usatoday--2020-01-28--'We want to hear that': News of John Bolton's book casts shadow over Trump impeachment trial

As President Donald Trump ’ s defense team continued to attack the Democrats ’ case for impeachment Monday , the key question turned to whether revelations in a forthcoming book by former national security adviser John Bolton would convince enough Republicans to agree to call witnesses in the trial , a move that could prolong the proceedings into next week or beyond .
Republicans began the second of their allotted three days of arguments Monday in the hopes of ending the historic trial by Friday and avoid having it overlap with Trump ’ s State of the Union address on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allow four Democratic senators who are running for president to return to Iowa in time for Monday ’ s caucuses .
But details of Bolton ’ s book , first reported Sunday by The New York Times , threatened to derail those plans and put Republicans on the defensive .
In the book , Bolton reportedly says Trump personally told him that he hoped to continue to withhold nearly $ 400 million in military aid for Ukraine until the country announced investigations into political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Charles Schumer said Bolton 's reported claims directly contradict key elements of Trump 's defense and that a fair trial requires his testimony .
Trump denied Bolton 's account in a tweet Monday and later in front of reporters at the White House .
He and his defense team have argued that he withheld aid to get Ukraine to address its longstanding corruption issues and that it was unrelated to his desire for Ukraine ’ s president to announce an investigation into Biden .
“ There was no linkage between investigations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 call , the Ukrainians said there was no quid-pro-quo , ” Mike Purpura , a deputy counsel to the president who is defending him in the trial , argued before the Senate .
He did not mention Bolton , nor did any of his counterparts during the first several hours of the defense team 's presentation .
“ The House managers ’ record reflects that anyone who spoke with the president said that the President made clear that there was no linkage ” with aid and investigations , Purpura argued .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president to millions of voters Bolton was not a part of the House impeachment inquiry .
Democrats from both the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees considered subpoenaing him but decided against it for fear that it would spark a lengthy court fight that would keep the impeachment from moving forward .
Bolton followed a presidential directive not to testify voluntarily .
While Purpura and his colleagues argued their case Monday , at least two GOP senators , Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah , said they may be open to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can hear from Bolton .
At least two more Republicans would need to agree in order to reach the 51 votes necessary to include testimony from witnesses in the trial .
“ I think it ’ s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton , '' Romney told MSNBC .
A potential swing vote , Sen. Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , also said she was “ curious about what Ambassador Bolton has to say.
” ( Bolton served as ambassador to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush administration . )
Sen. Angus King of Maine , an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats , said he believed several more Republicans would join Collins and Romney .
But Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler , the chamber ’ s newest member who took the seat in January despite concerns among some Republicans that she ’ s not conservative enough , attacked Romney for suggesting additional witnesses should be called .
In a tweet , Loeffler accused Romney of working to `` appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make their case , Loeffler argued , so `` The circus is over .
It 's time to move on . ''
Sen. John Barrasso , R-Wyo.
, said the Bolton revelations were reminiscent of the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
`` It happened with Kavanaugh with so-called bombshells , '' said Barrasso , noting it was important to first `` hear the case , let 's hear the questions , then we 'll make a decision . ''
When pressed on whether the Bolton revelations were new , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effort to generate interest in a book , ” a charge Bolton and his publisher dismissed as `` unfounded speculation . ''
Meanwhile , on Monday , Ken Starr , a private lawyer representing Trump in the Senate trial , urged senators to step back from an “ age of impeachment ” with three presidential inquiries in 50 years by rejecting the partisan investigation .
Starr , who investigated former President Bill Clinton , which led to his impeachment but not his removal from office , said impeachment is traditionally built upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two impeached presidents , Clinton 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868 , along with the inquiry against Richard Nixon in 1974 , all alleged crimes .
“ Like war , impeachment is hell , or at least presidential impeachment is hell , '' Starr said .
`` Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment , including members of this body , full well understand that a president impeachment is tantamount to domestic war . ''
House Democrats have argued that bribery and extortion are implied in the articles of impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstruction of Congress in connection with the Ukraine aid , but Starr argued that articles against Trump don ’ t allege specific crimes .
Starr also voiced concern that impeachment had become too frequent a political weapon against the president of an opposing party .
“ Instead of a once-in-a-century phenomenon , which it had been , presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against one ’ s political opponent , ” Starr said .
Some conservative defenders of Trump criticized Starr ’ s presentation as too dry .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a little more Miss Universe , ” said Rep. Matt Gaetz , R-Fla. , referring to the lawyer in the classic novel “ To Kill a Mockingbird.
” The day began with the Senate chaplain , retired Rear Adm. Barry Black , mentioning his gratefulness for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ’ birthday .
“ Thank you for giving our chief justice another birthday , ” Black said , as Roberts smiled .
USA TODAY reporters Maureen Groppe , Ledyard King and Nicholas Wu contributed to this story .

Christal Hayes, Bart Jansen and John D'Anna, USA TODAY

'We want to hear that': News of John Bolton's book casts shadow over Trump impeachment trial
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump impeachment trial: Pat Cipollone, defense gives opening argument Pat Cipollone, part of President Donald Trump's legal defense team, summarized their defense during their opening arguments on January 25, 2020. USA TODAY
As President Donald Trump’s defense team continued to attack the Democrats’ case for impeachment Monday, the key question turned to whether revelations in a forthcoming book by former national security adviser John Bolton would convince enough Republicans to agree to call witnesses in the trial, a move that could prolong the proceedings into next week or beyond.
Republicans began the second of their allotted three days of arguments Monday in the hopes of ending the historic trial by Friday and avoid having it overlap with Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday. Ending the trial early would also allow four Democratic senators who are running for president to return to Iowa in time for Monday’s caucuses.
But details of Bolton’s book, first reported Sunday by The New York Times, threatened to derail those plans and put Republicans on the defensive. In the book, Bolton reportedly says Trump personally told him that he hoped to continue to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine until the country announced investigations into political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
More: Senate impeachment trial: Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team
The House impeachment managers and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said Bolton's reported claims directly contradict key elements of Trump's defense and that a fair trial requires his testimony.
Trump denied Bolton's account in a tweet Monday and later in front of reporters at the White House. He and his defense team have argued that he withheld aid to get Ukraine to address its longstanding corruption issues and that it was unrelated to his desire for Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation into Biden.
“There was no linkage between investigations and security assistance or meeting on the July 25 call, the Ukrainians said there was no quid-pro-quo,” Mike Purpura, a deputy counsel to the president who is defending him in the trial, argued before the Senate. He did not mention Bolton, nor did any of his counterparts during the first several hours of the defense team's presentation.
“The House managers’ record reflects that anyone who spoke with the president said that the President made clear that there was no linkage” with aid and investigations, Purpura argued.
Trump's Ukraine phone call: U.S. and Ukraine relationship, explained U.S. and Ukraine relations go further back than the now infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky. We explain their relationship. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
More: Trump impeachment audiences range from one president to millions of voters
Bolton was not a part of the House impeachment inquiry. Democrats from both the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees considered subpoenaing him but decided against it for fear that it would spark a lengthy court fight that would keep the impeachment from moving forward. Bolton followed a presidential directive not to testify voluntarily.
While Purpura and his colleagues argued their case Monday, at least two GOP senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah, said they may be open to calling witnesses in the trial so that they can hear from Bolton. At least two more Republicans would need to agree in order to reach the 51 votes necessary to include testimony from witnesses in the trial.
“I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton," Romney told MSNBC.
A potential swing vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, also said she was “curious about what Ambassador Bolton has to say.” (Bolton served as ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration.)
Sen. Angus King of Maine, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he believed several more Republicans would join Collins and Romney.
But Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the chamber’s newest member who took the seat in January despite concerns among some Republicans that she’s not conservative enough, attacked Romney for suggesting additional witnesses should be called.
In a tweet, Loeffler accused Romney of working to "appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realdonaldtrump."
Democrats had failed to make their case, Loeffler argued, so "The circus is over. It's time to move on."
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said the Bolton revelations were reminiscent of the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"It happened with Kavanaugh with so-called bombshells," said Barrasso, noting it was important to first "hear the case, let's hear the questions, then we'll make a decision."
When pressed on whether the Bolton revelations were new, Barrasso questioned whether the timing was "an effort to generate interest in a book,” a charge Bolton and his publisher dismissed as "unfounded speculation."
Meanwhile, on Monday, Ken Starr, a private lawyer representing Trump in the Senate trial, urged senators to step back from an “age of impeachment” with three presidential inquiries in 50 years by rejecting the partisan investigation.
Starr, who investigated former President Bill Clinton, which led to his impeachment but not his removal from office, said impeachment is traditionally built upon the accusations of crimes. Starr said the two impeached presidents, Clinton 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868, along with the inquiry against Richard Nixon in 1974, all alleged crimes.
“Like war, impeachment is hell, or at least presidential impeachment is hell," Starr said. "Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment, including members of this body, full well understand that a president impeachment is tantamount to domestic war."
House Democrats have argued that bribery and extortion are implied in the articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the Ukraine aid, but Starr argued that articles against Trump don’t allege specific crimes.
Starr also voiced concern that impeachment had become too frequent a political weapon against the president of an opposing party.
“Instead of a once-in-a-century phenomenon, which it had been, presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against one’s political opponent,” Starr said.
Some conservative defenders of Trump criticized Starr’s presentation as too dry.
“This defense needs a little less Atticus Finch and a little more Miss Universe,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., referring to the lawyer in the classic novel “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
The day began with the Senate chaplain, retired Rear Adm. Barry Black, mentioning his gratefulness for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ birthday.
“Thank you for giving our chief justice another birthday,” Black said, as Roberts smiled.
USA TODAY reporters Maureen Groppe, Ledyard King and Nicholas Wu contributed to this story.


usatoday--2020-01-28--Impeachment live updates: Trump's defense team makes last day of arguments

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump 's defense team are set to make their final day of arguments in his impeachment trial .
On Monday , the president 's team slammed the impeachment process as partisan and argued Trump was justified in asking the Ukrainian government to open investigations into his political adversaries .
House Democrats impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in mid-December .
They allege Trump withheld military aid and an Oval Office meeting with the Ukrainian president to get Ukraine to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress ' investigation into Trump 's actions .
The impeachment trial resumes today at 1 p.m. EST .
Refresh here for updates .
Trump 's team goes into day three Trump 's defense team will offer their final arguments in this phase of the trial , concluding the three days maximum of presentation time allowed under the rules for the first phase of the impeachment trial .
Trump 's team has offered a vigorous defense of the president 's actions while also asserting Trump 's lack of wrongdoing .
Tuesday 's presentation will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators , however .
The rules for the impeachment trial allow for 16 answers of questions of both sides submitted by senators following the presentations by the impeachment managers and the defense .
What Trump 's team has said so far Trump 's spent their part of their Monday presentation on arguing Trump was justified in asking for investigations into the Bidens and withholding aid to Ukraine , and concluded it with a presentation from Alan Dershowitz , a celebrity lawyer on Trump 's team .
Dershowitz argued the articles of impeachment were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a federal crime .
Response to his arguments split along party lines .
`` I liked Dershowitz , '' said Sen. Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , told reporters as she left the Capitol on Monday night .
`` The job is being done , and the case is being well-presented , '' Rep. Mike Johnson , R-La.
, a member of the president 's defense team , told reporters following the trial .
So far , Trump 's team has not addressed most of the allegations from former national security adviser John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump told Bolton military aid to Ukraine would be linked to the opening of investigations .
Democrats vigorously disagreed when Dershowitz claimed on Monday that Bolton 's testimony was unnecessary because the new revelations would not `` rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.
” Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia , whose education at Harvard Law School overlapped with Dershowitz 's tenure as a professor , laughed at the declaration , shaking his head and taking off his glasses to rub his eyes .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School professor , told reporters as she left the Capitol that Dershowitz 's presentation was `` contrary to both law and fact . ''
What happens next Following the conclusion of presentations from the defense , the Senate will hold 16 hours of questions from senators , which will be read out by the Chief Justice .
`` We 'll be able to combine questions , and it 'll be up to the Chief Justice to combine them in an orderly fashion , both sides having equal opportunity for asking questions , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What happens after the question phase is uncertain .
At that point , the Senate will take votes on whether to allow additional witnesses and documents in the trial , and the outcome of that vote is up in the air .
Some Republican senators have signaled their willingness to hear from witnesses like Bolton Any vote to call witnesses would require four Republicans to vote with all Democrats because Republicans control the Senate 53-47 .
Murkowski , a potential swing vote on witnesses , told reporters going into Republicans ' daily lunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' about Bolton 's testimony .
During their daily lunch meeting on Monday , several senators floated the idea of a witness trade , where Democrats would get to call a witness like Bolton in exchange for a witness Republicans have wanted like Hunter Biden .
Some Democrats , however , are hesitant to engage in witness-trading .
`` I 'm not going to be party to the same scheme that the President is being impeached for , and that 's what they 're trying to get us to do , '' Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , describing witness trading as part of a Republican scheme to `` destroy the Bidens . ''

Nicholas Wu and Savannah Behrmann, USA TODAY

Trump lawyer Sekulow says Bolton book manuscript 'inadmissable' – live Trump impeachment trial updates
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump lawyer bemoans 'era' of impeachment Trump lawyer bemoans 'era' of impeachment AP
The Senate impeachment trial has resumed. Refresh here for updates.
Republicans mum on witnesses following a meeting with McConnell
Coming out of a roughly hour and a half-long, closed-door meeting in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office after the conclusion of today’s impeachment trial, Republican senators appeared not to have reached a decision on calling witnesses.
The meeting was a “kind of recap of what’s happening and then get time to be able to talk together,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Ok.
Lankford declined to discuss how his proposal about viewing the manuscript in a closed setting was received among his colleagues.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, “we weren’t whipping [votes] in there.”
Graham suggested he would support calling Hunter Biden as a witness if Republicans motioned to do so.
“I don’t need any more evidence, but if we do call witnesses, we’re just not going to call one witness, they’re going to call a bunch of witnesses, ‘cause if we get down to expanding the record, I want to add to what was left out in the House,” Graham said.
“Hunter Biden was not called in the House,” he said. “For those who say he was not relevant, I could not disagree with you more. If you can prove that the president had a legitimate concern about the Bidens’ conduct, then their whole case crumbles.”
“Senators will speak for themselves,” said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., when asked if any senators had advocated for witnesses in the meeting.
Asked if there was enough support in the caucus to call additional witnesses, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said, “uh, I don’t know that either.”
Another Republican senator, John Hoeven of North Dakota, put his hand on a reporter’s shoulder and smiled when asked by him if the concerns of moderate Republicans like Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, had been addressed.
“I think on any of those senators, you should ask them how they’re going to come down,” he said.
The key swing vote Republican senators on witnesses, however, slipped out a different door of McConnell’s office than the doors reporters were allowed to stand outside.
- Nicholas Wu
Ex-Giuliani associate wants to give impeachment investigators more documents
Former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas isn't just battling government lawyers prosecuting him in an alleged campaign finance scheme. He's also butting heads with his co-defendants as he tries to provide more material to House investigators for Trump's impeachment trial.
The Ukraine-born businessman and three associates were indicted in October on charges of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars of foreign money to U.S. election candidates and committees. They have pleaded not guilty.
Parnas has given House impeachment investigators reams of material about the search that he and Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, undertook in Ukraine and elsewhere for potentially damaging information about the family of former Vice President Joe Biden.
The middleman: How Lev Parnas joined Team Trump and became Rudy Giuliani's fixer in Ukraine
Now, according to federal court filings, Parnas wants to give impeachment investigators materials from his Apple iCloud account, including photos and documents.
"Review of these items is essential to the committee's ability to corroborate the strength of Mr. Parnas's potential testimony," defense attorney Joseph Bondy wrote in a letter to the judge overseeing the case.
Federal prosecutors objected, arguing the iCloud material was never in Parnas' possession. Apple held the records and disclosed them to the government in response to search warrants, the prosecutors wrote in a letter to the judge.
Igor Fruman and Andrey Kukushkin, two of Parnas' co-defendants, argued the iCloud material could include records involving them. Neither has waived attorney-client privilege that covers such material.
The arguments set the stage for a potential ruling at a preliminary hearing Monday.
- Kevin McCoy
A look at how the Senate chamber cleared after adjourning for the day
Flashes of bipartisan comity could be seen as Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow concluded his remarks to the chamber Tuesday afternoon.
Pat Cipollone walked over to the House managers' table and shook hands with Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman walked over to the defense table and shook hands with lawyers at the table.
Democratic counsel Barry Berke embraced Sekulow.
Other senators who occupy moderate positions in their party could be seen huddling together in the chamber as well.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., a moderate Democrat, made her way across the aisle to sit in chairs at the back of the chamber with Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., where the two appeared to have an intense conversation.
Sens. Susan Collins, R-Me., John Thune, R-S.D., and Joe Manchin, D-W.V., talked together, and once Thune left, Manchin and Collins continued talking with their backs to reporters.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, sat for a while talking with Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kans.
Murkowski said "thank you" to Sekulow as he left.
Cipollone, who had criticized Nadler by showing videos of his remarks on Bill Clinton's impeachment, patted Nadler on the back as he went and shook hands at the Democratic table.
- Nicholas Wu
Trump defense team uses videos to show Democrats once opposed single-party impeachment
Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, closed the defense of President Donald Trump in the Senate trial with a warning that lowering the bar for impeachment and removal from office would set a historic precedent that would leave future presidents vulnerable to a Congress led by a different party.
He argued that the accusations in the two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – were too vague to justify removing a president from office.
“They fall far short of any constitutional standard and they are dangerous,” Cipollone said.
To make his point, Cipollone played a series of videos from Democrats decrying the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1998. Clinton was tried, but not removed from office. Two of the lawmakers – Reps. Jerry Nadler of New York and Zoe Lofgren of California – are managers prosecuting Trump’s case. Three others – Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey – were Democratic House members at that time and are now senators sitting in judgment of Trump.
Nadler warned against an impeachment of Clinton that would be supported by one party. So far no Republicans have supported Trump’s impeachment in committee or on the House floor.
“Such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and it will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,” Nadler said.
Lofgren said removing Clinton would be unfair to the American people and undo the 1996 election.
“Future presidents will face election, then litigation, then impeachment,” Lofgren said. “The power of the president will diminish in the face of the Congress, a phenomenon much feared by the founding fathers.”
Markey suggested that Republicans were pursuing a constitutional coup against Clinton. Menendez warned against making impeachment a political weapon. Schumer feared that lowering the bar for impeachment would make it “a routine tool to fight battles” between Congress and the White House.
“You were right,” Cipollone said to laughter in the Senate chamber. “But I’m sorry to say, you were also prophetic.”
- Bart Jansen
Dershowitz: Elizabeth Warren “doesn’t understand the law”
A day after Sen. Elizabeth Warren derided as “nonsensical” the arguments of Alan Dershowitz, one of several lawyers on President Donald Trump’s, the famed constitutional attorney bit back.
“Warren doesn’t understand the law,” the Harvard University Law professor wrote in a series of tweets Tuesday afternoon. She “claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me.”
Dershowitz did not stop there.
Warren doesn’t understand the law.
My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. (1 of 2) — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
“She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives,” he continued. ”If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law.”
On Monday, Dershowitz told the Senate that the articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are unconstitutional because they don’t allege a violation of federal crime.
“It is inconceivable that the framers would have intended so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as abuse of power to be weaponized as a tool of impeachment,” Dershowitz said. “It is precisely that the kind of vague, open-ended and subjective term that the framers feared and rejected.”
Warren told reporters that Dershowitz’ is “nonsensical.”
"His characterization of the law simply is unsupported,” she said. “He is a criminal law professor who stood in the well of the Senate and talked about how law never enquires into intent and that we should not be using the president's intent as part of understanding impeachment.”
- Ledyard King
Trump lawyer Sekulow says Bolton book manuscript 'inadmissable'
WASHINGTON – Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s attorneys arguing on his behalf at the trial, told senators that the manuscript that was leaked from John Bolton’s book would be “inadmissible.”
“Responding to an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says,” he said. “I don’t know what you’d call that. I’d call it inadmissible. That’s what it is.”
He pushed back on assertions reportedly made in a book by Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, that included that the president personally told Bolton that military aid for Ukraine was tied to investigations in Ukraine helpful to Trump. Sekulow cited a tweet the president sent, where Trump denied ever making such comments to Bolton and suggested that Bolton was only trying to sell books.
Impeachment “is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That is politics unfortunately,” said Sekulow, who added that the Senate has “to be above that fray.”
Sekulow also argued to senators that even if the allegations against the president were correct, it still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, pointing to remarks made by Alan Dershowitz.
“Even if it was a quid pro quo, which we have clearly established there was none,” Sekulow argued. “Even if everything in there was true, it constitutionally doesn't rise to that level.”
- Christal Hayes
Trump lawyer rejects Democrats' 'reckless allegations' over documents
Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, responded Tuesday to what he called “reckless allegations” from House Democrats about how two key documents were handled in the impeachment inquiry.
One document summarized a July 25 call, during which President Donald Trump urged Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. . The call summary was placed on a secure server in the White House, which Democrats argued demonstrated a cover-up.
But Philbin said Trump released the call summary two months later and that officials still had access to it for their jobs.
A National Security Council staffer, Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who reported concerns about the call to the council's lawyers, told the House inquiry he saw nothing improper with storing the call summary on the secure server. His boss, Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council expert on Russia, also testified there was no malicious intent in storing the summary on the secure server.
The other document was the whistleblower complaint to the inspector general of the intelligence community, which focused on the July 25 call. House Democrats said the complaint should have been provided to Congress as soon as the inspector general found it credible.
But Philbin said the Justice Department reviewed the complaint and found that it didn’t meet the legal definition of an “urgent concern” that had to be turned over to Congress. Trump eventually provided the complaint to Congress about the same time he released the call summary.
“When something gets sent over to the Justice Department to examine, you can’t call that a cover-up,” Philbin said. “Everything was handled entirely properly.”
- Bart Jansen
Trump team: House impeachment charges are too vague
President Donald Trump’s defense team picked up its third and final day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday by arguing the charges from House Democrats are too vague to be enforced.
