The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
First question in new phase is from Senators most likely to vote to hear witnesses,
Democrats make case for witnesses; moderate Republicans question defense.
WASHINGTON — A new phase of President Donald Trump’s historic impeachment trial began Wednesday, with senators posing questions to the House managers and the president’s attorneys about Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. What happened today
Debate continues outside the chamber over whether to call witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton. In a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told colleagues that he doesn’t yet have the votes to block witnesses.
Trump faces charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The crux of the case for his impeachment is the allegation that he withheld military aid and a White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son. Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president. Bolton’s upcoming book — which the White House has moved to rework — is said to detail the White House-Kyiv interaction.
Wednesday’s first Senate question came from GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, the three most likely Republicans to vote to allow witnesses.
They wanted Trump’s counsel to explain how they should consider abuse of power if the president had “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.”
White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin argued that if there were a motive “of the public interest, but also some personal interest,” then it “cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense.”
He continued by arguing that as soon as there’s any evidence of public interest motive, the case fails, because every politician is going to have some personal political interest in mind.
“All elected officials to some extent have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions will affect the next election. There’s always some personal interest in the electoral outcome of policy,” Philbin said.
Why Bolton is sought
Earlier Wednesday, Romney told reporters what he wanted to hear from witnesses, such as Bolton.
“For instance, I’d like to know at the time the president decided not to immediately provide military aid to Ukraine, what was the reason he explained at that point,” Romney said. “In addition, I’d like to know a little later on, was there any effort on the part of the president to communicate to Ukraine that aid was being held up and for what reason. Or was that something they just learned from the media?”
He continued: “So these are questions that would relate to important issues that I’d like to get the answers to.”
In a follow-up to Philbin’s initial argument, Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. submitted a question about witnesses, asking House managers if there is “any way to render a verdict in this case” without hearing from Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead House impeachment manager, said the “short answer to that question is: No.”
“There’s no way to have a fair trial without witnesses,” Schiff said.
Constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s defense team, said before the Senate convened Wednesday that there should not be witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Dershowitz told reporters that his view on witnesses flows from the larger argument he advanced earlier in the trial — which has been embraced by a number of GOP senators — that the allegations against Trump do not constitute impeachable offenses.
“If there’s no impeachable charges, then it follows that you don’t have witnesses,” Dershowitz said. “It would be as if somebody were indicted for something that weren’t a crime. You don’t call witnesses; you get it dismissed.”
Dershowitz also argued that every president believes his interest and the public interest combine, and such quid pro quo’s made in one’s political interest are not necessarily corrupt.
“It cannot be impeachable if it’s a mixed motive that combines personal interest and the public interest,” Dershowitz told them.
Why Biden might be relevant
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told MSNBC on Wednesday that Hunter Biden is a relevant witness, a view at odds with fellow Democrats.
“You know, I think so. I really do,” Manchin said during an appearance on MSNBC. “I don’t have a problem there because this is why we are where we are. Now I think that he can clear himself, what I know and what I’ve heard. But being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong no matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican.”
Other Democrats have argued that Hunter Biden has no direct knowledge of Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine and that his appearance would be designed to hurt his father politically as he seeks the presidency.