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

I'd like a Senate Dem to ask Trump’s lawyers to explain what would stop a Dem POTUS from retaliating against McConnell by pressuring China to announce an investigation of his wife’s family shipping company—so long as said POTUS claimed to be concerned about corruption.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) January 29, 2020

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.

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 · 7:33:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Stabenow asks the House managers to correct “falsehoods” in the Trump team’s arguments.

Zoe Lofgren takes this fat pitch. Moves back again to the discussion of how Zelensky demonstrated that he was resistant to Trump’s demands until it was clear that assistance wasn’t coming. That point was one of the best that was developed in the Senate trial. 

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:35:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question is to the Trump team to ask if the House tried to sue about executive privilege over the Christmas break while the articles were waiting for delivery to the Senate. Which … that’s kind of a pointless question, because not only does everyone know the answer, nothing about it has any connection to the case.

Philbin — who has still taken every swing except for a pop-up by Dershowitz — clearly thinks so as well, because he’s just repeating what he said in response to another question about subpoenas.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:44:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

House managers given the chance to address the “overturn the election” argument from Team Trump.

Schiff takes this one—after first pointing out that the single case Trump’s team just called “pretty fast” has been in the courts for nine months and is still multiple steps away from a decision.

Schiff: “By definition if you’re impeaching a president that president is in office and has won an election. … Impeachment was put in the Constitution not as a punishment, but to protect the country.” Schiff effectively shredding the idea that you can’t impeach “close to the election” or in the first term.

Schiff also doing a terrific job in identifying the damage Trump did in withholding aid and pushing Russian conspiracy theories.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:47:17 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team gets another chance to beat up on the House and play to the Senate with a you don’t need to hear witnesses, because dealing with important Senate stuff.

It’s clear this is one of the real “closing arguments” for the Republican side: The Senate is too important to waste it’s time discovering facts. The House needs to do all the work and deliver the case wrapped in a bow. Philbin again delivering the Trump would demand a “long list of witnesses” that would cause things to “drag on for months” threat.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:55:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next to the House side, is an opportunity to smack down exactly the “witnesses would take too long” question.

Hakeem Jeffries gets the chance to take this slam dunk. Points out that the House took up to five depositions a week. Restates the scope of Trump’s crimes. Jeffries knocking this one out of the park in his details and delivery. “This. Is. A. Trial.” A top notch job in bringing the historical facts, as well as the importance of witnesses.

I do wish we would get back to how Roberts can expedite challenges.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:56:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And Trump’s team gets to … sigh … once again talk to issues of Trump’s executive privilege. This is at least the third time already that Philbin has had an opportunity to make claims about how Trump can shut everyone up.

If you’ve been waiting for a coffee break, consider this it.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:01:13 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin makes the case that it’s important to protect the precedent of preventing Bolton from speaking … even though neither Clinton nor Nixon blocked the testimony of a single witness during impeachment. That seems like precedent.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:04:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jason Crow tackles a question about dealing with information that is related to national security and the supposed “inter-agency review” that was supposed to be taking place advance of Trump releasing the military assistance. 

Crow makes it clear that there are no documents, no witnesses, no evidence to support the idea that Trump halted assistance out of some legitimate concern. Crow invites Trump to present the evidence.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:09:50 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Graham and Cruz send the House managers a question … a theoretical that asking “If Mitt Romney’s son was being paid $1 million a year by a corrupt Russian company, would it be impeachable for Obama to try to get Russia to do an investigation.”

Graham and Cruz think they’re being clever here, but Schiff smacks it down. “It’s remarkable to me that we even have to have this conversation.” Points out that FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that they would turn down such a request. “I can’t imagine any circumstance...” where withholding aid to a rival to obtain political advantage is justified.

