershowitz starts out by talking about when he was a young egomaniac. 

He complains that these are “the most divisive times” and that “families are broken up.” Yes. Those walls and cages might have something to do that.

Guarantee you that none of the framers said “normalized weapon” in describing impeachment.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 4:02:21 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sinema returns to other holds, pointing out how Trump announced other holds, informed Congress, and worked with the countries involved.

Philbin says that withholding the aid in all those other cases had a purpose. But in this case no one wanted the hold to become public. Which means there could not possibly be any purpose for the damn hold. Philbin revisits burden sharing. But there wasn’t one meeting with European leaders, with Trump’s ambassadors, or anyone else who might do anything.

Now Philbin is returning to an argument that McCarthy floated in the House, pretending that this was about some bill passed in the parliament. Except Trump never mentioned it, it doesn’t appear in any of the emails or messages that were connected with the hold, and the hold continued after the bill was passed.

In five minutes here, Philbin has completely reversed the claims made earlier.

House managers and Trump defense take questions in impeachment trial: Live coverage #5

Posted on (Updated by Laura Clawson

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.

Democrat to offer motion requiring Chief Justice Roberts to order witnesses, documents

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen will offer a motion in Donald Trump's impeachment trial Friday to require Chief Justice John Roberts to subpoena documents and witnesses, if he determines they are relevant to the articles of impeachment, and to exercise his authority to rule on all issues of evidence, including executive privilege.

"A fair trial includes relevant documents and witnesses. And in a fair trial the judge determines what evidence is admitted," Van Hollen said in a statement announcing the motion. He said his effort "ensures the Chief Justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country—to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth." He adds "No Republican can question the fairness of this approach—the Chief Justice oversees the highest court in our land and was nominated by a Republican President. And, given his authority to rule on questions of privilege, they should not fear a drawn-out process. I urge my colleagues to seek out the truth and the facts and to vote in support of my motion. Anything else constitutes an effort to hide the truth." He's right, it's perfectly fair. So it's another test of whether there are just four Republicans left who think this process should be fair.

Here's the text of the motion: "I move that for this trial the presiding officer shall issue subpoenas of any witness or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment, and, consistent with his authority to rule on all questions of evidence, shall rule on any assertion of privilege."