Archive from January, 2020

Friday, January 31, 2020

7:58 p.m. The Senate adjourned.

7:57 p.m. S Res 488 was adopted on a party line vote of 53-47.

7:50 p.m. Roll call vote began on adoption of S Res 488.

7:49 p.m. The Senate table the Van Hollen amendment #1298 on a party line tally of 53-47.

7:42 p.m. Roll call vote began on the Van Hollen amendment #1298
to require the Chief Justice to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, and to rule on any assertion of privilege.

7:41 p.m. The Senate tabled the Schumer amendment #1297 51-49
with Senators Collins and Romney joining Democrats in voting against the motion to table.

7:34 p.m. Roll call vote began on the Schumer amendment #1297
to subpoena John Bolton; provided further that there be one day for a deposition presided over by Chief Justice, and one day for live testimony before the Senate, both of must occur within 5 days of adoption of the underlying resolution.

7:32 p.m. The Schumer amendment was tabled 51-49 with Senators Collins and Romney joining Democrats in voting against the motion to table.

7:26 p.m. Roll call vote began on the motion to table the Schumer amendment #1296 to subpoena John Bolton.

7:25 p.m. The Schumer amendment was tabled
on a party line tally of 53-47.

7:15 p.m. Roll call vote began on the motion to table the 1295 Schumer amendment to Subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffy, Blair and White House, OMB, DOD and State Department documents.

7:13 p.m. The Senate reconvened. ML McConnell offered the following UC agreement, which was agreed to:

S.Res.488, a resolution to provide for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United States.

  • Senator Schumer is expected to offer the following amendments, which Senator McConnell will move to table.
  • Schumer amendment to subpoena Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffy, Blair and White House, OMB, DOD and State Department documents. (The Senate is voting to table his amendment now).
    • Schumer amendment to Subpoena John Bolton.
    • Schumer amendment to subpoena Bolton; provided further that there be one day for a deposition presided over by Chief Justice, and one day for live testimony before the Senate, both of must occur within 5 days of adoption of the underlying resolution.
    • Van Hollen amendment to require the Chief Justice to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, and to rule on any assertion of privilege.
  • Following disposition of any offered amendments or motions, the Senate will vote on adoption of S.Res.488.

5:42 p.m. The Senate has recessed subject to the call of the chair.

5:41 p.m. The motion is not agreed to by a vote of 49 to 51.

5:36 p.m. The Senate began voting on motion to consider and debate under impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents?

4:08 p.m. Representative Schiff made closing arguments for the House managers.

3:57 p.m. Mr. Sekulow continued the President’s Counsel arguments.

3:41 p.m. Mr. Philbin continued the President’s Counsel arguments.

3:41 p.m. The Senate reconvened from recess.

2:47 p.m. ML McConnell asked that the Senate stand in recess for 15 minutes.

2:37 p.m. Representative Schiff continued the House managers arguments.

2:25 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the House managers arguments.

2:05 p.m. Representative Jeffries continued the House managers arguments.

1:50 p.m. Representative Crow continued the House managers arguments.

1:38 p.m. Representative Garcia continued the House managers arguments.

1:24 p.m. Representative Demings continued the House managers arguments.

1:18 p.m. Representative Schiff began the House managers arguments.

1:18 p.m. The Senate as a Court of Impeachment convened. Majority Leader McConnell said the Senate would take a break about 2 hours in.

****

The Senate will reconvene as a Court of Impeachment for the trial of Donald John Trump, President of the United States at 1:00 pm.

Pursuant to S.Res.483, there will be up to four hours of debate, equally divided between the House managers and the President’s Counsel.

Additional deliberations are possible. The Senate will then vote on the question, “Shall it be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents?”

Additional roll call votes are possible during Friday’s session of the Senate.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

10:43 p.m. The Senate stands adjourned.

10:42 p.m. ML McConnell asked u.c. to pass H.Con.Res.86, providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President (State of the Union address). The joint resolution was agreed to.

10:40 p.m. The Majority Leader adjourned the trial until 1pm on Friday, January 31st. 

10:37 p.m. Representative Nadler responded.

10:36 p.m. Senator Klobuchar asked the House managers:

COULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND PROVIDE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THE SENATE WOULD BENEFIT FROM HEARING BEFORE WE ADJOURN FOR THE EVENING?        

10:33 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

10:28 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

10:27 p.m. Senators Merkley and others asked the House managers:

YESTERDAY ALAN DERSHOWITZ STATED A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED FOR SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN IFHE THINKS IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR COMMITTING A CRIME. AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS SAID, QUOTE, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT, END QUOTE. AREN'T THESE VIEWS EXACTLY WHAT OUR FRAMERS WARNED ABOUT, AN IMPERIAL
PRESIDENT ESCAPING ACCOUNTABILITY?
IF THESE ARGUMENTS PREVAIL, WON'T FUTURE PRESIDENTS HAVE THE
UNCHECKED ABILITY TO USE THEIR OFFICE TO MANIPULATE FUTURE
ELECTIONS LIKE CORRUPT FOREIGN LEADERS IN RUSSIA AND VENEZUELA?

10:24 p.m. Mr. Purpura responded.

10:21 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

10:20 p.m. Senator Romney asked both sides:

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WAS DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TELL THE UKRANIANS THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UPON THE CONDITION OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS?

10:15 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded.

10:15 p.m. Senators Bennet and Warner asked the House managers:

MR. SEKULOW SAID THAT IF THE SENATE VOTES FOR WITNESSES, HE WILL CALL A LONG CHAIN OF WITNESSES THAT WILL GREATLY LENGTHEN THE TRIAL. ISN'T IT TRUE
THAT THE SENATE WILL ESTABLISH BY MAJORITY VOTE WHICH AND HOW MANY WITNESSES THERE WILL BE? ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE SENATE COMMONLY HAVE HEARD WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE?

10:10 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded. 

10:09 p.m. Senator Loeffler asked Counsel:

IN JANUARY 1999, THEN-CERTAINTY JOE BIDEN ARGUED STRONGLY AGAINST DEPOSING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR SEEKING NEW EVIDENCE IN A MEMO SENT TO FELLOW DEMOCRATS AHEAD OF BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. END QUOTE.
"POLITICO" REPORTS THAT SENATOR BIDEN AGREED WITH THE RULE. WHY SHOULDN'T THE BIDEN RULE APPLY HERE?          

10:04 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

9:58 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

9:57 p.m. Senator Graham asked the President’s Counsel on behalf of himself, Senators Alexander, Cruz, Portman, Toomey, Sullivan, Murkowski

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRAHAM AND THE
           OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. ASSUMING
           FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT BOLTON WERE TO TESTIFY IN THE LIGHT
           MOST FAVORABLE TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLES OF
           IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS STILL WOULD NOT
           RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND THAT THEREFORE
           FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS HIS TESTIMONY WOULD ADD NOTHING TO
           THIS CASE?

9:53 p.m. Mr. Schiff responded.

9:52 p.m. Senator Markey asked House managers:

IT HAS
           RECENTLY BEEN REPORTED THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE HACKED THE
           UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY BURISMA, PRESUMABLY LOOKING FOR
           INFORMATION ON HUNTER BIDEN. OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS
           WARNED US THAT THE RUSSIANS WILL BE INTERFERING IN THE 2020
           ELECTION. IF DONALD TRUMP IS ACQUITTED OF THESE PENDING CHARGES
           BUT IS LATER FOUND TO HAVE INVITED RUSSIAN OR OTHER FOREIGN
           INTERFERENCE IN OUR 2020 ELECTION, WHAT RECOURSE WILL THERE BE0
          FOR CONGRESS UNDER THE DERSHOWITZ STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT,
           WHICH REQUIRES A PRESIDENT TO HAVE COMMITTED A STATUTORY CRIME?                 

9:47 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

9:46 p.m. Senator Roberts asked president’s counsel for himself and Senators Rubio, Crapo and Risch:

IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL ARE DRAMATIC AND
           CONSEQUENTIAL RESPONSES TO PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT, ESPECIALLY IN
           AN ELECTION HERE WITH A HIGHLY DIVIDED CITIZENRY. IF CHECKS AND
           BALANCES IS AN IMPORTANT -- YET CHECKS AND BALANCES IS AN
           IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE. DOES THE CONGRESS HAVE
           OTHER MEANS, SUCH AS APPROPRIATIONS, CONFIRMATIONS, AND
           OVERSIGHT HEARINGS, LESS DAMAGING TO OUR NATION?
           
           

9:41 p.m. Mr. Schiff responded.

9:41 p.m. Senator Rosen asked the House managers:

DURING THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL WITH
           AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HE INSISTED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO
           INVOLVING THE EXCHANGE OF AID IN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR
           INVESTIGATION. BUT HE ALSO SAID, ACCORDING TO SONDLAND, THAT
           THE STALEMATE OVER AID WILL CONTINUE UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
           ANNOUNCES THE INVESTIGATIONS. ISN'T THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE
           EXACT QUID PRO QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED DIDN'T EXIST?
           

9:36 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

9:35 p.m. Senator Blackburn asked counsel for the president for herself and Senators Lee and Johnson:

 WHAT
           WAS THE DATE OF THE FIRST CONTACT BETWEEN ANY MEMBER OF THE
           HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
           REGARDING THE INFORMATION THAT RESULTED IN THE COMPLAINT?
           HOW MANY TIMES HAVE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR
           STAFF COMMUNICATED IN ANY FORM WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SINCE
           THAT FIRST DATE OF CONTACT?

9:30 p.m. Mr. Schiff responded.

9:28 p.m. Senator Jones asked the House mangers for himself  and Senators Manchin and Sinema:

SO MUCH OF THE QUESTIONS AND
           ANSWERS, AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATIONS, HAVE FOCUSED ON THE
           COMPLETENESS OF THE HOUSE RECORD. SHOULD THE HOUSE HAVE
           INITIATED A FORMAL ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS WITH THE
           ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES AFTER
           THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
           THE HOUSE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT OR INSUFFICIENT TO FIND THE
           PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, WHAT DUTY, IF ANY DOES THE
           SENATE OWE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO ENSURE THAT ALL RELEVANT
           FACTS ARE MADE KNOWN IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE?

9:26 p.m. Mr. Philbin answered. 

9:25 p.m. Senator Ernst asked president’s counsel for herself and Senator Lankford:

 MEMBERS OF THE
           HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, OF WHICH
           MANAGER SCHIFF SITS AS CHAIRMAN, CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF
           DEPOSITIONS RELATED TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. ONE OF THE
           INDIVIDUALS DEPOSED WAS INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INSPECTOR
           GENERAL MICHAEL ATKINSON. HAS THE WHITE HOUSE BEEN PROVIDED A
           COPY OF HIS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT. DO YOU BELIEVE HIS
           TRANSCRIPT WOULD BE HELPFUL?
           IF SO, WHY?

9:13 p.m. The Senate recessed.

9:08 p.m. Mr. Schiff responded.

