pbs--2020-01-24--WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff says Trump 'is who he is'

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Democratic House prosecutors launched their final arguments Friday at Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial arguing the president will persist in abusing the power of his office ahead of the 2020 election unless Congress intervenes to remove him from office .
“ He is who he is , ” Rep. Adam Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , told senators , accusing Trump of putting the U.S-Ukraine relationship on the line in a way that benefited Russia just so he could take a political ” cheap shot ” at Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that in office , ” Schiff said .
“ You know it ’ s not going to stop .
It ’ s not going to stop unless the Congress does something about it.
” As Democrats pressed their case before skeptical Republican senators for a third day , the president ’ s legal team was preparing for his defense , expected to start Saturday .
Trump , eyes on the audience beyond the Senate chamber , bemoaned the schedule in a tweet , saying “ looks like my lawyers will be forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Death Valley in T.V.
” The Senate jurors faced another long day Friday armed with pens and paper — and , for Republicans , the gift of fidget spinners — for the historic trial .
The president is being tried in the Senate after the House impeached him last month , accusing him of abusing his office by asking Ukraine for politically motivated probes of political foe Biden and Biden ’ s son while withholding military aid from a U.S. ally that was at war with bordering Russia .
The second article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe .
Republicans have defended Trump ’ s actions as appropriate and are casting the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken him in his reelection campaign .
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate , and acquittal is considered likely .
The Senate is heading next week toward a pivotal vote on Democratic demands for testimony from top Trump aides , including acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would take four Republican senators to join the Democratic minority to seek witnesses , and so far the numbers appear lacking .
“ This needs to end , ” said Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , a Trump confidant .
He said he doesn ’ t want to hear from Bolton or the Bidens .
With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding , Friday ’ s arguments opened with Democrats wrapping up their presentation on the first article of impeachment , abuse of power , before turning to the second , obstruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words of the late Republican Sen. John McCain to explain to senators why Trump ’ s decision to block the military aid to Ukraine was so “ disturbing , ” as Schiff put it .
It wasn ’ t just a policy dispute , Schiff argued , but “ one hell of a Russian intelligence coup ” as Trump chased “ kooky ” theories about Ukraine pushed by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that benefited Vladimir Putin at U.S. expense .
“ This is Trump first .
Not America first , ” Schiff declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s motives were apparent , that he abused power like no other president in history , swept up by a “ completely bogus ” Ukraine theory pushed by Giuliani .
Schiff made an emotional plea for senators to consider what was at stake .
“ Let me tell you something .
If right doesn ’ t matter , it doesn ’ t matter how good the Constitution is , ” Schiff told a pin-drop-quiet room .
“ If you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s abuse was for his own benefit ahead of the 2020 election , even as the nation ’ s top FBI and national security officials were publicly warning off the theory that it was Ukraine , not Russia , that interfered in the 2016 election .
The Democrats ’ challenge is clear as they try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year .
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not , 45 % to 40 % .
But a sizable percentage , 14 % , said they didn ’ t know enough to have an opinion .
One issue with wide agreement : Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial .
About 7 in 10 respondents said so , including majorities of Republicans and Democrats , according to the poll .
After both sides have concluded their arguments next week , senators will face the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
But that issue has seemed all but settled .
Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides , including Bolton and Mulvaney , to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week .
As for the Ukraine connections , evidence has shown that Trump , with Giuliani , pursued investigations of Biden and his son , Hunter , who served on a Ukrainian gas company ’ s board , and sought the probe of the debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election .
It ’ s a story line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still pushing .
Giuliani , in an appearance Friday on “ Fox & Friends , ” insisted he would present evidence on his new podcast of “ collusion going on in Ukraine to fix the 2016 election in favor of Hillary ” Clinton .
Democrats , in their Senate prosecution , seemed to be anticipating arguments expected from the president ’ s defenders .
“ We will be putting on a vigorous defense of both facts , rebutting what they said , ” and the Constitution , said attorney Jay Sekulow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ summarizing much of the evidence and testimony already presented during televised House impeachment hearings .
Holding the room has been difficult .
Sen. Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, said the Democrats were putting forward “ admirable presentations.
” But he said , “ There ’ s just not much new here.
” Sen. John Barrasso , R-Wyo.
, said it seemed like “ Groundhog Day in the Senate.
” The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election .
Four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick , Alan Fram , Andrew Taylor , Laurie Kellman , Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House prosecutors launched their final arguments Friday at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial arguing the president will persist in abusing the power of his office ahead of the 2020
election unless Congress intervenes to remove him from office.
“He is who he is,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told senators, accusing Trump of putting the U.S-Ukraine relationship on the line in a way that benefited Russia just so he could take a political”cheap shot” at Joe Biden.
“You cannot leave a man like that in office,” Schiff said. “You know it’s not going to stop. It’s not going to stop unless the Congress does something about it.”
As Democrats pressed their case before skeptical Republican senators for a third day, the president’s legal team was preparing for his defense, expected to start Saturday. Trump, eyes on the audience beyond the Senate chamber, bemoaned the schedule in a tweet, saying “looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.”
The Senate jurors faced another long day Friday armed with pens and paper — and, for Republicans, the gift of fidget spinners — for the historic trial.
The president is being tried in the Senate after the House impeached him last month, accusing him of abusing his office by asking Ukraine for politically motivated probes of political foe Biden and Biden’s son while withholding military aid from a U.S. ally that was at war with bordering Russia. The second article of impeachment accuses him of obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe.
Republicans have defended Trump’s actions as appropriate and are casting the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken him in his reelection campaign. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and acquittal is considered likely.
The Senate is heading next week toward a pivotal vote on Democratic demands for testimony from top Trump aides, including acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton who refused to appear before the House. It would take four Republican senators to join the Democratic minority to seek witnesses, and so far the numbers appear lacking.
“This needs to end,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Trump confidant. He said he doesn’t want to hear from Bolton or the Bidens.
With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, Friday’s arguments opened with Democrats wrapping up their presentation on the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, before turning to the second, obstruction of Congress.
The Democrats relied on the words of the late Republican Sen. John McCain to explain to senators why Trump’s decision to block the military aid to Ukraine was so “disturbing,” as Schiff put it.
It wasn’t just a policy dispute, Schiff argued, but “one hell of a Russian intelligence coup” as Trump chased “kooky” theories about Ukraine pushed by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that benefited Vladimir Putin at U.S. expense.
“This is Trump first. Not America first,” Schiff declared.
On Thursday, the Democrats argued that Trump’s motives were apparent, that he abused power like no other president in history, swept up by a “completely bogus” Ukraine theory pushed by Giuliani.
Schiff made an emotional plea for senators to consider what was at stake.
“Let me tell you something. If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is,” Schiff told a pin-drop-quiet room. “If you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters.”
Democrats argued that Trump’s abuse was for his own benefit ahead of the 2020 election, even as the nation’s top FBI and national security officials were publicly warning off the theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election.
The Democrats’ challenge is clear as they try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year.
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not, 45% to 40%. But a sizable percentage, 14%, said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.
One issue with wide agreement: Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial. About 7 in 10 respondents said so, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats, according to the poll.
After both sides have concluded their arguments next week, senators will face the question of whether to call witnesses to testify. But that issue has seemed all but settled. Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides, including Bolton and Mulvaney, to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week.
As for the Ukraine connections, evidence has shown that Trump, with Giuliani, pursued investigations of Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on a Ukrainian gas company’s board, and sought the probe of the debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
It’s a story line many in the president’s camp are still pushing. Giuliani, in an appearance Friday on “Fox & Friends,” insisted he would present evidence on his new podcast of “collusion going on in Ukraine to fix the 2016 election in favor of Hillary” Clinton.
Democrats, in their Senate prosecution, seemed to be anticipating arguments expected from the president’s defenders.
“We will be putting on a vigorous defense of both facts, rebutting what they said,” and the Constitution, said attorney Jay Sekulow.
During their presentations, Democrats have been summarizing much of the evidence and testimony already presented during televised House impeachment hearings . Holding the room has been difficult.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the Democrats were putting forward “admirable presentations.” But he said, “There’s just not much new here.”
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said it seemed like “Groundhog Day in the Senate.”
The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election. Four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail, seated as jurors.
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-24--Tennessee governor signs anti-LGBTQ adoption bill

