The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
» House impeachment managers, Trump’s lawyers questioned before witness vote,
Back-and-forth continues in Senate as crucial decision looms on whether more evidence will be heard.
WASHINGTON — Senators reconvened Thursday for a second day of questions to House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s lawyers ahead of a crucial vote expected today on whether to call witnesses to testify about the president’s conduct toward Ukraine. What happened today
Democrats are pressing to call witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other leading Republicans do not want to extend the proceedings into unpredictable territory and are angling for a swift acquittal of Trump.
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.
With a pivotal vote on summoning additional evidence expected today, multiple Republican senators said they want to see a quick end to the Trump impeachment trial if that vote fails.
That could mean not only no additional witnesses, but no closing statements from the House managers or the White House defense, and no private deliberations among senators before moving to a verdict.
“I personally have heard enough,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D. “For me, I don’t believe we have to (go into closed deliberations)... . I’m ready to vote.”
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the decision would ultimately depend on the wishes of a majority of senators: “If 51 say we’ve heard enough, we can move to that final vote.”
Democrats bristled at the possible sudden end of the trial after today’s witness vote.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., called it a further betrayal of GOP promises to adhere to the Clinton precedent.
“I think a rush to judgment without any debate among senators — I think it will say to the American public this whole thing was a sham,” he said.
About Rand Paul’s question
Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul, in which the Kentucky Republican sought to name a person who conservative media outlets have alleged is the whistleblower whose anonymous complaint launched the impeachment inquiry.
“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said of Paul’s question, which also included the name of a member of House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff ’s staff.
Paul has repeatedly demanded the media unmask the whistleblower.
Federal whistleblowers are offered limited protections from retaliation.
After Thursday’s ruling, Paul stood up, gathered his papers and walked out of the Senate chamber to address reporters.
Meanwhile, four Republican senators, led by Susan Collins of Maine, asked both sides whether there were any “legitimate” reasons a president could ask a foreign government to “investigate a U.S. citizen, including a political rival, who is not under investigation by the U.S. government?”
Schiff, D-Calif., replied he couldn’t think of one. “It would be hard for me to contemplate circumstances where that would be appropriate, where it would be appropriate for the president of the United States to seek a political investigation of an opponent,” he said.
Schiff added that it may be appropriate for the Justice Department “acting independently and in good faith” to do so, noting there exists a protocol for that.
What if there’s a tie?
In a private lunch before the trial, Senate Republicans discussed the possibility of Roberts breaking a tie if there’s a 50-50 vote on calling witnesses, according to Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind..
“There was discussion about the scenarios of what might happen if there’s a 50-50 vote,” he told reporters. “There’s a lot of uncertainty in terms of what happens with the presiding officer, especially being the chief justice... . At that point, he’s got the prerogative of the chair.”
Such a ruling would be historic, particularly given past justices’ decisions to stay neutral in impeachment trials and act more as a referee. Senate Republicans hope that Roberts, in such a situation, would not rule at all - and since there are not 51 votes to call witnesses, would then allow the chamber to move to acquittal.
If Roberts does rule, Braun said the chamber could try to overrule him but noted that it would take 51 votes.