9:07 p.m. Senator Blumenthal asked House managers:

 ON APRIL 24, 2019, ONE DAY AFTER THE MEDIA
           REPORTED THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD FORMALLY ENTER
           THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT EXECUTED
           PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER TO RECALL AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH,
           A WELL-REGARDED CAREER DIPLOMAT AND ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER.
WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT, IN HIS WORDS, TO, QUOTE, TAKE HER OUT, END QUOTE?

9:01 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

9:00 p.m. Senator Hoeven asked president’s counsel for himself and Senators Boozman, Wicker and Capito:

HOUSE MANAGERS CONTEND THAT THEY HAVE AN OVERWHELMING CASE AND THAT THEY HAVE MADE THEIR CASE IN CLEAR AND CONVINCING FASHION.
DOESN'T THAT ASSERTION DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THEIR REQUEST FOR
MORE WITNESSES?

8:56 p.m. Representative Crow responded. 

8:55 p.m. Senator Brown asked House managers:

YESTERDAY YOU REFERENCED HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP PERPETUATING AND PROPAGATING
RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORIES UNDERCUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
OBJECTIVES. IF ACQUITTED IN THE SENATE, WHAT WOULD PREVENT THE
PRESIDENT FROM CONTINUING TO SIDE WITH PUTIN AND OTHER ADVERSARIES INSTEAD OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND CAREER DIPLOMATS?
AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA IF SUCH BEHAVIOR CONTINUES UNCHECKED?

8:51 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

8:50 p.m. Senator Scott and others asked Counsel:

DURING THEIR PRESENTATION, THE HOUSE MANAGERS REFERENCED CHAIRMAN GOWDY AND THE HOUSE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION. THE FINAL REPORT ON BENGHAZI FLATLY SAYS, QUOTE, THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION, END QUOTE. THAT COMMITTEE FOUGHT FOR TWO YEARS TO ACCESS INFORMATION AND OFTEN HAD INFORMATION REQUESTS IGNORED OR DENIED. THIS HOUSE INVESTIGATION, AFTER JUST THREE MONTHS ALREADY SUPPOSEDLY JUSTIFIES IMPEACHMENT. DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP OWE MORE COMPLIANCE THAN OTHER PRESIDENTS DID?

8:48 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

8:45 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

8:44 p.m. Senator Manchin asked both sides:

OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS THE QUICKLY THROUGH THEIR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHY SHOULDN'T THIS BODY HEED THEIR ADVICE AND SLOW DOWN AND AT LEAST ALLOW THE JUDGE TO RULE IN THE McGAHN CASE TO GIVE THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY AN OFFICIAL OPINION FROM THE JUDICIARY ON ARTICLE 2?

8:41 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded. 

8:40 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

8:39 p.m. Senator Rubio and others asked both sides:

IF I UNDERSTAND THE MANAGERS' CASE, THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BECAUSE HE ACTED CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF HIS ADVISORS, BUT HE IS GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BECAUSE HE ACTED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE ADVICE OF HIS
ADVISORS.

8:36 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

8:33 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded.

8:33 p.m. Senators Peters and Cornyn asked both sides:

HOW WOULD THE VERDICT IN THIS TRIAL ALTER THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES IN THE FUTURE?

8:28 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

8:27 p.m. Senator Kennedy asked Counsel:

AS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN ITS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE INVESTIGATED THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT BY FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL VIKTOR SHOKIN, THAT MR. SHOKIN, QUOTE, BELIEVES HIS
OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST IN BURISMA HOLDINGS AND HIS
CLAIM THAT HAD HE REMAINED IN HIS POST, SHOKIN SAID HE WOULD
HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN, END QUOTE. AS REPORTED ON JULY 22, 2019, IN AN ARTICLE IN  "THE WASHINGTON POST" ENTITLED "AS
VICE PRESIDENT, BIDEN SAID UKRAINE SHOULD INCREASE GAS
PRODUCTION, THEN HIS SON GOT A JOB WITH A UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY," BY MICHAEL CRANISH AND DAVID STERN.

8:25 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

8:23 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

8:22 p.m. Senator Schatz asked both sides:

CAN THE WHITE HOUSE REALLY NOT ADMIT THAT SENATOR KING'S HYPOTHETICAL WOULD BE WRONG? WE BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

8:19 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

8:18 p.m. Senator Murkowski asked Counsel:

WILL YOU EXPLAIN THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR
JOHNSON BOTH SAID THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY DENIED THAT HE WAS
LOOKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE. THE REPORTING ON
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S BOOK SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT TOLD BOLTON
DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL UKRAINE
ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT DESIRED. THIS
DISPUTE ABOUT MATERIAL FACTS WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF CALLING
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. WHY SHOULD THIS
BODY NOT CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON?

8:13 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

8:13 p.m. Senator King asked Counsel:

WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO INFORM THE PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL THAT HE WAS HOLDING CONGRESSIONAL
APPROPRIATED MILITARY AID UNLESS THE PRIME MINISTER PROMISED TO
COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND PUBLICLY CHARGE HIS OPPONENT WITH
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE MIDST OF AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN?

8:09 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded. 

8:09 p.m. Senator Blunt and others asked Counsel:

WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO
SAFEGUARD THE USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR FOREIGN AID AND WORK TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION?

7:59 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

7:59 p.m. Senator Collins and others asked the House managers:

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITHDREW ITS SUBPOENA TO COMPEL CHARLES
CURPMAN'S TESTIMONY? WHY DID THE HOUSE WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA?
WHY DIDN'T THE HOUSE PURSUE LEGAL REMEDIES TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS?         

7:53 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded. 

7:52 p.m. Senator Wyden asked House managers: 

ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE BASED ON THE DESIRE TO
ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. HOWEVER, NEW REPORTING INDICATES THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
BOLTON SHOWS THAT HE WAS GIVING PERSONAL FAVORS TO FOREIGN
LEADERS. THE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PRIVATE BUSINESS
INTEREST IN THE COUNTRY LIKE TRUMP TOWERS ISTANBUL. IT WAS NOT
DENIED THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED TREASURY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INTERVENE IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE TURKISH STATE-OWNED BANK WHICH HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF EVADING IRANIAN SANCTIONS. HAS THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF CONDUCT IN WHICH HE PLACES HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTEREST ABOVE THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES?

7:48 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

7:47 p.m. Senators Tillis and Cruz asked the House managers:

YOU HAVE BASED YOUR CASE ON THE PROPOSITION THAT IT WAS UTTERLY BASELESS AND A SHAM TO ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE CORRUPTION OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS. CHRIS HEINZ, THE STEPSON OF THEN SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY E-MAILED KERRY'S CHIEF OF STAFF THAT, QUOTE, APPARENTLY DEVON AND HUNTER BOTH JOINED THE BOARD OF BURISMA AND A PRESS RELEASE WENT OUT TODAY. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY DECIDED TO BUT THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN THEIR COMPANY. I'M SUBSEQUENTLY TERMINATED OUR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEVON AND HUNTER BIDEN BECAUSE IT SHOWED A LACK OF JUDGMENT. DO YOU AGREE WITH CHRIS HEINZ THAT WORKING WITH BURISMA WAS UNACCEPTABLE? DID JOHN KERRY OR JOE BIDEN AGREE WITH CHRIS HEINZ? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

7:45 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

7:43 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

7:42 p.m. Senator Van Hollen and Klobuchar asked both sides:

IN HIS RESPONSE TO AN EARLIER QUESTION THIS EVENING, MR. SEKULOW CITED INDIVIDUALS LIKE THE BIDENS AS BEING, QUOTE, NOT IRRELEVANT TO OUR CASE, END QUOTE. ARE YOU OPPOSED TO HAVING THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY AS THE SENATE COULD DISAGREE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING BY A MAJORITY VOTE?

7:38 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

7:37 p.m. Senator Grassley asked the President’s Counsel:

DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HE ARGUED THAT,
QUOTE, NO CIVIL OFFICER, NO PRESIDENT, NO JUDGE, NO CABINET
MEMBER HAS EVER BEEN IMPEACHED BY SO NARROW A MARGIN AND THAT
THE CLOSENESS AND PARTISAN DIVISION OF THE VOTE REFLECTED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DUBIOUS NATURE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, END
QUOTE. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS RAISED SIMILAR CONCERNS DURING THESE
PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUES THAT THE LACK OF BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS
HIGHLIGHTS THE PARTISAN NATURE OF THE CHARGES. ARE THE
PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS WELL-FOUNDED?

7:36 p.m. The Senate reconvened. 

6:39 p.m. The Senate recessed for 45 minutes.

6:37 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

6:34 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

6:34 p.m. Senators Coons and Klobuchar asked both sides:

THE HOUSE WILL GO FIRST IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR COONS AND KLOBUCHAR. MR. SEKULOW SAID EARLIER THAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD EXPECT TO CALL THEIR OWN WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL IF MR. BOLTON OR OTHERS ARE CALLED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS. CAN YOU TELL THE SENATE IF ANY OF THOSE WITNESSES WOULD HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACTIONS?

6:28 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

6:28 p.m. ML McConnell asked the President’s Counsel:

WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTION ON
BIPARTISANSHIP BY SENATOR ALEXANDER AND ANY ASSERTIONS THE
HOUSE MANAGERS MADE IN RESPONSE TO ANY OF THE PREVIOUS
QUESTIONS.

6:25 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

6:24 p.m. DL Schumer asked the House managers:

MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES ARE WORRIED THAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO BRING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THE TRIAL, IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG. MR. SCHIFF MENTIONED WE COULD DO DEPOSITIONS IN ONE WEEK. PLEASE ELABORATE. WHAT CAN YOU SAY THAT WILL REASSURE US THAT HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS CAN BE DONE IN A SHORT TIME, MINIMALLY IMPEDING THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE?

6:19 p.m. Representative Lofgren responded.

6:18 p.m Senator Alexander and others asked the House managers:

COMPARE THE BIPARTISANSHIP IN THE NIXON, CLINTON, AND TRUMP IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. SPECIFICALLY HOW BIPARTISAN WAS THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE HOUSE COMMITTEES TO BEGIN FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRES FOR EACH OF THE THREE PRESIDENTS?

6:15 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

6:14 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

6:13 p.m. Senator Baldwin asked both sides:

CAN YOU ASSURE US THAT THE JENNIFER WILLIAMS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE WAS NOT CLASSIFIED SECRET FOR ANY
REASONS PROHIBITED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 13526, SUCH AS PREVENTING EMBARRASSMENT TO A PERSON? IF YES, PLEASE DESCRIBE OR IDENTIFY THE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY DECLASSIFYING THIS DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE SAME EXECUTIVE ORDER.

6:11 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

6:08 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded. 

6:07 p.m. Senator Burr and others asked to both sides:

HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE HIRED A RETIRED FOREIGN SPY TO WORK WITH RUSSIAN
CONTACTS TO BUILD A DOSSIER OF OPPOSITION RESEARCH AGAINST HER
POLITICAL OPPONENT DONALD TRUMP. UNDER THE HOUSE MANAGERS'
STANDARD, WOULD THE STEELE DOSSIER BE CONSIDERED AS FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN A U.S. ELECTION, A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND/OR
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

6:03 p.m. Representative Crow responded. 