NASHVILLE , Tenn. ( AP ) — Tennessee has become the latest state to assure continued taxpayer funding of faith-based foster care and adoption agencies even if those organizations exclude LGBTQ families and others based on religious beliefs .
Republican Gov .
Bill Lee signed the bill Friday without fanfare or an official announcement , making it the first law to be implemented in Tennessee this year .
Previously , Lee said he endorsed the law because he believed defending religious liberty “ is very important.
” The Republican has often cited his Christian faith throughout his first term as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , current adoption practices in Tennessee aren ’ t expected to change .
Some faith-based agencies had already not allowed gay couples to adopt .
But the measure now provides legal protections to agencies that do so .
Those protections have sparked criticism from the American Civil Rights Union of Tennessee , which has raised legal concerns surrounding the proposal because it authorized the use of a “ religious test to participate in a government program.
” A handful of states to date have enacted similar legislation including Kansas , Oklahoma , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Dakota , Virginia , Mississippi and Michigan .
But Michigan agreed in settling an ACLU lawsuit to no longer turn away LGBTQ couples or individuals because of religious objections .
Earlier this month , state Sen. Paul Rose — the bill ’ s sponsor — conceded during a floor debate that he didn ’ t think the bill was necessary , pointing out that President Donald Trump ’ s administration is currently proposing a rule that would impose the same protections .
Yet he said he advanced the idea because there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
Trump ’ s proposal would rescind an Obama-era rule that prevented foster care agencies from receiving federal funds if they discriminated against families based on sexual orientation and gender identity .

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee has become the latest state to assure continued taxpayer funding of faith-based foster care and adoption agencies even if those organizations exclude LGBTQ families and others based on religious beliefs.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed the bill Friday without fanfare or an official announcement, making it the first law to be implemented in Tennessee this year.
Previously, Lee said he endorsed the law because he believed defending religious liberty “is very important.” The Republican has often cited his Christian faith throughout his first term as governor.
However, under the new law, current adoption practices in Tennessee aren’t expected to change. Some faith-based agencies had already not allowed gay couples to adopt. But the measure now provides legal protections to agencies that do so.
Those protections have sparked criticism from the American Civil Rights Union of Tennessee, which has raised legal concerns surrounding the proposal because it authorized the use of a “religious test to participate in a government program.”
A handful of states to date have enacted similar legislation including Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, South Dakota, North Dakota, Virginia, Mississippi and Michigan. But Michigan agreed in settling an ACLU lawsuit to no longer turn away LGBTQ couples or individuals because of religious objections.
Earlier this month, state Sen. Paul Rose — the bill’s sponsor — conceded during a floor debate that he didn’t think the bill was necessary, pointing out that President Donald Trump’s administration is currently proposing a rule that would impose the same protections. Yet he said he advanced the idea because there was no guarantee Trump would be reelected later this year.
Trump’s proposal would rescind an Obama-era rule that prevented foster care agencies from receiving federal funds if they discriminated against families based on sexual orientation and gender identity.


pbs--2020-01-24--Jim Lehrer, in his own words

Jim Lehrer, in his own words

For decades , journalist and PBS NewsHour co-founder Jim Lehrer narrated the nation ’ s story through clear , concise delivery of impartial journalism .
He offered viewers the chance to hear different sides and find common ground , and over the years he offered insight into his philosophy .
As his colleagues reflect on Lehrer and his legacy , we share some favorite moments from his speeches , interviews and daily life , so that you might hear and remember him as we do .
In 1973 , Lehrer and Robert MacNeil broadcast the Watergate hearings for 47 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news coverage of the investigation into President Richard Nixon and his administration ’ s wrongdoing .
They told the story straightforward and plainly .
“ We are running it all each day because we think these hearings are important , and because we think it is important that you get a chance to see the whole thing and make your own judgments , ” Lehrer told audiences at home on the first day of coverage .
Journalism has become “ something to watch rather than to believe ” In a 1998 speech to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why he thought the industry ’ s credibility was in question , alongside lawyers and politicians : “ Journalism , as practiced by some , has become akin to professional wrestling—something to watch rather than to believe , ” he said .
He cited techniques like “ talk show shouting and violence ” and “ no-source reporting ” that harmed the audience ’ s trust in reporters , but he added that there was a so-called “ new arrogance ” among some of his peers .
“ The fact that some in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in words , sneers and body language that says loud and clear : Only the journalists of America are pure enough to judge others .
And judge we must , ” he said .
In 2006 and in the early years of the U.S. war in Afghanistan , he delivered the commencement speech at Harvard University during a particularly divisive time in the nation ’ s history .
In between making self-deprecating jokes about his appearance , he called on new graduates to rise above their own interests and serve others and noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service transformed him .
“ Beyond the benefits to individuals , connecting and connections are essential for our democratic society to work , ” he said .
He called journalism at the NewsHour “ the ultimate collaborative enterprise , ” and laid out his ground rules for storytelling : • Do nothing I can not defend .
• Cover , write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me .
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as caring and as good a person as I am .
Assume the same about all people on whom I report .
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise .
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories , and clearly label everything .
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions .
No one should be able to attack another anonymously .
• Finally , I am not in the entertainment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a U.S. Marine were formative , he often said .
In 2006 , he recalled the day he arrived in Quantico , Virginia , for basic training and the moment he corrected how his drill instructor pronounced his last name .
He quickly learned not to do that again .
“ It isn ’ t easy to write a novel about a good man ” For such a purveyor of truth , Lehrer was also a prolific fiction writer .
Amid all the hours he spent shaping and anchoring the NewsHour ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential debates , he also wrote more than 20 novels in his lifetime– many of them mysteries and thrillers .
One of his recurring characters was C.I.A .
agent Charlie Henderson , who navigates various spycraft plots , and also demonstrated Lehrer ’ s understanding of the inner workings of Washington .
And then there was “ One-eyed Mack , ” a fictional lieutenant governor of Oklahoma who borrowed biographical details from Lehrer ’ s Kansas and Texas roots .
When a Washington Post reporter asked Lehrer in 1994 about characters like One-eyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ truly good.
” “ It isn ’ t easy to write a novel about a good man .
It ’ s harder , but more fun .
If you are going to make up a friend , make up a good one.
” These thoughts about fiction bled into Lehrer ’ s own journalism philosophy .
In the same Post feature , he recounted a city editor ’ s one-time advice to him : You should write every story as if it were about you .
“ It ’ s easy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really be objective , but you can be fair , ” he said .
It was Lehrer ’ s signature phrase .
He used it among friends .
He would write it on Post-it notes as a gesture of encouragement for colleagues .
It appeared in his writing .
It was a reminder to put your best foot forward , even after a mistake , to go forth with courage and conviction .
And it ’ s now being repeated in the newsroom with Jim no longer here .
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lehrer ?
Leave your memories and comments in our form .
We ’ ll share them with Jim ’ s family , and may use some online and on the PBS NewsHour .

