Thursday is the second day of questions from senators to the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with questions alternating between Republican and Democratic senators and answers generally limited to five minutes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:07:54 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jason Crow gets another chance to talk about the difference between this hold and legitimate holds. Not sure there’s anything left to say here, but maybe they have more to say that Crow didn’t get to in his last, lengthy, step by step response.

Crow does get the chance to mention that multiple parties asked for the aid to be released, but no one got a reason why it wasn’t.

Looks like there are is something less than 4 hours remaining, by the way. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:14:08 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Another question involving Cruz and Hawley, this time with Burr and Rubio joining the madness. Let’s here it…

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired a retired foreign spy...” This question actually asks if the Steele Dossier is an impeachable offense.

Hakeem Jeffries steps up to say it’s not applicable.

Heck, let’s say hell yes! Let’s impeach Hillary! She’s out of office? Okay, now we can do Trump.

Jeffries now taking the senators for the string of conspiracy theories. “It’s hard to keep count. This is the Senate. This is America’s greatest political club. This is the world’s greatest deliberative body. And all you offer us is conspiracy theories because you can’t face the facts in this case.”

Surely it will be Sekulow on the other side. And it is. Honestly, I ignored everything he said.

In case anyone needs a reminder: Hillary Clinton hired someone, who hired someone, who hired someone who was working for John McCain, who hired someone ... who was British. Lock her up! Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:19:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin now talking about why a document that was demanded is classified, on a conversation between Pence and Zelensky, even though the conversation it records has been subject to public discussion in Jennifer Williams testimony.

Schiff suggests that those who haven’t had the opportunity, and can view classified documents, should read it. Pence has said he wanted to release it, and has made public claims about it, but it remains unreleased. Schiff, who has read the document, is absolutely disdainful here of the idea that this call needed to be classified.

What’s that phrase again? Read the transcript, senators!

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:20:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Alexander sends a question, but Cruz is a co-author, which certainly suggests that Lamar! is on team screw-up. And he is. The question is about the votes in Nixon and Clinton impeachments.

Nothing like using the Senate Impeachment trial for something you could answer from Wikipedia.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:25:18 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren gives this blah question a much better and more detailed answer than it deserves, and does a nice job of pivoting to the idea of getting Bolton in for testimony that can be taken at the same time as the Senate continues its regular business — as it was in the Clinton impeachment.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:28:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schumer directly addresses the “it would take too long” question, giving Schiff and company another chance to explain a plan for getting witnesses in for a week.

Schiff reports that the White House has said that the documents requested have already been collected, so it should take no time to get them over. Schiff acknowledges that it would mean limiting witnesses, suggests that Roberts could arbitrate disputes over witnesses, says that the House side has suggested four witnesses, but is open to negotiation. Schiff mentions that the Trump team has often talked about the need for “reasonable accommodation” and suggests that an agreement could be met.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:34:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

McConnell doesn’t feel that the question from Lamar! sufficiently beat up the Democrats, as was the design. So McConnell sends the same back to Philbin so they can get the numbers that they wanted.

And now this Googlable question has been asked twice. 

Philbin is not taking some time to argue that Dershowitz didn’t say what Dershowitz actually said. However, he is not going to tell anyone what Dershowitz actually said. Except to say that Dershowitz said he didn’t mean what he said. Nope … not gonna.

It’s a shame that Dershowitz hasn’t gotten the chance to opine on Dershowitz. But they seem afraid to let him out of his box this evening.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:39:47 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

One more question, then it’s dinner time.

This one comes from Amy Klobuchar and Chris Coons, they ask if any of the witnesses the Trump team wants to call have first hand information about Trump’s actions.

The House managers are first. Schiff says he’s not a firsthand witness, and Biden has no knowledge on the subject. The whistleblower has also been explicit that they don’t have firsthand knowledge. But Mulvaney knows. Bolton knows. Why isn’t Trump’s team demanding first hand witnesses who can answer these questions?

Schiff: “Why don’t they want their own people in?”

Sekulow now up there admitting that there’s not a single damn person with knowledge of Trump’s actions that they want to talk to, Sekulow is making the case that John Roberts can’t be part of a fair process. That’s nice.