6:02 p.m. Senator Carper asked the House managers:

THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES AND DEFENDERS HAVE CLAIMED THAT IT IS NORMAL OR USUAL TO USE U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AS THE PRESIDENT DID TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED OUTCOME. HOW WAS THE PRESIDENT'S ACT IN WITHHOLDING U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE DIFFERENT FROM HOW THE U.S. USES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ACHIEVE FOREIGN POLICY GOALS AND NATIONAL SCIEWRPT OBJECTIVES -- SECURITY OBJECTIVES AND HOW SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT IS, QUOTE, DONE ALL THE TIME, END QUOTE?

5:58 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

5:58 p.m. Senator Inhofe asked the President’s Counsel:

EVEN IF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ARE CALLED, DO YOU EVER ENVISION THE HOUSE MANAGERS AGREEING THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR SENATE TRIAL, IF IT ENDS IN THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL?

5:52 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

5:51 p.m. Senator Warner asked the House managers:

OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERSHIP UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES THOSE EFFORTS TOWARD THE 2020 ELECTION. THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION. YESTERDAY THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAID THAT FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE COULD BE LEGAL IF IT'S RELATED TO CREDIBLE INFORMATION. DOES THIS MEAN IT IS PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ACCEPT OR ENCOURAGE RUSSIA, CHINA, OR OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO PRODUCE DAMAGING INTELLIGENCE OR INFORMATION TARGETING HIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENTS AS LONG AS HE DEEMS IT TO BE FROM CREDIBLE
INFORMATION?

5:46 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

5:45 p.m. Senator Shelby asked the President’s Counsel:

THOUGH NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, HOUSE MANAGERS AND OTHERS HAVE STATED THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED CRIMINAL BRIBERY. CAN THIS CLAIM BE RECONCILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S UNANIMOUS DECISION IN McDONNELL V. UNITED STATES?

5:41 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

5:41 p.m. Senator Warren asked the House Managers:

AT A TIME WHEN LARGE MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS HAVE LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT, DOES THE FACT THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS PRESIDING OVER AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN WHICH REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE THUS FAR REFUSED TO ALLOW WITNESSES OR
EVIDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOSS OF LEGITIMACY OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE CONSTITUTION?

5:38 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

5:37 p.m. Senators Barrasso, Risch, Young, Fischer, Young, Blunt and Capito

IS IT WITHIN A U.S. PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO PERSONALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION WITH A HEAD OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WHEN HE BELIEVES THE ESTABLISHED U.S. PROCESS HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST?

5:34 p.m. Representative Crow responded.

5:32 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

5:30 p.m. Senator Durbin asked both sides:

E-MAILS BETWEEN D.O.D., THAT BY AUGUST 12-RBGS THE PENTAGON COULD NO LONGER GUARANTEE THAT THE $250 MILLION TO D.O.D. TO UKRAINE COULD BE SPENT BEFORE IT EXPIRED. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NORQUIST DRAFTED A LETTER THAT STATED THAT THE PENTAGON HAD, QUOTE, REPEATEDLY ADVISED O.M.B. OFFICIALS THAT PAUSES BEYOND AUGUST 19 JEOPARDIZE THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO OBLIGATE USING FUNDING PRUDENTLY AND FULLY. END QUOTE. WHY DID THE PRESIDENT PERSIST IN WITH HOLDING THE FUNDS WHEN D.O.D. OFFICIALS WERE SOUNDING THE ALARM THAT THE HOLD WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW AND SHORTCHANGE
OUR ALLY OF NEEDED MILITARY AID?

5:29 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

5:26 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

5:24 p.m. Senators Graham, Cornyn, and Cruz asked both sides:

When D.O.J. INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HE SAID THEIR D.O.J. HAD A, QUOTE, LOW THRESHOLD, END QUOTE, TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AT THE HEARING SENATOR FEINSTEIN SAID, QUOTE,YOUR REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE F.B.I. HAD AN ADEQUATE PROCEED
PROCEED CAT REASON TO OPEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TIES TO RUSSIA. COULD YOU DEFINE THE PREDICATE. HOROWITZ SAID THAT IT WAS THE INFORMATION THAT THE F.B.I. GOT AT THE END OF JULY FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. END QUOTE. WHY IS THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR INVESTIGATING TRUMP SO MUCH LOWER THAN
THE STANDARD FOR INVESTIGATING BIDEN?AND WHY WAS IT OKAY TO GET THE INFORMATION FROM A, QUOTE, FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?END QUOTE. 

5:22 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

5:19 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

5:17 p.m. Senators Stabenow, Cortez Masto, and Rosen asked both sides:

IN JUNE 2019, ELLEN WINETRAB, FAIR OF THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMITTEE WROTE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO
RECEIVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL IN
CONNECTION WITH A U.S. ELECTION. THIS IS NOT NOVEL. ELECTION
INTERVENTION FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED
UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE BEGINNINGS OF OUR NATION. END QUOTE. IN
A 2007 ADVISORY OPINION, THE F.E.C. FOUND THAT CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE PROHIBITED IN FEDERAL
ELECTIONS EVEN IF, QUOTE, THE VALUE OF THESE MATERIALS MAY BE
NOMINAL OR DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN. END QUOTE. HOW VALUABLE
WOULD A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS
BE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN?

5:15 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded.

5:14 p.m. Senators Lee, Hawley, Ernst, and Braun asked Counsel:

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM SENATOR LEE AND THE OTHER SENATORS, UNDER THE ASKED EMBRACED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF N.S.A. SURVEILLANCE OR USE OF WATERBOARDING? 

5:09 p.m. Representative Demings responded. 

5:08 p.m. Senators Manchin, Gillibrand, and Schatz asked both sides:

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY TRIAL, CIVIL, CRIMINAL, OR OTHER IN WHICH YOU WERE UNABLE TO CALL WITNESSES OR SUBMIT RELEVANT EVIDENCE?

5:05 p.m. Representative Lofgren responded. 

5:03 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded.

5:01 p.m. Senators Cassidy and Risch asked both sides:

IT IS AS FOLLOWS, IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDINGS
WE SAW A VIDEO OF MANAGER LOFGREN SAYING, QUOTE, THIS IS UNFAIR
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BY THESE ACTIONS, YOU WOULD UNDO THE
FREE ELECTION THAT EXPRESSED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 1996. IN SO DOING, YOU WILL DAMAGE THE FAITH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS INSTITUTION AND IN THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
YOU WILL SET THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT THE CERTAINTY OF
PRESIDENTIAL TERMS, WHICH HAS SO BENEFITED OUR WONDERFUL
AMERICA, WILL BE REPLACED BY THE PARTISAN USE OF IMPEACHMENT.
FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL FACE ELECTION, THEN LITIGATION, THEN
IMPEACHMENT. THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WILL DIMINISH IN THE
FACE OF THE CONGRESS, A PHENOMENON MUCH FEARED BY THE FOUNDING
FATHERS, END QUOTE. WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW IF THE RESPONSE IS
THAT THE COUNTRY CANNOT RISK THE PRESIDENT INTERFERING IN THE
NEXT ELECTION, ISN'T IMPEACHMENT THE ULTIMATE INTERFERENCE?
HOW DOES THIS NOT CHEAT THOSE WHO DID AND WOULD VOTE FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
I ASK MANAGER LOFGREN TO DIRECT THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY AND TO
NOT AVOID AS MANAGER JEFFRIES DID WITH A RELATED QUESTION LAST
NIGHT.

4:56 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded.

4:54 p.m. Senators Leahy and Blumenthal asked the House managers:

"THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CLAIMED,QUOTE, IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT, END QUOTE. HE
ADDED A HYPOTHETICAL, QUOTE, I THINK I'M THE GREATEST PRESIDENT
THERE EVER WAS, AND IF I'M NOT ELECTED, THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY. THAT CANNOT BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, END QUOTE. UNDER THIS VIEW, THERE IS NO REMEDY TO PREVENT A PRESIDENT FROM CONDITIONING FOREIGN SECURITY ASSISTANCE INVIOLATION OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT ON THE RECIPIENT'S WILLINGNESS TO DO THE PRESIDENT A POLITICAL FAVOR. IF THE
SENATE FAILS TO REJECT THIS THEORY, WHAT WOULD STOP A PRESIDENT
FROM WITHHOLDING DISASTER AID FUNDING FROM A U.S. CITY UNTIL
THAT MAYOR ENDORS HIM? WHAT WOULD STOP A PRESIDENT FROM WITHHOLDING NEARLY ANY PART OF THE $4.7 TRILLION ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET SUBJECT TO HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT?"

4:48 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

4:47 p.m. Senators Sullivan, Risch, Blunt, Kennedy and Johnson asked the President’s Counsel:

GIVE THANK THE SENATE NOW CONSIDERING THE VERY EVIDENTIARY RECORD ASSEMBLED
AND VOTED ON BY THE HOUSE, WHICH CHAIRMAN NADLER HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED CONSTITUTES FOR IMPEACHMENT, HOW CAN THE SENATE BE ACCUSED OF A COVER-UP IF THE SENATE MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE EXACT SAME EVIDENTIARY RECORD THE HOUSE DID?                     

4:44 p.m. Representative Garcia responded. 

4:43 p.m. Senator Murray asked House managers:

"IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES TO OPENLY DEFYING A VALID CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA, HOW WILL CONGRESS BE ABLE TO PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE ANY ADMINISTRATION IS FOLLOWING THE LAW AND ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICAN FAMILIES?"

4:41 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

4:38 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

4:36 p.m. Senator Johnson asked on behalf of myself, Senators Hawley, Cruz, Cramer, Braun, Perdue, Barrasso, Rubio, Risch, Sullivan, Ernst, Scott of FL, Daines, and Fischer for both sides:

"RECENT REPORTING DESCRIBED TWO N.S.C. STAFF
HOLDOVERS FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTENDING AN ALL-HANDS
MEETING OF N.S.C. STAFF HELD ABOUT TWO WEEKS INTO THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AND TALKING LOUDLY ENOUGH TO BE OVERHEARD
SAYING, WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT THE
PRESIDENT. ON JULY 26, 2019, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HIRED ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS SEAN MISKO. THE REPORT FURTHER
DESCRIBES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MISKO, LIEUTENANT COLONEL
VINDMAN, AND AN INDIVIDUAL ALLEGED AS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. WHY
DID YOUR COMMITTEE HIRE SEAN MISKO THE DAY AFTER THE PHONE CALL
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND WHAT ROLE HAS HE
PLAYED THROUGHOUT YOUR COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION?"

4:32 p.m. Representative Crow responded.