Patrick Philbin, deputy White House counsel, said the potential impeachment offense of “maladministration” was rejected in drafting the Constitution because it was too vague. Philbin argued as other Trump lawyers had before that impeachable offenses should be enumerated and well defined.
“Vague standards are themselves an opportunity for the expansion of power,” Philbin said.
House Democrats charged Trump with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival while withholding $391 million in military aid. Constitutional scholars have said impeachable offenses need not be based on criminal statutes, although House Democrats said the abuse of power was based on action akin to bribery or extortion.
But Philbin argued that the framers of the Constitution would have rejected those arguments as too vague to be enforced.
“It is so malleable that it in effect recreates the charge of maladministration, which the framers rejected,” Philbin said.
- Bart Jansen
Trump team will leave time on the table
President Donald Trump’s defense team said it expects to finish its third and final day of arguments by dinner, without using all of the 24 hours it was given.
The president's defense team began arguments Tuesday afternoon with 15 hours and 33 minutes of time left to make its case. But it expects to take up just a few hours on their final day.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone said the arguments could be finished by dinner.
"Our goal is to be finished by dinner time and well before," he said.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, told Trump's team, "it will not be possible to use the remainder of that time before the end of the day.”
- Bart Jansen
Graham: if Bolton called, ‘There will be 51 Republican votes’ to call Bidens
Sen. Lindsey Graham said if Democrats are going to try to bring John Bolton as a witness at the Senate impeachment trial then Democrats should be prepared to see former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and other key Democrats hauled in as well.
“If we’re going to open this up to additional inquiry, we’re going to go down the road,” the Republican senator from South Carolina told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday. “Was it legitimate for the president to believe there was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Bidens’ part in the Ukraine? We’ll explore that and whether or not there’s any credibility to the idea that he (Democratic National Committee) may have been working with Ukraine.”
President Donald Trump's defense team began its third and final day of arguments about 1 p.m. EST.
Graham said he doesn’t need to hear from more witnesses, saying he was “comfortable” with what he’s already heard.
But Graham added, “I’m just telling everybody who thinks you can surgically deal with this: it’s not going to happen,” he said. “I’ll make a prediction. There’ll be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower and the DNC staffer at a very minimum.”
Barr-Bolton: Justice Department says Bolton 'grossly mischaracterizes' Barr's take on Trump's talks with Xi, Erdogan
Democrats are eager to hear directly from Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, who in a forthcoming book alleges Trump told him directly that he wished to continue withholding nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine unless the country announced investigations the Bidens.
Republicans have countered that Trump had ample rationale to hold up the aid, in part because Hunter Biden worked for a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, that the country’s top prosecutor Viktor Sholkin had investigated for corruption. Republicans allege Hunter Biden was hired solely because he was the son of the then-vice president and that Joe Biden had tried to get Sholkin fired to protect his son. Ukrainian officials and anti-corruption activists say Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time Shokin was fired.
Democrats counter that those allegations against Burisma have been widely debunked because Biden’s effort to have Shokin fired was part of the U.S. national policy to root out corruption in Ukraine and was supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
- Ledyard King
John Kelly: 'I believe John Bolton'
President Donald Trump is denying that he told former National Security Adviser John Bolton he wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until the country launched investigations into Joe Biden and his son, allegations that Bolton levies in his new book, according to news reports.
But one of Trump’s former top aides told a Sarasota, Florida, crowd Monday evening that if the reporting on what Bolton wrote is accurate, he believes Bolton.
“If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton,” said retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff for 18 months.
Kelly spoke Monday at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall as part of a lecture series in Sarasota, Florida. The general worked with Bolton during his time as chief of staff, which ended in early 2019. Kelly said Bolton is an honest person.
“Every single time I was with him ... he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton, who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry.
According to the New York Times, Bolton writes in a new book that Trump personally told him he did not want to release nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until the country investigated Democrats, including the former vice president and his son.
- Zac Anderson, Sarasota Herald Tribune
'I believe John Bolton': Former Trump chief of staff John Kelly backs Bolton in Ukraine dispute
Graham 'totally' supports giving senators Bolton book
A proposal floated Tuesday by GOP senators to allow access to John Bolton's manuscript is being shot down by leading Democrats who say they want the former national security adviser as a witness in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, an ally of Trump, tweeted out his support for giving senators access to the material alleging the president told him he didn't want to release nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine until the country announced investigations into political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
“I totally support @SenatorLankford’s proposal that the Bolton manuscript be made available to the Senate, if possible, in a classified setting where each senator has the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination,” tweeted Graham, R-S.C.
Pres. Trump's impeachment defense tries to invalidate charges The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump received a dose of defense in an attempt to invalidate the charges against him. USA TODAY
Democrats need at least four GOP senators to vote with them to subpoena Bolton as a witness, a showdown expected in the Senate later this week.
Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who serves on the intelligence committee, told The Oklahoman that Bolton’s manuscript is pertinent, and senators should be able to read it. That could be done in a classified setting since the manuscript is undergoing a pre-publication screening process to ensure it doesn’t reveal classified information, Lankford said.
I totally support @SenatorLankford's
proposal that the Bolton manuscript be made available to the Senate, if possible, in a classified setting where each Senator has the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination. https://t.co/e18nUfSMgI — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 28, 2020
He also encouraged Bolton to step forward on his own if he has something to say.
Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Graham's proposal "absurd" at a Tuesday press conference. "It's a book. There's no need to read in a (secure setting) unless you want to hide something ... Nothing is a substitute for a witness under oath, in person, testifying. That's what we want."
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., also told USA TODAY it was an effort to prevent "full disclosure that comes from having the process of having a witness questioned and exploring the details.”
After the Bolton news broke Sunday, many GOP senators dismissed it as irrelevant to the bottom line and said it would unnecessarily prolong the impeachment trial to subpoena Bolton.
Some senators who have expressed interest in hearing from Bolton – including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski – said they will wait to decide on witnesses until after the defense finishes its presentation Tuesday and senators have had a chance to ask questions of both sides.
– Maureen Groppe, Nicholas Wu and Ledyard King
Why didn't House managers subpoena Bolton?
One of the refrains Republicans have been making about John Bolton is that if Democrats were so eager to call in President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, they should have subpoenaed him during their impeachment inquiry last fall.
House impeachment managers Tuesday said he threatened to sue when they asked to appear before them. And they did not want a protracted court battle that would have likely stretched beyond the presidential election in November.
“The essential (element) of what the president is doing is to cheat for the 2020 election,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, told reporters on a conference call Tuesday morning. “And to engage in a court process that would allow him to continue to cheat between now and the election was really not consistent with our oath to the Constitution.”
The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton’s forthcoming book alleges Trump told him directly that he wished to continue withholding nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine unless the country announced investigations into his 2020 political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Lofgren said they also didn’t view Bolton’s testimony at the time as crucial because they had “substantial evidence (from other witnesses) about the scheme."
Another manager, Jason Crow of Colorado, pointed to the already lengthy court battle to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify about potential actions Trump took to obstruct justice as outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
“Let’s not forget the House subpoenaed Don McGann in April and we’re still litigating that,” Crow told reporters on Tuesday’s call.
– Ledyard King
Trump team hopes to wind up defense in 2-3 hours
The White House is signaling a relatively short trial session Tuesday as President Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers prepare their final day of arguments.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump's private attorney Jay Sekulow will make the case for the president for no more than two to three hours, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because final preparations are still evolving. Attorneys are still trying to address how to approach a key issue: Their argument that witnesses are not needed.