Dinner time, people. About … three hours remaining.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:42:30 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Wow, Philbin makes a great point that Nixon-era Republicans and Clinton-era Democrats were willing to look into allegations about their own party's president, while Trump-era Republicans are absolutely not.Great point, Phil. You're crushing this.

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) January 30, 2020

Thursday is the second day of questions from senators to the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with questions alternating between Republican and Democratic senators and answers generally limited to five minutes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:05:52 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Ongoing coverage can be found here.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:06:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Republicans send Trump’s team a question to allow them to pretend that the Senate “has already seen a lot of witnesses” in this trial and that “testimony was shown to you.” So, no need to talk to anyone.

Even though that has never been counted as Senate witnesses before. And we’re super concerned about precedent.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:12:29 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And Philbin is back to saying that if the case is proven by the House evidence, nobody needs to see a witness. And then says he says that he thinks that his team has knocked down the House case.

Which is the kind of thing that, in a trial, might suggest calling a witness. But Philbin wants to argue that because the House came in with a strong case, they don’t get witnesses. And he’s back to waving the club that says they would make everything long, long, long if anyone dares call a witness.

In case they’ve forgotten, trials work this way.

1. The prosecutor walks in, declares that he has a strong case against the defendant, and makes an opening statement. 2. The defense disputes that case, suggests that there are problems with the prosecutions evidence. 3. And then there are witnesses. Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:15:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team gets a question about whether Giuliani was violating the Logan Act by conducting foreign policy … Philbin now claims Rudy wasn’t doing anything, he was just “a source of information.”

Like the source of information where he wrote a letter to the president of Ukraine seeking a meeting. Or when he set up interviews with former officials seeking information on Biden. Or when he directed Volker, Sondland, and others in their actions.

Philbin now makes the case that FDR had a “confidant” during World War II who helped him get information into delicate areas … so, not a problem then.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:21:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Kennedy (who really needs to work on that fake accent) goes specifically to Philbin and Nadler. I’m assuming he’s asking for Nadler because he doesn’t want Schiff to beat up his question and feels like Nadler can be shoved into a trap. The question is on whether or not a president can be impeached for ordering an investigation of an American citizen that is “legitimate.” 

Schiff answered a very similar one a few minutes ago, and Nadler hews pretty close to his answer, suggesting again that it’s hard to conceive of a case where that would be warranted and that there are other mechanisms. And, Nadler says, that’s not the case here.

Philbin is spending his time again on the pretense that there is a good reason to investigate Joe Biden. To make this claim, Philbin is back to the “mixed motive” claim that if there was any chance of a legitimate reason, it doesn’t matter if the primary reason was invalid.

Roberts objects to the calling out of specific attorneys. Which is too bad, because Democrats could have directed the next dozen questions are Bondi. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:24:00 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff gets a chance to backtrack on the claim from Philbin that Giuliani was “not conducting U.S. policy” … which seems like a conflict with the claims that the whole thing is “a policy issue.”

Schiff seems to have constructed a nice trap here. Either Rudy Giuliani was a private citizen conducting U.S. policy, or he was Trump’s private attorney driving events in Ukraine for Trump’s personal purposes. Either one of these is an issue.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:26:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff offers to “cabin” the depositions to one week, as took place during the Clinton impeachment. The Senate can go back to work, while depositions are collected. This is another really good thrust from the House side and from Schiff particularly.

And of course there is no way in hell Trump’s team will agree to it. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:32:34 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Murkowski asks for the line between political action and impeachable action. Philbin fields it first for Trump’s team, says (accurately for once) that politicians always have some aspect of their motives looking toward the next election … then hops right over the point where asking for an investigation of a political opponent is corrupt on its face. Philbin is back to rolling in Dershowitz’s mixed-motive defense, claiming that if there was any possible legitimate reason behind Trump’s actions, that makes it okay.

Schiff takes it for the House side and agrees that politicians are politicians, who take political acts. But he points out that impeachable offenses are inherently political crimes. That’s the definition. Shows Dershowitz excusing going after candidates and excusing anything in pursuit of office. Schiff makes the line is that political actions don’t excuse a corrupt act. “There is no limit to what foreign powers will feel they can offer a corrupt president.”