4:31 p.m. Senator Menendez asked the House managers:

THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ, THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING INVESTIGATIONS FROM A FOREIGN POWER BASED PARTLY ON WHAT FIONA HILL CALLED, QUOTE, A FICTIONAL NARRATIVE PERPETRATED AND PROMULGATED BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY -- PROPAGATED BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES. END QUOTE. THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS WARNED THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY PREPARING TO ATTACK OUR ELECTION IN 2020 AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID PUBLICLY HE WOULD WELCOME FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. WHY SHOULD AMERICANS BE CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND WHY DOES IT MATTER THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS?

4:28 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

4:26 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

4:25 p.m. Senators Murkowski and Schatz asked both sides:

WOULD YOU AGREE ALMOST ANY ACTION A PRESIDENT TAKES OR INDEED ANY ACTION THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLITICIANS TAKE IS, TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER, INHERENTLY POLITICAL? WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE POLITICAL ACTIONS AND IMPEACHABLE POLITICAL ACTIONS?

4:21 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

4:20 p.m. Senator Durbin asked the House managers:

"WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS GIVEN BY PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL TO SENATOR SINEMA'S QUESTION."

4:17 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

4:15 p.m. Representative Nadler responded.

4:15 p.m. Senator Kennedy and Senator Ernst asked both sides:

"IF A PRESIDENT ASKS FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE
CORRUPTION BY A POLITICAL RIVAL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
OBJECTIVELY ARE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, SHOULD THE PRESIDENT
BE IMPEACHED IF A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT
DID IT FOR THE WRONG REASON?

4:11 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

4:10 p.m. Senator Sinema asked Counsel for the President:

"THE LOGAN ACT PROHIBITS ANY U.S. CITIZEN WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITH THE INTENT TO INFLUENCE THAT GOVERNMENT'S CONDUCT IN RELATION TO ANY CONTROVERSY WITH THE UNITED STATES. WILL THE PRESIDENT ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS WILL NOT BE DIRECTED TO CONDUCT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY OR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY AND FORMALLY DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO?"

4:04 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

4:04 p.m. Senator Crapo asked Counsel:

"HOW MANY WITNESSES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE SENATE AT THIS POINT IN THIS TRIAL? HOW MANY PAGES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE RECORD BEFORE THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL?
AND HOW MANY OTHER CLIPS AND TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL?"

3:37 p.m. The Senate recessed.

3:34 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

3:32 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

3:30 p.m. DL Schumer asked Counsel and the House managers:

"YESTERDAY I ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. SPECIFICALLY,
I ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO NAME A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR
WITNESS THAT THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY IN RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST OR SUBPOENA. MR. PHILBIN
SPOKE FOR FIVE MINUTES AND TALKED ABOUT THE VARIOUS IMMUNITIES THE PRESIDENT COULD INVOKE BUT DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. SO I ASK ONCE AGAIN, CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE WITNESS OR DOCUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? IT IS DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES, AND PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOES FIRST."

3:28 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

3:25 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

3:24 p.m. Senators Collins, Crapo, Blunt, and Rubio asked both parties:
ARE THERE LEGITIMATE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PRESIDENT COULD REQUEST A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN, INCLUDING A POLITICAL
RIVAL WHO IS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY AND HOW DO THEY APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE?

3:20 p.m. Mr. Crow responded. 

3:18 p.m Senator Duckworth asked the House Managers:

IF THE HOLD ON AID TO UKRAINE WAS MEANT TO BE KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE PRESIDENT COULD GATHER INTERNAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ON UKRAINE CORRUPTION AND EUROPEAN COST-SHARING, THEN IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THIS? FOR EXAMPLE, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
BRIEFED ON THOSE ISSUES BY THE N.S.C., DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OR STATE DEPARTMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE HOLD IN THE SUMMER OF 2019, OR ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE REQUESTED SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON ANTICORRUPTION REFORM MEASURES IN UKRAINE? PRIOR TO RELEASING THE AID ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, DID THE PRESIDENT ORDER ANY CHANGES TO ADMINISTRATION POLICY TO ADDRESS
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE OR BURDEN SHARING WITH OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES?

3:13 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

3:12 p.m. Senators Perdue, Ernst, and Grassley asked the President’s Counsel:

PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' THREE-STAGE INVESTIGATION AND HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN EACH STAGE. COMBINED WITH MANAGER SCHIFF'S REPEATED LEAKS DURING THE HOUSE'S INVESTIGATION, DO THESE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS MAKE THIS IMPEACHMENT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE?

3:08 p.m. Representative Nadler responded.

3:07 p.m. Senators Bennet, Schatz, and Menendez asked the House Managers:

IF THE SENATE ACCEPTS THE PRESIDENT'S BLANKET ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE? HOW WILL THE SENATE ENSURE THAT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OR A
FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL REMAIN TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE? HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS? AND, IN THIS CONTEXT, COULD YOU ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS A WHISTLE-BLOWER.

3:02 p.m. Mr. Herschmann responded. 

3:01 p.m. Senators Braun and Barrasso asked the President’s Counsel:

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED FROM THIS PRESIDENT, AND HE DOES NOT HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MIND. DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT CLAIM?

2:56 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

2:55 p.m. Senator Wyden asked the House Managers:

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS -- COMMUNITY IS PROHIBITED FROM REQUESTING THAT A FOREIGN ENTITY TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS ITSELF PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO. IN 2017, DIRECTOR MIKE
POMPEO'S CONFIRMATION HEARING TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, HE TESTIFIED THAT, QUOTE, IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO OUTSOURCE THAT WHICH WE CANNOT DO, END QUOTE. SO WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ESTABLISHED A LEGAL PREDICATE TO DO SO, HOW IS THAT NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER?

2:52 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded. 

2:51 p.m. Senators Scott (FL) and Braun asked the President’s Counsel:

IF SPEAKER PELOSI,CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN NADLER, AND HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE SO CONFIDENT IN THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND THE
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT PROMPTED THE INQUIRY, WHY WERE THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS DENIED THE PROCEDURAL ACCOMMODATIONS AND SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AFFORDED TO THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT? ADDITIONALLY, WHY WERE THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND AGENCY
ATTORNEYS DENIED ACCESS TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES DURING COMMITTEE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES IN DEFENSE OF THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW?

2:46 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

2:45 p.m. Senator Kaine asked the House Managers:

IF THE SENATE ACQUITS THE PRESIDENT ON ARTICLE 2 AFTER HE VIOLATED BOTH THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ACT TO HIDE THE UKRAINE SCHEME FROM CONGRESS, WHAT IS TO STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM COMPLETE REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS ON ANY MATTER?

2:42 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

2:40 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded. 

2:39 p.m. Senators Boozman, Cotton, Ernst, Young Hawley, Risch, Fischer, and Hoeven asked both sides:

IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS' OPENING STATEMENT, THEY ARGUED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT CANNOT
BE DECIDED AT THE BALLOT BOX, FOR WE CANNOT BE ASSURED THAT THE VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY WON. END QUOTE. HOW WOULD ACQUITTING THE PRESIDENT PREVENT VOTERS FROM MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

2:33 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

2:32 p.m. Senator Hirono asked the House Managers:

IN CONTRAST TO ARGUMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD UP AID TO UKRAINE TO GET HIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS. HE CLAIMED, QUOTE, WE DO THAT AWFULLY THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY. END QUOTE. QUOTE, GET OVER IT, END QUOTE. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WITHHOLDING OF AID TO UKRAINE FROM PRIOR AID FREEZES? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE WITHHELD FOREIGN AID AS A BRIBE TO EXTRACT PERSONAL BENEFITS?

2:27 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

2:25 p.m. Senators Lankford, Ernst, and Crapo asked the President’s Counsel:

"HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DESCRIBED ANY DELAY IN MILITARY AID AND STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS TO UKRAINE IN 2019 AS A CAUSE TO BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECRET SCHEME OR QUID PRO QUO BY THE PRESIDENT. IN 2019, 86% OF THE D.O.D. FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED TO UKRAINE IN SEPTEMBER, BUT IN 2018, 67% OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER, AND IN 2017, 73% OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER. IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 30, IN 2019, BUT THEY WERE OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 28 IN 2018. EACH YEAR, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN THE FINAL MONTH OR DAYS OF THE FISCAL YEAR. WAS THERE A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK TO UKRAINE OR THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FUNDS GOING OUT AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER IN THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS? DID IT WEAKEN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR AID WAS RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER EACH OF THE LAST THREE YEARS?"

2:23 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

2:20 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

2:19 p.m. Senators Reed, Duckworth, and Harris asked the both sides:

"IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT PAID RUDY GIULIANI, HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, FOR HIS SERVICES.CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHO HAS PAID FOR RUDY GIULIANI'S LEASE FEES, INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, AND OTHER EXPENSES IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY AND REPRESENTATIVE?"

2:16 p.m. Mr. Cipollone responded.

2:15 p.m. Senators Thune, Ernst, and Crapo asked the Counsel for the President:

"ON MARCH 6, 2019, SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID, QUOTE, IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH
BECAUSE IT DIVIDE THE COUNTRY, END QUOTE. ALEXANDER HAMILTON ALSO WARNED IN FEDERALIST 65 AGAINST THE, QUOTE, PERSECUTION OF AN INTEMPERAMENT OR DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT. IN EVALUATE AGO THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, SHOULD THE SENATE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTISAN NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE?"

2:11 p.m. Representative Demings responded.

2:10 p.m. Senator Cantwell asked the House managers “In his opening remarks Chairman Schiff said the Ukrainian scheme was expansive and involved many people. Is there any evidence that acting White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney, Secretary of State Pompeo, Attorney General Barr, or anyone on the outside were involved in this scheme to withhold military aid or obstruction of Congress?”

2:07 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

2:06 p.m. Senators Hawley and Lee asked the President’s Counsel “US Federal Courts have held most prominently in the Legovitz case that it is not unlawful for a public official to condition his official acts on official acts preformed by another public officer. Is there any application to the allegations against President Trump?”

2:01 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded.

2:00 p.m. Senators Brown and Wyden asked the House managers “the President’s Counsel failed to give an adequate response to a question related to whether acceptance of information provided by a foreign country to a political campaign or candidate would constitute a violation of the law and whether offers of such information should be reported to the FBI. FBI Director Ray who was appointed by President Trump has said “if any public official or member of any campaign is contacted by any nation state or anybody acting on behalf of a nation state about influencing or interfering with our election, then that is something that the FBI would want to know about, and we’d like to make sure people tell us information promptly so that we can take the appropriate steps to protect the American people.” If President Trump remains in office, what signal does that send to other countries intent on interfering with our elections in the future?

1:55 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

1:54 p.m. Senators Portman, Toomey, Crapo, Ernst, and Moran asked the President’s Counsel “I have been surprised to hear the House managers repeatedly invoke Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley to support their position, including playing a part of a video of him. Isn’t it true that Professor Turley opposed this impeachment in the House and has also said that abuse of power is exceedingly difficult to prove alone without any accompanying criminal allegation, abuse of power has never been the sole basis for a Presidential impeachment and was not proven in this case?”

1:49 p.m. Representative Crow responded.