Officials said they do not know whether enough Republicans will support calling witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton, whose forthcoming book alleges Trump told him directly that he wished to continue withholding nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine unless the country announced investigations into his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The trial could stretch into into next week or beyond if enough Republicans decide to support calling witnesses.
Trump's attorney's are expected to call for a dismissal of the case later this week.
– David Jackson
Lawyers: Trump justified in asking Ukraine for probe
On Monday, the president's team slammed the impeachment process as partisan and argued Trump was justified in asking the Ukrainian government to open investigations into his political adversaries.
House Democrats impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in mid-December. They allege Trump withheld military aid and an Oval Office meeting with the Ukrainian president to get Ukraine to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and that the Trump administration stonewalled Congress' investigation into Trump's actions.
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Trump's team goes into day three
Trump's defense team will offer its final arguments in this phase of the trial, concluding the three days maximum of presentation time allowed under the rules for the first phase of the impeachment trial.
Trump's team has offered a vigorous defense of the president's actions while also asserting Trump's lack of wrongdoing.
Dershowitz makes the case: Alan Dershowitz tells Senate Trump's impeachment is unconstitutional
Tuesday's presentation will not be the last chance to convince senators, however. The rules for the impeachment trial allow for 16 answers of questions of both sides submitted by senators following the presentations by the impeachment managers and the defense.
What Trump's team has said so far
Members of Trump's spent their part of their Monday presentation arguing Trump was justified in asking for investigations into the Bidens and withholding aid to Ukraine, and concluded it with a presentation from Alan Dershowitz, a celebrity lawyer on Trump's team.
Dershowitz argued the articles of impeachment were unconstitutional because they did not charge Trump with a federal crime.
Response to his arguments split along party lines.
"I liked Dershowitz," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told reporters as she left the Capitol on Monday night.
Senate Dems: Key Senate Democrat says Trump team made 'persuasive' argument against obstruction article
"The job is being done, and the case is being well-presented," Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., a member of the president's defense team, told reporters following the trial.
So far, Trump's team has not addressed most of the allegations from former national security adviser John Bolton's upcoming book, which says Trump told Bolton military aid to Ukraine would be linked to the opening of investigations.
Democrats vigorously disagreed when Dershowitz claimed on Monday that Bolton's testimony was unnecessary because the new revelations would not "rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.”
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, whose education at Harvard Law School overlapped with Dershowitz's tenure as a professor, laughed at the declaration, shaking his head and taking off his glasses to rub his eyes.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., formerly a Harvard Law School professor, told reporters as she left the Capitol that Dershowitz's presentation was "contrary to both law and fact."
Bolton bombshell: 'We want to hear that': News of John Bolton's book casts shadow over Trump impeachment trial
What happens next
Following the conclusion of presentations from the defense, the Senate will hold 16 hours of questions from senators, which will be read out by the Chief Justice.
"We'll be able to combine questions, and it'll be up to the Chief Justice to combine them in an orderly fashion, both sides having equal opportunity for asking questions," said Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D.
What happens after the question phase is uncertain. At that point, the Senate will take votes on whether to allow additional witnesses and documents in the trial, and the outcome of that vote is up in the air.
Some Republican senators have signaled their willingness to hear from witnesses like Bolton Any vote to call witnesses would require four Republicans to vote with all Democrats because Republicans control the Senate 53-47.
Murkowski, a potential swing vote on witnesses, told reporters going into Republicans' daily lunch meeting on Monday she was "curious" about Bolton's testimony.
During their daily lunch meeting on Monday, several senators floated the idea of a witness trade, where Democrats would get to call a witness like Bolton in exchange for a witness Republicans have wanted like Hunter Biden.
Some Democrats, however, are hesitant to engage in witness-trading.
"I'm not going to be party to the same scheme that the President is being impeached for, and that's what they're trying to get us to do," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., told reporters Monday, describing witness trading as part of a Republican scheme to "destroy the Bidens."


usatoday--2020-01-28--Key Senate Democrat says Trump team made 'persuasive' argument against obstruction article

WASHINGTON – Sen. Doug Jones , a key Senate Democrat considered one of the chamber 's most endangered senators going into the 2020 race , found some of the arguments made by President Donald Trump 's counsel `` persuasive '' and highlighted concerns he has over the second article of impeachment .
Jones , D-Ala. , in a brief interview with USA TODAY Monday evening , said he 's taken about 240 pages worth of notes so far throughout the trial .
He says he 's made stars next to key arguments and acknowledged he 's wrestling over whether he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acquit him — a decision that would almost certainly hang over his future in the Senate .
`` He did make some good points on a couple of things on factual issues that I 've got concerns about with , especially with regard to Article II , '' Jones said of the arguments made by Alan Dershowitz , a member of Trump 's counsel defending him during the trial .
Jones ' vote on impeachment likely wo n't determine Trump 's fate .
To remove the president from office , a supermajority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convict the president .
Currently , Republicans hold the majority in the chamber with 53 seats .
To oust the president , Democrats would need the full support of their caucus along with 20 Republicans .
Without Jones , that number would increase to 21 .
But , his vote will likely carry over to the campaign trail .
Jones narrowly won his seat in 2017 after defeating Roy Moore , who faced a series of sexual assault allegations .
Jones ' win made him the first Democratic senator to represent deep-red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , Jones faces an uphill battle as he fends off Republicans , including Jeff Sessions , who held the seat before serving as Trump 's attorney general .
More : Democratic Sen. Doug Jones may vote against convicting Trump in impeachment if 'dots are n't connected' Jones said that Dershowitz 's arguments Monday that the founding fathers would have found both articles of impeachment in violation of the Constitution because they are not specifically mentioned did not carry water with him .
`` I 'm sorry , I just do n't buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole , Jones said he found the president 's counsel did a good job with the case against convicting the president of obstruction of justice , the second article of impeachment House Democrats charged Trump with .
He found the argument on Article I , abuse of power , less persuasive .
`` I think the arguments they 're making on Article II are much more persuasive than Article I , '' he said .
`` And Article I , they 're focusing solely on the [ July 25th call ] transcript @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story than the transcript , and they continue to talk about cross-examination of witnesses but yet they continue to block witnesses that have first-hand knowledge .
That 's disingenuous . ''
The remarks indicate that Jones has left the door open to splitting his vote on the pair of impeachment articles .
When asked about the possibility , Jones did not deny it but said he was viewing each article separately .
More : 'We want to hear that ' : News of John Bolton 's book casts shadow over Trump impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate , '' he explained .
`` My training as a judge is saying , each count stands on its own .
And that 's how I 'm trying to continue to look at this . ''
But , Jones said , he has yet to make up his mind on how he will vote .
`` I ask myself a lot of questions and I 'll go back , I 'll argue with myself a lot tonight , '' he said with a smile .
`` It 's the way I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrestle over his vote , which could happen as early as late this week or early next week , he has joined the rest of his Senate Democratic colleagues in supporting additional witnesses testifying as part of the trial .
At the top of his list ?
John Bolton , Trump 's former national security adviser , and Mick Mulvaney , Trump 's acting chief of staff .
A total of 51 senators would need to support calling any additional witnesses or requesting any new documents , a possibility that has gained new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a book set to be released in March by Bolton .

Key Senate Democrat says Trump team made 'persuasive' argument against obstruction article
Show Caption Hide Caption Pres. Trump's impeachment defense tries to invalidate charges The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump received a dose of defense in an attempt to invalidate the charges against him. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Sen. Doug Jones, a key Senate Democrat considered one of the chamber's most endangered senators going into the 2020 race, found some of the arguments made by President Donald Trump's counsel "persuasive" and highlighted concerns he has over the second article of impeachment.
Jones, D-Ala., in a brief interview with USA TODAY Monday evening, said he's taken about 240 pages worth of notes so far throughout the trial. He says he's made stars next to key arguments and acknowledged he's wrestling over whether he will find the president guilty or vote to acquit him — a decision that would almost certainly hang over his future in the Senate.
"He did make some good points on a couple of things on factual issues that I've got concerns about with, especially with regard to Article II," Jones said of the arguments made by Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump's counsel defending him during the trial.
Jones' vote on impeachment likely won't determine Trump's fate. To remove the president from office, a supermajority of 67 senators would have to vote to convict the president.
Currently, Republicans hold the majority in the chamber with 53 seats. To oust the president, Democrats would need the full support of their caucus along with 20 Republicans. Without Jones, that number would increase to 21.
But, his vote will likely carry over to the campaign trail. Jones narrowly won his seat in 2017 after defeating Roy Moore, who faced a series of sexual assault allegations. Jones' win made him the first Democratic senator to represent deep-red Alabama in 25 years.
But in 2020, Jones faces an uphill battle as he fends off Republicans, including Jeff Sessions, who held the seat before serving as Trump's attorney general.
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
More: Democratic Sen. Doug Jones may vote against convicting Trump in impeachment if 'dots aren't connected'
Jones said that Dershowitz's arguments Monday that the founding fathers would have found both articles of impeachment in violation of the Constitution because they are not specifically mentioned did not carry water with him. "I'm sorry, I just don't buy that," he said.
As a whole, Jones said he found the president's counsel did a good job with the case against convicting the president of obstruction of justice, the second article of impeachment House Democrats charged Trump with. He found the argument on Article I, abuse of power, less persuasive.
"I think the arguments they're making on Article II are much more persuasive than Article I," he said. "And Article I, they're focusing solely on the [July 25th call] transcript and there's so much more to the story than the transcript, and they continue to talk about cross-examination of witnesses but yet they continue to block witnesses that have first-hand knowledge. That's disingenuous."
The remarks indicate that Jones has left the door open to splitting his vote on the pair of impeachment articles. When asked about the possibility, Jones did not deny it but said he was viewing each article separately.
More: 'We want to hear that': News of John Bolton's book casts shadow over Trump impeachment trial
"I try to keep these separate," he explained. "My training as a judge is saying, each count stands on its own. And that's how I'm trying to continue to look at this."
But, Jones said, he has yet to make up his mind on how he will vote.
"I ask myself a lot of questions and I'll go back, I'll argue with myself a lot tonight," he said with a smile. "It's the way I do things."
Schumer calls on Bolton to testify Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is calling on John Bolton to testify at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial after the revelation that a draft of Bolton's book undercuts a key defense argument. (Jan. 27) AP
While Jones continues to wrestle over his vote, which could happen as early as late this week or early next week, he has joined the rest of his Senate Democratic colleagues in supporting additional witnesses testifying as part of the trial. At the top of his list? John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, and Mick Mulvaney, Trump's acting chief of staff.
A total of 51 senators would need to support calling any additional witnesses or requesting any new documents, a possibility that has gained new traction thanks to a leaked manuscript of a book set to be released in March by Bolton.
Want to talk more about politics?: Join our Facebook group: ‘Across the Aisle, Across the Nation.’


usatoday--2020-01-28--Senate impeachment trial: Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team

Saturday , the defense of President Donald Trump began in his impeachment trial in the Senate .
Here 's a look at claims and issues raised by the president 's lawyers as they lay out their response to the case made by the Democratic House managers prosecuting the articles of impeachment – for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – against Trump .
Trump ’ s team puts the Bidens on trial over Burisma Trump ’ s lawyers focused Monday evening on Hunter Biden , the son of his Democratic rival , former Vice President Joe Biden , during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pam Bondi said the defense team would have preferred to avoid Biden and his work on the board at Burisma Holdings , a natural gas company in Ukraine .
But the impeachment articles accuse Trump of abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Burisma .
`` We would prefer not to be discussing this , ” she said .
“ But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue , so we must address it . ''
Bondi focused on news reports that suggested Hunter Biden was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former vice president .
Bondi also highlighted a number of media reports chronicling what could appear to be a conflict-of-interest for the vice president due to him and the Obama administration ’ s pressuring Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin , who had previously attempted to probe Burisma .
House managers had said that allegations against Burisma had been debunked .
Biden ’ s effort to have Shokin fired for corruption was part of the U.S. national policy and was supported by the European Union and the International Monetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shokin was ousted because he wasn ’ t pursuing corruption by Ukraine ’ s politicians .
More specifically , Bondi ’ s implication Monday that then-Vice President Biden withheld $ 1 billion in aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the government to remove Shokin because the top prosecutor was investigating Burisma and its oligarch owner -- a move that Trump and his allies say benefited Hunter Biden -- is a suggestion contradicted by foreign diplomatic officials who were following the issue at the time .
More : Biden , allies pushed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption cases And FactCheck.org concluded “ there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation or that his father pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin on his behalf.
” Eric Herschmann , another private lawyer representing Trump who addressed senators after Bondi , questioned why Hunter Biden was hired and paid so much by Burisma without any experience in the natural-gas industry , the energy sector generally or with Ukraine .
“ What are the House managers afraid of finding out ?
” Herschmann asked .
A former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence .
USA TODAY spent a week in Ukraine and reported “ the message from two dozen government officials and anti-corruption investigators quickly became clear : The allegations against the Bidens are entirely lacking in evidence.
” More : Trump 's conspiracy theories thrive in Ukraine , where a young democracy battles corruption and distrust Hunter Biden told ABC News in October 2019 that he was focused on corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Bottom line is that I know I was completely qualified to be on the board to head up the corporate governance and transparency committee on the board , and that ’ s all that I focused on , ” Biden said in the video that Herschmann played at the trial .
But during the same interview , Biden refused to disclose how much he was paid .
Bondi said public records from an unrelated criminal case suggested that Biden was paid $ 83,333 per month for 17 months .
Herschmann said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect Joe Biden , but that questions linger .
`` They contend that any investigation into the millions of dollars in payments by a corrupt Ukrainian company owned by a corrupt Ukraine oligarch to the son of the second highest officer holder in our land , who was supposed to be in charge of fighting corruption in Ukraine – they ’ re calling that type of inquiry a sham , debunked , ” Herschmann said .
“ But there has never been an investigation , so how could it be a sham ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokesman , said accusations against Biden and his son had been debunked by fact-checkers at the Washington Post , New York Times and others .
`` Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory , '' Bates said .
`` It 's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump . ''
The lead House manager , Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , said Trump ’ s lawyers spent about two hours trashing the Bidens , but couldn ’ t explain why the president only took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Schiff said it was “ crystal clear ” that the pressure for investigations came after Joe Biden had announced his Democratic candidacy to challenge Trump .
“ At the end of the day , they don ’ t contest that President Trump sought to coerce Ukraine into conducting two political investigations in order to help him cheat in the election , ” Schiff said .
Trump falsely claims House of Representatives never asked Bolton to testify As bombshell reporting surfaced about the contents of a forthcoming book by Trump ’ s former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers grappled Monday with new calls for witnesses to be allowed in the Senate impeachment trial , and Trump falsely claimed Bolton was never asked to testify by House Democrats .