Cruz and Graham clearly concocted this question because they’re going to hustle in front of Fox cameras at the next available break to claim that Democrats want a “Biden free zone.” That is, if someone on Fox isn’t making that case right now.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:12:37 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And “high crimes and misdemeanors” vs. criminal code again. This time to the House side where Zoe Lofgren handles it. And again, both sides keep returning to this question because in the light of Bolton’s statements, there is no doubt of Trump’s guilt.

Republicans are working on a tripartite extraction to get out of voting for witnesses.

1) Deshowitz tells us this isn’t impeachable.

2) Philbin says it would take a long time.

3) So why waste our time calling Bolton if it’s not impeachable anyway?

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:18:26 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now Trump’s team gets to make another claim that all subpoenas from the House were invalid, because they get to define how the House does impeachment. It’s an even more ridiculous argument than the one launched by Dershowitz.

Maybe worth having the House team slam back … but it’s clearly a band-aide that no one believes and which the White House is putting up as a transparent excuse. So whether it’s worth even talking about it is debatable. 

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:25:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And once again the House is back on whether these charges are impeachable. This time the question cited Federalist No. 65 — which is the bugle call that brings forth Jerry Nadler.

Nadler polishing up some of the arguments he made earlier about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors and going through a chunk of his previous speech at high speed.

Again, we’re going to keep returning to this “impeachable” argument, because it’s where the Republicans are hanging what’s left of their case.

Nadler points out that the House had previously given the committees subpoena power. Which is the correct response to the baseless argument that Philbin was making … and will almost certainly be making again in five minutes.

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 · 6:20:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And we’re underway with questions coming in from Senators, through John Roberts, and out to the legal teams.

And on the very first question, Trump’s legal team is already falling back on the position that even if he did it, Trump’s actions are not impeachable — and he’s even less impossible if there was a possibility that there was some other motivation for Trump’s actions.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:20:48 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And Trump’s team is, on question one, smearing Joe Biden. Because why not.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:22:32 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team now arguing not that Trump actually had a valid motive, but there only has to be the possibility of a valid motive. Which is like saying it’s not that he killed the man in self-defense. It’s that self-defense is a thing so … case dismissed!

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:29:34 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schumer sends a question to the House managers asking about the claims that have been learned from Bolton’s book. Provides the House team a platform to argue for Bolton, Mulvaney, and other first-hand witnesses.

Schiff: “There’s no way to have a trial without witnesses.”

Schiff uses the question to also flip the script on the previous response from the Trump team, then goes back to the restaurant conversation between Trump and Sondland. Shows that Trump asked about investigations, not “burden sharing” who would be the perfect to talk about with the ambassador to the EU.

Schiff: “Don’t wait till the book. Don’t want till March 17 then it’s in black and white.”

Schiff shows a video of Cipollone saying “Who doesn’t want to talk about the facts, impeachment shouldn’t be a shell game.” This question and answer session is going to be brutal.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:31:18 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And the next question to Trump’s team: “Would you please address the assertions that the House managers made in the response to the previous question.”

These people are going to go at it hammer and tongs.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:34:51 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Pat Philbin denies Mulvaney’s press conference statement by referencing his post press-conference lawyer-written statement retracting his press conference statement.

Philbin makes the claim that House “didn’t even try” to get Bolton’s testimony, and that asking Senate to have witnesses would cause things to drag on for months … because Trump would ask for witnesses.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:39:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question to the House managers hammers exactly the point that Philbin just lobbed “did the House ask Bolton to testify.”

Schiff: “Senators, the answer is yes, of course the House asked John Bolton to testify.” Walks through the steps: asked Bolton, he refused. Asked Kupperman, he refused. Asked Hill, she agreed. Asked Vindman, he agreed. Subpoenaed Kupperman, he sued. Bolton made it clear he would also sue. Schiff shows the argument being made in court that the House has no standing to sue for testimony. 

Schiff: “It takes your breath away, the duplicity. …. They can no longer contest the fact. So now they have fallen back on … a constitutional fringe power that a president can abuse his power with impunity.”