1:48 p.m. Senator Rosen asked the House managers “over the course of your arguments, you have tried to make a case that the President put his personal interests over those of the nation risking our national security in the process. What precedent do you believe the President’s actions set for future Presidents?”

1:45 p.m. Representative Demings responded.

1:42 p.m. Ms. Bondi responded.

1:41 p.m. Senators Cruz, Hawley, and Graham asked both sides “House managers refused to answer whether Joe Biden sought any legal advice concerning his conflict of interest on Burisma. USA Today reported that when asked about it Vice President Biden said “he hadn’t spoken to his son Hunter about his overseas business.” That report was contradicted by Hunter Biden who told the New Yorker that he told his father about Burisma and his dad said “I hope you know what you’re doing. I said I do.” Did the House ask either one why their stories conflict?”

1:35 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

1:34 p.m. Senator Jones asked the House managers “aside from the House’s Constitutional impeachment authority, please identify which provisions, if any, in the House Rules or a House Resolution authorized the subpoenas issued by the House committees prior to the passage of H.Res. 660. Please list subpoenas issued after H.Res. 660.”

1:31 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

1:30 p.m. Senators Cramer and Young to President’s Counsel “Is the President the first innocent defendant not to waive his rights?”

1:24 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

1:23 p.m. Senator Tester asked the House managers “Is there any limit to the President’s quid pro quo if he thinks it’s in the national interest?”

1:21 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

1:20 p.m. Senator Toomey asked the President’s Counsel, “given that the election of the President is one of the most significant political acts in which we as citizens engage in our Democratic system, how much weight should the Senate give to the fact that removing the President from office and disqualifiying him from ever holding future Federal office would undo that Democratic decision and kick the President off the ballot in this year’s election?”

1:15 p.m. Representative Crow responded.

1:15 p.m. Senator Baldwin asked the House managers, “Counsel could not answer Senator Romney’s question that asked for the exact date the President first ordered the hold on security assistance to Ukraine, what witness or witnesses could answer Senator Romney’s question?”

1:13 p.m. Senator Paul submitted a question that the Chief Justice declined to read.

1:09 pm. Representative Lofgren responded.

1:08 p.m. Senator Murray asked the House managers to further elaborate as to why the authority controls despite any arguments brought forth by members of the Defense team contesting the validity of those subpoenas.

1:07 p.m. The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, has convened. The question and answer period will now begin and alternate between Majority and Minority sides for up to 8 hours.

****

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment at 1:00 p.m.

There are 8 hours allotted for Senators questions.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

11:05 p.m. The Senate and trial adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 30. There are 8 hours allotted for questions during tomorrow’s session. 

11:04 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded. 

11:00 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

11:00 p.m. Senators Young and Braun asked We were promised by House mangers that the evidence supporting each article of impeachment would be overwhelming and uncontested. Virtually every day House managers have insisted that the Senate cannot have a trial without witnesses. Do both parties agree that the Senate has included evidence in trial from every single witness before the vote except for the I.G. report that Chairman Schiff kept secret?

10:56 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

10:54 p.m. Senator Sinema asked The Administration notified Congress of the hold of Northern Triangle Countries’ funds in March 2019, announced its decision to withhold aid to Afghanistan in September of 2019, and worked with Congress for months in 2018 regarding funds being withheld due to Pakistan’s lack of progress meeting its counter-terrorism responsibilities. In these instances, the receiving countries knew the funds were being withheld to change behavior and further publicly stated American policy. Whey when the Administration withheld the Ukrainian security assistance did it not notify Congress or make Ukraine or partner countries publicly aware of the hold and the steps needed to resolve the hold?

10:51 p.m. Mr. Dershowitz responded. 

10:50 p.m. Senator Wicker asked You stated during your presentaiton that the House grounds for impeachment amount to the, quote, most dangerous precedent, end quote. What specific danger does this impeachment pose to our republic, to its citizens?

10:48 p.m. Majority Leader McConnell announces there are four further questions this evening.

10:48 p.m. Mr Sekulow responded.

10:47 p.m. Senator Murphy asked the President’s counsel abide by the Chief Justice’s rulings?

10:42 p.m. Mr Dershowitz responded.

10:41 p.m Senator Blunt asked on behalf of himself and Senators McSally, Gardner, Capito, Lankford, Wicker the President’s counsel what does the supermajority threshold for conviction in the Senate say about the type of case that should be brought by the House and the standard of proof that should be considered in the Senate?

10:37 p.m. Representative Crow responded. 

10:36 p.m. Senator Gillibrand along with Senators Casey, Murphy and Rosen asked the House managers how the hold by the President different than other holds and how are these types of holds supposed to work?

10:31 p.m Representative Jeffries responded.

10:30 p.m. Senator Collins asked House managers “Did the President’s actions alleged in the articles of impeachment constitute violations of the federal criminal laws and if so why were they not included in the articles.”

10:25 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

10:24 p.m. Senators Blumenthal, Warner, Heinrich and Harris asked Before the break, the President’s counsel stated that accepting mere information from a foreign source is not something that would violate campaign finance law and that it is not campaign interference to accept credible information from a foreign source about someone who is running for office. Under this view, acceptance of the kinds of propaganda disseminated by Russia in 2016 on Facebook and other platforms using bots and fake accounts and other techniques to spread disinformation would be legal and appropriate. Isn’t it true that accepting such a thing of value is, in fact a violation of law and isn’t it true that it is one of the highest priorities of our intelligence community, including the C.I.A, N.S.A. and F.B.I. to do everything possible to prevent foreign interference and intervention in our elections?

10:19 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

10:19 p.m. Senators Barasso, Risch, Hawley, and Moran asked Can the Senate convict a sitting U.S. President of obstruction of Congress for exercising the President’s constitutional authorities or rights?

10:13 p.m. Representative Lofgren responded. 

10:12 p.m. Senator Peters asked Does an impeachable abuse of power require that a President’s corrupt plan actually succeed?

10:08 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

10:07 p.m. Senator Loeffler, Cotton, Barrasso, Purdue, Fischer, and Cornyn asked As a fact witness who was coordinating with the whistle-blower, did Manager Schiff’s handling of the impeachment inquiry create material due process issues for the President to have a fair trial?

9:45 p.m. The Senate took a 15 minute break.  

9:42 p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

9:41 p.m. Senator Coons asked the President’s counsel about foreign involvement in elections and does President Trump Does President Trump agree that foreigners involvement in American elections is illegal? 

9:37 p.m. Mr Dershowitz responded.

9:36 p.m.  Senator Daines, with Senators Lankford and Hawley asked the President’s counsel how the current impeachment articles differ from previous convictions and removal by the Senate.

9:31 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

9:30 p.m. Senator Klobuchar asked I was on the trial committee for the last impeachment trial in the Senate. Which involved Judge Thomas Porteous who was ultimately removed. During that time, the Senate trial committee heard from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not previously testified in the House. What possible reason could there be for allowing 26 witnesses in a judicial impeachment trial and hearing none for a a President’s trial?

9:24 p.m. Mr. Dershowitz responded. 

9:24 p.m. Senators Rubio, McSally, Risch, and Hoeven asked How would the framers view removing a President without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and on the articles of impeachment supported by one political party and opposed by the other?

9:18 Representative Nadler responded. 

9:17 p.m. Senator King asked Mr. Rudolph Giuliani was in Ukraine on a political errand so doesn’t the President’s mention of Giuliani by name in the July 25 conclusively establish the real purpose of the call?

9:15 p.m. Representative Demings responded. 

9:13 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

9:12 p.m. Senators Hawley, Cruz, Daines and Braun asked When he took office, Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, vowed to investigate Burisma before Vice President Joe Biden pressed Ukrainian officials on corruption, including pushing for the removal of SHokin, did the White House counsel’s office or the Office of the Vice President legal counsel issue ethics advice approving Mr. Biden’s involvement in matters involving corruption in Ukraine or Shokin, despite the presence of Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, a company widely considered to be corrupt. Did Vice President Biden ever ask Hunter Biden to step down from the board of Burisma?

9:08 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

9:07 p.m. Senator Whitehouse asked White House counsel refused to answer a direct question from Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski saying he could only cite the record. Five minutes afterward House counsel read recent newspaper stories to the Senate form outside the House Record. Could you please give an accurate and truthful answer to the Senator’s question? Did the President ever mention the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine before Vice President Biden announced his candidacy in April 2019? What did the President say, to whom, and when?

9:01 p.m. Representative Garcia responded. 

9:00 p.m. Senator Murkowski asked In early October Mr. Cipollone sent a letter saying none of the subpoenas issued by the House were appropriately authorized and thus invalid. When the House passed the resolution authorizing the impeachment inquiry and granting subpoena power to the intelligence and judiciary committees, the body could have addressed the deficiency the White House pointed out and proclaimed those subpoenas as valid exercises of the impeachment inquiry. Alternatively, the House could have reissued the subpoenas after the resolution was adopted. Please explain why neither of those actions took place. 

8:57 p.m. Representative Demings responded. 

8:57 p.m. Senator Cortez Masto asked President’s counsel has claimed that the President was unfairly excluded from House impeachment processes. Can you describe the due process President Trump received during House proceedings compared to previous Presidents? Did President Trump take advantage of any opportunities to have his counsel participate?

8:54 p.m. Mr. Philben responded.

8:53 p.m. Senator Romney asked the President’s counsel on what specific date did President Trump first order the hold and did he explain the reason at the time?

8:48 p.m. Mr Nadler responded.

8:48 pm. Senator Durbin asked House managers if President Trump were to invoke executive privilege wouldnt he be required to identify the specific documents or communications that he seeks to protect?

8:44 p.m Mr Cippollone responded.

8:43 p.m. Senators Sasse, Tim Scott and Rubio asked the President’s counsel regarding the proximity of elections to future impeachments and safeguarding public trust by putting guardrails on both parties?

8:40 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

8:39 p.m. Senator Smith asked House managers if the President’s actions were so perfect why wouldn’t he allow staff to testify under oath. 

8:35 p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

8:35 p.m. Senators Moran and Cornyn asked the President’s counsel is it true that the Chief Justice can rule on the issue of production of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses?

8:31 p.m. Representative Nadler and Mr Philben responded.

8:30 p.m. Senator Warren asked both parties if Ukrainian President offered dirt on President Trump’s political rivals in exchange for handing over hundreds of millions for military aid, would that be bribery and an impeachable offense? 

8:26p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

8:25 p.m. Senator Gardner asked the President’s counsel that any assertion of protection from disclosure is indicative of guilt. Is that interpretation of the House’s impeachment power consistent with the Constitution?

8:19 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

8:18 p.m. Senator Sanders asked House managers why should we believe anything President Trump says has credibility.

8:13 p.m. Mr Philbin and Representative Jeffries responded.

8:12 p.m. Senators Risch and Cassidy asked both parties about partisan impeachments.

8:08 p.m. Mr Schiff responded. 

8:07 p.m. Democratic Leader Schumer asked House managers to respond to the answer given by the Presidents counsel.

8:05 p.m. Mr Sekulow responded. 

