This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/28/trump-impeachment-john-bolton-witnesses-chuck-schumer

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
John Bolton revelations raise chances of witnesses in Trump impeachment trial Trump lawyers dismiss Ukraine scandal and urge swift end to impeachment trial
(about 3 hours later)
Chuck Schumer compares ‘drip, drip, drip’ of news to Watergate as defense lawyers are set to conclude opening statement on Tuesday Legal team says president had ‘policy dispute’ – before telling senators not to ‘lower the bar of impeachment’ by voting to convict
The “drip, drip, drip” of revelations from a forthcoming book by the former national security adviser John Bolton has raised the possibility that witnesses will be called in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Lawyers for Donald Trump concluded their opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday, dismissing objections to Trump’s conduct towards Ukraine as “policy disagreements” and warning senators not to “lower the bar of impeachment” by voting to convict the president.
The defense team briefly grappled with charges reportedly appearing in an unpublished manuscript written by former national security adviser John Bolton that Trump had conditioned security aid for Ukraine on the delivery of personal political favors.
Even if Trump did that, his lawyers said, it would not be impeachable. But reports about the Bolton book were in any case “inadmissible” as evidence, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow argued, owing to the secondhand nature of those reports.
“You cannot impeach a president based on an unsourced allegation,” Sekulow said. “Responding to an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says – if you want to call that evidence, I don’t know what you want to call that – I’d call that inadmissible.”
A two-thirds majority of voting senators is required to convict Trump. An acquittal, much more likely, could be voted on as early as Friday. In the final visible hurdle remaining between Trump and acquittal, senators planned to vote, also on Friday, on whether to call witnesses in the case.
But if Sekulow’s argument sounded like a call for Bolton to come and testify, that was an aberration from the strong posture of the defense team against witnesses and in favor of ending the trial as quickly as possible.
The White House was reportedly spreading the word to senators on Tuesday that calling Bolton or other witnesses would result in a court battle that would prolong the trial indefinitely. Republican senators were to meet on Tuesday afternoon to discuss strategy for the next phase of the trial, a two-day question period in which queries submitted by senators in writing will be read aloud by the chief justice, John Roberts, who is presiding.
It is still far from certain that witnesses including Bolton will testify, but since Sunday night, when Bolton’s manuscript was first reported, some more moderate Republican senators have voiced openness to the prospect, a sticking point for congressional Democrats in the impeachment trial.It is still far from certain that witnesses including Bolton will testify, but since Sunday night, when Bolton’s manuscript was first reported, some more moderate Republican senators have voiced openness to the prospect, a sticking point for congressional Democrats in the impeachment trial.
“Certainly a few days ago [the chance of witnesses being called] was zero and now it’s something,” Republican strategist Rob Jesmer told the Guardian. “I think that will massively prolong the trial.”“Certainly a few days ago [the chance of witnesses being called] was zero and now it’s something,” Republican strategist Rob Jesmer told the Guardian. “I think that will massively prolong the trial.”
On Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers were due to conclude their opening argument in the Senate trial, made after the House managers put their case. In a Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday, 75% of registered voters responding said that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial, versus 20% who did not want witnesses. Support for witness testimony included 49% of Republicans.
As senators headed back into the chamber, it was clear that Bolton’s book was not a one-day story.
Congress was still digesting the news, reported by the New York Times on Sunday, that Bolton says Trump told him he wanted to keep withholding nearly $400m of security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate political rivals including former vice-president Joe Biden and his family.Congress was still digesting the news, reported by the New York Times on Sunday, that Bolton says Trump told him he wanted to keep withholding nearly $400m of security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate political rivals including former vice-president Joe Biden and his family.
On Monday night, the New York Times returned to the well, reporting that in the forthcoming book The Room Where It Happened, Bolton writes that he told the attorney general, William Barr, he was concerned Trump was doing personal favors for autocratic foreign leaders.On Monday night, the New York Times returned to the well, reporting that in the forthcoming book The Room Where It Happened, Bolton writes that he told the attorney general, William Barr, he was concerned Trump was doing personal favors for autocratic foreign leaders.