For decades, journalist and PBS NewsHour co-founder Jim Lehrer narrated the nation’s story through clear, concise delivery of impartial journalism. He offered viewers the chance to hear different sides and find common ground, and over the years he offered insight into his philosophy. As his colleagues reflect on Lehrer and his legacy, we share some favorite moments from his speeches, interviews and daily life, so that you might hear and remember him as we do.
“Make your own judgments”
In 1973, Lehrer and Robert MacNeil broadcast the Watergate hearings for 47 days of gavel-to-gavel coverage, delivering ardently objective news coverage of the investigation into President Richard Nixon and his administration’s wrongdoing. They told the story straightforward and plainly.
“We are running it all each day because we think these hearings are important, and because we think it is important that you get a chance to see the whole thing and make your own judgments,” Lehrer told audiences at home on the first day of coverage.
Journalism has become “something to watch rather than to believe”
In a 1998 speech to international journalists, Lehrer offered one reason why he thought the industry’s credibility was in question, alongside lawyers and politicians: “Journalism, as practiced by some, has become akin to professional wrestling—something to watch rather than to believe,” he said.
He cited techniques like “talk show shouting and violence” and “no-source reporting” that harmed the audience’s trust in reporters, but he added that there was a so-called “new arrogance” among some of his peers.
“The fact that some in my line of work have developed an approach in words, sneers and body language that says loud and clear: Only the journalists of America are pure enough to judge others. And judge we must,” he said.
Jim Lehrer’s rules of journalism
In 2006 and in the early years of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, he delivered the commencement speech at Harvard University during a particularly divisive time in the nation’s history. In between making self-deprecating jokes about his appearance, he called on new graduates to rise above their own interests and serve others and noted how his own three years of military service transformed him.
“Beyond the benefits to individuals, connecting and connections are essential for our democratic society to work,” he said.
He called journalism at the NewsHour “the ultimate collaborative enterprise,” and laid out his ground rules for storytelling:
Do nothing I cannot defend.
Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be able to attack another anonymously.
Finally, I am not in the entertainment business.
Lessons learned
The three years Lehrer served as a U.S. Marine were formative, he often said. In 2006, he recalled the day he arrived in Quantico, Virginia, for basic training and the moment he corrected how his drill instructor pronounced his last name. He quickly learned not to do that again.
“It isn’t easy to write a novel about a good man”
For such a purveyor of truth, Lehrer was also a prolific fiction writer. Amid all the hours he spent shaping and anchoring the NewsHour’s broadcasts, as well as moderating presidential debates, he also wrote more than 20 novels in his lifetime– many of them mysteries and thrillers.
One of his recurring characters was C.I.A. agent Charlie Henderson, who navigates various spycraft plots, and also demonstrated Lehrer’s understanding of the inner workings of Washington. And then there was “One-eyed Mack,” a fictional lieutenant governor of Oklahoma who borrowed biographical details from Lehrer’s Kansas and Texas roots.
When a Washington Post reporter asked Lehrer in 1994 about characters like One-eyed Mack, he said his character was “truly good.”
“It isn’t easy to write a novel about a good man. It’s harder, but more fun. If you are going to make up a friend, make up a good one.”
These thoughts about fiction bled into Lehrer’s own journalism philosophy. In the same Post feature, he recounted a city editor’s one-time advice to him: You should write every story as if it were about you.
“It’s easy to beat up on people. You can’t really be objective, but you can be fair,” he said.
Onward!
It was Lehrer’s signature phrase. He used it among friends. He would write it on Post-it notes as a gesture of encouragement for colleagues. It appeared in his writing. It was a reminder to put your best foot forward, even after a mistake, to go forth with courage and conviction.
And it’s now being repeated in the newsroom with Jim no longer here.
Onward? Yes. Onward.
Do you want to share your memories of Jim Lehrer? Leave your memories and comments in our form. We’ll share them with Jim’s family, and may use some online and on the PBS NewsHour.


pbs--2020-01-24--Could a lengthy battle over witnesses be the next step in the Senate impeachment trial?

Senate Republicans have begun raising the prospect of a lengthy legal battle over witnesses in the impeachment trial , placing political pressure on Democrats to avoid an ugly confrontation with the White House that could push the proceedings into February , if not later .
The shift is an acknowledgment that Republicans may lose a vote next week to subpoena witnesses and documents that could reveal new details about President Donald Trump ’ s efforts to pressure Ukraine to intervene on his behalf in the 2020 U.S. presidential election .
Democrats need four Republicans to join them in calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , who followed Trump ’ s order not to testify in the impeachment inquiry .
In interviews , Republicans warned that subpoenaing witnesses could spark a months-long court fight if the White House responds by invoking executive privilege to block officials from testifying in the trial .
“ We would be here until early summer , going through that and litigating it , ” said Sen. James Lankford , R-Okla. By pushing for more witnesses , Democrats are trying to “ stretch this process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate and dominate the election with impeachment talk , ” Lankford said .
Other Republicans welcomed a legal fight .
The White House should invoke executive privilege to protect sensitive material and conversations between the president and senior advisers , said Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wisc .
“ I think the president should jealously guard the separation of powers and executive privilege .
I expect him to do that.
” Trump ordered officials not to testify in the House impeachment investigation , and several did not comply with congressional subpoenas .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Budget , among other agencies , also refused to hand over documents related to the inquiry .
Senate Democrats are now seeking testimony from Mulvaney , former National Security Adviser John Bolton , and two other officials .
Bolton has said he would testify .
But he has not said if he would share conversations he may have had with the president about the White House decision to withhold military aid and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine .
It ’ s also unclear what Bolton would say about Trump ’ s efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into former Vice President Joe Biden , a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination , and his son Hunter .
In private , some Republicans acknowledge they ’ re unsure how Trump would respond to Senate subpoenas that could put Bolton , Mulvaney and other top officials in the spotlight .
The president has been highly critical of the impeachment proceedings , and is not known for backing down from a legal fight .
If Trump and his defense team pushed back against the Senate ’ s authority , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch and the Congress , said Louis Michael Seidman , a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law .
There were no similar fights over witnesses in the two previous presidential impeachment trials , he said .
In the trial of former President Bill Clinton in 1999 , Senate lawmakers struck a deal to hear from three witnesses .
They complied , though they were deposed in private .
“ This is all completely unchartered territory , ” Seidman said .
On Friday , Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a court fight over forcing witnesses to testify in the trial .
“ Those who are subject to these subpoenas will be expected to comply , ” Schumer said .
If they don ’ t , he added , it would be resolved with a “ very prompt judicial review.
” Sen. Chris Coons , D-Del.
, said the fact that the subpoenas would be signed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial , would place additional pressure on witnesses to come forward .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority vote for a subpoena that was signed by the chief justice and directed to a senior administration [ official ] , that would get through , ” Coons said .
Democrats expressed confidence that , if there was any push back , a civil contempt of Congress suit filed in district court would move up quickly through the courts , and lead to a decision by the Supreme Court .
But Democrats also said they did not have a specific plan in place yet for how to proceed if witnesses put up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not there .
And I will tell you , the initial reaction from Republicans is not very encouraging on the witness front , ” Sen. Richard Durbin , D-Ill. , the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat , said in a brief interview .
Of course , there is no guarantee the Senate will vote to call witnesses and documents .
The speculation about a potential battle over subpoenas — a central topic on Capitol Hill as the trial has progressed — could be moot if the Senate rejects the measure .
Under the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter after the House managers and White House legal team finish their oral arguments , and senators question both sides .
A debate and vote on witnesses is expected to take place sometime next week .
One Republican , Sen. Susan Collins of Maine , has said publicly she would likely vote to call witnesses and obtain documents .
Two other moderate Republicans , Sens .
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah , are seen as potential swing votes .
During a break in the trial Thursday night , members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins and Murkowski on the Senate floor and held a lengthy discussion .
Republicans have also been meeting as a group behind closed doors during breaks to discuss the trial .
A person familiar with the talks said there was still no clear sign that enough Republicans would defect to force a vote on witnesses .
If they do , a bitter legal battle may follow .

Senate Republicans have begun raising the prospect of a lengthy legal battle over witnesses in the impeachment trial, placing political pressure on Democrats to avoid an ugly confrontation with the White House that could push the proceedings into February, if not later.
The shift is an acknowledgment that Republicans may lose a vote next week to subpoena witnesses and documents that could reveal new details about President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to intervene on his behalf in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
Democrats need four Republicans to join them in calling for additional testimony and material from witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who followed Trump’s order not to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
In interviews, Republicans warned that subpoenaing witnesses could spark a months-long court fight if the White House responds by invoking executive privilege to block officials from testifying in the trial.
“We would be here until early summer, going through that and litigating it,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. By pushing for more witnesses, Democrats are trying to “stretch this process for months and months and months in the Senate and dominate the election with impeachment talk,” Lankford said.
Other Republicans welcomed a legal fight. The White House should invoke executive privilege to protect sensitive material and conversations between the president and senior advisers, said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc. “I think the president should jealously guard the separation of powers and executive privilege. I expect him to do that.”
Trump ordered officials not to testify in the House impeachment investigation, and several did not comply with congressional subpoenas. The State Department and Office of Management and Budget, among other agencies, also refused to hand over documents related to the inquiry.
Senate Democrats are now seeking testimony from Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and two other officials.
Bolton has said he would testify. But he has not said if he would share conversations he may have had with the president about the White House decision to withhold military aid and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine. It’s also unclear what Bolton would say about Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son Hunter.
In private, some Republicans acknowledge they’re unsure how Trump would respond to Senate subpoenas that could put Bolton, Mulvaney and other top officials in the spotlight. The president has been highly critical of the impeachment proceedings, and is not known for backing down from a legal fight.
If Trump and his defense team pushed back against the Senate’s authority, it would result in an unprecedented showdown between the executive branch and the Congress, said Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law.
There were no similar fights over witnesses in the two previous presidential impeachment trials, he said. In the trial of former President Bill Clinton in 1999, Senate lawmakers struck a deal to hear from three witnesses. They complied, though they were deposed in private.
“This is all completely unchartered territory,” Seidman said.
On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would have the upper hand in a court fight over forcing witnesses to testify in the trial. “Those who are subject to these subpoenas will be expected to comply,” Schumer said. If they don’t, he added, it would be resolved with a “very prompt judicial review.”
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said the fact that the subpoenas would be signed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, would place additional pressure on witnesses to come forward.
“I think that if we had a bipartisan majority vote for a subpoena that was signed by the chief justice and directed to a senior administration [official], that would get through,” Coons said.
Democrats expressed confidence that, if there was any push back, a civil contempt of Congress suit filed in district court would move up quickly through the courts, and lead to a decision by the Supreme Court. But Democrats also said they did not have a specific plan in place yet for how to proceed if witnesses put up a fight.
“We’re not there. And I will tell you, the initial reaction from Republicans is not very encouraging on the witness front,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, said in a brief interview.
Of course, there is no guarantee the Senate will vote to call witnesses and documents. The speculation about a potential battle over subpoenas — a central topic on Capitol Hill as the trial has progressed — could be moot if the Senate rejects the measure.
Under the trial rules, senators can take up the matter after the House managers and White House legal team finish their oral arguments, and senators question both sides. A debate and vote on witnesses is expected to take place sometime next week.
One Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, has said publicly she would likely vote to call witnesses and obtain documents. Two other moderate Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, are seen as potential swing votes.
During a break in the trial Thursday night, members of the Republican leadership team sought out Collins and Murkowski on the Senate floor and held a lengthy discussion. Republicans have also been meeting as a group behind closed doors during breaks to discuss the trial. A person familiar with the talks said there was still no clear sign that enough Republicans would defect to force a vote on witnesses.
If they do, a bitter legal battle may follow.
Lisa Desjardins and Courtney Norris contributed reporting.


pbs--2020-01-24--Tweets urge calls to Supreme Court for fair Senate trial

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Supreme Court doesn ’ t have a public comment line for its own work , much less the Senate ’ s .
That hasn ’ t stopped a fair number of social media users from urging people to call Chief Justice John Roberts at the Supreme Court and demand a fair trial or ask for witnesses or tell him to control the Senate .
The court is receiving “ a higher than usual number of public calls , ” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said .
The messages seem to be mainly from people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office of President Donald Trump .
Roberts is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial .
Note to America : It might feel good to give that message to a real person who answers the telephone in the court ’ s public information office , but it probably won ’ t get you anywhere .
The court does have an opinion line the public can call , but it ’ s for alerting people that the justices are expected to release their own opinions in cases , not listen to yours .
People can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and callers are being given the address , Arberg said .
The public information office also is suggesting that people contact their elected representatives “ if their call regards the trial rules and procedures set by the Senate , ” Arberg said .

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court doesn’t have a public comment line for its own work, much less the Senate’s.
That hasn’t stopped a fair number of social media users from urging people to call Chief Justice John Roberts at the Supreme Court and demand a fair trial or ask for witnesses or tell him to control the Senate. The court is receiving “a higher than usual number of public calls,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.
The messages seem to be mainly from people who support the impeachment and removal from office of President Donald Trump. Roberts is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial.
Note to America: It might feel good to give that message to a real person who answers the telephone in the court’s public information office, but it probably won’t get you anywhere.
The court does have an opinion line the public can call, but it’s for alerting people that the justices are expected to release their own opinions in cases, not listen to yours.
People can write the court, of course, and callers are being given the address, Arberg said.
The public information office also is suggesting that people contact their elected representatives “if their call regards the trial rules and procedures set by the Senate,” Arberg said.


pbs--2020-01-24--WATCH: Rep. Crow says Trump blocked Ukraine money but 'got caught'