8:04 p.m. Senator Johnson asked the President’s counsel if House managers were certain it would take months to litigate a subpoena for John Bolton, why shouldn’t the Senate assume lengthy litigation and make the same decision the House made and reject that subpoena. 

7:58 p.m Senator Menendez asked President Trump has maintained that he withheld U.S. security assistance to Ukraine because he was concerned about corruption. Yet, his purported concern about corruption did not prevent his administraion from sending congressional appropriated assistance to Ukraine more than 45 times between January 2017 and June 2019, totaling more than $1.5 billion. So why did the President suddenly become concerned about corruption in early 2019?

7:56 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded. 

7:55 p.m. Senators Sullivan and Lankford asked There has been conflicting testimony about how long the Senate might be tied up in obtaining additional evidence. At the beginning of this trial the minority leader offered 11 amendments to obtain additional evidence in the form of documents and dispositions from several federal agencies. If the Senate adopted all of these amendments, how long do you think this impeachment trial would take?

7:54 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

7:53 p.m. Senators Merkley and Heinrich asked Please clarify your previous answer about the Bolton manuscript. What exactly did the first person on the President’s defense team first learn of the allegations and the manuscript? Secretarily, Mr. Bolton’s lawyer publicly disputes any information int he manuscript could reasonably be considered classified. What the determination to block its publication on the basis that it contains classified information made solely by career officials or were political appointees in the White House counsel’s office or elsewhere in the White House involved?

7:47 p.m. Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Herschmann Herschmann responded. 

7:47 p.m. Senators Scott, Crapo, and Graham asked House managers claim that the Biden-Burisma affair has been debunked. What agency within the government or independent investigation let to the debunking?

7:42 p.m. Representative Garcia responded. 

7:41 p.m. Senator Durbin asked Would you please respond to the answer that was just given by the President’s counsel?

7:36 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

7:35 p.m. Senators Crapo, Risch, Cruz, Braun, and Boozman asked Does the evidence in the record show that an investigation in the Burisma Biden matter is in the national interest of the United States and its efforts to stop corruption?

7:32 p.m. Representative Demings responded.

7:30 p.m. Senator Udall, Blumenthal, Leahy, and Whitehouse asked The President’s counsel has argued that Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma created a conflict of interest for his father, Joe Biden. President Trump, the Trump organization, and his family, including those who serve in the White House, maintain significant business interests in foreign countries and benefit from foreign payments and investments. By the standard the President’s counsel has applied to Hunter Biden, should Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump’s conflicts of interest with foreign governments also come under investigation?

7:27 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded. 

7:26 p.m. Senators McSally, Hawley, Hoeven, and Scott (FL) asked Chairman Schiff just argued that quote We think there is a crime here of bribery or extortion or, quote, something akin to bribery, end quote. Do the articles of impeachment charge the President with bribery, extortion, or anything akin to it? Do they allege facts sufficient to prove either crime? If not, are the House Managers’ discussion of crimes they neither alleged nor proved appropriate in this proceeding?

6:32 p.m. The Senate recessed until approximately 7:15 p.m.

6:26 p.m. Representative Schiff responded. 

6:25 p.m. Senators Cardin and Markey asked If Senate does not allow for witnesses, would a reasonable judge conclude these proceedings constitute a constitutionally fair trial?

6:21 p.m. Mr Dershowitz responded. 

6:20 p.m. Senator Shelby asked the President’s counsel: How does the ‘abuse of powers’ standard differ from the Framer’s rejection of ‘maladministration’?

6:19 p.m. Majority Leader McConnell announced a 45 minute dinner break following the next two questions.

6:17 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

6:17 p.m. Senator Warner asked House managers: Do you know about additional information related to Russia disseminating Trump’s or Giuliani’s conspiracy theories? Should Senate have this information before deliberating?

6:15 p.m. Mr Purpura responded.

6:14 p.m. Senators Hoeven with Senators Portman and Boozman asked President’s counsel: Did the Ukrainian president ever meet any of Trump’s alleged requirements in order to receieve the aid?

6:10 p.m. Representative Schiff and Mr Philbin responded. 

6:09 p.m. Senator Van Hollen asked both parties: What did Bolton mean when he referenced a ‘drug deal’ between Sondland and Mulvaney, and did he ever raise it with Trump?

6:04 p.m. Senator Burr asked the President’s counsel: House managers claim Mulvaney said at his press conference that there was a ‘quid pro quo.’ How do you respond to their view that Mulvaney supported their claims?

5:59 p.m. Mr Dershowitz and Representative Nadler responded. 

5:58 p.m. Senator Manchin asked both parties: The Framers took the words ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ straight out of English law. Senate has convicted officers for non-crimes. What has happened in the past 22 years to change the Framers’ original intent?

5:53 p.m. Representative Schiff and Mr Sekulow responded. 

5:52 p.m. Senators Perdue and Cruz asked both parties: “Are House managers refusing to tell the Senate whether the whistleblower had a conflict of interest? Unwilling to say whether he was a fact witness? Why did they refuse to transmit the inspector general transcript?”

5:47 p.m. Mr Philbin and Representative Lofgren responded.

5:46 p.m. Democratic Leader Schumer asked both parties: House managers say Trump demands absolute immunity. Can you name an instance where Trump has given access to a witness or document when requested by the House?

5:44 p.m. Ms Bondi responded. 

5:43 p.m. Senator Kennedy with Senators Moran asked the President’s counsel what did Hunter Biden do for the money that Burisma paid him?

5:38 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded.

5:37 p.m. Senator Booker asked the House managers: Does executive privilege allow a president to conceal information from Congress if the evidence cannot be obtained elsewhere?

5:32 p.m. Representative Lofgren and Mr Philbin responded. 

5:31 p.m. Senators Murkowski, Young and Crapo asked both parties what standard of proof should be used for impeachment?

5:27 p.m. Representative Jeffries responded.

5:26 p.m. Senator Hassan asked the House managers “did acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney waive Executive privilege in his press conference in which he stated there was, “political influence” in the Trump Administration’s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine?”

5:21 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

5:20 p.m. Senator Thune asked the President’s Counsel “would you please respond to the arguments or assertions the House managers just made?”

5:16 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

5:15 p.m. Senators Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Booker, Klobuchar, and Leahy asked the House managers “the missing witness rule which dates back to 1893 Supreme Court Case Graves vs. U.S. allows one party to obtain an adverse inference against the other for failure to produce a witness under that party’s control with material information. Here one party – the President – has prevented witnesses within his control from testifying or providing documents. Do the House managers believe Senators should apply the missing witness rule here? And if so, what adverse inferences should we draw about the missing testimony and documents?

5:09 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

5:08 p.m. Sentors Cruz, Moran, and Hawley asked the House managers “an August 26, 2019 letter from the Intelligence Community IG to the Director of National Intelligence discussing the so-called whistle-blower stated that the Inspector General identified some indication of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate. Multiple media outlets reported that this likely referred to the whistle-blower’s work with Joe Biden. Did the whistle-blower work at any point for or with Joe Biden? If so, did he work with Joe Biden on issues involving Ukraine and did he assist in any material way with the quid pro quo in which then- Vice President Biden admitted to conditioning loan guarantees to Ukraine on the firing of the prosecutor investigating Burisma?”

5:07 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

5:06 p.m. Senator Blumenthal asked the President’s Counsel “did anyone in the White House or outside the White House tell anyone in the White House Counsel’s office that publication of the Bolton book would be politically problematic for the President?”

5:01 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

5:00 p.m. Senators Fischer and Risch asked the President’s Counsel “Counsel has underscored the Administration’s ongoing anti-corruption focus with our allies. At what point did the United States government develop concerns about Burisma in relation to corruption and concerns with Russia?

4:56 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

4:55 p.m. Senators Harris and Murray asked the House managers “the House of Representatives is now in possession of a tape of President Trump saying of Ambassador Marie Yavanovitch, “get rid of her, get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out, okay, do it” President Trump gave this order to Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two men who carried out Trump’s pressure campaign at the direction of Rudolph Giuliani. Does the discovery of this tape suggest that if the Senate does not pursue all relevant evidence, including witnesses and documents, that new evidence will continue to come to light after the Senate renders a verdict?”

4:49 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded.

4:48 p.m. Senators Collins and Murkowski asked the President’s Counsel “Witnesses testified before the House that President Trump Consistently expressed the view that Ukraine was a corrupt country. Before Vice President Biden formally entered the 2020 Presidential race in April 2019, did President Trump ever mention Joe or Hunter Biden in connection with corruption in Ukraine to former Ukrainian President Poroshenko or other Ukrainian officials, President Trump’s cabinet members, or top aides or others? If so, what did the President say to whom and when?”

4:44 p.m. Representative Crow responded.

4:43 p.m. Senator Baldwin asked the House managers “is the White House correct in its trial memorandum and in presentations of its case that, “President Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials did not even know that the security assistance had been paused” before seeing press reports on August 28, 2019 which was more than a month after the July 25th phone call between Presidents Zelensky and Trump?”

4:37 p.m. Mr. Purpura responded.

4:36 p.m. Senator Capito asked the President’s Counsel “you said that Ukranian officials didn’t know about the pause on aid until August 28, 2019, when it was reported in “Politico.” But didn’t Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia say that members of her staff received queries about aid from the Ukranian embassy on July 25th? Does that mean that Ukranian officials knew about the Hold on aid earlier than the “Politico” article?”

4:32 p.m. Representative Lofgren responded.

4:31 p.m. Senator Feinstein along with Senators Carper, Coons, Hirono, Leahy, Tester, and Udall asked the House managers “the President has taken the position that there should be no witnesses and no documents provided by the Executive branch in response to these impeachment proceedings. Is there any precedent for this blanket refusal to cooperate and what are the consequences if the Senate accepts this position here?”

4:29 p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

4:27 p.m. Senator Ernst along with Senators Burr, Daines, Moran, Sasse and McSally, to the President’s counsel about supplying javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine.

4:24 p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

4:23 p.m. Senator Udall asked President’s counsel when did they first lean the Bolton manuscript had been submitted to the White House and have you or anyone else in the White House attempted in any way to prohibit, block, disapprove or discourage Bolton or his publisher from publishing the book?

4:20 p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

4:19 p.m. Senators Lee, Cruz and Hawley asked the President’s counsel if the alleged whistleblower fulfilled their commitment to do everything they can to take out the President?

4:14 p.m. Mr Sekulow and Representative Schiff responded.

4:13 p.m. Senator King asked both sides to respond to former Chief of Staff Kelly’s quote beliving Ambassador Bolton.

4:08 p.m. Mr Philbin responded.

4:06 p.m. Senator Inhofe, with Senators Rounds, Ernst and Wicker asked the President’s Counsel “Which would you say had the greater impact, President Trump’s temporary pause of 48 days on future aid that will now be delivered to Ukraine or President Obama’s steadfast refusal to provide lethal aid for three years while Ukraine attempted to hold back Russia’s invasion?

3:38 p.m. The Senate took a brief recess.

3:32 p.m. Representative Schiff responded.

