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.