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.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:03:26 PM +00:00
·
Barbara Morrill
Ongoing coverage can be found here.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:07:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
x
Bonus points if that question included the word “cocaine.”
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:11:01 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Both the "hypothetical" about Mitt Romney's son and Jay Sekulow playing Conspiracy Catchphrase are signs that Republicans think the danger of a witness vote is behind them.From here on, they're just having fun. Nothing said makes any difference as far as they are concerned.
They’re continuing this trend now by talking about lethal aid, which is simply a chance for some Trump rah-rah, and completely ignores history that the Senators know well.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:12:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Expect more of this off-topic nonsense now that McConnell believes he has all the votes he needs to defeat a call for witnesses. And don’t be surprised if the House team starts shading toward complaints that the Senate actions are playing into obstruction.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:21:32 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
A split question: “John Kelly has said I believe John Bolton and I believe John Bolton should testify.”
Trump’s team handles it first, and Sekulow steps up to talk about how this is a hint, of a suggestion, of a characterization, of a manuscript, that is not what Mike Pence says … so no reason to hear from the person who could clear anything up. Finishes with the threat they’d call bunches of witnesses if Bolton is called.
Schiff offers that what’s important is that the Senate gets to hear from Bolton. Makes a nice suggestion that if Mick Mulvaney can make public claims that Bolton is lying, he can make them in front of the Senate. Again suggests that Roberts can deal with evidentiary issues — an idea that seems to frighten Trump’s team, because it goes around there “we would make it so slow” threat.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:24:21 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
And here we go … A question about the whistleblower, and people that he / she worked with, suggestions that the whistleblower was going to “take out” the president. And it’s directed at Trump’s team.
Philbin says he doesn’t want to speculate — but manages to get Joe Biden’s name in there along with throwing mud at Schiff and suggesting that the whistleblower is connected to Schiff.
Pretty damn disgusting … quick who was the jackass who asked that question?
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:26:47 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
The jackass was Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and — of f’ing course — Josh Hawley. No one is going to out-ass Hawley.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:28:47 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Next question goes to Trump’s team about classified information in Bolton’s manuscript — a claim that the White House suddenly produced this morning even though Bolton had stated he thought there was NO classified information.
Note that Trump can classify information, as well as declassify it. So he could easily have ruled his conversations with Bolton top secret.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:31:32 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Now we’re getting a whole stack of Republicans piling in on the same question that had already been answered on the provision of lethal assistance to Ukraine. And the question again goes to the Trump team.
This is another example of just how un-serious Senate Republicans have become about this sessions now that they feel comfortable about having the votes to suppress all witnesses. They all want to get their name on Trump-buffing.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:35:27 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Feinstein et al give the House team another chance to swing at how unprecedented it is to have an impeachment without witnesses or documents. Zoe Lofgren gets a chance to compare Trump — unfavorably — to Nixon, who instructed all senior officials to testify.
Worth noting that, despite this, an article of obstruction was still prepared against Nixon just for making the House go to court over the Oval Office recordings.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:40:12 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Question to Trump’s team about when Ukraine knew. They’ve already given their “nothing to see here answer on this” before. Dont expect any more here. Republicans are just burning off their questions on safe topics.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:47:55 PM +00:00 · Hunter
Next question is to House managers: the exact same question Trump defense got. When did Ukraine know the aid was being held up? The House managers note what the Trump defense brazenly omitted: Ukraine learned of the aid by July 30th.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 9:56:09 PM +00:00 · Hunter
Collins and Murkowski ask the next question. Trump expressed view Ukraine was a corrupt country. Did Trump mention the Bidens re: Ukrainian corruption at any point before Biden announce he was running? Trump’s lawyer is dodging and dodging and dodging but the answer appears to be no. But Rudy Giuliani was looking into the Bidens as of “January” of 2019, he says, and now he seems to be going through a timeline that CONFIRMS Trump only had interest, through Giuliani, after that point.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:01:42 PM +00:00 · Hunter
Sens. Harris and Murray ask about the Parnas tape of Trump ordering him to “take her out”, re: Ambassador Yovanovitch. Schiff says “every day” new information is “coming to light,” then pivots to the manuscript, noting the White House’s lawyers did not say they did not know of the contents of that manuscript. Again emphasizes that the crooked, contemptuous-of-the-nation Senate should be calling witnesses instead of being crooked (my words, not his), repeating that the information will be coming out. “Let’s make sure” to get that information “now, and not later.”
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:08:19 PM +00:00 · Hunter
Republicans ask Trump’s lying lawyers: At what point did the US government develop concerns about Burisma? Trump’s lying lawyers says “we have the evidence” that “everyone” thought anti-corruption policy was important in Ukraine, suggesting that Trump’s idiot pea-brain was using Burisma/Biden focus as proxy for corruption in general and noting that Trump believed Ukraine was “corrupt” because Ukrainians had said bad things about him in their newspapers. Now going through a list of public reports charging Biden corruption that Trump’s team THEMSELVES put in the news, via John Solomon, the ousted Shokin, and Rudy himself, pretending that those news reports were why Trump brought it up. Just brazenly lying at this point about everything.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:09:57 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Blumenthal asks the Trump team whether anyone told Trump that Bolton’s book would be problematic.