News of Bolton’s book has spurred some more moderate Republican senators – Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine – to signal openness to supporting the calling of witnesses. Doing so could extend the length of the trial, contrary to the wishes of the White House and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. News of Bolton’s book has spurred some more moderate Republican senators – Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine – to signal openness to supporting the calling of witnesses.
On Tuesday, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said the “drip, drip, drip” of information from Bolton’s manuscript was “reminiscent of Watergate”, the scandal that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon.On Tuesday, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said the “drip, drip, drip” of information from Bolton’s manuscript was “reminiscent of Watergate”, the scandal that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon.
Schumer also told reporters: “Mitch McConnell and President Trump wanted a very short and rushed trial. The longer it goes on, the more likely that more new evidence will come out that further implicates the president.” Sekulow found another construction to describe the impeachment proceedings in his closing statement on Tuesday: “Danger, danger, danger.”
He said reports about Bolton’s book “should be a warning to every Republican in the Senate: if you vote with the White House to suppress and cover up evidence, the odds are strong that the truth will eventually come out”. He said: “To lower the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that constitution for generations.
“To have a removal of a president based on a policy dispute? That’s not what the framers intended.”
While Trump’s lawyers have painted Trump’s alleged efforts to force the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into Biden as a “policy”, Democrats have argued it amounted to election tampering, with the goal of providing Trump with a means to smear his potential 2020 rival.
“The fact that President Trump and his legal team do not understand why it violates the Constitution for the president to solicit aid from a foreign power for personal gain does not immunize him from impeachment and removal,” tweeted the Michigan congressman Justin Amash, a former Republican turned independent.
Trump’s defense team could be pressed during the next question period of the trial to explain why not hearing from Bolton personally is preferable to calling Bolton, who has pre-emptively agreed to testify, as a witness.
The Oklahoma Republican James Lankford proposed that senators be allowed to read Bolton’s book manuscript in a sensitive compartmentalized information facility –commonly known as a Scif – before deciding whether witnesses should be called. In an interview with CNN, he said the question needed to be resolved “in a couple of days”.The Oklahoma Republican James Lankford proposed that senators be allowed to read Bolton’s book manuscript in a sensitive compartmentalized information facility –commonly known as a Scif – before deciding whether witnesses should be called. In an interview with CNN, he said the question needed to be resolved “in a couple of days”.
Cesar Conda, a former chief of staff to Marco Rubio of Florida who was also a Senate staffer during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, told the Guardian: “Senator Lankford’s proposal … should relieve pressure on GOP senators to vote to call witnesses.”Cesar Conda, a former chief of staff to Marco Rubio of Florida who was also a Senate staffer during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, told the Guardian: “Senator Lankford’s proposal … should relieve pressure on GOP senators to vote to call witnesses.”
On both sides of the aisle, strategists remain unsure about the consequences of Trump’s impeachment trial. Both Democrats and Republicans have tried to avoid appearing motivated by partisan gamesmanship. On Monday night, however, the Iowa Republican senator Joni Ernst pointed to the potential effect on Biden’s presidential campaign.
“[The] Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening,” Ernst told reporters at the Capitol. “And I’m really interested to see how this discussion … informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Dem[ocratic] caucus goers. Will they be supporting VP Biden at this point?”
Jesmer said an extended trial would hurt both parties.Jesmer said an extended trial would hurt both parties.
“I think the Democrats view this as a zero-sum game and that’s good for them and bad for the GOP and I think that’s not true at all. I think ultimately it’ll be bad for both,” he said.“I think the Democrats view this as a zero-sum game and that’s good for them and bad for the GOP and I think that’s not true at all. I think ultimately it’ll be bad for both,” he said.
“The longer it goes on, the worse it is for both parties. Swing voters don’t care. You can’t find a poll that says they care. The hardcore partisans are the only ones who care.“The longer it goes on, the worse it is for both parties. Swing voters don’t care. You can’t find a poll that says they care. The hardcore partisans are the only ones who care.
“I just think whether it’s Democrats running for president or Republicans running for re-election, everyone wants this over with.”“I just think whether it’s Democrats running for president or Republicans running for re-election, everyone wants this over with.”