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Democratic House prosecutors launched their final arguments Friday at Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial insisting the president only released congressionally approved military money to Ukraine because he had “ gotten caught ” withholding it .
“ The scheme was unraveling , ” said Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado , a former Army ranger , as the prosecution wrapped up its presentation on the first article of impeachment , abuse of power , before turning to the charge of obstruction of Congress .
As Democrats pressed their case before skeptical Republican senators for a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team was preparing its defense , expected to start Saturday .
Trump , eyes on the audience beyond the Senate chamber , bemoaned the schedule in a tweet , saying “ looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday , which is called Death Valley in T.V.
” The Senate jurors faced another long day Friday armed with pens and paper — and , for Republicans , the gift of fidget spinners — for the historic trial .
The president is being tried in the Senate after the House impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abusing his office by asking Ukraine for politically motivated probes of political foe Joe Biden and Biden ’ s son while withholding military aid from a U.S. ally that was at war with bordering Russia .
The second article of impeachment accuses him of obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe .
Crow , a freshman lawmaker , said the money for Ukraine was released once Congress intervened .
“ It wasn ’ t lifted for any legitimate reason , ” Crow told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifted because President Trump had gotten caught.
” Republicans have defended Trump ’ s actions as appropriate and are casting the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken him in his reelection campaign .
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate , and acquittal is considered likely .
The Senate is heading next week toward a pivotal vote on Democratic demands for testimony from top Trump aides , including acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton who refused to appear before the House .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic minority to seek witnesses , and so far the numbers appear lacking .
“ This needs to end , ” said Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , a Trump confidant .
He said he doesn ’ t want to hear from Bolton or the Bidens .
With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding , Democrats argued on Thursday that Trump ’ s motives were apparent , that he abused power like no other president in history , swept up by a “ completely bogus ” Ukraine theory pushed by attorney Rudy Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , made an emotional plea late Thursday for senators to consider what was at stake .
“ Let me tell you something .
If right doesn ’ t matter , it doesn ’ t matter how good the Constitution is , ” Schiff told a pin-drop-quiet room .
“ If you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed .
Because right matters.
” They argued that Trump ’ s abuse was for his own personal political benefit ahead of the 2020 election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI and national security officials were publicly warning off the theory that it was Ukraine , not Russia , that interfered in the 2016 election .
“ That ’ s what Donald Trump wanted investigated or announced — this completely bogus Kremlin-pushed conspiracy theory , ” Schiff declared .
The Democrats ’ challenge is clear as they try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year .
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not , 45 % to 40 % .
But a sizable percentage , 14 % , said they didn ’ t know enough to have an opinion .
One issue with wide agreement : Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial .
About 7 in 10 respondents said so , including majorities of Republicans and Democrats , according to the poll .
After both sides have concluded their arguments next week , senators will face the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
But that issue has seemed all but settled .
Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides , including Bolton and Mulvaney , to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week .
As for the Ukraine connections , evidence has shown that Trump , with Giuliani , pursued investigations of Biden and his son , Hunter , who served on a Ukrainian gas company ’ s board , and sought the probe of debunked theories of what nation was guilty of interference in the 2016 U.S. election .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s camp are still pushing .
Giuliani , in an appearance Friday on “ Fox & Friends , ” insisted he would present evidence on his new podcast of “ collusion going on in Ukraine to fix the 2016 election in favor of Hillary ” Clinton .
Pressed by one of the TV hosts as to what that evidence was , Giuliani claimed he had “ witnesses ” willing to speak on the record next week .
Democrats , in their Senate prosecution , seemed to be anticipating arguments expected from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , they showed video of a younger Lindsey Graham , then a South Carolina congressman and now a GOP senator allied with Trump , arguing during Bill Clinton ’ s 1999 impeachment that no crime was needed for impeaching a president .
Trump ’ s defense team is now arguing that the impeachment articles against him are invalid because they do not allege he committed a specific crime .
The president ’ s defenders ’ turn will come Saturday .
“ We will be putting on a vigorous defense of both facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Constitution , said attorney Jay Sekulow .
During their presentations , Democrats have been summarizing much of the evidence and testimony already presented during televised House impeachment hearings .
Sen. Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, said the Democrats were putting forward “ admirable presentations.
” But he said , “ There ’ s just not much new here.
” Sen. John Barrasso , R-Wyo.
, said it seemed like “ Groundhog Day in the Senate.
” The top Senate Democrat , Chuck Schumer , acknowledged that many senators “ really don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case that many Republicans are hearing for only the first time .
He contended they can ’ t help but be “ glued ” to his testimony .
“ No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections , ” Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York , the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , told the senators .
He said the nation ’ s founders would be shocked .
“ The president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal .
It is dangerous.
” Senators were permitted Thursday to review supplemental testimony submitted by an aide to Vice President Mike Pence , Jennifer Williams , who was among those who had concerns about Trump ’ s actions .
Democrats said the testimony , which is classified , bolsters their impeachment case .
A lawyer for Williams declined to comment .
Holding the room ’ s attention has been difficult for the Democrats , but senators seemed to pay closer mind to Schiff ’ s testimony that grew dramatic .
The impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 election .
Four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail , seated as jurors .
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick , Alan Fram , Andrew Taylor , Laurie Kellman , Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama in Washington and Bill Barrow in Osage , Iowa , contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House prosecutors launched their final arguments Friday at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial insisting the president only released congressionally approved military money to Ukraine because he had “gotten caught” withholding it.
“The scheme was unraveling,” said Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army ranger, as the prosecution wrapped up its presentation on the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, before turning to the charge of obstruction of Congress.
As Democrats pressed their case before skeptical Republican senators for a third day, the president’s legal team was preparing its defense, expected to start Saturday. Trump, eyes on the audience beyond the Senate chamber, bemoaned the schedule in a tweet, saying “looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.”
The Senate jurors faced another long day Friday armed with pens and paper — and, for Republicans, the gift of fidget spinners — for the historic trial.
The president is being tried in the Senate after the House impeached him last month, accusing him of abusing his office by asking Ukraine for politically motivated probes of political foe Joe Biden and Biden’s son while withholding military aid from a U.S. ally that was at war with bordering Russia. The second article of impeachment accuses him of obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe.
Crow, a freshman lawmaker, said the money for Ukraine was released once Congress intervened.
“It wasn’t lifted for any legitimate reason,” Crow told the senators. “It was only lifted because President Trump had gotten caught.”
Republicans have defended Trump’s actions as appropriate and are casting the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken him in his reelection campaign. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and acquittal is considered likely.
The Senate is heading next week toward a pivotal vote on Democratic demands for testimony from top Trump aides, including acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton who refused to appear before the House. It would take four Republican senators to join the Democratic minority to seek witnesses, and so far the numbers appear lacking.
“This needs to end,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Trump confidant. He said he doesn’t want to hear from Bolton or the Bidens.
With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, Democrats argued on Thursday that Trump’s motives were apparent, that he abused power like no other president in history, swept up by a “completely bogus” Ukraine theory pushed by attorney Rudy Giuliani.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made an emotional plea late Thursday for senators to consider what was at stake.
“Let me tell you something. If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is,” Schiff told a pin-drop-quiet room. “If you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters.”
They argued that Trump’s abuse was for his own personal political benefit ahead of the 2020 election, even as the nation’s top FBI and national security officials were publicly warning off the theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election.
“That’s what Donald Trump wanted investigated or announced — this completely bogus Kremlin-pushed conspiracy theory,” Schiff declared.
The Democrats’ challenge is clear as they try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year.
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not, 45% to 40%. But a sizable percentage, 14%, said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.
One issue with wide agreement: Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial. About 7 in 10 respondents said so, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats, according to the poll.
After both sides have concluded their arguments next week, senators will face the question of whether to call witnesses to testify. But that issue has seemed all but settled. Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides, including Bolton and Mulvaney, to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week.
As for the Ukraine connections, evidence has shown that Trump, with Giuliani, pursued investigations of Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on a Ukrainian gas company’s board, and sought the probe of debunked theories of what nation was guilty of interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
It’s a story line many in the president’s camp are still pushing. Giuliani, in an appearance Friday on “Fox & Friends,” insisted he would present evidence on his new podcast of “collusion going on in Ukraine to fix the 2016 election in favor of Hillary” Clinton. Pressed by one of the TV hosts as to what that evidence was, Giuliani claimed he had “witnesses” willing to speak on the record next week.
Democrats, in their Senate prosecution, seemed to be anticipating arguments expected from the president’s defenders.
At one point, they showed video of a younger Lindsey Graham, then a South Carolina congressman and now a GOP senator allied with Trump, arguing during Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment that no crime was needed for impeaching a president. Trump’s defense team is now arguing that the impeachment articles against him are invalid because they do not allege he committed a specific crime.
The president’s defenders’ turn will come Saturday.
“We will be putting on a vigorous defense of both facts, rebutting what they said,” and the Constitution, said attorney Jay Sekulow.
During their presentations, Democrats have been summarizing much of the evidence and testimony already presented during televised House impeachment hearings.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the Democrats were putting forward “admirable presentations.” But he said, “There’s just not much new here.”
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said it seemed like “Groundhog Day in the Senate.”
The top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, acknowledged that many senators “really don’t want to be here.”
But Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case that many Republicans are hearing for only the first time. He contended they can’t help but be “glued” to his testimony.
“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told the senators. He said the nation’s founders would be shocked. “The president’s conduct is wrong. It is illegal. It is dangerous.”
Senators were permitted Thursday to review supplemental testimony submitted by an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, Jennifer Williams, who was among those who had concerns about Trump’s actions. Democrats said the testimony, which is classified, bolsters their impeachment case. A lawyer for Williams declined to comment.
Holding the room’s attention has been difficult for the Democrats, but senators seemed to pay closer mind to Schiff’s testimony that grew dramatic.
The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election. Four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail, seated as jurors.
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama in Washington and Bill Barrow in Osage, Iowa, contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-24--What it means to be the face of impeachment for Rep. Adam Schiff