Democrats have called for witnesses like Bolton and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to be subpoenaed in the trial , and Republicans argue that the House missed its chance to hear from those witnesses during the House 's impeachment inquiry .
Trump went so far as to tweet Monday morning before the trial resumed , “ The Democrat controlled House never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is up to them , not up to the Senate !
” In fact , the House committees overseeing the impeachment inquiry asked Bolton to testify in a letter dated Oct. 30 , 2019 , and had scheduled a deposition for Nov. 7 , at which he did not appear .
Bolton ’ s counsel said he would only testify if he was legally compelled to do so by a subpoena , and indicated he would join onto a lawsuit by his deputy Charles Kupperman .
Kupperman wanted the courts to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify by subpoena from the legislative branch when the executive branch , the White House , was directing him not to cooperate with the inquiry .
House investigators withdrew their subpoena of Kupperman , and his case was dismissed by a judge .
Democrats also decided not to issue a subpoena to Bolton because it would delay the investigation .
After Trump was impeached by the House , Bolton said in a statement that he would be willing to testify in the Senate if subpoenaed .
Reporting on his upcoming book includes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to Ukraine was directly tied to investigations into the Bidens and election interference .
More : What we know about John Bolton 's allegations about Trump and Ukraine '' There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president ’ s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump , '' the seven Democratic House impeachment managers said .
Sekulow : It was Trump – not Obama – that provided Ukraine with lethal military aid As the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments Saturday , Jay Sekulow , one of the private attorneys on Trump ’ s team , said that it was Trump -- not his predecessor Barack Obama -- who provided Ukraine with lethal military aid , including anti-tank Javelin missiles .
Indeed , Sekulow said that U.S. policy toward Ukraine policy under Trump got stronger , stronger than it had been under former President Obama .
While Sekulow is correct about the provision of lethal aid , the charge in the impeachment trial against Trump for abuse of power turns on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been appropriated by Congress and his motivations for doing so .
House Democrats allege Trump delayed the aid in order to pressure Ukraine ’ s newly elected president into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden , a top Trump political rival , and into entertaining a debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election .
“ The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014 , ” PolitiFact writes , after Russia invaded Crimea .
“ But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PolitiFact adds .
The Obama administration rejected a request from Ukraine for lethal aid in 2014 , even after its then-president visited Washington and reportedly said “ Blankets and night vision goggles are important , but one can not win a war with a blanket.
” “ U.S .
officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia , ” PolitiFact writes , adding “ key allies , including Germany , were not keen on sending weapons into the conflict zone.
” In 2014 , the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ that included vehicles , patrol boats , body armor and night-vision goggles , as well as humanitarian assistance , ” according to PolitiFact .
And , between 2014 and 2016 , the U.S. committed more than $ 600 million in security assistance to Ukraine .
While the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act had called for lethal assistance , “ the equipment ultimately provided during Obama ’ s tenure was non-lethal aid , ” PolitiFact writes .
`` ’ The first lethal deliveries came from Trump , ’ '' Jim Townsend , deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NATO Policy during the Obama administration , told PolitiFact .
Townsend also explained that the aid provided by Obama was what had been “ recommended by European command and others who went in to see what [ the Ukrainians ] needed . ''
But Trump has been impeached and is facing trial in the Senate over the delay in congressionally approved aid to the U.S. ally as it fights Russian aggression .
On that issue , a government watchdog agency recently concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , '' the report by the Government Accountability Office says .
`` OMB withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted '' under the law .
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget disagreed with the GAO ’ s conclusion .
And speaking Saturday , Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators “ the president did absolutely nothing wrong.
” He added : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting in our national interest and pursuant to his oath of office.
” Trump ’ s defense focuses on his concern with burden-sharing in helping Ukraine In laying out their defense of President Trump , his legal team touched Saturday on his concerns about whether European allies were doing enough to help Ukraine .
“ The president rightly had real concerns about whether European and other countries were contributing their fair share to ensuring Ukraine ’ s security , ” Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators .
Earlier in the week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network , the president expressed those concerns again .
“ There ’ s something else I ’ m always stressing , ” the president said during the cable TV interview .
“ Why isn ’ t Germany and France and U.K. and all these other countries in Europe that are much more affected than us , why aren ’ t they paying something ?
” “ They are paying plenty.
“ the Associated Press wrote in assessing Trump ’ s assertion .
While the AP observed that “ the U.S. is a heavy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it also pointed out that “ Since 2014 , the EU and European financial institutions have mobilized more than $ 16 billion to help Ukraine ’ s economy , counter corruption , build institutions and strengthen its sovereignty against further incursions by Russia after its annexation of Crimea.
” FactCheck.org reached a similar conclusion : “ In fact , the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $ 16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014.
” And , “ the U.S. isn ’ t even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to Ukraine , according to FactCheck.org .
One analyst has concluded that on average the EU has given almost twice as much per year to Ukraine since 2014 than the U.S. has averaged .
With regard to just military aid , a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine told The Washington Post ’ s Fact Checker that “ ‘ The United States is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine.
” This is because of “ ‘ skittishness ’ among many European countries that ‘ don ’ t want to provoke Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Furthermore , the Post explained : “ This is how the aid burden is usually divided between the United States and the Europeans , with the United States providing the muscle and Europe providing the ‘ soft power ’ to stabilize troubled nations .
”

Martina Stewart, Jeanine Santucci, Bart Jansen and Christal Hayes, USA TODAY

Senate impeachment trial: Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump impeachment trial: Pat Cipollone, defense gives opening argument Pat Cipollone, part of President Donald Trump's legal defense team, summarized their defense during their opening arguments on January 25, 2020. USA TODAY
Saturday, the defense of President Donald Trump began in his impeachment trial in the Senate. Here's a look at claims and issues raised by the president's lawyers as they lay out their response to the case made by the Democratic House managers prosecuting the articles of impeachment – for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – against Trump.
Trump’s team puts the Bidens on trial over Burisma
Trump’s lawyers focused Monday evening on Hunter Biden, the son of his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, during their arguments in the Senate impeachment trial.
Pam Bondi said the defense team would have preferred to avoid Biden and his work on the board at Burisma Holdings, a natural gas company in Ukraine. But the impeachment articles accuse Trump of abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.
"We would prefer not to be discussing this,” she said. “But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it."
Bondi focused on news reports that suggested Hunter Biden was hired solely because he was son of the former vice president. Bondi also highlighted a number of media reports chronicling what could appear to be a conflict-of-interest for the vice president due to him and the Obama administration’s pressuring Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had previously attempted to probe Burisma.
House managers had said that allegations against Burisma had been debunked. Biden’s effort to have Shokin fired for corruption was part of the U.S. national policy and was supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
USA TODAY has reported that Shokin was ousted because he wasn’t pursuing corruption by Ukraine’s politicians. More specifically, Bondi’s implication Monday that then-Vice President Biden withheld $1 billion in aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the government to remove Shokin because the top prosecutor was investigating Burisma and its oligarch owner -- a move that Trump and his allies say benefited Hunter Biden -- is a suggestion contradicted by foreign diplomatic officials who were following the issue at the time.
More: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
And FactCheck.org concluded “there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation or that his father pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin on his behalf.”
Eric Herschmann, another private lawyer representing Trump who addressed senators after Bondi, questioned why Hunter Biden was hired and paid so much by Burisma without any experience in the natural-gas industry, the energy sector generally or with Ukraine.
“What are the House managers afraid of finding out?” Herschmann asked.