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:41:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff points at the acceptance of abuse of power as “the biggest danger of all.”

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:44:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Stack of Republicans give the Trump team another chance to Trump-splain what the House is asking for, rather than asking the House team.

Philbin standing up again to defend the Trump team position. Despite his deputy assistant position, it seems that Philbin is the only one on Trump’s team who is capable of making a defense of their case. Defense in this case meaning to defend Dershowitz’s idea of what is allowed in impeachment. 

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:50:48 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Question from Feinstein on links between military assistance and investigations.

Jason Crow answers that there is overwhelming evidence, despite the earlier attempt to dismiss the press conference statements, Crow points directly at Mulvaney. Crow also notes that the “no quid pro quo” conversation that Republicans love, also includes Trump telling Sondland to get Zelensky to a microphone and make him announce the investigations.

Crow points out, again, the people who should have been involved in any other motive were not informed of any other reason for Trump’s actions.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:54:08 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A softball to the Trump team “isn’t it Trump’s place to set foreign policy instead of a bunch of deep state bureaucrats who only want to see America be France West?” 

Possible that I made up everything in that question after the word “instead.” But it was accurate to the spirit. And Philbin is sticking with that spirit by talking about those “unelected” staffers who don’t answer to the people. And then Philbin tries to define the House case as supporting staffers over Trump.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:56:21 PM +00:00 · Meteor Blades Romney's #2 is quite the twist. If Trump did have a personal political purpose withholding the aid but he also had national interest purposes, should he be removed? I believe that is the serial-killers- aren't-serial-killers-24/7 defense argument.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:01:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

So far Democrats have asked questions of only the House managers and the Republicans have only asked the Trump team. No one has tried to throw the other side a fastball.

Shaheen provides the opportunity to talk again on the subject of criminal law vs. impeachable offense, offering a set of other abuses of power that Trump might undertake.

Sylvia Garcia takes the answer, pointing out that such claims have already been dealt with in both the impeachment of Bill Clinton and impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon. All this discussion of what is impeachable may be esoteric … but it’s all Republicans have left.

With the Bolton revelations, all discussion of Trump’s guilt is just time-filler created for an audience of one.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:08:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A question for both sides! And it’s from Cornyn and Blackburn, so you know it’s going to be loopy… “Why did the House not challenge Trump’s claims of executive privilege or immunity” Hmm, surprisingly reasonable, except that they’ve clearly worked this out for the Trump team to have a final word.

Hakeem Jeffries answers that Trump never claimed privilege, but make only “blanket defiance.” 

Philbin responds by saying as it has before, that the White House gets to define how the House conducts impeachments. So it didn’t have to talk.

Philbin seems like he’s going to take everything from the Trump side. Or maybe just everything that regards a matter of law. Cipollone or Sekulow may be waiting for more rant-worthy topics.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:11:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question concerns the idea that the aid was released on time and hits the Trump was better to Ukraine than Obama idea.

Val Demings responds on the cost to Ukraine of this fight. Demings says “it took the work of some senators in this room” to keep the aid available to Ukraine. 

Some Democrat needs to ask Trump’s team how much more Europe contributed to Ukraine over July and August to satisfy Trump’s concerns about Burden sharing. And what meetings were held with European leaders on that topic.

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump enters a new phase Wednesday. With opening arguments complete, senators will have the chance to ask questions—submitted in writing and read out by Chief Justice John Roberts—for 16 hours over two days.

On Tuesday, Roberts read a quote from then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist as he presided over the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, suggesting that “the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less.” 

Individual senators have been submitting questions to their party leadership, with both Democratic and Republican leadership looking to avoid repetition and strategizing about the best grouping and order, while The New York Times reports that the House managers have been preparing for likely Republican questions, including personal attacks on Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler.

Some Republicans told the Times that they planned questions about the original whistleblower and about Rudy Giuliani. According to independent Sen. Angus King, “On the top of my mind is Professor Dershowitz’s assertion that abuse of power is not a sufficient criteria for impeachment.”

Wednesday’s questions will likely run eight hours, with a break after every 10 to 12 questions. The trial once again starts at 1 PM ET.

The final day of opening arguments from Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team (which will be closing arguments, too, if they have their way) is expected to be relatively brief. Guess they’ll have to increase their lies-per-minute to make quota.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:56:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

That’s all folks. Cipollone’s closing speech was … there was no closing speech.

They’ll begin the question session on Wednesday for eight hours, alternating questions between Republicans and Democrats. Questions will be written and submitted to Roberts to be read.

Roberts indicates that he’s going to enforce a five minute rule on the response to each question.

That will wrap up the question period on Thursday. Unclear if the vote for possible witnesses would be held on that same evening.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:46:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Jay Sekulow is the Lionel Hutz of the impeachment trial. https://t.co/YPpD4dKYoX pic.twitter.com/aANnAolQYF

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) January 28, 2020

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:49:10 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Pat Cipollone up for the final Trump note. Starts off by saying that he believes they’ve “already made their case” and ends by playing old clips of Nadler and Lofgren during the Clinton impeachment. 

Arguments that were clearly so convincing that Republicans didn’t take the articles out of the House and send them to the Senate. Except … umm.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:50:39 PM +00:00 · Hunter

Trump defenders now going through past Democratic opposition to the Clinton impeachment, which was premised on lying about a sex act, to claim hypocrisy on Democrats now concerned about covering up the extortion of election help from a foreign power by illegally using the withholding of military aid as bargaining chip. To be fair Republican senators do seem to consider those two things equal.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:51:17 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

That seems to be all Cipollone is going to do. Show the old clips and repeat the claim that impeachment means “tearing up every ballot across this country.”

As he has at several points, Cipollone is arguing that impeachment itself is unconstitutional. 

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:52:02 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Honestly, that seems to be all he has. Meaning that the whole Republican closing argument is “we’ve given you a lot of evidence, so we don’t need to tell you about the evidence.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:52:44 PM +00:00 · Hunter

This talking point of ‘overturning the last election’ is false. The election would not be overturned. Pence would be placed in charge (shudder) due to Trump’s removal. And yet they still bleat on about this. If Trump can’t abide by the laws of the country, it is he who has betrayed his voters, not the Senate.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:53:14 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Cipollone keeps starting lines with “finally.” And then continuing. But he doesn’t really seem to have anything to say here. 

And hey, after Sekulow, what is there to say?

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:54:04 PM +00:00 · Hunter

And Cipollone says the defense is done. McConnell now laying out how questioning both sides will proceed tomorrow.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:55:49 PM +00:00 · Hunter

Roberts suggests that answers during the question and answer period be limited to 5 minutes or less. For 16 hours.

The final day of opening arguments from Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team (which will be closing arguments, too, if they have their way) is expected to be relatively brief. Guess they’ll have to increase their lies-per-minute to make quota.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:08:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And we’re underway.

Pat Cipollone opens by saying that they intend to be done “by dinner time.” Pat Philbin up first, then Jay Sekulow, then Cipollone to bring it to a close.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:10:42 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin “wouldn’t presume to elaborate” on Dershowitz’s presentation on abuse of power … then goes on to elaborate on Dershowitz’s presentation on abuse of power. Which makes it seem that the faith in Dershowitz’s evening ramble through name-checking founders wasn’t viewed as all that effective.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:13:07 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin going through all the concerns of the framers on impeachment and what it meant. While he’s at it, let’s check again:

“The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 65.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:14:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin really, really, really stretching here to talk about bills of attainder, which has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment. This isn’t just going back to a dry well, he’s broken out the pick ax in search of a topic.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:20:36 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

How obvious is it that Trump’s team have failed to knock down abuse of power as an impeachable offense? So obvious that they’re trying to invent new reasons on the final day of the defense.