Nice exchange here that was genuinely illuminating of the relative positions.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:37:21 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

House managers get a question on why it matters that Trump is soliciting foreign interference.

Jason Crow takes the answer. Starts off by saying not one witness has presented any evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, and that both the FBI and Homeland Security has shot this idea down as a conspiracy theory. And that pushing the Ukraine conspiracy theory is actually helpful for Russia.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:43:55 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And here we go again. About half the Republicans — led by Cruz and Hawley — are punting a question to both sides. So you know it will be a DEEP STATE conspiracy theory.

And the question is about an NSA agent described as as saying he wanted to “take out” Trump. Plus whistleblower. Plus who the hell knows. And this is bullshit.

Schiff calls this a smear, expresses his disgust. “Members of this body used to care about whistleblower production … “ Wheh. Schiff is jumping on these guys both feet. We definitely need a clip of his, because it’s a genuinely key moment. “I don’t know who the whistleblower is, but I know who it should be—it should be every one of us.”

And of course Trump’s team is in on this. Sekulow is standing up to say that the whistleblower is protected against “retribution” but that’s not a promise that they can’t drag the whistleblower into the Senate, smear them with false claims, subject them to threats, and … I don’t know, maybe torture their dog.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:47:02 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sylvia Garcia gets another swing at how voting against Article 2 of the impeachment would be a vote against Congressional authority that would leave both the House and Senate toothless.

I need a camera that looks out on the floor, because I want to see how many senators are still smoking after that last reply from Schiff.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:50:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sullivan, Blunt, et al provide a freebie for the Trump team letting Philbin spend a round of patting the Senate on the back for being such good boys and putting up with that nasty House case. This is a nothing question. But hey, Mr. Sullivan, your name is in the record! Sit down now.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:54:51 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Oh, wait. Philbin has wandered into talking about Ukraine interfering in the election. Maybe. Or they could have. And just because Trump talks about Crowdstrike and the DNC server doesn’t mean he was asking about Crowdstrike and the DNC server. Chalupa! Oh, Philbin is channeling Doug Collins. And we’re now down to the idea that some Ukrainian officials said bad things about Trump. 

How we wandered down this hole on this question is completely unclear. Anyway, Roberts cuts him off.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:01:53 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sen. Leahy provides the House managers with another opportunity to hit the Dershowitz theory, drawing everyone’s favorite comparison — withholding disaster release. 

Hakeem Jeffries handles it this time. The answer here is strong, but not surprising, because buying into Dershowitz’s argument required going way out into the boondocks. Jeffries provides a count of founding fathers who have been mentioned so far, declares that Thomas Jefferson “needs more love” and moves to a Jefferson quote about how tyranny deals with things that are illegal specifically because they are done by people in power. 

Jeffries does a really nice job here of taking what could have been just another walk down the same lines that are by now well covered, and refreshes it by comparing Trump’s actions to other crimes. Jeffries introduces the “Fifth Avenue Standard” in describing Trump’s position.

Nicely done.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:09:25 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Cassidy and Risch ignore Roberts request to not call on specific attorneys by calling on Zoe Lofgren to address comments she made during the Clinton impeachment. And then fits both a claim that “impeachment is the ultimate election interference” and an accusation that Lofgren is trying to dodge the question.

Cipollone calls impeachment cheating, then attacks Schiff for refusing to join in a smear of his own staff. “Calumny” says Cipollone. And then declares that it’s time that we stop assuming everyone has horrible motives. 

Lofgren does step forward, talks about how Ken Starr spent years, moving from topic to topic, to finally catch Clinton out in a personal lie. On the other hand, in both Nixon and Trump, the question is about an action that directly deals with misuse of presidential power. Which … seems like a pretty good answer.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:15:12 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

House managers get a chance to deal with a rather generic “have you ever been involved in a trial in which you were unable to call witnesses.” Val Demings is up for the House team.

Demings compares the trial to her 27 years of experience in law enforcement. Says she’s only been in such a situation when there are no witnesses.

Cipollone is … seriously claiming that the fact that the White House eventually produced some requested documents for the Mueller report means that they didn’t have to give anything this time around. Declares that Trump has “fully cooperated.” Heh.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:18:30 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lee—who has been about 10x more awful in this than I expected—asks if Obama or Bush would have been subject to possible impeachment under the standard of the House managers. Cipollone is back again to say “I guess.”

