Senators facing perilous witness question
Impeachment trial rests with decision
WASHINGTON — For the past two weeks, senators have spent long hours listening to arguments and questioning both sides in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, which is heading methodically for an all-but-certain acquittal of the president by the Republicancontrolled chamber.
Yet senators must face one last, politically perilous question Friday: whether to end the trial without calling any witnesses or obtaining any documents. Two Republican senators late Thursday announced their decisions on witnesses — one yes and one no.
The debate over witnesses boils down to what constitutes a fair trial in the grave court of impeachment.
And, for moderate senators, the disagreement over witnesses distills all the complications of an unprecedented impeachment case against a president, one that involves a tangled web of alleged motivations, fact disputes, accusations of corruption and election interference — all while debating the original intent of the 232-year-old U.S. Constitution.
Both the House Democrats prosecuting the case and the White House defense lawyers have warned senators their vote on witnesses will establish a dangerous new precedent for future impeachment trials.
Defense lawyers for Mr. Trump have argued repeatedly that the House Democrats have a weak case that was rushed through without the proper investigatory work required by a fair impeachment proceeding.
The Democrats’ case significantly lowers the burden of proof and will further “our era of impeachment,” in the words of Kenneth Starr, an attorney for Mr. Trump whose own investigation prompted the 1999
impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.
By asking for witnesses, the House is telling the Senate: “Please do the work we didn’t do,” White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone said Thursday. “We want you to call witnesses we never called.”
The House Democrats claim the evidence they collected over a 12-week impeachment inquiry last fall clearly proves Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing.
The Democrats also compared the Senate impeachment trial to any other criminal courtroom in which witness testimony is the norm — especially if the judge or jury needs more information.
They pointed to past impeachment trials of both presidents and judges. The most recent Senate impeachment trial — which resulted in the conviction of Thomas Porteous, a Louisiana judge — heard from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom did not testify in the House.
Rep. Adam Schiff, DCalif., who has led Mr. Trump’s prosecution and who was involved in Mr. Porteous’ impeachment trial, called for the Senate to “give the country a trial they can be proud of.”
“The case for witnesses in a presidential impeachment where, on the one side, you remove a president or, on the other side, you leave in place a president who may pose a continuing risk to the country,” Mr. Schiff said, “is far more compelling to take the time to hear from witnesses than a corrupt Louisiana judge.”
In Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial, the Senate voted to call three witnesses, taking private depositions over a period of six days. Those witnesses were called even after a yearslong investigation by Mr. Starr, which was handed to the Republicancontrolled House of Representatives in 1998.
A key difference in Mr.
Trump’s trial: There was no yearslong investigation by an independent counsel. The House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, launched the inquiry in September and gathered evidence over constant objections from the Republican minority.
The White House stonewalled subpoenas for documents and blocked witnesses from testifying. The Democrats pushed forward on the case, believing the 2020 presidential election was under threat by Mr. Trump’s actions.
Public support for witnesses has been high.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll published last week showed about 72% of Americans believe the Senate should vote to call witnesses. That survey, conducted Jan. 17-22, showed 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans supported witnesses.
This week, an appetite for witnesses grew among some Republican senators after leaked details of an upcoming book from John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. Mr. Bolton’s book, entitled “The Room Where It Happened: A
White House Memoir,” reportedly stated the president froze nearly $400 million in military aid specifically to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens.
Pennsylvania’s senators were split — as they have been throughout the impeachment process — on whether to call witnesses.
During a break in the questioning on Friday, Republican Sen. Pat Toomey told Fox News he was “absolutely certain” the impeachment trial does not require witnesses.
The House Democrats “have alleged actions that you cannot impeach a president for,” Mr. Toomey said. “Even if someone believes that everything John Bolton says is going to confirm what’s charged in these articles, it’s still not impeachable.”
Mr. Toomey was never likely to vote for witnesses. He set a high bar for himself, he told reporters earlier in the week. He would vote for a witness only if “there is a fact in dispute that a witness can shed enough light on that it could resolve the dispute — and do so in a way that could change my mind about how I’m going to vote on the final question” of acquittal or removal.
Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, has called for witnesses weeks before the trial began.
“I think the American people expect us to be rigorous and thorough,” Mr. Casey told reporters Thursday. “I hope Republicans would make this determination about relevant witnesses and relevant documents based upon their oath, which is to do impartial justice.”
Even a deal that would allow each party to call an equal number of witnesses, it could fall apart if Democrats resist calling Hunter Biden, who Republicans want to testify, in exchange for Mr. Bolton.
Hunter Biden is “not a relevant witness,” Mr. Casey said. The White House’s arguments that Hunter Biden’s position on a Ukrainian energy firm could have been subject to a legitimate investigation have been “debunked,” he said.
Friday’s session could decide whether the trial lasts one more day or some more weeks.
On Thursday, questioning wrapped up with no sign that any of the key Republicans who could sway a vote on witnesses were persuaded by House Democrats’ arguments.
In fact, four closely watched moderate Republicans — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee — posed questions seemed to be aimed at gathering arguments against calling witnesses. Ms. Collins later tweeted a statement that she would vote to call witnesses. Mr. Alexander said he will vote no on calling witnesses.
In the final hour, Ms. Murkowski and Mr. Alexander joined a pointed question: Even if Mr. Bolton were to testify, “isn’t it true that the allegations [against Mr. Trump] would not rise to an impeachable offense” and that Mr. Bolton’s “testimony would add nothing?”
The question, also joined by Mr. Toomey, prompted the White House lawyers to reiterate their view that Mr. Bolton would not be a relevant witness. Mr Schiff responded: “the truth is staring us in the eyes,” Mr. Schiff said. “We know why they don’t want John Bolton to testify. They don’t want the American people to hear it in all its ugly and graphic detail.”
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Romney asked about “any evidence that anyone was directed by the president to tell the Ukrainians” the military aid was conditioned on an investigation into the Bidens.
Mr. Schiff responded that Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had both admitted to the president’s motivations. White House lawyers argued there was no evidence.
The starkly different arguments will be on senators’ mind when they convene Friday.