Bondi attacks Bidens on Burisma in presentation
Trump defense lawyer Pam Bondi began her presentation Monday afternoon by highlighting what President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate — former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Bondi, a former attorney general of Florida, noted that the Democratic House managers's trial brief said claims made about the Bidens are baseless. “Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?” Bondi asked. “The reason they needed to do that is because they are here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern."
Democrats, she claimed, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no basis for Trump to have raised concerns about the Bidens. She then discussed how the former vice president was tasked with dealing with corruption in 2014 just before Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of the natural gas company Burisma.
Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, have alleged that Joe Biden used the prospect of U.S. financial support to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor in 2016, because the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was investigating Burisma and allegedly Hunter Biden. Shokin was widely believed to be soft on corruption, however, and the United States and other Western countries had called for his removal. The country's Parliament ultimately voted to remove Shokin.
Bondi read a quote from a Washington Post article that said, “The appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.”
There's little evidence, however, that the former vice president acted to help his son. This year, Bloomberg News reported that the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."
Dem aide offers point to counter defense's 'high crimes' assertion
A Democratic aide working on the impeachment trial provided a fact check of Trump's defense team's claim that "high crimes and misdemeanors” must be criminal violations.
Response: Every principle of constitutional interpretation rejects that view. President Trump’s conduct constituted the highest of high crimes against our country in abusing his power.
- The Constitution does not require that an offense be a crime in order for it to be impeachable. Alexander Hamilton explained that impeachable offenses are defined fundamentally by “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” They are “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
- The framers were acutely aware of the dangers of foreign influence in American elections. Explaining why the Constitution required an impeachment option, James Madison argued in part that a president “might betray his trust to foreign powers."
- There has been no dispute about this fact in prior impeachments. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., when he served as a House manager during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, said: “It doesn’t have to be a crime. It is just when you start using your office and you are acting in a way that hurts people, you have committed a high crime.”
Trump lawyer Raskin: Giuliani is the House managers' 'colorful distraction'
Jane Raskin, one of Trump's defense lawyers, opened her argument by accusing the House impeachment managers of resorting to using Giuliani as a “colorful distraction” to take away from the idea that “both the law and the facts” were not on their side.
"Well, we've heard the House managers do some table-pounding and a little yelling," Raskin said, referring to an aphorism about what lawyers should do when the facts and law are against them. "But in the main, they've used a different tactic here, a tactic familiar to trial lawyers: If both the law and the facts are against you, present a distraction; emphasize a sensational fact or perhaps a colorful and controversial public figure who appears on the scene, then distort certain facts, ignore others, even when they're the most probative, make conclusory statements and insinuate the shiny object is far more important than the actual facts allow.”
“In short,” she continued, “divert attention from the holes in your case.”
“Rudy Giuliani is the House managers' colorful distraction,” she said.
'I have nothing to defend. This is all a game,' Biden says
Former Vice President Joe Biden told reporters while on the campaign trail in Cedar Falls, Iowa, that if he were still a senator, he would demand that John Bolton testify given the reporting on what he writes about the Ukraine saga in his upcoming book.
Asked if he should testify as his own best witness, Biden said: “I have nothing to defend. This is all a game.”
Biden added, "There is no one [who] said I'd done anything that was wrong, period. What is there to defend? The reason he's being impeached is because he tried to get a government to smear me and they wouldn't. Come on."
Sekulow says no witness tied investigations and aid. Bolton revelations allege link
Arguing before the Senate on Monday, Sekulow listed as noteworthy one of the Trump legal team's "six facts" about the president's efforts in Ukraine.
Sekulow said that "no witness" testified to a direct link between the investigations Trump wanted Ukraine to announce and the withholding of nearly $400 million in aid to the country.
However, ex-national security adviser John Bolton reportedly would say just that if the Senate voted in favor of calling him to testify before the trial. He reportedly alleges in his upcoming book that Trump linked the two things — Ukraine aid and an investigation into Democrats, including the Bidens — in an August conversation with him, which the president has denied doing.
Several other Trump administration witnesses testified that they believed there was a link between the aid and the investigations Trump sought.
Starr slams House Democrats for denying Trump 'basic rights' during impeachment process
Former independent counsel Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton, slammed House Democrats in arguments for Trump's legal defense Monday morning, saying they had denied Trump “basic rights.”
Trump, Starr said, was “denied the basic rights that have been afforded to every single accused president in the history of the Republic, even to the racist Andrew Johnson, seeking to undo Mr. Lincoln's great legacy."
Republicans have repeatedly argued that Trump was denied due process during the House impeachment inquiry.
Starr, who was speaking generally about the history of impeachment, accused House Democrats of having "chose to conduct a wholly unprecedented process in this case.”
“They did so knowingly and deliberately,” he said.
Moments later, Starr added that the two articles of impeachment against Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — “come before this court, this high court of impeachment, dripping with fundamental process violations."
'Torture,' 'excruciatingly boring': Starr blasted for opening with long discussion of history of impeachment
Former independent counsel Ken Starr has been speaking for more than 30 minutes about the history of impeachment.
Quoting centuries-old law school deans and what he dubbed the “Rodino Rule,” and citing the minutiae of the Iran-Contra scandal and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, Starr, despite a 30-minute-plus discussion so far, has yet to mention Trump by name. His lecture is beginning to attract the ire of its watchers — even among Trump allies.
Ken Starr, former Clinton investigator, laments 'age of impeachment'
Ken Starr, a member of Trump's legal team who served as the independent counsel investigating former President Bill Clinton, lamented that the U.S. is now in the "age of impeachment."
"In this particular juncture in America's history, the Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently," Starr said. "Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the 'age of impeachment.'"
"How did we get here, with presidential impeachment invoked frequently in its inherently destabilizing as well as acrimonious way?" he asked.
Starr said that "like war, impeachment is hell, or at least presidential impeachment is hell."
GOP Sen. Murkowski says she's 'still curious' about what Bolton might say
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Monday that she was "still curious" to hear what ex-national security adviser John Bolton could say in testimony following the reported revelations in his upcoming book.
“I’ve said before I’m curious about what Ambassador Bolton might have to say," Murkowski said. "I’m still curious.”
In a written statement, Murkowski said, “I stated before that I was curious as to what John Bolton might have to say. From the outset, I’ve worked to ensure this trial would be fair and that members would have the opportunity to weigh in after its initial phase to determine if we need more information. I’ve also said there is an appropriate time for us to evaluate whether we need additional information —that time is almost here. I look forward to the White House wrapping up presentation of its case.”
Fellow moderate Republican Sens. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins also said Monday that the Bolton revelations strengthen the case for calling witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial.