This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/politics/donald-trump.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Impeachment Trial Highlights: Last Day of Arguments for Trump’s Defense Impeachment Trial Highlights: Trump’s Lawyers Confront Bolton Allegations and Conclude Defense
(about 2 hours later)
As more details surfaced from a manuscript by John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, Republicans began the day in damage-control mode with just hours left for President Trump’s defense lawyers to make their case. “This should end now, as quickly as possible,” Pat Cipillone, one of President Trump’s lawyers, said just before 3 p.m. on Tuesday, bringing an abrupt close to the defense team’s arguments not to remove Mr. Trump from office.
New details about Mr. Trump’s motivations regarding Ukraine, described in a manuscript of Mr. Bolton’s upcoming book, have undercut one of the defense’s key arguments and are adding pressure for the Senate to allow new witnesses into the trial. In brief remarks, Mr. Cipillone spoke about the damage wrought by partisanship in an appeal to the closely divided Senate to acquit Mr. Trump.
The latest disclosure from the Bolton manuscript describes anxiety among some of the president’s closest advisers over concerns that Mr. Trump was granting personal favors to foreign autocrats. “It will show that we can come together on both sides of the aisle and end the era of impeachment for good,” he said. “You know it should end. You know it should.”
Adding to the pressure, the president’s former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, said that he believed Mr. Bolton’s accounts. Though in session for only less than two hours, the defense argued a day longer than they had planned. Senators will now have 16 hours over two days to question the lawyers in writing, instead of just one very long session. And a vote on whether to allow witnesses is expected on Friday.
Mr. Kelly, speaking to an audience in Florida, said that he believed the revelations in the book and that the Senate should call witnesses in the impeachment trial. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bolton overlapped at the White House during much of 2018. It is all part of a plan to tamp down the frenzy from revelations disclosed in an unpublished manuscript by the president’s former national security adviser, John R. Bolton.
The Democrats would need to secure at least four Republican defectors to approve hearing new testimony. The Senate would then hold separate votes on each potential witness. For the first time since details from Mr. Bolton’s manuscript were disclosed by The Times on Sunday, the president’s defense took direct aim at the allegations in the book that have racked Republicans. Jay Sekulow, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, spent a significant amount of the defense’s final session arguing that these accounts should be disregarded.
Mr. Bolton has said he would comply with a Senate subpoena to testify during the trial. “You cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation,” Mr. Sekulow said.
Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said he was recommending that the White House turn the Bolton manuscript over to senators who can review it in a classified setting “and see for ourselves if there is anything significant.” Republicans have been in damage-control mode, as more details surfaced from the book by Mr. Bolton, which he said he shared with the National Security Council at the end of last year. It is standard practice for manuscripts like Mr. Bolton’s to go through a review process to protect against the disclosure of classified information.
On Monday before the start of the trial, Republicans were so concerned about the potential fallout from the Bolton disclosures that the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, told them to take a deep breath at a private lunch before the trial resumed.
Details about Mr. Trump’s motivations regarding Ukraine, described in the manuscript, have undercut one of the defense’s key arguments. Another account described anxiety among some of the president’s closest advisers over concerns that Mr. Trump was granting personal favors to foreign autocrats. All of which piled on pressure for the Senate to allow new witnesses into the trial.
Mr. Sekulow called John Bolton’s claims “inadmissible” but did not directly deny them.
Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said on Tuesday he was recommending that the White House turn the Bolton manuscript over to senators who could review it in a classified setting “and see for ourselves if there is anything significant.”
Seeing the manuscript six weeks from now is not sufficient, Mr. Lankford told CNN, because senators have to vote on whether to hear witnesses in just a few days.Seeing the manuscript six weeks from now is not sufficient, Mr. Lankford told CNN, because senators have to vote on whether to hear witnesses in just a few days.
“This needs to be a part of our information so we can make that decision about witnesses,” Mr. Lankford said.“This needs to be a part of our information so we can make that decision about witnesses,” Mr. Lankford said.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, expressed his support.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, expressed his support.
“It makes perfect sense to me,” Mr. Graham said Tuesday. “I don’t know if it’s achievable, but that would be a solution of voluntary choice by the White House.”“It makes perfect sense to me,” Mr. Graham said Tuesday. “I don’t know if it’s achievable, but that would be a solution of voluntary choice by the White House.”
The defense is expected to hammer the point that House Democrats fell down on the job and did not present a strong enough case for impeachment. Adding to the pressure for Republicans, the president’s former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, said that he believed Mr. Bolton’s accounts.
“The managers have not met their burden, and these articles of impeachment must be rejected,” one of the president’s lawyers, Eric Herschmann, told senators Monday. Mr. Kelly, speaking to an audience in Florida, said that he believed the revelations in the book and that the Senate should call witnesses in the impeachment trial. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bolton overlapped at the White House during much of 2018.
Much of the president’s defense has centered on poking holes in the House managers’ arguments and turning the Democrats’ accusations about attempts to interfere in the 2020 election back on them. Mr. Bolton has said he would comply with a Senate subpoena to testify during the trial.
Mr. Trump lashed out at Fox News on Tuesday for airing an interview with Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, whom Mr. Trump described as “the no name Senator from Maryland.” With the close of oral arguments, senators now have the opportunity to ask questions — but only in writing. Starting Wednesday, senators will submit written questions for the House managers and the president’s defense team through Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial. The chief justice will read the questions to the lawyers, alternating between submissions from Democrats and Republicans for up to 16 hours over a course of two days.
Fox News has long held the prize for being the president’s favorite news network. Senators are expected to vote on whether to hear new witnesses on Friday. The Democrats would need to secure at least four Republican defectors to approve hearing new testimony.
“So, what the hell has happened to @FoxNews,” Mr. Trump wrote in a pair of tweets Tuesday morning. “Watch, this will be the beginning of the end for Fox, just like the other two which are dying in the ratings. Social Media is great!” When the session ended on Tuesday, lawyers from the prosecution and the defense shook hands, as Democratic and Republican senators, in an unusual display of harmony, breathed a sigh of relief that they could once again talk in their own chamber.
Once the president’s lawyers conclude their arguments that Mr. Trump should not be removed from office, senators will submit written questions for the House managers and the president’s defense team through Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial. The chief justice will read the questions to the lawyers, alternating between submissions from Democrats and Republicans. As soon as Mr. Trump’s legal team finished its oral arguments against removing the president from office, Republicans raced to a room near the Senate floor to decide whether to call witnesses — a step that most of them hope to avoid — but reached no consensus.
The senators can ask questions to seek clarification as well as strategically compose questions that are more likely to yield answers favorable to their side. Senators have 16 hours for that process. The senators could then vote on whether to hear from new witnesses. The move could prolong the trial and muddle what until recently had seemed to be a smooth march to a speedy acquittal of the president.
“It was a serious family discussion,” Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota, said as he emerged from Tuesday’s session. “Some people are sincerely exploring all the avenues because they are still uncommitted.”
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah is the only Republican to have publicly called for witnesses and has said he wants to hear from Mr. Bolton. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has also said she would most likely vote for witnesses. Two other Republicans, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, have expressed openness to the idea, but both were noncommittal after reports about Mr. Bolton’s manuscript, in which he said that Mr. Trump refused to release congressionally allocated military aid to Ukraine until the country furnished information about his political rivals.
Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana, said the group had broken up with no agreement on what to do.