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
9:53 p.m. Mr. Schiff responded.
9:52 p.m. Senator Markey asked House managers:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.