They answer it in ten seconds by saying “no.”
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:16:58 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Cruz is back to attack the whistleblower and makes a claim again that the whistleblower worked for Biden, and suggests the whistleblower was involved in Ukraine with Biden. Pushes this at the House team.
In case you didn’t know, Ted Cruz is in the running for America’s most odious ass.
Schiff is prepared for this question, pulls up a slide quoting Republican senators on the protection that whistleblowers deserve. Schiff makes it clear he doesn’t know the whistleblower, hasn’t met the whistleblower, and that his staff did not help with, coach, or see the complaint before it came from the inspector general. “The conspiracy theory … is a total fiction.”
Schiff complains about the smears against his staff which “acted at all times with utmost integrity.” Schiff kills this answer.
But of course Cruz isn’t expecting an answer. He’s just throwing out claims made right-wing media to get those claims on the record and give vile calumny a false patina of respectability.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:22:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Schiff gets a chance to again address privilege, talking about how the documents that Trump refuses to turn over allows Congress to draw an “adverse inference” about the fact the White House is uniformly blocking access to information that could inform the case.
“But you shouldn’t rely on inference here, not when you have a witness who’s willing to come forward. There’s just a need for a subpoena.”
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:27:53 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Republicans give Philbin another opportunity to claim that the blanket denial wasn’t a blanket denial just because it was a blanket denial. Philbin also continues to ignore the fact that Nadler reminded everyone about just this morning — that the House had already awarded the authority to issue to subpoenas to the committee before the inquiry began.
Not that it matters. The complete refusal to cooperate is obvious. And now Philbin is making the argument that every single witness and every single document is subject to a separate lawsuit. Not even one of which has yet been followed to completion.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:33:34 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Question to the House managers: Did Mulvaney wave executive privilege by making public comments saying that there was political influence in the decision to withhold aid from Ukraine.
Hakeem Jeffries answers, reminding the Senate that the White House hasn’t every actually executive privilege — a fact that Mr. “turn square corners” Philbin has repeatedly shrugged off. Jefferies takes the time to mention that there was no reason to hold a full House vote for subpoenas. He then looks specifically at the subpoena to Mulvaney, issued after a full house vote.
Cipollone issued the letter claiming “absolute immunity” for Mulvaney without citing any legal reference. It’s a letter designed simply to force the House to step through the issue in court, where it can be defeated, and then everything can start over with a privilege claim.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:38:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
A joint question, this time on what constitutes the level of proof required in an impeachment.
Lofgren fields it, and accurately reports that the Constitution is mum on this subject. The House set “clear and convincing” in the Nixon case. There was no standard in the Clinton case. Lofgren comes down behind the idea that the House only establishes a finding of facts, and leaves it to each Senator to determine if the burden has been met.
Philbin continues to string out the claim that he has been making all along drawing a 1-1 analogy to legal cases and declaring that it has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:44:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
House managers get the chance to address executive privilege again, this time in connection with the statement from Trump that “we have all the material.”
Jeffries gets to deal with this one, notes that Trump has not invoked privilege over any single document. Points out that it’s not unusual for the executive to claim privilege “over a very small subset” of information, and to provide all the other information that it feels it can provide — which is what happened in the “Fast and Furious” case that Republicans have cited so many times as evidence that Obama also claimed privilege.
Jeffries also visits the legal history showing that Congressional subpoenas have particular power in the case of impeachment.
Jeffries points out that the rejection that the White House has made in this case extends to types of documents that have never been subject to privilege claims.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:49:01 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Moran and Kennedy ship something toward the Trump Team. expecting Cruz level stupidity here…
And yup. “What did Hunter Biden do for the money that Burisma paid him?”
Hey, look, it’s Pam Bondi. Says that Hunter Biden went to Monaco and took a fishing trip … And good lord is Pam Bondi awful. Who voted for this woman for anything? I mean, anything? This is the first thing that’s been handed to her all day, it was clearly set up in advance, and she still can’t manage to get it out. That wasn’t even good conspiracy theory-ing.
And hey, I have another question: “What did Hunter Biden do for the money he got for being on the Amtrak board after he was named to that board by George W. Bush?”
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:53:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Next question to Philbin. Not a blanket denial. See above.
Lofgren on the same point. “We received nothing.” Explains again that the Oversight Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee had standing authority to issue subpoenas, making the claims of “invalid subpoenas” even sillier. And it was ludicrous on its face.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 10:57:16 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Oh lord, it’s Cruz again. Is there no limit? This one is coming to both sides…
“Are the House managers refusing to answer question on whistleblower, there are seven billion people” and nope, I’m not going to transcribe any more of this.
Remember that part where I said that Republicans have stopped taking any of this seriously? See Ted Cruz rambling about the whistleblower and “seven billion people on Earth.” Schiff already made it clear he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is.
Also f#ck off, Cruz.
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:00:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
The chance to attack the whistleblower summons Sekulow from his cave to join Cruz in smearing the whistleblower and repeating alt-right claims that the whistleblower was connected to Biden.