WASHINGTON — In the otherwise scripted impeachment trial , it was a rare spontaneous moment : Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of President Donald Trump ’ s chief defenders , stopped Rep. Adam Schiff , the lead prosecutor , to shake his hand and compliment him on his arguments for Trump ’ s removal .
Though Graham has ridiculed the case against the Republican president and heaped scorn on Democrats like Schiff , he said he believes the California Democrat is “ well spoken ” and “ did a good job of creating a tapestry , taking bits and pieces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetorical flourish … sometimes effectively , sometimes a little over the top.
” Schiff is the face of the House ’ s impeachment case against Trump , which has made him the principal target of Trump ’ s ire .
Though he has six managers by his side , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed Schiff , her confidant , as the lead impeachment manager .
He is setting the tone of the prosecution ’ s case , working methodically to convince even his most ardent detractors that Trump deserves to be removed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do feel like I ’ m introducing myself to a number of the senators , ” Schiff said in an interview with The Associated Press before arguments resumed on Thursday .
He said many of them are familiar only with conservative criticism of him , and they are “ finding I ’ m not the demon that I ’ m portrayed as on Fox.
” Schiff said he wishes that the Graham exchange wasn ’ t caught on camera , “ because it was nice to have a private moment .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of thing .
But I very much appreciated his comments.
” Late Thursday , the chamber went quiet and all eyes were on the former federal prosecutor as he concluded the second day of arguments with a speech in which he told the senators that “ right matters ” and that President Donald Trump can ’ t be trusted .
His voice cracked as he spoke .
“ The framers couldn ’ t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don ’ t matter , ” Schiff told the senators .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ did was not right.
” Schiff , who represents parts of Hollywood , has been a frequent target of conservatives since the then GOP-led House Intelligence Committee started investigating Trump ’ s ties to Russia in the 2016 election .
He was frequently on television questioning Trump ’ s actions .
The criticism intensified , though , when Democrats took the House majority in early 2019 and he became chairman of the intelligence panel .
And it reached a full-on roar as he took charge of the impeachment investigation of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has trained his ire on the congressman on Twitter and elsewhere , alternatively calling him “ shifty , ” “ sleazy , ” and “ liddle.
” He has also turned his name into a vulgarity , occasionally calling him “ Schitt ” on Twitter , and dubbed him “ pencil neck ” at a campaign rally .
Trump tweeted about Schiff only a handful of times in 2017 and 2018 , but hundreds of times since Democrats gained the House majority .
Despite Trump ’ s fire , Graham is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ albeit grudgingly — since the trial has begun .
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt said the Democrats had “ admirable presentations , ” even though he found them repetitive and said he didn ’ t learn much new .
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst says she ’ s “ not a fan ” because she believes Schiff “ has it out ” for Trump .
Still , she says , he has been presenting a “ calm , level case ” against the president .
“ What I appreciate , though , is the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very calm manner compared to some of the other House managers , ” Ernst says .
Schiff has tried to set a non-combative tone on the Senate floor , with conciliatory words to the Senate .
He said at the start of his arguments on Wednesday that he was “ deeply grateful ” for their attention and understands that it ’ s hard to sit and listen four hours on end .
His appeals came hours after Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding , admonished both the House managers and Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ that is not conducive to civil discourse.
” “ I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president ’ s counsel , in equal terms , to remember that they are addressing the world ’ s greatest deliberative body , ” Roberts said .
Roberts ’ comments came around 1 a.m. Wednesday after another impeachment manager , House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , charged that the White House lawyers were lying .
Nadler also told senators that denying certain witnesses in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had just voted to do , was a “ treacherous vote ” against the United States .
Trump ’ s defense team responded that Nadler should apologize to the president and the American people .
The next morning , before the trial resumed , the impeachment managers gathered for a news conference .
When asked about Roberts ’ comments , Schiff was the only one who spoke .
“ You ’ re going to have tempers flare ” when trials go into the wee hours , Schiff said , and that happens in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are going to try to keep focused on the facts , ” Schiff said .
“ The president ’ s team would like nothing more than to provoke a bitter conflict.
” Schiff told The AP on Thursday that when talking on the Senate floor , he is trying not to make the case personal and he wants to “ show respect for the senators and for the chief justice , present the evidence , make the appeals to have a fair trial , and that ’ s the best I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also predicted that the White House team will unravel many of his points .
“ I thought they did a good job of taking bits and pieces of the evidence and creating a quilt out of it , ” Graham said .
“ So what I will tell my colleagues , the other side gets to talk , and see if they can pull a thread here and pull thread there and see if it holds up.
” “ I don ’ t agree with Lindsey Graham ’ s analysis that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows , one of several Republican House members who are consulting with the White House lawyers .
“ I ’ ve had to look in the cabinet for a bottle of No-Doz .
When you look at Adam Schiff ’ s performance , I think what we all have come to understand is , that ’ s exactly what it is , it ’ s a performance.
” Senate Democrats , on the other hand , have been thrilled .
Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow said Thursday evening that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pin drop ” when Schiff gave his closing speech .
“ Senators ’ egos don ’ t tend to allow gushing over other politicians ’ performance , but as we walked out the trial tonight , Senator after Senator ( albeit the Dem ones ) were awestruck , ” Murphy wrote .
“ Schiff is right – Trump doesn ’ t care about us , just himself.
” Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON — In the otherwise scripted impeachment trial, it was a rare spontaneous moment: Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of President Donald Trump’s chief defenders, stopped Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead prosecutor, to shake his hand and compliment him on his arguments for Trump’s removal.
Though Graham has ridiculed the case against the Republican president and heaped scorn on Democrats like Schiff, he said he believes the California Democrat is “well spoken” and “did a good job of creating a tapestry, taking bits and pieces of evidence and emails and giving a rhetorical flourish … sometimes effectively, sometimes a little over the top.”
Schiff is the face of the House’s impeachment case against Trump, which has made him the principal target of Trump’s ire. Though he has six managers by his side, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed Schiff, her confidant, as the lead impeachment manager. He is setting the tone of the prosecution’s case, working methodically to convince even his most ardent detractors that Trump deserves to be removed from office.
“In a way I do feel like I’m introducing myself to a number of the senators,” Schiff said in an interview with The Associated Press before arguments resumed on Thursday. He said many of them are familiar only with conservative criticism of him, and they are “finding I’m not the demon that I’m portrayed as on Fox.”
Schiff, who represents parts of Hollywood, has been a frequent target of conservatives since the then GOP-led House Intelligence Committee started investigating Trump’s ties to Russia in the 2016 election.
Schiff said he wishes that the Graham exchange wasn’t caught on camera, “because it was nice to have a private moment. And I don’t want to discourage that kind of thing. But I very much appreciated his comments.”
Late Thursday, the chamber went quiet and all eyes were on the former federal prosecutor as he concluded the second day of arguments with a speech in which he told the senators that “right matters” and that President Donald Trump can’t be trusted. His voice cracked as he spoke.
“The framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter,” Schiff told the senators. “And you know that what he did was not right.”
Schiff, who represents parts of Hollywood, has been a frequent target of conservatives since the then GOP-led House Intelligence Committee started investigating Trump’s ties to Russia in the 2016 election. He was frequently on television questioning Trump’s actions.
The criticism intensified, though, when Democrats took the House majority in early 2019 and he became chairman of the intelligence panel. And it reached a full-on roar as he took charge of the impeachment investigation of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine last fall.
Trump has trained his ire on the congressman on Twitter and elsewhere, alternatively calling him “shifty,” “sleazy,” and “liddle.” He has also turned his name into a vulgarity, occasionally calling him “Schitt” on Twitter, and dubbed him “pencil neck” at a campaign rally. Trump tweeted about Schiff only a handful of times in 2017 and 2018, but hundreds of times since Democrats gained the House majority.
Despite Trump’s fire, Graham is not the only Republican to give Schiff respect — albeit grudgingly — since the trial has begun.
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt said the Democrats had “admirable presentations,” even though he found them repetitive and said he didn’t learn much new.
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst says she’s “not a fan” because she believes Schiff “has it out” for Trump. Still, she says, he has been presenting a “calm, level case” against the president.
“What I appreciate, though, is the fact that he has handled this in a very calm manner compared to some of the other House managers,” Ernst says.
Schiff has tried to set a non-combative tone on the Senate floor, with conciliatory words to the Senate. He said at the start of his arguments on Wednesday that he was “deeply grateful” for their attention and understands that it’s hard to sit and listen four hours on end.
His appeals came hours after Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding, admonished both the House managers and Trump’s defense team for using language “that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel, in equal terms, to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said.
Roberts’ comments came around 1 a.m. Wednesday after another impeachment manager, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, charged that the White House lawyers were lying. Nadler also told senators that denying certain witnesses in the trial, as many GOP senators had just voted to do, was a “treacherous vote” against the United States. Trump’s defense team responded that Nadler should apologize to the president and the American people.
The next morning, before the trial resumed, the impeachment managers gathered for a news conference. When asked about Roberts’ comments, Schiff was the only one who spoke. “You’re going to have tempers flare” when trials go into the wee hours, Schiff said, and that happens in every courtroom in America.
“But we are going to try to keep focused on the facts,” Schiff said. “The president’s team would like nothing more than to provoke a bitter conflict.”
Schiff told The AP on Thursday that when talking on the Senate floor, he is trying not to make the case personal and he wants to “show respect for the senators and for the chief justice, present the evidence, make the appeals to have a fair trial, and that’s the best I can do.”
While complimenting Schiff, Graham also predicted that the White House team will unravel many of his points.
“I thought they did a good job of taking bits and pieces of the evidence and creating a quilt out of it,” Graham said. “So what I will tell my colleagues, the other side gets to talk, and see if they can pull a thread here and pull thread there and see if it holds up.”
Schiff’s House GOP colleagues were less complimentary.
“I don’t agree with Lindsey Graham’s analysis that they’re doing a good job,” said North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, one of several Republican House members who are consulting with the White House lawyers. “I’ve had to look in the cabinet for a bottle of No-Doz. When you look at Adam Schiff’s performance, I think what we all have come to understand is, that’s exactly what it is, it’s a performance.”
Senate Democrats, on the other hand, have been thrilled. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow said Thursday evening that “I think you could have heard a pin drop” when Schiff gave his closing speech.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy tweeted: “Man, Schiff’s closing was powerful.”
“Senators’ egos don’t tend to allow gushing over other politicians’ performance, but as we walked out the trial tonight, Senator after Senator (albeit the Dem ones) were awestruck,” Murphy wrote. “Schiff is right – Trump doesn’t care about us, just himself.”
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-24--Recording indicates Trump wanted to 'get rid' of Yovanovitch

A recording of President Donald Trump saying on April 30 , 2018 that he wanted then U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired appears to be accurate , according to a lawyer for one of the people who heard the original conversation .
Joseph Bondy , an attorney for Lev Parnas , told NewsHour Friday that Parnas , an associate of Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , was at a dinner with the president and several others when Trump said he wanted Yovanovitch out .
The recording , reviewed and first reported by ABC News , appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rid of her !
Get her out tomorrow .
I don ’ t care .
Get her out tomorrow .
Take her out .
Okay ?
Do it.
” The PBS NewsHour has not obtained or independently reviewed the recording .
Bondy said the recording appears to be “ entirely consistent ” with Parnas ’ recollection of that night .
He added that Parnas attended the dinner along with Igor Fruman , another of Giuliani ’ s business associates .
Both Parnas and Fruman have been indicted on federal charges including violating campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on the recording it appears Parnas and Fruman are telling Trump that the U.S. ambassador has been bad-mouthing him , which leads directly to the remarks by the president .
The recording was made by Fruman , according to a source familiar with it .
Trump has repeatedly said he does not know Parnas well.He has also attacked Yovanovitch on Twitter by claiming everywhere she went “ turned bad.
” “ The recording itself underscores the critical importance of calling witnesses and receiving evidence , ” Bondy said .
News of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case before the U.S. Senate that Trump should be removed from office .
The seven House managers who are acting as prosecutors in Trump ’ s impeachment trial have been given 24 hours over three days to present their arguments .
The managers are expected to conclude their presentation Friday .
Trump ’ s lawyers will then be given the same amount of time to present its defense .

