Senators finally got to break their silence. (Sort of.)
Welcome back to the Impeachment Briefing. Today we finally heard from senators in the Senate chamber — sort of. |
- Alternating between parties, senators spent the day questioning the House Democratic managers and President Trump’s lawyers. The questions were at turns highly partisan, wonky and leading. They were about the definition of obstruction, the meaning of executive privilege, the history of security aid to Ukraine, Hunter Biden and the whistle-blower whose complaint prompted the impeachment inquiry.
- In their responses, the White House team offered their most expansive defense of the president to date. One of their lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, effectively argued that a president could not be removed from office for demanding political favors if he believed his re-election was in the national interest. “If the 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,” he said.
- The real action seemed to be outside the Senate chamber, as Republicans worked furiously to line up votes against hearing new witnesses. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and other Republicans indicated they were gaining confidence that they would be able cobble together the 51 votes necessary. “We’ve always known it will be an uphill fight on witnesses and documents, because the president and Mitch McConnell put huge pressure on these folks,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, acknowledged today.
- The vote on witnesses is expected Friday. If it goes Mr. McConnell’s way, Republicans could move to take a vote on acquitting Mr. Trump, and the entire impeachment saga could quickly come to a close.
|
 | | Doug Mills/The New York Times |
|
I was inside the Senate chamber today to watch the question-and-answer session, another one of impeachment’s elaborate routines: Senators would stand up, take the small microphone clipped to the bottom of their desks, and announce that they had a question. |
A Senate page — the high school helpers who carry out tasks — would then retrieve a slip of paper with the question, snake their way through the chamber and hand the paper to a Senate employee, who would pass it to Chief Justice John Roberts to read aloud. |
Surrounded by stacks of papers, the White House lawyers or House managers would confer for about 10 seconds, their staffers scribbling furiously on sticky notes and legal pads, before the designated respondent rose to deliver a five-minute answer. |
For the president’s side, it was often Patrick Philbin, a deputy counsel to Mr. Trump. For the managers, it was regularly Representative Adam Schiff. In most instances, they would have highlighted documents or color-coded binders to refer to. |
Here’s a sampling of what was asked. |
Did anyone tell the White House Counsel’s Office, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked, that John Bolton’s book would be politically problematic? Mr. Philbin said that no one did, but that they knew Mr. Bolton was “disgruntled.” |
Isn’t it the president’s place to set foreign policy, Mike Lee, a Republican, asked. “If his staffers disagree with him, that does not mean that he is doing something wrong,” Mr. Philbin responded. |
What did Hunter Biden do for the money he got from Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, John Kennedy, a Republican, asked. He attended several board meetings, Pam Bondi, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said. |
Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, asked whether Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, waived executive privilege when he admitted there was political influence in the decision to withhold security assistance from Ukraine. Absolutely, replied Hakeem Jeffries, a House manager. |
Mitt Romney, a Republican, asked what day Mr. Trump first ordered the hold on aid, and what the reason was. Mr. Philbin said the exact date was unclear, but that July 3 was when officials knew about it. |
At what point did Mr. Trump decide that Ukraine needed to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, asked Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both Republicans. Mr. Philbin didn’t answer directly. |
“Given the media has documented President Trump’s thousands of lies while in office — more than 16,200 as of Jan. 20,” Bernie Sanders, a Democrat, asked, “why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?” Mr. Schiff chuckled. “I’m not quite sure where to begin with that question,” he replied. |
Marsha Blackburn, a Republican, asked: “Is the standard for impeachment in the House a lower threshold to meet than the standard for conviction in the Senate?” Yes, Mr. Philbin answered, controversially. |
How Republicans are explaining ‘no’ votes |
A day ago, there was serious momentum toward senators voting to hear from new witnesses, compelled by news reports about Mr. Bolton’s book manuscript. But a private meeting that Senate Republicans held after yesterday’s closing arguments revealed that Mr. McConnell was eager to shut down that prospect. |
Two key senators announced their no votes today: |
Cory Gardner of Colorado is trying to hang on to his seat in an increasingly blue state, and even he said he didn’t need to hear new evidence. “I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” he said in a statement, referring to the number of witnesses called in the House inquiry. |
Martha McSally of Arizona, also standing for election in a swing state, said she would vote against calling new witnesses. “After two weeks in the Senate, 13 witnesses, and 28,000 pages of evidence,” Ms. McSally wrote on Twitter, “I have heard enough. It is time to vote.” |
1. Gathering evidence was the House’s job. |
2. Calling more witnesses would lead to prolonged court fights over executive privilege. |
3. They had heard more than enough evidence to reach a verdict. |
4. There was not enough evidence to show they needed more information. |
5. Allowing the House to force the Senate into a drawn-out trial would set a dangerous institutional precedent. |
I called Carl and asked him to elaborate. |
Carl, how did we so suddenly get to the point where even Democrats think this could all wrap up in the next several days? |
CARL: There’s a lot of internal pressure on the wavering Republicans to vote against witnesses. Their colleagues are telling them that if you open that door, we’re going to be stuck here for weeks. We already know the outcome. Why would you go through that? |
How did Mr. McConnell wield his power this week? |
CARL: He’s using their frustration with being stuck in the Senate chamber to get to his desired end. They want to be able to come and go as they please and look at their phones when they want. |
He was also serious about a plan. He got everybody in a room and told them they didn’t have the votes, and that he needed them. At the same time, he knew they had time. He told everyone take a deep breath and not get carried away. He had Lisa Murkowski in his office today. He gave Susan Collins the first question today to show everyone they had her interests in mind. There are a lot of little strategic moves. The rank-and-file members also talk among themselves and come up with talking points. It’s coordinated but still a little organic. |
In the Senate chamber today, I was struck by how he didn’t appear to take a single note. He didn’t seem to be in deep consideration of the arguments. He just stared at the presenters. What is he thinking at this point? |
CARL: He’s determined to just get through this. Things weren’t falling into place, so he stepped up his efforts. We need to act like the Senate, he’s thinking, but we’re going to plow through this. He doesn’t need to refer to notes. |
What else we’re following |
- The White House sent a letter last week to Mr. Bolton warning him against publication of his upcoming book, two White House officials said. The letter, which was signed by a National Security Council official, showed that the White House was determined to shield at least parts of the manuscript from the public.
- Representative Eliot Engel, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said today that Mr. Bolton told him last year that his committee should look into the Trump administration’s recall of Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, suggesting it might have been “improper.”
- Much has been made of the few moderate Republicans who might vote to hear witnesses. But there were signs of cracks in the Senate Democratic caucus today. Doug Jones of Alabama suggested that he might vote to acquit Mr. Trump on the obstruction of Congress charge, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia said he thought that Hunter Biden might be a relevant witness.
- My colleague Emily Cochrane wrote about how senators, barred from bringing phones into the Senate chamber, have been taking notes on the trial — a craft carried out with felt-tip pens, notepads purchased at Office Depot and a sparkly pink notebook. Senator Susan Collins, for instance, writes on her legal pad the date, the name of the person speaking, their main points, any direct quotes that struck her as significant, inconsistencies she noticed and potential questions to ask.
|
| I’m eager to know what you think of the newsletter, and what else you’d like to see here. Email your thoughts to briefing@nytimes.com.Did a friend forward you the briefing? Sign up here. |
| You can unsubscribe through the link at the bottom of this email, and it won’t affect your regular Morning Briefing subscription. |