And now Philbin is declaring that intent can’t be considered … which would be a considerable relief to thousands facing trial.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:22:19 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Note that what Philbin just claimed was “not a Constitutionally coherent statement” wasn’t a statement at all. It was pieces and scraps of various statements from the House managers that Philbin pasted together, then claimed was not coherent.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:26:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin now going to address things he says are “extraneous” — which apparently includes every stage of the cover-up.

Philbin starts off with two lies: saying that Lt. Col. Vindman was the only person to raise a complaint about the call, and that Vindman agreed his disagreement was only a “policy concern.”

And then Philbin goes to testimony from Tim Morrison saying that there was nothing “nefarious” about moving the transcript to the secure server. Which is super handy, since Morrison is the person who recommended putting it there.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:29:33 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin claiming that the call was “available to everyone who needed it as part of their job” completely contradicts testimony from Sondland, Volker, Taylor and others who claim they were not able to see the call transcript until it became public. 

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:32:40 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin claiming that the House needed to counter the OLC is completely topsy-turvy.  The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community already determined that the complaint WAS an urgent concern. OLC overruled the IG. and then the IG felt strongly enough to make Congess aware anyway.

Philbin’s argument isn’t with the House, it’s with the IG.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:34:31 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin genuinely arguing that if the Inspector General sees a “violation of law” he’s not responsible for reporting a concern.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:37:42 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now it’s Jay Sekulow time. Sekulow’s task throughout this affair has been to act a proxy for the worst of the sweaty Jim Jordan / Kevin McCarthy / Matt Gaetz school of screamers. Turn your volume down now.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:38:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

“Danger, danger, danger” says Sekulow. But he leaves out the requisite “Will Robinson.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:39:41 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow does not miss the opportunity to say “Crossfire Hurricane” again. And he brings up James Comey. And now Sekulow is genuinely ranting about the “Steele dossier.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:41:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

If you’re wondering, we are still talking about the FISA warrant. What does this have to do with this trial? NOT A DAMN THING.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:43:00 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lisa Page! Peter Strzok!

Please check your BINGO cards. 

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:44:57 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow is now directly attacking Robert Mueller and claiming he destroyed evidence. 

This is a trainwreck. Mixed with an airplane crash. During a 32-car pile-up.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:48:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Nellie Ohr! Bruce Ohr! Sorry, but by this point everyone’s BINGO cards are full. No further prizes.

Sekulow now talking about how Trump was busy winning “peace in the Middle East” while under attack for impeachment. This is so, unbelievably, unfathomably awful.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:50:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow's whole speech could be generated by using a random number generator to take phrases from Trump tweets. It's really impossible to overstate just how awful this is in every possible way.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:51:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow isn’t going to go through a detailed analysis of the “facts” on Biden. He’s just going to smear him in general terms by repeating the worst lies.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:54:02 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Incoherent would be a generous description of this speech. If you’re not listening … heck, go ahead and listen. It’s kind of a wonder.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:58:30 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow is not even doing a good job of reading a comment from Dershowitz—though to give him some credit, it’s not possible to find a quote from Dershowitz that would make sense.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:00:36 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Now Sekulow is complaining about Bolton’s book. Complete with statements from Barr and Trump attacking Bolton.

“An unpublished manuscript, that some reporters, maybe, have some idea what it said. If you want to call that evidence.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:02:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

At this point, I’m genuinely laughing. I don’t think SNL can lampoon this. Sekulow is making a speech that it pre-pardodied.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:06:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

We’ve wandered back to attacking Bob Mueller. “Bob Mueller had to correct himself ... so that’s what the president’s been living with” 

Now we’re on the battlefield. Now we’re in the Ukraine parliament. Now we’re talking about fiscal year. Now we’re talking about the length of the phone call. Now we’re talking about the whistleblower. Now we’re talking about Ukraine’s anti-corruption court.