3:31 p.m. Senator Harris asked House managers “President Nixon said “when the President does it its not illegal.” Before he was elected, President Trump said “when you’re a star they let you do it.” After he was elected, President Trump said that article 2 of the Constitution gives him “the right to right to do whatever he wants as President.” These statements suggest that each of them believed that the President is above the law, a belief reflected in the improper actions that both took to effect their re-election campaigns. If the Senate fails to hold the President accountable for misconduct, how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice?

3:26 p.m. Mr. Sekulow responded.

3:26 p.m. Senator Roberts asked Counsel “would you please respond to the arguments or assertions the House managers made in response to the previous questions”

3:21 p.m. Representative Nadler responded.

3:20 p.m. Senator Casey asked the House managers “in Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton writes that the subjects of impeachment are, “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Could you speak broadly to the duties of being a public servant?”

3:11 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded to the question.

3:11 p.m. Senator Murkowski asked the President’s Counsel “describe in further detail your contention that all subpoenas issued prior to the passage of House Resolution 660 are an exercise of invalid”

3:09 p.m. Representative Lofgren responded.

3:08 p.m. Senator Peters asked the House managers “does the phrase or other high crimes and misdemeanors from Article 2, Section 4, of the Constitution require a violation of the U.S. Criminal code or is a breach of trust sufficient?”

3:03 p.m. Representative Schiff responded to the question.

3:02 p.m. Senators Graham and Cruz asked the House managers “if President Obama had evidence that Senator Romney’s son was being paid $1 million per year by a corrupt Russian company and Mitt Romney had acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority to ask that potential corruption be investigated?

2:59 p.m. Representative Crow responded to Senators Schatz and Feinstein.

2:59 p.m. Senators Schatz and Feinstein asked the House managers “If the President were actin in the interests of national security, as he alleges, would there be documentary evidence or testimony to substantiate his claim?”

2:54 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded to Senator Cornyn.

2:53 p.m. Senator Cornyn asked the Counsel for the President “what are the consequences to the Presidency if the President’s Constitutional role as the head of the Executive branch and the advice the President can expect from his senior advisors if the Senate seeks to resolve claims for Executive subpoenas in this trial without any determination by an Article 3 court?”

2:49 p.m. Mr. Jeffries responded to Senator Carper.

2:48 p.m. Senator Carper asked the House Managers “some have claimed that subpoenaing witnesses or documents would unnecessarily prolong this trial. Isn’t it true that depositions of the three witnesses in the Clinton trial were completed in only one day each and isn’t it true that the Chief Justice, as presiding officer in this trial, has the authority to resolve any claims of privilege or other witness issues without any delay”

2:43 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded to Senator Brown.

2:43 p.m. Senator Brown “the question is directed to Counsel for the President. Given that impeachment proceedings are privileged in the Senate and largely prevent other work from taking place while they are ongoing, please address the implications of allowing the House to present an incomplete case to the Senate and request the Senate to seek testimony from additional witnesses”

2:38 p.m. Representative Schiff responded to Senator Udall’s question.

2:38 p.m. Senator Udall asked the House Managers “please address the President’s Counsel’s arguments that House Managers seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and that the decision to remove the President should be left to the voters in November”

2:32 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded to Senator Cotton’s question.

2:31 p.m. Senator Cotton on behalf of himself, Senators Boozman, McSally, Blackburn, Kennedy, and Toomey asked the President’s Counsel “did the House bother to seek testimony or litigate executive privilege issues during the month during which it held up the impeachment articles before sending them to the Senate?”

2:27 p.m. Representative Lofgren responded.

2:26 p.m. Senator Stabenow asked the House Managers “would the managers care to correct the record on any falsehoods or mischaracterizations in the White House’s opening arguments?”

2:22 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded to Senator Grassley.

2:21 p.m. Senator Grassley asked the Counsel for the President “does the House’s failure to enforce its subpoenas render its, ‘obstruction of congress’ theory unprecedented?”

2:16 p.m. Representative Schiff responded to DL Schumer’s question.

2:16 p.m. DL Schumer asked the House managers “would you please respond to the answer just given by the President’s Counsel?”

2:11 p.m. Mr. Dershowitz responded on behalf of the President’s Counsel.

2:10 Senator Cruz asked the Counsel for the President “as a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?”

2:07 p.m. Representative Demings responded to Senator Leahy’s question.

2:06 p.m. Senator Leahy asked House managers “the President’s counsel that there was no harm done, the aid was released, the President met with President Zelensky at the UN in September and that this President has treated Ukraine more favorably than his predecessors; what is your response?”

2:04 p.m. Mr Philbin answered Senator Kennedy’s question.

2:03 p.m. Congressman Jeffries answered Senator Kennedy’s question.

2:01 p.m. Senator Kennedy, on behalf of himself and Senators Blackburn and Cornyn asked both sides why didn’t the House challenge President Trumps claim of executive privilege and/or immunity during the House impeachment proceedings?

1:56 p.m. Representative Lofgren answered Senator Shaheen’s question.

1:55 p.m. Senator Shaheen asked House managers the President’s counsel has argued that the alleged conduct set out in the articles does not violate a criminal statute and thus may not constitute grounds for impeachment as high crimes and misdemeanors. Does this reasoning imply that if the President does not violate a criminal statute, he could not be impeached for abuses of power such as ordering tax audits of political opponents, suspending habeas corpus rights, indiscriminately investigating political opponents or asking foreign powers to investigate members of Congress?

1:51 p.m Mr Philbin responded to Senator Lee’s question.

1:50 p.m Senator Lee asked the White House counsel “The House managers have argued aggressively that the President’s actions contravene U.S. foreign policy. Isn’t in the Presidents place certainly more than the place of career civil servants to conduct foreign policy?

1:47 p.m Representative Crow answered Senator Feinstein’s question.

1:46 p.m Senator Feinstein asked the House managers question The Presidents Counsel stated that “there is simply no evidence anywhere that President Trump ever linked security assistance to any investigations”. Is that true?

1:41 p.m Mr Philbin responded to Senator Blackburn’s question.

1:40 p.m. Senators Blackburn, on behalf of herself, Seantors Cramer, Lee, Loeffler and McSally asked the President’s Counsel “Is the standard for impeachment in the House a lower threshold to meet than the standard for conviction in the Senate, and have the House managers met the burden to support a removal?

1:34 p.m. Representative Schiff responded to Senator Markey’s question.

1:34 p.m. Senator Markey asked the House Managers on Monday, the Democratic House never even asked John Bolton to testify, end quote. So that the record is accurate, did House impeachment investigators ask Mr. Bolton to testify.

1:29 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded to Senator Thune’s question.

1:28 p.m. Senator Thune asked to the President’s Counsel, would you please respond to the arguments or assertions the House managers just made in response to DL Schumer’s question.

1:23 p.m. Representative Schiff responded to DL Schumer’s question.

1:22 p.m. The Democratic Leader asked the House Managers, John Bolton’s forthcoming book states that the President wanted to continue withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine announced investigations into his top political rival and the debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney and the other key eyewitnesses or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence?

1:17 p.m. Mr. Philbin responded for the President’s Counsel.

1:15 p.m. The Senate convened as a court of impeachment. ML McConnell sent a question on behalf of Senators Collins, Murkowski, and Romney to the desk. This is a question for the Counsel for the President. If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1.

****

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment at 1:00 p.m.

There are 8 hours allotted for questions from Senators today, with an additional 8 hours if necessary tomorrow.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

2:54 p.m. The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, is adjourned until Wednesday, January 29th at 1:00 p.m.

2:53 p.m. ML McConnell announced that when the Senate convenes on Wednesday, January 29th, the question period for Senators will begin. The questions will alternate between Majority and Minority sides for up to 8 hours during that session of the Senate. On Thursday, January 30th, the Senate will resume questions alternating between the sides for up to 8 hours during that session of the Senate.

2:52 p.m. Mr. Cipollone concluded the President’s Counsel presentation.

2:44 p.m. The Senate reconvened and Mr. Cipollone continued the presentation.

2:18 p.m. The Senate recessed for 15 minutes.

1:35 p.m. Mr. Sekulow continued the President’s Counsel presentation.

1:07 p.m. Mr. Philbin resumed the President’s Counsel presentation.

****

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment at 1:00 p.m.

The White House counsel has approximately 15 hours and 30 minutes remaining of their allotted 24 hours.

Monday, January 27, 2020

9:02 p.m. The Senate adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 2020.

8:56 p.m. Mr Cippollone wrapped up for the President’s counsel for the evening.

7:48 p.m. Mr. Sekulow introduced Mr. Dershowitz who continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

6:57 p.m. Mr. Ray continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

5:07 p.m. Mr Herschmann continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

4:33 p.m. Mr. Sekulow introduced Ms. Bondi who continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

3:35 p.m. Mr. Philbin continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

3:17 p.m. The Senate reconvened. Ms. Raskin continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

2:53 p.m. The Senate recessed.

2:15 p.m. Mr. Purpura continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

2:11 p.m. Mr. Sekulow continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

1:15 p.m. Mr. Starr continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel.

1:09 p.m. Mr. Sekulow continued the presentation of the President’s Counsel. The President’s Counsel has approximately 22 hours and 5 minutes remaining.

1:08 p.m. ML McConnell announced the Senate is expected to hold brief recesses every few hours, with a dinner recess at approximately 6:00 pm.

1:05 p.m. The Senate convened as a court of impeachment.

*****

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment at 1:00 p.m.

The White House defense team used approximately 1 hour and 54 minutes of their allotted 24 hours on Saturday.

Saturday, January 25, 2020

12:01 p.m. The Senate adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on Monday January 25, 2020.

11:54 a.m. Mr Cippollone wrapped up the defense presentation for the day.

11:27 a.m. Mr Philbin continued the defense presentation.

10:56 a.m. Mr Sekulow continued the defense presentation.

10:18 a.m. Mr Purpura continued the defense presentation.

10:07 a.m. Mr Cippollone began the defense presentation.

10:03 a.m. The Senate convened.

The Senate will reconvene at 10 a.m. as the trial court for President Trump’s impeachment.

The president’s defense team will begin the defense presentation. The president’s lawyers are allotted up to 24 hours over the course of three days.

After adjournment today, the trial will reconvene on Monday.

Friday, January 24, 2020

8:54 p.m. The Senate and the trial adjourned until 10:00 am on Saturday, January 24.

7:47 p.m. Representative Schiff continued the managers’ presentation.

7:33 p.m. Representative Crow continued the managers’ presentation. 

6:08 p.m. Representative Jeffries continued the managers’ presentation. 

5:46 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the managers’ presentation.

5:18 p.m. Representative Nadler continued the managers’ presentation. 

5:07 p.m. Representative Demings continued the managers’ presentation.

4:49 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the managers’ presentation. 

4:20 p.m. Representative Garcia continued the managers’ presentation.

4:04 p.m. The Senate reconvened and Representative Demings continued the managers’ presentation.

3:31 p.m. The Senate recessed.

2:19 p.m. Representative Schiff continued the managers’ presentation.

1:57 p.m. Representative Crow continued the managers’ presentation.

1:26 p.m. Representative Jeffries continued the managers’ presentation.

1:10 p.m. Representative Crow continued the mangers’ presentation.

1:09 p.m. Representative Schiff began the House managers’ presentation.

1:08 p.m. ML McConnell announced the Senate is expected to hold brief recesses every few hours, with a potential dinner recess at approximately 6:30 p.m. The Senate will convene on Saturday at 10:00 a.m.

*****

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment at 1:00 p.m.

There are approximately 7 hours and 52 minutes remaining in the House managers allotted 24 hours.

Thursday, January 23, 2020

10:31 p.m. The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, is adjourned until Friday, January 24th at 1:00 p.m.

10:05 p.m. Representative Schiff continued the managers presentation.

9:26 p.m. Representative Crow continued the managers presentation.

8:52 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the managers presentation.

8:38 p.m. Representative Demings continued the managers presentation.

8:37 p.m. The Senate reconvened. ML McConnell announced an all Senators briefing tomorrow on the coronavirus.

8:19 p.m. The Senate took a brief recess.

8:00 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the managers presentation.

7:47 p.m. Representative Garcia continued the managers presentation.

7:14 p.m. Representative Jeffries continued the managers presentation.

7:13 p.m. The Senate reconvened. ML McConnell announced the Senate plans to adjourn around 10:30 p.m.

6:25 p.m. The Senate recessed for 30 minutes.

5:46 p.m. Representative Jeffries continued the managers presentation.

5:15 p.m. Representative Demings continued the managers presentation.

5:15 p.m. ML McConnell scheduled a dinner break for 6:30 p.m. for 30 minutes.

4:49 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the managers presentation.

3:27 p.m. Representative Schiff resumed the House presentation.

2:56 p.m. The trial adjourned for an afternoon break.

2:03 p.m. Representative Garcia continued the managers presentation.

1:05 p.m. Representative Schiff and Representative Nadler stated the House mangers will go through Article 1 and President Trump’s abuse of power. At the beginning of today’s session the House managers have 16 hours and 42 minutes remaining to make the presentation of their case.

1:04 p.m. ML McConnell stated plans for trial today will be much like yesterday including short breaks every two or three hours and a 30 minute dinner break.

1:00 p.m. The Senate convened as a court of impeachment for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of the United States.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

9:42  p.m. The Senate adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 23.

9:40 p.m. Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Schumer paid tribute to the outgoing Senate Pages.

9:08 p.m. Representative Schiff continued the House presentation.

8:46 p.m. Representative Lofgren continued the House presentation.

7:20 p.m. Representative Schiff continued the House presentation.

6:35 p.m. The Senate adjourned until 7:05 p.m.

5:50 p.m. Representatve Jeffries continued the House presentation.

5:25 p.m. Representative Demings continued the House presentation.

4:39 p.m. Representative Crow continued the House presentation.

4:17 p.m. Representative Garcia continued the House presentation.

3:57 p.m. The Senate reconvened and Representative Nadler resumed the House presentation.

3:27 p.m. The Senate recessed.

1:07 p.m. Manager Schiff began the 24-hour presentation of the House case against President Trump.

1:06 p.m. Majority Leader McConnell was recognized to introduce Representative Schiff. Senator McConnell said a recess will occur at about 3 p.m.

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment at 1:00 p.m.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

1:49 a.m. The Senate adjourned.

1:48 a.m. S Res 483 was agreed to 53-47.

1:40 a.m. Roll call vote began on S Res 483.

1:39 a.m The Schumer amendment #1294 was tabled 53-47.

1:34 a.m. Roll call vote began on the motion to table the Schumer amendment #1294.

1:28 a.m. Mr Schiff spoke in favor of the amendment, Mr Sekulow against.

1:27 a.m. Senator Schumer offered amendment #1294.

1:26 a.m. The Schumer amendment was tabled 52-48 with Senator Collins voting with Democrats against the tabling motion.

1:25 a.m. Roll call vote began on the motion to table the Schumer amendment #1294.

1:21 a.m. Mr Sekulow spoke against the amendment.

1:19 a.m. Mr Schiff spoke in favor of the amendment.

1:18 a.m. Senator Schumer offered amendment #1293.

1:16 a.m. Amendment #1292 was tabled 53-47.

1:12 a.m.

Roll call vote began on the motion to table the Schumer amendment #1292.

1:10 a.m. Mr Schiff responded to Mr Cippollone.

1:08 a.m. Mr Cippollone spoke against the amendment.

1:04 a.m. Mr Schiff spoke in favor of the amendment.

1:04 a.m. Senator Schumer offered amendment #1292.

1:03 a.m. The amendment was tabled 53-47.

12:56 a.m. Roll call vote began on motion to table the Schumer amendment
#1291.

12:43 a.m. Mr Nadler and Mr Schiff rebutted Mr Cippollone.

12:36 a.m. Mr Cippollone spoke against the amendment.

12:03 a.m. House manager Nadler spoke supporting Schumer amendment #1291.

12:02 a.m. Senator Schumer has made pending Amendment #1291 (To subpoena John Robert Bolton) to S.Res.483, the Organizing Resolution

12:01 a.m. The Senate tabled the Schumer amendment #1290 by a tally of 53-47.

11:55 p.m. The Senate began a vote on the motion to table the Schumer Amendment #1290 (To prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials) to S.Res.483, the Organizing Resolution.

11:50 p.m. House manager Schiff spoke supporting the Schumer amendment #1290.

11:45 p.m. Mr. Philbin and Mr. Sekulow spoke against the Schumer amendment #1290.

11:41 p.m. House manager Schiff spoke supporting Schumer amendment #1290.

11:40 p.m. The Senate reconvened.

11:19 p.m. The Senate recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

11:18 p.m. DL Schumer called up Amendment #1290 (To prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials) to S.Res.483, the Organizing Resolution.

11:17 p.m. The Senate tabled the Schumer amendment #1289 (to subpoena Robert Blair and Michael Duffey) to S. Res. 483 by a vote of 53-47.

11:11 p.m. The Senate began a vote on the motion to table the Schumer amend #1289.

11:05 p.m. Ms. Bondi spoke against the Schumer amendment #1289.

10:28 p.m. House manager Garcia spoke supporting the Schumer amendment #1289.

10:27 p.m. DL Schumer made pending Amendment #1289 (To subpoena Robert B. Blair and Michael P. Duffey) to S.Res.483, the Organizing Resolution.

10:26 p.m. The Senate tabled the Schumer Amendment #1288 (To subpoena certain Department of Defense documents and records) by a tally of 53-47.

10:23 p.m. The Senate began a vote on the motion to table the Schumer Amendment #1288 (To subpoena certain Department of Defense documents and records).

10:14 p.m. House managers Crow and Schiff spoke in favor of the Schumer amendment #1288.

10:10 p.m. Mr. Philbin spoke against the Schumer amendment #1288.

9:47 p.m. House manager Crow spoke in favor of the Schumer amendment #1288.

9:42 p.m. DL Schumer offered amendment #1288 (To subpoena certain Department of Defense documents and records) to S.Res.483, the Organizing Resolution.

9:26 p.m. The Schumer amendment was tabled 53-47. ML McConnell asked consent to as the Democratic Leader to stack votes. DL Schumer objected.

9:21 p.m. The Senate began a vote on the motion to table Schumer Amendment #1287 (To subpoena John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney)

9:00 p.m. Mr. Purpura and Mr. Cippollone spoke against the Schumer amendment #1287.

8:13 p.m. The trial reconvened. House manager Jeffries spoke on
Schumer Amendment #1287 (To subpoena John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney) to S.Res.483, the Organizing Resolution.

7:33 p.m. The Senate recessed until 8:00 p.m.

7:32 p.m. Majority Leader announced a 30 minute recess; after which debate will resume on the Schumer amendment followed by a vote on a motion to table.

7:30 p.m. Democratic Leader Schumer offered amdt #1287 regarding subpoena of Mick Mulvaney.

7:30 p.m. The Schumer amendment was tabled 53-47.

7:24 p.m. Roll call vote began on the motion to table the Schumer amendment #1286.

7:08 p.m. House managers Crow and Schiff spoke in favor of the Schumer amendment.

7:03 p.m. Mr Sekulow spoke against the Schumer amendment.

6:43 p.m. House manager Crow spoke in favor of Schumer amendment #1286.

6:39 p.m. ML McConnell announced following debate and a vote on a motion to table this amendment, the Senate will take a 30 minute recess for debate.

6:33 p.m. Democratic Leader Schumer offered amendment #1286, regarding subpoenas of OMB documents and records.

6:32 p.m. The Schumer amendment was tabled 53-47.

6:24 p.m. Roll call vote began on motion to table the Schumer amendment #1285.

6:03 p.m. Mr Cippollone and Mr Sekulow spoke against the Schumer amendment.

5:16 p.m. The trial reconvened. House Manager Demings spoke for Schumer Amendment #1285.

4:48 p.m. The Senate stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair. Leader McConnell suggested a 10-minute recess, followed by debate on the second Schumer amendment to the organizing resolution.

There will be up to two hours of debate on Schumer Amendment #1285 (to subpoena certain State Department records). A roll call vote will follow on tabling the amendment.

4:42 p.m. By a party line vote of 53 to 47, the Senate tabled the Schumer amendment.

4:32 p.m. Vote began on the motion to table Schumer amendment to S. Res. 483, the organizing resolution for the impeachment trial.

4:26 p.m. Mr. Schiff spoke.

4:24 p.m. Ms. Lofgren spoke.

4:09 p.m. Patrick Philbin spoke on behalf of the president, against the Schumer amendment.


3:28 p.m. House Manager Lofgren spoke for the Schumer amendment.

3:17 p.m. The trial reconvened. House Manager Schiff spoke for the Schumer Amendment (#1284, to subpoena certain White House records).

2:50 p.m. The Senate has recessed subject to the call of the chair (15 minutes).

2:20 p.m. Senator Schumer sent amendment #1284 to S.Res.483 to the desk.

2:27 p.m. Mr. Cipollone spoke on S.Res. 483.

2:16 p.m. Mr. Sekulow gave opening remarks.

1:29 p.m. Representative Schiff gave opening remarks.

1:26 p.m. Mr. Cipollone, Counsel of the President, gave opening remarks.

1:21 p.m. Majority Leader McConnell sent S.Res. 483, a resolution to provide for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United States, to the desk and there will be 2 hours debate equally divided between the House managers and the President’s counsel. Senator Schumer is expected to offer a first-degree amendment to the resolution, which is subject to up to two hours of debate equally divided between the House managers and the President’s counsel. A short recess is expected following that debate and then Senator McConnell is expected to make a motion to table the first Schumer amendment.

12:45 p.m. Senator Schumer spoke about impeachment.

12:02 p.m. Senator McConnell spoke about impeachment.

*****

The Senate will convene at 12:30 p.m.

Following Leader remarks, the Senate will recess subject to the call of the Chair.

At 1:00 p.m., the Senate will sit as a court of Impeachment.

Pages:12»