Since one of the items that Lee offered up was impeaching Bush for waterboarding, I do want to say absolutely, I would have been down with that.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:25:14 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Split question on the value of an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, with a quote of previous cases showing that foreign contributions of all sorts are forbidden.

Philbin says the Barr DOJ has already looked at the whistleblower claims and said it’s not prohibited. And that if it was, campaigns would have to report every time someone gave them information.

Schiff points out the number of steps that Trump was willing to take to secure the investigations as evidence of their value. Cites the heavy use of stolen Russian documents by Trump in 2016. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:31:25 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now it’s a Graham, Cruz, Cornyn three-way. So expect yet another attack on Biden, or whistleblower, or Schiff. Or all three.

The question here is an extension of the idea that investigating Trump was started because information came in from foreign sources. Schiff is dealing with the answer, but the answer here is that it wasn’t Barack Obama who was getting on the phone to tell the FBI to get on that Trump business. Schiff spends his time pointing out the obvious — what happened in Carter Pages FISA warrant has diddly to do with the current case.

I’m expecting Sekulow on the other side, because this is exactly down his alley… And here he is!

Sekulow of attacking Comey. Now yelling at Schiff for the FBI. Starts to offer a primer on the FISA court. Lots of chiding … still not a damn bit of connection.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:38:22 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Durbin sends a question to both sides about the distribution of funds and communications between DOD and OMB on the hold.

Crow does something good here by pointing out that Philbin has made claims about what was happening that mean he knows more about it than anyone who has testified, or any document that’s available. Crow points to the email and how the OMB—which acted as Trump’s agent in making the hold—then tried to blame the DOD when the money could not be spent.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:39:32 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Stack of Republican senators give Trump’s team the chance to say that it’s okay for Trump to ask for help with corruption. Shockingly, they say yes. 

Isn’t it about time for a break? Surely we get a break soon.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:46:50 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Elizabeth Warren asks the House team to comment on whether it diminishes the legitimacy of Roberts and the Supreme Court to have Roberts sitting there while the Senate refuses to allow witnesses.

Schiff defends Roberts, launches into a story concerning the loss of U.S. respect abroad because of the actions Trump took in Ukraine. Schiff upholds the impeachment proceeding as the answer to show that the United States still has the rule of law. “This trial is part of our constitutional heritage … I don’t think a trial without witnesses reflects adversely on the chief justice, I think it reflects badly on us.”

Makes a compelling speech about the need for a fair trial. Schiff continues to be so good.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:51:55 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now Philbin gets another chance to kick the idea that Trump committed bribery. And again, amazingly, Philbin is back to talking about how it is so, so wrong to make a comment about Trump committing bribery when it’s not on the charges by name.

But for Philbin to accuse Biden of bribery, accuse the whistleblower of being corrupt or level evidence-free claims against any number of people is dandy.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:58:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Warner asks about Russian interference in the 2016 election, and connects it with the Dershowitz theory that soliciting foreign interference is cool.

Schiff takes the response, calls Dershowitz’s theory a “bastardization of the Constitution.” Takes this time to deal with a number of issues that have come up on subpoenas, the structure of articles—basically, whether the White House can define how impeachment is done.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:02:40 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Inhofe throws a snowball. Actually, it’s another softball. Allowing the Trump team to declare that the House will never agree that the trial is fair unless Trump loses.

Sekulow takes it, because there’s no actual facts to be examined here. It’s just an invitation to attack. And now Sekulow makes a convincing case that he can’t do math after he declares that 3 Democratic witnesses and one Republican witness is a 4-1 ratio. He then declares that he wants 4 witnesses in the Senate for every witness called by the House managers.

One of the big revelations from this whole thing is just how awful, Jay Sekulow turns out to be.

Thursday is the second day of questions from senators to the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with questions alternating between Republican and Democratic senators and answers generally limited to five minutes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:34:43 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Durbin responds to claims by Sekulow that Democratic senators tried to extract political favors from Ukraine.

“The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:36:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff gets a question about Mulvaney … but puts the question on hold to cite a statement made by the Justice Department this morning in response to a subpoena saying that Congress has a remedy if the White House won’t answer a subpoena … impeachment!