A recording of President Donald Trump saying on April 30, 2018, that he wanted then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired has been turned over to the House Intelligence Committee, according to a lawyer for one of the people who heard the original conversation.
Joseph Bondy, an attorney for Lev Parnas, told NewsHour Friday that Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, was at a dinner with the president and several others when Trump said he wanted Yovanovitch out.
The recording, reviewed and first reported by ABC News, appears to capture Trump saying, “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.”
Bondy said that after news of the recording became public, Parnas searched an online database connected to his iPhone and found an hour-long video from the dinner. Bondy then turned the iPhone video over to the House committee. The PBS NewsHour has not obtained or independently reviewed the recording.
Bondy said the recording appears to be “entirely consistent” with Parnas’ recollection of that night. He added that Parnas attended the dinner along with Igor Fruman, another of Giuliani’s business associates.
Both Parnas and Fruman have been indicted on federal charges including violating campaign finance laws.
According to ABC News, on the recording it appears Parnas and Fruman are telling Trump that the U.S. ambassador has been bad-mouthing him, which leads directly to the remarks by the president. The recording was made by Fruman, according to a source familiar with it.
Trump has repeatedly said he does not know Parnas well. He has also attacked Yovanovitch on Twitter by claiming everywhere she went “turned bad.”
News of the recording comes as House Democrats are making the case before the U.S. Senate that Trump should be removed from office.
“The recording itself underscores the critical importance of calling witnesses and receiving evidence,” Bondy said.
Bondy said Friday that he hopes the new recording will be a “tipping point” that will lead to senators allowing Parnas to testify at the Senate trial.
The seven House managers who are acting as prosecutors in Trump’s impeachment trial have been given 24 hours over three days to present their arguments. The managers are expected to conclude their presentation Friday.
Trump’s lawyers will then be given the same amount of time to present its defense.


pbs--2020-01-24--WATCH: Trump becomes 1st sitting president to speak at anti-abortion rally

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump called it his “ profound honor ” on Friday to be the first president to attend the annual anti-abortion gathering in Washington called the March for Life .
He used his speech to attack Democrats as embracing “ radical and extreme positions ” on abortion and praised those attending the event , saying they were motivated by “ pure , unselfish love.
” He also recited actions he ’ s taken as president that were sought by social conservatives , including the confirmation of 187 federal judges .
“ Unborn children have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , ” he declared .
Trump once declared in a 1999 interview that “ I am pro-choice in every respect.
” Now , as he heads into the 2020 election , Trump continues to reach out to the white evangelical voters who have proven to be among his most loyal backers .
“ Every life brings love into this world .
Every child brings joy to a family .
Every person is worth protecting , ” Trump said , prompting loud cheers from the many thousands attending the march .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base of conservative activists to help bring him across the finish line .
“ I think it ’ s a brilliant move , ” said Ralph Reed , chair of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and one of Trump ’ s most prominent evangelical supporters .
Reed said the president ’ s appearance would “ energize and remind pro-life voters what a great friend this president and administration has been.
” It also shows how much times have changed .
Past presidents who opposed abortion , including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ march to avoid being too closely associated with demonstrators eager to outlaw the procedure .
They sent remarks for others to deliver , spoke via telephone hookup or invited organizers to visit the White House .
Over the last 10 years , however , the Republican Party has undergone a “ revolution , ” displaying a new willingness to “ embrace the issue as not only being morally right but politically smart , ” said Mallory Quigley , a spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List and Women Speak Out PAC .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million this cycle to help elect candidates opposed to abortion rights .
Its president , Marjorie Dannenfelser , will serve as national co-chair of a new campaign coalition , “ Pro-life Voices for Trump.
” According to Pew Research Center polling in 2019 , roughly 6 in 10 Americans said abortion should be legal in all or most cases .
Over time , though , both the Republican and Democratic parties have taken harder-line positions for and against abortion rights .
“ There used to be a middle in this country and candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Ari Fleischer , who served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush .
“ And it just seems that that is over and that both parties play to their bases to get maximum turnout from their base.
” During his first three years in office , Trump has embraced socially conservative policies , particularly on the issue of abortion .
He ’ s appointing judges who oppose abortion , cutting taxpayer funding for abortion services and painting Democrats who support abortion rights as extreme in their views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the pro-life community than any other president , so it is fitting that he would be the first president in history to attend the March for Life on the National Mall , ” said White House spokesman Judd Deere .
This is not the first time Trump has given serious consideration to an appearance .
Last year , he wanted to go and came close to attending , according to a person familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning .
But the trip never came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump joined the event via video satellite from the White House Rose Garden instead .
Trump ’ s thinking on the matter was simple : If he supported the cause , “ why wouldn ’ t he show up to their big event ?
” said Matt Schlapp , chair of the American Conservative Union and a close ally of the White House .
He said the appearance would be deeply significant for those in participants .
“ I ’ ve had people be moved to tears over the fact that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s a big deal.
” During his video address last year , Trump sent a clear message to the thousands of people braving the cold on the National Mall .
“ As president , I will always defend the first right in our Declaration of Independence , the right to life , ” he said .
The rhetoric underscored Trump ’ s dramatic evolution on the issue from his days as a freewheeling New York deal-maker , when he described himself as “ very pro-choice ” in a 1999 interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press.
” During his 2016 campaign for the Republican nomination , Trump said his views had changed and that he was now opposed to abortion , but for three exceptions : In the case of rape , incest and when the life of the mother is at risk .
Yet Trump ’ s unfamiliarity with the language of abortion activism was clear , including when he offered a bungled response during a televised town hall and was forced to clarify his position on abortion three times in a single day .
Asked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were outlawed , Trump said there would have to “ be some form of punishment ” for women who have them , prompting a backlash that managed to unite abortion rights activists and opponents , including organizers of the March for Life .
Asked to clarify his position , Trump ’ s campaign initially issued a statement saying he believed the issue should rest with state governments .
He later issued a second statement that said doctors , not women , should be punished for illegal abortions .
Critics , for their part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to distract from his impeachment trial in the Senate .
Ilyse Hogue , president of NARAL Pro-Choice America , called it “ an act of desperation , plain and simple.
” Alexis McGill Johnson , acting president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund , accused Trump of carrying out “ a full-out assault on our health and our rights.
” Views of abortion have remained relatively stable over two decades of polling , and it ’ s a minority of Americans who hold extreme opinions — that abortion should be legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling does suggest a widening partisan gap on the question of support for abortion rights in all or most cases , along with some movement on both sides of the aisle further into their extreme positions .
The first march took place on the west steps of the Capitol in January 1974 , the year after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade , the landmark ruling that established a woman ’ s legal right to abortion .
Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report from Washington .

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump called it his “profound honor” on Friday to be the first president to attend the annual anti-abortion gathering in Washington called the March for Life.
He used his speech to attack Democrats as embracing “radical and extreme positions” on abortion and praised those attending the event, saying they were motivated by “pure, unselfish love.” He also recited actions he’s taken as president that were sought by social conservatives, including the confirmation of 187 federal judges.
“Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House,” he declared.
Trump once declared in a 1999 interview that “I am pro-choice in every respect.” Now, as he heads into the 2020 election, Trump continues to reach out to the white evangelical voters who have proven to be among his most loyal backers.
“Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting,” Trump said, prompting loud cheers from the many thousands attending the march.
Trump is counting on the support of his base of conservative activists to help bring him across the finish line.
“I think it’s a brilliant move,” said Ralph Reed, chair of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and one of Trump’s most prominent evangelical supporters. Reed said the president’s appearance would “energize and remind pro-life voters what a great friend this president and administration has been.”
It also shows how much times have changed.
Past presidents who opposed abortion, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, steered clear of personally attending the march to avoid being too closely associated with demonstrators eager to outlaw the procedure. They sent remarks for others to deliver, spoke via telephone hookup or invited organizers to visit the White House.
Over the last 10 years, however, the Republican Party has undergone a “revolution,” displaying a new willingness to “embrace the issue as not only being morally right but politically smart,” said Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List and Women Speak Out PAC. The group is planning to spend $52 million this cycle to help elect candidates opposed to abortion rights. Its president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, will serve as national co-chair of a new campaign coalition, “Pro-life Voices for Trump.”
According to Pew Research Center polling in 2019, roughly 6 in 10 Americans said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Over time, though, both the Republican and Democratic parties have taken harder-line positions for and against abortion rights.
“There used to be a middle in this country and candidates would not want to alienate the middle,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. “And it just seems that that is over and that both parties play to their bases to get maximum turnout from their base.”
During his first three years in office, Trump has embraced socially conservative policies, particularly on the issue of abortion. He’s appointing judges who oppose abortion, cutting taxpayer funding for abortion services and painting Democrats who support abortion rights as extreme in their views.
“President Trump has done more for the pro-life community than any other president, so it is fitting that he would be the first president in history to attend the March for Life on the National Mall,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere.
This is not the first time Trump has given serious consideration to an appearance. Last year, he wanted to go and came close to attending, according to a person familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. But the trip never came together because of concerns about security so Trump joined the event via video satellite from the White House Rose Garden instead.
Trump’s thinking on the matter was simple: If he supported the cause, “why wouldn’t he show up to their big event?” said Matt Schlapp, chair of the American Conservative Union and a close ally of the White House. He said the appearance would be deeply significant for those in participants.
“I’ve had people be moved to tears over the fact that he’s going,” said Schlapp. “It’s a big deal.”
During his video address last year, Trump sent a clear message to the thousands of people braving the cold on the National Mall. “As president, I will always defend the first right in our Declaration of Independence, the right to life,” he said.
The rhetoric underscored Trump’s dramatic evolution on the issue from his days as a freewheeling New York deal-maker, when he described himself as “very pro-choice” in a 1999 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
During his 2016 campaign for the Republican nomination, Trump said his views had changed and that he was now opposed to abortion, but for three exceptions: In the case of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
Yet Trump’s unfamiliarity with the language of abortion activism was clear, including when he offered a bungled response during a televised town hall and was forced to clarify his position on abortion three times in a single day.
Asked, hypothetically, what would happen if abortion were outlawed, Trump said there would have to “be some form of punishment” for women who have them, prompting a backlash that managed to unite abortion rights activists and opponents, including organizers of the March for Life.
Asked to clarify his position, Trump’s campaign initially issued a statement saying he believed the issue should rest with state governments. He later issued a second statement that said doctors, not women, should be punished for illegal abortions.
Critics, for their part, accuse Trump of using the march to try to distract from his impeachment trial in the Senate.
Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called it “an act of desperation, plain and simple.” Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, accused Trump of carrying out “a full-out assault on our health and our rights.”
Views of abortion have remained relatively stable over two decades of polling, and it’s a minority of Americans who hold extreme opinions — that abortion should be legal or illegal in all cases. But polling does suggest a widening partisan gap on the question of support for abortion rights in all or most cases, along with some movement on both sides of the aisle further into their extreme positions.
The first march took place on the west steps of the Capitol in January 1974, the year after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established a woman’s legal right to abortion.
Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report from Washington.


pbs--2020-01-25--Trump team dismisses call for chief justice to rule on witnesses

A member of President Donald Trump ’ s legal team dismissed House Democrats ’ call for Chief Justice John Roberts to resolve disputes over witnesses in the impeachment trial .
“ I think that ’ s largely wishful thinking by Democrats , ” said Robert Ray , a former federal prosecutor who succeeded Ken Starr as the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton and is now representing Trump during his impeachment trial .
The Senate faces a pivotal decision next week–whether to vote to allow additional witnesses and documents in the trial before issuing a final verdict that could remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have cited concerns that if a majority of senators were to vote to subpoena testimony , particularly from former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton , the president would assert executive privilege , triggering a drawn-out court battle .
In his closing remarks of the House managers ’ three-day presentation , Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , urged senators to vote for additional witnesses and then allow Roberts to issue a ruling if the president were to claim executive privilege .
Schiff said it would be a way to avoid a protracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To the degree that there were a dispute over whether a privilege applied , we have a perfectly good judge sitting behind me , empowered by the rules of this body to resolve those disputes , ” Schiff said , as he addressed the Senate chamber Friday night .
But Ray told the NewsHour he disagrees .
“ He ’ s not there to be making those rulings , ” Ray said of Roberts ’ role .
“ He is the chief justice presiding over an impeachment trial .
That ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ordinary course of Article III courts , ” he added , referring to courts below the Supreme Court , where an effort by House Democrats to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn has stalled .
MORE : Your guide to the impeachment trial The rules of the current impeachment trial allow Roberts to rule on questions of evidence , if he chooses .
However , senators could also overrule Roberts with a simple majority .
Neal Katyal , former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide questions of executive privilege in his current role .
“ Comments to the contrary from the president ’ s legal team just underscore how scared they are to have a real adjudication of the issue , ” Katyal said .
The White House , at the direction of Trump , has blocked top aides and documents from House investigators during the impeachment process — and it has no plans to produce those witnesses now .
White House officials argue Schiff ’ s proposal would endanger presidential powers .
They say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters of executive privilege is not part of Roberts ’ role in the impeachment trial .
A senior White House official said Roberts ’ ruling would create two standards of executive privilege , one within and one outside the U.S. Senate chamber .
“ Adam Schiff is wrong : no ruling from the chief [ justice ] in an impeachment trial would suddenly make everything hunky-dory .
Much the contrary , ” the official said .
Roberts ’ may not have to make a ruling over witnesses or evidence in the proceedings next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least four Republican senators to vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial .

A member of President Donald Trump’s legal team dismissed House Democrats’ call for Chief Justice John Roberts to resolve disputes over witnesses in the impeachment trial.
“I think that’s largely wishful thinking by Democrats,” said Robert Ray, a former federal prosecutor who succeeded Ken Starr as the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton and is now representing Trump during his impeachment trial.
The Senate faces a pivotal decision next week–whether to vote to allow additional witnesses and documents in the trial before issuing a final verdict that could remove the president from office.
Republican lawmakers have cited concerns that if a majority of senators were to vote to subpoena testimony, particularly from former national security adviser John Bolton, the president would assert executive privilege, triggering a drawn-out court battle.
In his closing remarks of the House managers’ three-day presentation, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., urged senators to vote for additional witnesses and then allow Roberts to issue a ruling if the president were to claim executive privilege. Schiff said it would be a way to avoid a protracted legal battle in lower courts.
“To the degree that there were a dispute over whether a privilege applied, we have a perfectly good judge sitting behind me, empowered by the rules of this body to resolve those disputes,” Schiff said, as he addressed the Senate chamber Friday night.
But Ray told the NewsHour he disagrees. “He’s not there to be making those rulings,” Ray said of Roberts’ role.
“He is the chief justice presiding over an impeachment trial. That’s not a substitute for what is done in the ordinary course of Article III courts,” he added, referring to courts below the Supreme Court, where an effort by House Democrats to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn has stalled.
MORE: Your guide to the impeachment trial
The rules of the current impeachment trial allow Roberts to rule on questions of evidence, if he chooses. However, senators could also overrule Roberts with a simple majority.
Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, said the chief justice is “absolutely empowered” to decide questions of executive privilege in his current role.
“Comments to the contrary from the president’s legal team just underscore how scared they are to have a real adjudication of the issue,” Katyal said.
The White House, at the direction of Trump, has blocked top aides and documents from House investigators during the impeachment process — and it has no plans to produce those witnesses now.
White House officials argue Schiff’s proposal would endanger presidential powers. They say they’re prepared to argue ruling over matters of executive privilege is not part of Roberts’ role in the impeachment trial.
A senior White House official said Roberts’ ruling would create two standards of executive privilege, one within and one outside the U.S. Senate chamber.
“Adam Schiff is wrong: no ruling from the chief [justice] in an impeachment trial would suddenly make everything hunky-dory. Much the contrary,” the official said.
Roberts’ may not have to make a ruling over witnesses or evidence in the proceedings next week. Democrats still need to convince at least four Republican senators to vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial.