Schiff: DOJ lawyer argued in court Thursday that House can impeach if subpoenas are ignored
Schiff drew laugher after he referred to an exchange that took place in federal court Thursday.
"We’ve been debating whether a president can be impeached for essentially bogus claims of privilege for attempting to use the courts to cover up misconduct” and after the Justice Department has resisted House subpoenas," Schiff said.
"So the judge says, 'Well if the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there?'" said Schiff.
"And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is: 'Impeachment. Impeachment.' You can’t make this up," said Schiff, drawing laughter from senators in the chamber.
Who's paying Rudy? Giuliani's compensation brought up in Senate trial
Democratic Sens. Jack Reed, Tammy Duckworth and Kamala Harris asked who is paying Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, whose legal work for the president is unpaid.
Reuters has reported that Giuliani's indicted associate Lev Parnas paid Giuliani $500,000 for consulting related to Parnas' firm. Parnas and another indicted associate, Igor Fruman, worked with Giuliani in Ukraine as part of his efforts there.
Schiff said, "I don't know who's paying Rudy Giuliani's fees," but "if other clients are paying and subsidizing his work in that respect, it raises profound questions."
Sekulow responded by pointing at Hunter Biden sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company when his father oversaw Ukraine policy in the Obama administration, adding, "and you're concerned about what Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer, was doing when he was over trying to determine what was going on in Ukraine?"
Bondi, Demings get fired up
The energy in the chamber seems flatter on Thursday. Several senators were absent shortly after the proceedings began, and the press and public galleries have lots of empty seats.
That changed, however, when White House lawyer Pam Bondi got up to take a friendly question on the Bidens. After getting criticized online for fumbling through her large binder on Wednesday, Bondi took the podium with just two pages of notes, including Sharpie bullet points, which she read through at a much higher volume than most senators have done.
In rebuttal, Rep. Val Demings seemed fired up, too, and repeatedly looked directly at Bondi during her response.
During an answer from Schiff about subpoenas, and when and how they were issued, both Sens. Collins and Murkowski appeared very engaged, listening and taking notes.
Rand Paul criticizes Roberts for rejecting his question, saying it didn't refer to whistleblower
Sen. Rand Paul criticized Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday after he refused to read Paul's question out loud, apparently because it included the name of the person right-wing media alleges is the whistleblower who set off the impeachment inquiry.
Paul, a Kentucky Republican, read the question — and the person's name — at a news conference held after he walked out of the president's impeachment trial following Roberts' decision.
Paul, who has repeatedly called for the whistleblower to be identified publicly, claimed he wasn't trying to out the whistleblower with his question, which asked if the person in question had a close relationship with a House committee staffers and had "worked together to plot impeaching the president."
"I think this is an important question, one that deserves to be asked, and makes no reference to anybody who may or may not be a whistleblower," Paul said.
Paul said he thought Roberts made "an incorrect finding" by failing to read the question, which he'd wanted both House managers and White House lawyers to respond to.
When NBC News asked if he should be attending the trial, Paul said: "Yeah, I will be there very shortly. Thanks for the question."
John Tye, CEO of the nonprofit law office Whistleblower Aid, issued a statement saying: “Senator Paul’s effort to out the whistleblower is reckless and intended to distract and intimidate, not educate. Attaching any name to the identity the whistleblower, whether accurate or not, puts the named individual at tremendous personal risk.”
Dershowitz challenges critics to a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate
Schiff says Dershowitz argument amounts to 'normalization of lawlessness'
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead House manager in the impeachment trial, said an argument made by Dershowitz amounted to the "normalization of lawlessness" and said the Senate trial has witnessed "a descent into constitutional madness" over the past few days.
Dershowitz faced intense backlash Thursday over an eye-opening argument he made against impeaching his client.
Dershowitz argued Wednesday that if a president engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement for his or her own political benefit, it is not impeachable because all politicians believe that their elections are in the public interest.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he said during the first day of the question-and-answer period of the trial.
Schiff said a lawyer only makes an argument like that "because you know your client is guilty and dead to rights."
"That is an argument made of desperation," he said.
Chief justice refuses to read Rand Paul question
Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read the second question of the day at the president's impeachment trial, which came from a Republican senator who's tried to out the whistleblower who raised red flags about the president's July phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart.
"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted," Roberts said after looking at the question from Sen. Rand Paul, of Kentucky, who'd reportedly tried to get a similar question read on Wednesday.
Immediately after Roberts’ decision, Paul stood and left the chamber.
Politico reported that Roberts had let senators know on Wednesday he would not read questions naming or identifying the whistleblower, whose lawyers have said has been subject of death threats.
A spokesman for Paul, Sergio Gor, tweeted earlier Thursday that Paul planned to keep pushing.
"Senator Paul will insist on his question being asked during today’s trial. Uncertain of what will occur on the Senate floor, but American people deserve to know how this all came about ..." Gor tweeted.
Lofgren: Trump team's rationale for declining to comply with subpoenas an 'excuse'
The first question Thursday was about the House subpoenas in the impeachment investigation. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., answered that the White House argument that the subpoenas were invalid "is wrong" and "an excuse."
Trump's legal team has said the administration did not comply with subpoenas because they were authorized before the House took a full vote to open the impeachment investigation. Lofgren said that under House rules, they did not need such a vote to launch the investigation. She also said several judges have been impeached without a full House vote launching a probe.
The legal team's rationale for not complying is "just an excuse about President Trump's obstruction."
Trump "refused to comply before the [full] House vote and after the House vote," Lofgren said, pointing to Trump saying that he was determined to fight all the subpoenas.
'Nonsense,' 'preposterous,' 'absurd': Critics lecture Prof. Dershowitz about trial remarks
Alan Dershowitz faced intense backlash Thursday over an eye-opening argument he made against impeaching his client.
Dershowitz argued Wednesday (and then defended at length on Thursday) that if a president engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement for their own political benefit, it is not impeachable because all politicians believe that their elections are in the public interest.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he said during the first day of the question-and-answer period of the Senate impeachment trial.
So if Trump withheld nearly $400 million in aid to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations of Democrats to help his campaign, the retired Harvard law professor said it wasn't an impeachable offense because Trump thinks his election would be to the country's benefit. Therefore, his motive was not corrupt.
The backlash to that legal analysis was furious.
Read the story.