Gets a nice laugh from at least half the Senate.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:38:07 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff hustling through the answer on Mulvaney … not sure he has the time to really deal with this, but he does get in some of the history of the assistance. Talking about the difference between holds that were allowed, and written into legislation, and holds that are illegal and secret.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:39:50 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff gets through a pretty amazing set of examples, and gets his his points across well. He’s good at squeezing in a lot of material into little time — even though Roberts does eventually cut him off.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:46:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Another heapin’ help o’ Republicans on this question. Which is generally a good sign that this is a rehearsed piece that they’ve already worked out with Trump’s team. Despite that, the question — which seems designed to give Trump’s team another drop-kick on the theme of “tearing up the ballots” (so much so, I’m amazed Cipollone is taking it rather than Sekulow) — isn’t being handled very well.

I take that back. The answer isn’t good at all, and is for the most part simply ignoring the question. That seems true any time “leads” Cipollone or Sekulow stand up. I’m not sure Bondi doesn’t rate about either of them.

On the House side, this question gets tackled by Schiff, who directly addresses the question by saying that Trump is trying to cheat in the election. Honestly, Schiff is providing such a more polished and direct answer on this question, you’d think that the Republicans had practiced it with the House team. Schiff uses every second of his time. He’s going to make Roberts play him out on every answer.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:50:02 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

King gives the House team a set-up by inviting them to explain the danger of letting Trump skate on obstruction.

Schiff takes it again. He’s standing up personally a lot more on Thursday than he did on Wednesday. I expect that’s because the initial set of Wednesday questions were all designed to hit different aspects of the case and assigned in advance to different members of the team.

Now we really seem to be in a place where the incoming questions are topics the teams (or House team, at least) don’t have lined out in advance. So Schiff is taking more things personally.

On the specific topic of obstruction, Schiff concentrates on the blanket denial of documents — which don’t get protection from executive privilege.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:52:07 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The court case Schiff mentioned earlier.

“Asked by a federal judge what the House can do to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:56:37 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Rick Scott offers a question that is itself a lie, repeating claims that Republicans in the House were denied witnesses, questions, and ‘process.’ 

Philbin repeats the lie that the minority wasn’t allowed to call “any witnesses at all” and then claims that the House managers are still trying to prevent Republicans from getting any witnesses. 

I’m not sure one truthful thing was said in this question or response. And the sad thing is that everyone in the room knows it.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:00:56 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff gets a question based on the idea that even the intelligence community is prohibited from using foreign sources against U.S. citizens. Cites Barr’s reasoning on motivation in impeachment … which is actually pretty good. 

Not that it would take great reasoning to show that what Dershowitz has been pushing is beyond silly.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:08:10 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Braun gives the Trump team a chance to paint more spangles on Trump. The rarely seen Eric Herschmann steps up to declare that Trump’s approval ratings are “at all time highs” and that the American people are “the happiest they’ve been in fifteen years.”

This will not be followed by a list of things that Trump claims to have done. Wall. Terrorists shot. Unemployment.

It must be nice to have Herschmann’s job, which doesn’t require actually listening to any aspect of the case on either side. Though reading from the Trump PR report seems to be giving him some issues, as he just declared improvements in “creme roll” justice.

We just ended with a complaint of presidential harassment and a proclamation of god bless Trump. Le, sigh.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:11:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jerry Nadler gets to talk about subpoenas and executive power. He’s twice mixed up the abuse and obstruction articles. Nadler is more disorganized here than he’s been so far in this trial. Maybe he’s just tired, but he’s making me wish someone else had taken this answer.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:19:30 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And a group of Republican senators invite the Trump team to again complain about the process violations that did not happen in the House investigation — finishing with an invite to throw out the whole impeachment. Plus this time they also throw in accusations that Schiff “illegally leaked” information.

But … don’t expect anything new here, sine this is at least the fourth time they’ve already hit this today. Process arguments rule!

Secret hearings in the basement bunker! No opportunity to cross-examine witnesses! President completely shut out!

Philbin takes on more accusations that Schiff had “connections with the whistleblower” that gave him “an incentive to withhold information.” Man, it is so good that we’re so concerned about process here, because otherwise it would sound like Philbin is just putting one unfounded and untrue accusation on top of another.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:25:05 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Tammy Duckworth asks the obvious question — if Trump was concerned about cost sharing with Europe, is there any evidence of meetings on that top, briefings, information, requests to European allies, etc?

Jason Crow takes it. Crow walking the whole process from the beginning, going back to the passage of legislation. Again, I’m worried about the ability to fit all the answer this is going to generate in the time allotted.

We’re pretty deep into this, and Crow hasn’t really gotten around to talking about whether or not there’s any evidence — and the answer is no. We might have started there, then come back to talk about hat a good process would look like. But he does get through it all.

Thursday is the second day of questions from senators to the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with questions alternating between Republican and Democratic senators and answers generally limited to five minutes.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:33:37 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Ongoing coverage can be found here.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:33:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Durbin responds to claims by Sekulow that Democratic senators tried to extract political favors from Ukraine. 

“The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:15:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Senator Murray asks the House managers a question inviting further discussion of the Trump legal team’s claims that House subpoenas were “invalid.”

Zoe Lofgren goes through the House rules, showing that the House had already adopted rules that included giving several committees the authority to issue subpoenas. The Trump legal team has been making claims that the rules don’t include the authority of impeachment, Lofgren shows that the rules authorize the House committee to issue subpoenas for “any” of it’s duties, details the way in which the rules have changed since the time of Nixon so that the House no longer requires a specific vote to authorize each committee, and generally slices, dices, and makes julienne fries of the Trump arguments.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:21:22 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Baldwin sents a note to the House managers asking them to answer the question Trump’s team wouldn’t answer from Mitt Romney—that is, when was the hold put in place. A very nice question.

Note that it’s not that the Trump team can’t answer the question. It’s that they won’t answer it.

Jason Crow rises to explain that John Bolton is one of those who may have an answer. Crow lists several other incidents in which U.S. officials were contacted by Ukrainians concerned about the hold in advance of the date it became public.

Crow then takes time to smack around the argument that Trump’s team made that Trump intentionally kept the hold “private” out of some concern that didn’t apply to any other hold.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:24:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A collection of Republican Senators make a pointless bow toward the “impeachment undoes elections” arguments and gives Jay Sekulow a chance to get up and rant about taking the vote away in  2020 (and I can say that before he does, because I know he will).

But even answering this question without spiraling out into WTF-land. is really too much to ask of Sekulow. 

Sekulow is so Michael Cohen 2.0 that Michael Cohen should collect royalties. And send this poor guy some plaid pants.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:28:47 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Adam Schiff gets the chance to talk about the “descent into constitutional madness” by talking about the claims that Dershowitz made on Wednesday evening absolving a president of any limits at all on quid pro quo.

Schiff calls it the kind of argument a lawyer only makes when they’ve been caught “dead to rights.” Draws a straight line from Dershowitz’s claims right back to Nixon’s “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

Schiff: “We may be in a worse place, because this time that argument may succeed. … That means we’re not back to where we were. It means were are worse off than we were. That’s the normalization of lawlessness.”

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:32:27 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Cramer and Young give the Trump team a tonguebath … sorry, I mean they hand them a question that’s simply an invitation to dress Donald Trump up in a star-spangled suit and pretend that he’s the paragon of virtue, defending the justice system against those meanies in the House.

Early coffee break!

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:35:22 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Made it back with a fresh cup and a double-handful of animal crackers in time to hear Philbin talking about “fast and furious.” Because of course he was.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:37:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

House managers get a request for another round of explanations on the rules that allowed them to issue subpoenas before the general House vote. And they’re asked for a list of subpoenas that went out after 660.

Apparently the senator asking this question wasn’t listening literally ten minutes ago, when Zoe Lofgren went through these rules, including going line by line through the rules.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:41:43 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff is showing that each House committee had authority — and that the subpoenas issued were squarely in the oversight capacity of Congress even before the inquiry became official. 

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:49:00 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Oh, wonderful. We’re already up with a combined Cruz and Hawley and Graham. Stand by for smear …

Question accuses Demings of refusing to answer a question about Hunter Biden, that brings in half a conversation from USA Today.

Expect the Trump team to put on their mud suit and roll in this one. Oh, look. It’s Pam Bondi! Recovered from her arduous single answer on Wednesday to talk about fishing in Norway. And then Bondi lies about Shokin, about Biden. 

Seriously hoping that the House management team uses their opportunity to ask why Pam Bondi was on the board of a foreign company where she “didn’t know the language.” Please. Please. Please.

Demings steps up again, Starts off by talking about “if we’re serious about why we are here ...” somewhere off camera, Cruz has just moved on to the next person who will help him slip up another smear of the Bidens. 

Cruz is getting an early start today. Expect this same question to be asked, along with paragraph length excerpts from any article that he things sounds bad for Biden, at least a dozen times.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:55:27 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Rosen to House managers asks about the precedent set by Trump’s actions. Jason Crow takes the answer (sorry, did you know he’s a veteran?) Anyway, Crow moves on to talking about alliances … (did you know he’s a veteran?) … back to talking about the importance of alliances.

Sorry, I’m a bit fritzed out by Crow’s repeated mention of his military service. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate it. It’s just that inserting a personal story into any of these five minute windows is almost certain to weaken the response and certainly takes up time that can be used on the the topic at hand.

Then Crow runs a series of clips showing all the times Trump has directly appealed for foreign interference in the election. Which is a sequence we should have available … will look for it.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 6:58:35 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A heap’o Republicans give Trump’s team a chance to repeat the blandest aspects of the abuse of power case and quote the statements from Republican witness Jonathan Turley that they like. 

This is another of those questions from Republicans who wanted to show that they were present, but not risk asking anything that had the slightest chance of generating new information.

Dear Team Trump, Isn’t he great? Isn’t his toilet the goldest? Please talk for the next five minutes and don’t say anything anyone will ever quote. Thank you.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:00:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Ahh. Here you go.

x

Rep. Crow just ran a video montage of Trump's "evolution of solicitation" of foreign governments over the years, starting with "Russia if you're listening" and ending with Trump publicly calling for China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens last October pic.twitter.com/NuFI2TwmT3

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2020

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:06:35 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The House managers get a question from Wyden giving them a chance to comment on how Team Trump absolutely refused to say that soliciting information from a foreign government for political advantage is a bad thing.

Hakeem Jeffries talks about the message that Trump, and Trump’s team, are putting out to autocrats, and governments of all kinds, about seeking information from foreign governments for political purposes. Jeffries is describing the idea of investigating opponents as wrong, in a room where more than half of those present are not just actively supporting such an investigation, but helping to smear a candidate on the Senate floor.

That’s a tough job.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:10:58 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Hawley back again already, this time with Mike Lee. And this is actually an interesting one, because what Hawley asks the Trump team is flat out a defense of bribery, by offering Trump’s team a chance to talk about how it’s just dandy to “exchange official acts.”

Trump’s team doesn’t lean into it at first, but continues to pretend that Trump didn’t do anything wrong … Only, hypothetically, says Philbin, of course Trump could condition aid on something “legitimate to look into” like “these specific areas of corruption.”

Truthfully, the response was less interesting than the question, because the question from Hawley and Lee showed just how much they have bought into the idea that Trump can use the power of his office for his benefit without facing scrutiny.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:15:00 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Val Demings gets a chance to talk about the scale of the “loop” and just how many people were aware of the Ukraine scheme. Rather than concentrating on Bolton, she focuses on a series of — and this term should be familiar to Republicans — missing emails; in particular the emails that State Department officials mentioned in texts and testimony, but which the White House refused to produce.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:20:20 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Thune, Crap, et. al. give Trump’s team another chance to hit Nancy Pelosi on the “bipartisan impeachment” front. And Sekulow stands up to claim “that should end it.” Everyone go home.

Sekulow is already back at “removing Trump from the ballot” and the horrible, terrible results of removing Trump. Which “the American people wouldn’t tolerate it.” Now Sekulow is against Trump-splaining how the House gets to do impeachments. And now “all of the ballots need to be torn up” and blergh.

Let me say … please, people. Can you be so out of questions that we’ve already had this Sekulow rant twice in the first hour?

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:26:06 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A split question from Reed “can you explain who has paid for Rudy Giuliani’s legal fees, international travel, and expenses in his capacity as Mr. Trump’s attorney?” Popcorn time!

Schiff: “The short answer is, I don’t know.” Schiff suggests that if “other clients” are paying, it raises profound questions. Schiff extends Dershowitz’s quid pro quo argument to China, declares again that he doesn’t know who is paying Rudy’s tab.

Sekulow gets up and begins … ranting about Joe Biden. Is he going to be giving any answer on Rudy? Oh, no he is not. Now he’s ranting about a letter supporting the Mueller investigation. 

Sekulow believes that if he talks loud enough, people will forget the question.

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:29:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A bunch of dates, other dates, and some dates. All under the pretense that everything was just the same this year even though Trump placed a hold on military assistance.

Again, Republicans have zero interest in learning anything. This was a question that might as well have been “Can you confirm that money spent in September was also spent in September?”

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.

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.

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.

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 · 11:06:43 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Dershowitz is up. And again, we are reminded just how utterly ridiculous the whole thing really is as Dershowitz literally puts words into James Madison’s mouth. 

Maladministration is not abuse of power. Maladministration is not abuse of power. Maladministration is not abuse of power.

Someone find this man a blackboard. He needs to write that 100 times.

Also, Dershowitz says “not a crime, but criminal like” behavior. Yeah, there’s a standard that would surely be defensible without any dispute. Sheesh.

Nadler gets up, excited to face Dershowitz in a Madison-off. Makes it clear that Dershowitz is far afield. I think they should square up and fight.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:09:27 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Purpura stands up for a set piece on Mick Mulvaney. And Purpura will demonstrate his skill … by reading a statement from Mulvaney.

I particularly like how the question was framed as the House managers “showing a clip that they claim shows Mulvaney saying there was a quid pro quo.” Yeah, House managers. Quit showing Mulvaney saying something that you claim he was saying.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:15:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

We’re getting a lot more split questions as the day goes on. This one What did Bolton mean when he mentioned the “drug deal.”

Schiff takes it first … and hasn’t the House team been made to go first three times in a row? Anyway … Schiff sets the location of this statement, describing again that July 10 meeting where Sondland tried to enforce Trump’s demands for investigations.

Philbin calls the drug deal comment “hearsay” even though she was a first-hand witness to the statement. Sure. Why not.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:17:22 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Republicans keep asking questions that have safe answers. Because the last thing they want at this point is to learn anything.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:18:17 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The question this time was “did Ukraine get the aid.” The Trump team says yes. The answer is some of it, and only because Trump was caught. That part gets left out.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:21:26 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The next question to the House team relates to “additional information” related to Russia and Trump’s conspiracy theories. And … sorry, I didn’t quite catch that. Trying to interpret from the answer.

Schiff making it clear there’s some classified information related to the conspiracy theories they would like to share with the Senate, as well as some information collected by the NSA that the NSA has refused to release to the intelligence committee. Which, says Schiff, raises questions that go beyond the impeachment case.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:21:47 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Two more questions, then it’s dinner break time.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:25:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Dershowitz gets a chance to repeat just exactly what he said ten minutes ago with a question about maladministration vs. abuse of power. Everyone please turn your clocks back ten minutes and see what Dershowitz said last time.

And by the way, Dershowitz, maladministration isn’t the same as misuse of office, either. Dershowitz bristles at the idea that he’s the only person who holds his position and points at someone in the 19th century who he says agrees with him.

I could have gone all day without hearing Alan Dershowitz say “got woke.”

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:34:05 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question to the House side. Cites a case saying that the Senate proceedings have to be a “reasonable trial.”

Schiff: “A trial without witnesses is not a trial. It’s certainly not a fair trial. If the House brings an impeachment before the Senate and wants to call witnesses, and is told thou shalt not call witnesses, that is not a trial.”

Schiff whips around to talk about Alan Dershowitz. Declares that he doesn’t believe that Dershowitz hadn’t read Madison 21 years ago. Pulls up Turley to show his clear statement on abuse of power. Schiff jumps on Dershowitz’s claim that it’s perfectly fine to use abuse of power to help a reelection “would have terrified” the founders. Rips into the whole position on Abuse.

Schiff is so good at this.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 11:34:18 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Break time.