President Donald Trump's defense lawyers on Monday presented the thurst of their defense against the president, undermining the testimony of key witnesses as well as raising questions about the conduct of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
The defense team has also attacked the impeachment proceedings themselves, arguing a lack of due process and accusing House managers of trying to interfere in this year's election.
They also largely avoided an explosive report that alleges former national security adviser John Bolton says in an unpublished book that the president personally tied aid for Ukraine to an investigation into the Bidens — an account that conflicts with the president's.
Highlights from the impeachment trial
- Trump impeachment defense team turns attention to Bidens, Burisma.
- Dershowitz says 'nothing' impeachable about Bolton allegations.
- Trump lawyer suggests Ukraine call wasn't quite perfect.
Trump lawyer suggests Ukraine call wasn't quite perfect
Robert Ray made a point in his speech that Trump could have most likely avoided impeachment if he had gone through proper channels in “attempting to spur action by a foreign government in coordinating law enforcement efforts with our government.”
“While the president certainly enjoys the power to do otherwise, there is a consequence to that action as we have now witnessed. After all, that is why we are all here,” Ray said.
The trial resumes with Robert Ray
At 18:56:07 the trial resumed.
Sekulow said that Robert Ray will speak, and then Alan Dershowitz will conclude their arguments for today. Dershowitz will be the final speaker for the WH defense today. We should expect them to go straight through to the end without a break.
For dinner Republicans had Chick-fil-a, and Democrats had Thai food.
Schiff says 'of course' Dems weren't behind Bolton leak
Schiff made a brief statement rebutting some of the claims the president's lawyers just made in the past two hours.
He spent some time rebutting the claims having to do with Hunter Biden and Rudy Giuliani. He mentioned Bolton and said he hopes we will hear from him and he added that there seems to be a “real shift” from Senate Republicans in terms of witnesses.
"At the end of the day, the senators cannot hide from a relevant witness who will come forward," Schiff said.
Schiff also responded to allegations from Rep. Mark Meadows that House Democrats were involved in leaking the Bolton manuscript by saying "of course not."
What's next for Trump's defense
The trial has paused for a brief dinner break. In the meantime, here's the latest on Trump's defense team:
What to watch for tonight
Alan Dershowitz appears to have arrived on the Hill, an indication he will likely deliver his presentation after the dinner break. It’s possible the defense team goes a little into Tuesday as we haven’t seen some of the expected presenters yet (like Robert Ray), but based on our most recent timing guidance, it is very unlikely to be a long day. We continue to work sources for timing guidance and will advise when we know more. If the defense arguments drip into tomorrow, Hill team advises the rules allow the senator Q&A session to begin once the defense team wraps.
What the president is saying today
Asked about the manuscript and the chances Bolton is called to testify, the president said: “Well, I haven't seen a manuscript. But I can tell you nothing was ever said to John Bolton, but I have not seen a manuscript. I guess he's writing a book, I have not seen it.” And when asked about the allegations, the president said simply: “False!”
What the Bolton world is saying today
One of his aides is denying any coordination “with The New York Times or anyone else regarding the appearance of information about his book, THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED, at online booksellers. Any assertion to the contrary is unfounded speculation,” per Sarah Tinsley.
What if the White House were to try to stop Bolton from testifying?
Probably not very well. Here's why.
In the usual fights between Congress and the White House, Congress demands the testimony of an administration official and the White House says no, claiming executive privilege. In such a situation nothing happens — there's no testimony — unless a judge orders the official to testify. So Congress waits while the issue grinds its way through the courts: Without a court ruling, there's no testimony.
But Bolton is not an administration official, and he has said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. So he would be free to do that unless a court blocks it. The legal process, again, would take time. So this is the opposite scenario: Without a court ruling, he's free to testify.
There's potentially a bigger issue. In 1992, a federal judge from Mississippi, Walter Nixon, was impeached and convicted for lying to a grand jury that was investigating bribery. Nixon challenged his Senate conviction, arguing that the Senate improperly heard the witnesses in committee instead of on the Senate floor. He said that violated the Constitution's requirement that the Senate must "try" all impeachments. No witnesses on the floor, he said, means no trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously tossed his case out, ruling that the courts cannot second-guess how the Senate conducts impeachments because the Senate has the "sole power" to try them. The courts "were not chosen to have any role in impeachments," the ruling said. Letting the courts into the process would "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos."
For that reason, federal courts might be reluctant to entertain any lawsuits challenging Senate impeachment proceedings
'Debunked,' 'discredited,' 'a fountain of falsehoods': Biden campaign, citing newspapers, slams Trump team's attack
Andrew Bates, the Biden campaign's rapid response director, slammed the argument Pam Bond delivered Monday on the Senate floor, saying in a statement: "We didn't realize that Breitbart was expanding into Ted Talk knockoffs. Here on planet Earth, the conspiracy theory that Bondi repeated has been conclusively refuted. The New York Times calls it 'debunked,' The Wall Street Journal calls it 'discredited,' the AP calls it 'incorrect,' and The Washington Post fact checker calls is 'a fountain of falsehoods.' The diplomat that Trump himself appointed to lead his Ukraine policy has blasted it as 'self serving' and 'not credible.' Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory. It's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump."
Pence's chief of staff says he didn't hear Trump tie aid to Biden investigations
Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short said in a statement Monday that he never heard Trump tie military aid to Ukraine to investigations into the Biden family or Burisma.
“In every conversation with the president and the vice president in preparation for our trip to Poland, the president consistently expressed his frustration that the United States was bearing the lion’s share of responsibility for aide to Ukraine and that European nations weren’t doing their part," Short said in the statement, released by the vice president's office. "The president also expressed concerns about corruption in Ukraine. At no time did I hear him tie aid to Ukraine to investigations into the Biden family or Burisma."
Short added, “As White House counsel presented today, based upon testimony provided by Democrat witnesses in the House hearings, these were the only issues that the vice president discussed with Ukrainian officials — because that’s what the president asked him to raise.”
During a recent interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani and a key player in the Ukraine saga, alleged that Pence had canceled his trip to the inauguration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last year because Ukraine hadn’t announced investigations into Biden and his son Hunter. He also said Pence was aware of the push for the investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens, which Pence has denied.
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.