A former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the Clinton administration told USA TODAY it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence.
USA TODAY spent a week in Ukraine and reported “the message from two dozen government officials and anti-corruption investigators quickly became clear: The allegations against the Bidens are entirely lacking in evidence.”
More: Trump's conspiracy theories thrive in Ukraine, where a young democracy battles corruption and distrust
Hunter Biden told ABC News in October 2019 that he was focused on corporate governance while on Burisma’s board.
“Bottom line is that I know I was completely qualified to be on the board to head up the corporate governance and transparency committee on the board, and that’s all that I focused on,” Biden said in the video that Herschmann played at the trial.
But during the same interview, Biden refused to disclose how much he was paid. Bondi said public records from an unrelated criminal case suggested that Biden was paid $83,333 per month for 17 months. Herschmann said Democrats circled the wagons in August to protect Joe Biden, but that questions linger.
"They contend that any investigation into the millions of dollars in payments by a corrupt Ukrainian company owned by a corrupt Ukraine oligarch to the son of the second highest officer holder in our land, who was supposed to be in charge of fighting corruption in Ukraine – they’re calling that type of inquiry a sham, debunked,” Herschmann said. “But there has never been an investigation, so how could it be a sham?"
Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman, said accusations against Biden and his son had been debunked by fact-checkers at the Washington Post, New York Times and others. "Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory," Bates said. "It's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump."
The lead House manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Trump’s lawyers spent about two hours trashing the Bidens, but couldn’t explain why the president only took an interest in investigating them during 2019. Schiff said it was “crystal clear” that the pressure for investigations came after Joe Biden had announced his Democratic candidacy to challenge Trump.
“At the end of the day, they don’t contest that President Trump sought to coerce Ukraine into conducting two political investigations in order to help him cheat in the election,” Schiff said.
–Bart Jansen, Christal Hayes, and Martina Stewart
Trump falsely claims House of Representatives never asked Bolton to testify
As bombshell reporting surfaced about the contents of a forthcoming book by Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, lawmakers grappled Monday with new calls for witnesses to be allowed in the Senate impeachment trial, and Trump falsely claimed Bolton was never asked to testify by House Democrats.
Democrats have called for witnesses like Bolton and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to be subpoenaed in the trial, and Republicans argue that the House missed its chance to hear from those witnesses during the House's impeachment inquiry.
Trump went so far as to tweet Monday morning before the trial resumed, “The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate!”
The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
In fact, the House committees overseeing the impeachment inquiry asked Bolton to testify in a letter dated Oct. 30, 2019, and had scheduled a deposition for Nov. 7, at which he did not appear.
More: John Bolton defies House summons for closed-door testimony
Bolton’s counsel said he would only testify if he was legally compelled to do so by a subpoena, and indicated he would join onto a lawsuit by his deputy Charles Kupperman. Kupperman wanted the courts to decide whether he could be legally compelled to testify by subpoena from the legislative branch when the executive branch, the White House, was directing him not to cooperate with the inquiry.
House investigators withdrew their subpoena of Kupperman, and his case was dismissed by a judge. Democrats also decided not to issue a subpoena to Bolton because it would delay the investigation.
After Trump was impeached by the House, Bolton said in a statement that he would be willing to testify in the Senate if subpoenaed. Reporting on his upcoming book includes that Bolton wrote Trump told him that aid money to Ukraine was directly tied to investigations into the Bidens and election interference.
More: What we know about John Bolton's allegations about Trump and Ukraine
"There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump," the seven Democratic House impeachment managers said.
–Jeanine Santucci
Sekulow: It was Trump – not Obama – that provided Ukraine with lethal military aid
As the president’s legal team made its opening arguments Saturday, Jay Sekulow, one of the private attorneys on Trump’s team, said that it was Trump -- not his predecessor Barack Obama -- who provided Ukraine with lethal military aid, including anti-tank Javelin missiles.
Indeed, Sekulow said that U.S. policy toward Ukraine policy under Trump got stronger, stronger than it had been under former President Obama.
While Sekulow is correct about the provision of lethal aid, the charge in the impeachment trial against Trump for abuse of power turns on his decision to delay aid to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress and his motivations for doing so. House Democrats allege Trump delayed the aid in order to pressure Ukraine’s newly elected president into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, a top Trump political rival, and into entertaining a debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
“The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014,” PolitiFact writes, after Russia invaded Crimea. “But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons,” PolitiFact adds.
The Obama administration rejected a request from Ukraine for lethal aid in 2014, even after its then-president visited Washington and reportedly said “Blankets and night vision goggles are important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket.”
“U.S. officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia,” PolitiFact writes, adding “key allies, including Germany, were not keen on sending weapons into the conflict zone.”
In 2014, the Obama administration approved $53 million in aid “that included vehicles, patrol boats, body armor and night-vision goggles, as well as humanitarian assistance,” according to PolitiFact. And, between 2014 and 2016, the U.S. committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
While the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act had called for lethal assistance, “the equipment ultimately provided during Obama’s tenure was non-lethal aid,” PolitiFact writes.
"’The first lethal deliveries came from Trump,’" Jim Townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration, told PolitiFact. Townsend also explained that the aid provided by Obama was what had been “recommended by European command and others who went in to see what [the Ukrainians] needed."
But Trump has been impeached and is facing trial in the Senate over the delay in congressionally approved aid to the U.S. ally as it fights Russian aggression.
On that issue, a government watchdog agency recently concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld the funds intended to help Ukraine.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the report by the Government Accountability Office says. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted" under the law.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget disagreed with the GAO’s conclusion.
Watchdog: White House budget office violated federal law by withholding Ukraine security funds
And speaking Saturday, Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators “the president did absolutely nothing wrong.”
He added: “The president was at all times acting in our national interest and pursuant to his oath of office.”
–Martina Stewart
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Trump’s defense focuses on his concern with burden-sharing in helping Ukraine
In laying out their defense of President Trump, his legal team touched Saturday on his concerns about whether European allies were doing enough to help Ukraine.
“The president rightly had real concerns about whether European and other countries were contributing their fair share to ensuring Ukraine’s security,” Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators.
Earlier in the week, during an interview with Fox Business Network, the president expressed those concerns again. “There’s something else I’m always stressing,” the president said during the cable TV interview. “Why isn’t Germany and France and U.K. and all these other countries in Europe that are much more affected than us, why aren’t they paying something?”
“They are paying plenty.“ the Associated Press wrote in assessing Trump’s assertion.
While the AP observed that “the U.S. is a heavy source of military assistance” to Ukraine, it also pointed out that “Since 2014, the EU and European financial institutions have mobilized more than $16 billion to help Ukraine’s economy, counter corruption, build institutions and strengthen its sovereignty against further incursions by Russia after its annexation of Crimea.”
FactCheck.org reached a similar conclusion: “In fact, the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014.”
And, “the U.S. isn’t even the majority contributor of total official development assistance” to Ukraine, according to FactCheck.org.
One analyst has concluded that on average the EU has given almost twice as much per year to Ukraine since 2014 than the U.S. has averaged.
With regard to just military aid, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine told The Washington Post’s Fact Checker that “‘The United States is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine.” This is because of “‘skittishness’ among many European countries that ‘don’t want to provoke Russia,’” former Ambassador John Herbst said. Furthermore, the Post explained: “This is how the aid burden is usually divided between the United States and the Europeans, with the United States providing the muscle and Europe providing the ‘soft power’ to stabilize troubled nations.”
–Martina Stewart
More: Fact-checking the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump