Senators participated Wednesday in the first of two days of questions and answers in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Over eight hours, the two parties took turns posing written questions, read by the Chief Justice, to either the House impeachment managers, or to White House counsel, or both.
Each answer was confined to five minutes, split evenly between the sides if the question was posed to both.
90 questions were answered, in total. Here is my live-tweeted summary (with some commentary — note that there is a numbering error after #65, and the Senator to whom questions are attributed is not always the Senator who physically asked it, but sometimes one of the other Senators who joined in the question):
First question for WH counsel comes from @SenatorCollins: how should Senate consider possibility of multiple motives for president's conduct?
Answer: 1. Not impeachable regardless 2. If any public motive, as Dems admit, there cannot be a basis for impeachment.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Philbin adds that there would be no way for the Senate to decide what percentage of the president's motive was public and what was personal/political — an absurd standard. He adds that the Biden/Burisma question is evidence of public interest. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Second question, from @SenSchumer for House managers: given Bolton book, is there any way for Senate to come to a verdict without hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney, etc.?
.@RepAdamSchiff says no (of course). He plays selective video of WH counsel, his usual trick#ImpeachmentTrials
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Third question, from @SenJohnThune, asking WH counsel to respond to previous question by House managers.
Philbin: Says that House managers misled the Senate about Trump and Mulvaney's comments. Adds the Senate can't let House set bad precedent for impeachments#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Fourth question, from @SenMarkey: Did the House ask Bolton to testify? (They withdrew subpoenas for Bolton and Kupperman.)@RepAdamSchiff: We asked Bolton and Kupperman and they refused. Kupperman sued against subpoena. (Leaves out that House dropped subpoena)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
What is it about @RepAdamSchiff that he can't make a straightforward argument without dripping with contempt — accusing opposing counsel of "duplicity," or belittling opposing experts like Dershowitz? It's mean-spirited, ineffective, and also a loser's tactic.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Fifth question, from @MarshaBlackburn @SenLoeffler @SenMikeLee @SenMcSallyAZ: Is standard for impeachment in House lower threshold than threshold for conviction in Senate and have Dems met burden?
Philbin: Low in House (accusation), high in Senate (conviction)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Sixth question, from @SenFeinstein to Dems: is it true that there is no evidence of a link between aid and investigations?@RepJasonCrow: Mulvaney "confession" at press conference said aid linked to 2016 election investigation. Then goes to Sondland testimony.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
7th question, from @SenMikeLee to WH counsel: Dems complain Trump broke foreign policy. Isn't it the president's place to conduct foreign policy?
Philbin: Definitely. Article II, Section 1. Even Vindman conceded his concern about the Ukraine call was "policy."#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
8th question, from @SenatorShaheen to House managers: can you impeach president without violation of criminal statute (yawn)?@RepSylviaGarcia: Yes. (She can't cite a presidential impeachment that happened without a statutory violation because there are none.)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
9th question, from @SenJohnKennedy @MarshaBlackburn @JohnCornyn to BOTH: Why did House not challenge executive privilege/immunity?@RepJeffries: No claims. "Blanket defiance."
Philbin: No "blanket defiance." Cites yesterday's argument. Schiff never contested.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
This is the most interesting question so far, both because it was asked of BOTH sides, and because @RepJeffries gave an absolutely awful response. Philbin responded with a windmill slam dunk. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/4msPLiVSb4
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
10th question, from @SenatorLeahy to House managers what is your response to a list of White House foreign policy arguments (clearly a another setup).@RepValDemings doesn't even try to defend Obama's record. Gets date of the 1994 Budapest memorandum wrong (!)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
11th question, from @SenTedCruz for WH: Aren't "quid pro quo" common?
Dershowitz: Quid pro quo is normal in foreign policy. Only way it's unlawful is if "quo" is illegal. Cites an Abraham Lincoln precedent, explaining even acts done for politics can be lawful.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Democrats specifically said "no scintilla" of evidence of public interest. Their standard.
Thank you for playing #ImpeachmentTrial! https://t.co/RI70ZyzVmc
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
12th question, from @SenSchumer, asks House to respond to Dershowitz.@RepAdamSchiff calls Dershowitz "criminal defense lawyer" again, says intent is always an issue. Tries to twist Obama "open mic" moment, repeats "do ME a favor though," from fake transcript.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
LOL. @RepAdamSchiff can't help himself. He just said "do ME a favor though." Misquoting the Ukraine call again. He was offering a hypothetical, but that's what he has done since Day One. Made up a set of facts and quotes that were not reflected in the evidence. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
13th question, from @ChuckGrassley to WH: does House refusal to enforce subpoenas make "obstruction of Congress" charge unprecedented?
Philbin: Yes. Notes, again, the legal arguments by WH that subpoenas were invalid. (From yesterday: https://t.co/4kJBAIeR3c)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Philbin also responds to Dem complaints that WH wants them to go to court, then argues that courts lack jurisdiction. Philbin says yes, but that is also part of the judicial process: courts rule on jurisdiction. Dems must go to court before charging obstruction. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
14th question, from @SenStabenow: Would House please correct "any falsehoods" in WH arguments?@RepZoeLofgren says all 6 factual claims in WH case are incorrect. Tries to refute claim Zelensky/Ukrainians said "no pressure." (Er, what? Very bizarre effort IMHO)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Democrats are answering the questions with a repeated refrain: you can get an even BETTER answer if you call Bolton! #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/uivOoGtFBI
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
15th question, from @SenTomCotton et al, for WH: did House try to investigate/go to court during their month-long delay in sending impeachment articles to the Senate? (Wow, good question.)
Philbin: No. (Ouch.) Instead, they canceled Kupperman subpoena! (Ouch!)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Philbin adds a great point: the Constitution gave the House the sole power to impeach, but did not intend that power to be absolute or unchecked. That's why Dems should have gone to courts before charging "obstruction." Wanted impeachment before election instead #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/TQP1gZkEuw
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
16th question, from @SenatorTomUdall please answer WH argument that impeachment is overturning election & voters should decide.@RepAdamSchiff begins by trying to answer Philbin on last Q. Then: The Framers created #impeachment to "protect the next election." #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
I'm pretty sure none of the Framers of the Constitution ever said this. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/ljPkv5ozBD
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
17th question, from @senrobportman to WH: implications of allowing House to do incomplete job then demand witnesses?
Philbin: You don't show up at trial before discovery. Trial is not the first appearance of witnesses. House precedent would incapacitate Senate#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
18th question, from @SenatorCarper for Dems: Clinton depositions were quick, so can't we do witnesses quickly?@RepJeffries: Yes. He proceeds to talk about 17 witnesses who came forward. (Does not mention those Schiff left in basement.)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Notably, @RepJeffries cites the Andrew Johnson impeachment, saying 37 of 40 witnesses in Senate were new.
The Johnson impeachment is taught to students everywhere as an example of what NOT to do. It was an abuse of power.
Democrats want to repeat that example#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/ERhAOFFmfa
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
19th question, from @JohnCornyn to WH: what are the consequences to presidency if Senate is used to resolve questions of executive privilege properly before courts?
Philbin: Bad consequences. Supreme Court recognizes privilege so POTUS can get candid advice. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
20th question, from @SenBrianSchatz and Feinstein to House: if president was acting in national security interest, where's the evidence?@RepJasonCrow: No evidence from the agencies involved. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
LOL @RepJasonCrow says the president deserves a "fair trial," meaning an Inquisition. #impeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
21st question, from @LindseyGrahamSC @tedcruz to HOUSE: would Obama have authority to ask about potential foreign corruption by Mitt Romney's son?@RepAdamSchiff dodges, just saying what Trump did was corrupt. Says there are "legitimate ways," like asking DOJ.#ImepachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
WOW. @RepAdamSchiff just told the Senate presidents should not be able to ask DOJ to investigate their political rivals.
Here's Schiff in April 2019, arguing in the @washingtonpost that Obama had the right and duty to do exactly that. https://t.co/QK6uYgXZap#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/V11cpKzvFw
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Schiff again claims "no legitimate basis" for investigating Bidens and Burisma. This is a trap Democrats keep setting for themselves. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/V11cpKzvFw
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
22nd question, from @SenGaryPeters to House: does "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" require actual crime? (2nd time we've had this)@RepZoeLofgren: No. Cites Turley. (But she can't get around problem that all previous impeached presidents were accused of crimes) #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
23rd question, from @lisamurkowski et. al to WH: describe further your contention that subpoenas prior to House resolution were invalid.
Philbin: Subpoenas must derive from authority. Impeachment belongs to House, not one member (Pelosi) or committee (Schiff).#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
24th question, from @SenBobCasey to House: based on your experience as public servant, how have Trump's actions violated public trust?@JerryNadler: … (boilerplate, repeats allegations of misconduct against Trump, says nothing about personal experience)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
This is @JerryNadler's 1st appearance today, 12 questions into the House case. They seem to be holding him back — maybe because of that 1998 video, maybe because he is even nastier than Schiff and his mannerisms are very off-putting. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/Nk6IJGNwJS
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
.@JerryNadler does add one interesting new argument: he says @realDonaldTrump waived executive privilege by saying anything at all about what John Bolton is reported to have said. That's an odd argument and not one Congress has used even with regard to 5th Amend #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/bWDskShl8s
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
25th question, from @SenPatRoberts, asks WH to respond to Dems.
Sekulow:
– Clinton trial had no NEW witnesses
– Chief Justice has never ruled on executive privilege
– We'll call @RepAdamSchiff as witness!
– Calls out Schiff on Obama DOJ investigating Trump!#Impeachment— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
26th Question, from @SenKamalaHarris, to Dems, MISQUOTES & repeats a LIE that Trump said Article II gave him absolute power.
(Fact-checked this many times, including yesterday: https://t.co/JgKQCHUvvY) @RepAdamSchiff claims Trump sees "the state as himself."#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
What does it say about the Democrats' case for #impeachment and removal that it is based on a provable lie?
One that has been proven repeatedly, over and over again, in front of their faces?#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/bRUhUlLBFw
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
LOL. @RepAdamSchiff just admitted that there could have been a quick judgment "in the lower court." Tried to say it would have taken longer on appeal.
Also: "The fighting subpoenas started before the impeachment." That's also what WH says, and explained.#ImpeachmentTrialRules
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
27th Question @JimInhofe et al. (I'm a few minutes behind): asks WH to respond to @RepJasonCrow — which was worse, Trump pausing future aid for 48 days, or Obama denying all aid for 1000 days?
Philbin: Notes Democrats' own witnesses said Trump's policy better#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
28th Question, from @SenAngusKing, about Jim Kelly backing witnesses?
Sekulow: notes Bolton previously said Trump Ukraine call was fine. Notes if Dems get witnesses, GOP will get also.@RepAdamSchiff: You can't just rely on House inquiry!#ImpeachmentTrial#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
.@RepAdamSchiff seriously argued that the Senate cannot simply rely on the House investigation because that would be unprecedented.
Yes, he told the Senate it could not rely on his own inquiry.#ImpaechmentTrial https://t.co/ommozGZ9Ao
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
29th Question from @SenMikeLee et al. to WH: about claims of coordination between Misko, Grace, "whistleblower" to take out Trump.
Philbin: Only knowledge we have is from public reports. Notes @RepAdamSchiff is hiding testimony of the ICIG. "It remains secret"#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
30th Question from @MartinHeinrich (?) to WH: when did WH counsel learn about Bolton's book and are they blocking it?
Philbin: We were notified after it went to NSC (12/30), was not reviewed outside. Calls claims of attempt to block "misinformation."#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Question 31, from @SenJoniErnst et al. to WH: didn't Trump give Javelins to Ukraine, and Obama didn't?
Philbin: Yes, and Obama went against advice.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Question 32, from @SenFeinstein et al from House: any precedent for "blanket refusal"?
(This repeats @RepJeffries' false claims from earlier.)@RepZoeLofgren: No precedent, Trump took "extreme" measures. Worse than Nixon. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Aside from repeating Mhilbin's arguments from earlier, one important bit of context here is that Trump gave millions of pages of documents, 500 witnesses etc. to Mueller. There's no Trump philosophy of "blanket refusal." What Democrats did was purely political. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/CjGZfzUO4A
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
33rd Question, from @SenCapito to WH: did Ukraine know about aid before Politico article?
Purpura: No. Overwhelming evidence that Ukrainians at highest levels only aware of pause Aug. 28. Cooper testified vague memory.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
34th question from @SenatorCardin to House: asks to dispute WH counsel on whether Ukraine didn't know until Aug. 28.@RepJasonCrow: No. Refers to Cooper emails. (But those are very weak & don't have an answer for overwhelming evidence from Ukraine government).#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
35th question from @SenatorCollins and @LisaMurkowski to WH: did Trump mention Bidens in connection w/corruption before @JoeBiden entered #2020?
Philbin: From record, no, but did speak about corruption. Biden came up later bc new president, Giuliani research.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Philbin also notes there were media reports, in the @washingtonpost and elsewhere, about the Bidens and Burisma right before the Ukraine call, so that could have been in Trump's mind. #ImpeachmentTrump https://t.co/7s4gTPcyv0
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
36th Question, from @SenKamalaHarris and @PattyMurray about tape of Trump firing Yovanovitch … other new evidence will emerge.@RepAdamSchiff uses answer to urge Bolton as witness. New info all the time, he says.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
37th Question from @SenatorFischer to WH: when did U.S. develop concerns about Burisma?
Philbin: Long-standing concern … lists examples. Notes July 22 @washingtonpost
article again, mentioning ousted prosecutor and Hunter Biden.#ImpeachmentTrial— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Philbin adds that many witnesses noted concerns about @JoeBiden's conflict of interest regarding Burisma, even during Obama administration. https://t.co/cFaktmS30a
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
38th Question, from @SenBlumenthal to WH: Did anyone in or outside WH that Bolton book problematic for president?
Philbin: No one in WH, knew Bolton disgruntled.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
39th Question, from @SenTedCruz et al. to House: given "whistleblower" bias, probably for @JoeBiden, did they work together? on Ukraine? assist Biden in firing prosecutor?@RepAdamSchiff: refuses to answer, says must protect whistleblower identity. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
40th Question, from @SenWhitehouse et al. to House: missing witness rule requires drawing inference against party ensuring absence… (note they ask this after Schiff defends refusing to produce whistleblower)@RepAdamSchiff: [hypocrisy]#ImpeachmentTrials
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
41st question, from @SenJohnThune, asks WH to respond.
Philbin: missing witness rule probably does not apply when valid legal privilege asserted. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
42nd Question, from @SenatorShaheen, about whether Mulvaney waived exec privilege in his press conference.@RepJeffries: Yes. (Fails to note House denied WH the opportunity by barring agency counsel, among other methods)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
.@RepJeffries suggests falsely that there is no case that supports WH claim of immunity for senior officials. Philbin cited Supreme Court yesterday. What a goofball https://t.co/8LbbG7GOt7
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
43rd question, by @lisamurkowski et al. to both: what is Senate standard of proof?@RepZoeLofgren: Constitution unclear; each Senator must decide.
Philbin: Constitution implies criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt. Both parties agreed in Clinton case.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
44th question from @SenBooker: comment on Trump supposedly boasting about Congress not having material.@RepJeffries: Trump has not asserted it on any document.
(this is so pointless)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
45th question, from @SenJohnKennedy et al., for WH: what did Hunter Biden do for money from Burisma?
Bondi: We know he went to one board meeting. Hung out with oligarch Zolchevsky.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
46th question from @chuckschumer to both sides: can either side name witness or document President gave to House when requested? (he knows the answer is no)
Philbin: Not blanket defiance. Different problems with different subpoenas.@RepZoeLofgren: nothing.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
47th question, from @sendavidperdue and @SenTedCruz: calls our House for dodging on whistleblower bias. Why refuse to give Senate IG transcript? (Great question, after sanctimony about witnesses/documents)@RepAdamSchiff (checks notes) House Intel won't do it.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Important to note how important this is by @sendavidperdue & @SenTedCruz.
Democrats pounded the table all day about the need for witnesses & documents.
Perdue & Cruz asked about whistleblower and IG transcript. @RepAdamSchiff is refusing to provide either#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/oYnpbOLCvL
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
48th question from @Sen_JoeManchin for both, asks about Dershowitz changing his mind.
Dershowitz: I did more research, changed my mind based on evidence. Issue in 1998 was not whether a crime happened. Notes he changed his mind 2 years before Trump impeachment#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
Dershowitz: "When they rejected maladministration, they rejected 'abuse of power'. … Maladministration is not impeachable, and abuse of power is not impeachable." The Framers rejected the broader, British definition of #impaechment. @JerryNadler: [angry]#ImpeachmentTrial. https://t.co/kREGVjF5IF
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
49th question, from @SenatorBurr: how does WH respond to House claims about Mulvaney?
Purpura: Reads Mulvaney statement: No quid pro quo for aid/investigation. President never said withhold money about server, but concerns over burden-sharing and corruption.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
50th question, from @ChrisVanHollen to both: what did Bolton mean by "drug deal"?@RepAdamSchiff: claims it's about quid pro quo for WH meeting (based on Sondland presumption). Call Bolton!
Philbin: Won't speculate about hearsay about meeting Bolton wasn't in#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 29, 2020
51st question, from @SenatorHoeven et al. for WH: Did Ukrainian president meet alleged requirements to receive aid?
Purpura: No.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
52nd question, from @MarkWarner to House: did Russia spread Trump's "conspiracy theories"?@RepAdamSchiff: implicates Pence, says intelligence agencies are being uncooperative with House#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
53rd question, from @SenShelby to WH: how does House standard of "abuse of power" differ from maladministration?
Dershowitz: They are synonyms, cites pro-impeachment historian, and refutes @JerryNadler for absurd claim no one agrees with @AlanDersh.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
54th question, from @BenCardinforMD et al, would no more witnesses etc. be "fair trial"?@RepAdamSchiff: no#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
55th question, from @SenMcSallyAZ et al.: answer Schiff including "bribery" and "extortion" when not in articles?
Philbin: What Schiff just did violated due process and would be thrown out of any court. Bribery, Extortion not in articles. #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
56th question, from @SenatorTomUdall — absolutely disgusting: long as we're talking about Hunter/Burisma, what about Jared and Ivanka?@RepValDemings seems almost embarrassed by the question. Makes her side look terrible. She says this isn't about children.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
57th question, from @MikeCrapo et al.: isn't investigating @JoeBiden conflict of interest with Burisma in national interest?
Philbin: You bet. Hunter Biden's appointment to Burisma was recognized at the time as a blow to U.S. credibility abroad & @JoeBiden's.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
58th Question, from @SenatorDurbin: respond to WH on Burisma?@RepSylviaGarcia: it was only after @JoeBiden was about to enter #2020 race that Trump cared.
(The problem here: @jsolomonReports reporting on Biden also came out jin April 2019. Raised awareness.)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
59th question from @SenatorTimScott to WH: when was Biden/Burisma link "debunked" as House managers claim?
Herschmann: It wasn't. No investigation, nothing discredits, nothing debunked. (Reads more evidence on Bidens/Burisma.)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
60th question, from @ChrisMurphyCT et al. repeats Q re: when WH counsel found out about Bolton book. Were classification decisions by career officials?
Philbin: We learned when @nytimes contacted White House on Sunday afternoon. Career officials, he believes.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
61st question from @SenDanSullivan to WH: how much longer would witnesses extend trial?
Sekulow. A very long time. Months. And Republicans will also call witnesses. Schiff may go to court to protect his privileges from testimony, too. THEY did this too quickly#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
62nd question, from @SenatorMenendez: why didn't Trump raise corruption when sending aid to Ukraine before?
[This is false and I would expect WH counsel to slam-dunk this, next opportunity.]
@SenJasonCrow: [misleading response based on false premise]#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
63rd question, from @SenRonJohnson to WH: why wouldn't Bolton be rejected as witness by courts for same reason in Senate as he would have been in House?
Sekulow: Precisely. And is this the new norm for impeachment? Sloppy House majority process/abuse?#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Contrast Schiff’s tantrums with Philbin’s calm demeanor and you know who is having a better day in #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
64th question from Republican (missed who) for WH: aren't these the sort of proceedings @JerryNadler warned against 20 years ago, when he said there should be no partisan impeachments?
Philbin: Yes. Also what Hamilton warned against in Federalist 65. #ImpeachmentTrual.
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Sorry, this question was to both sides.
Not that it matters: @RepJeffries blusters about Trump trying to cheat in the 2020 election. "That's not partisan!" (Nice try.)#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/0NQGNJOvE8
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
65th question (unless I'm missing one), from @SenSanders for House: why should we believe Trump on "quid pro quo"?@RepAdamSchiff: If every defendant could get rid of a trial by denying the crime, there would be no trial.
Grand Inquisitor!#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
(At this point, my numbering scheme went a little off — I skipped #66 and 67.)
68th question from @JohnCornyn is about whether Chief Justice would rule on witnesses/documents. (Interesting question — I think not because subpoenas could go to Supreme Court.)
Philbin: Senators can overrule initial ruling of Chief Justice.#ImpeachmentTrials
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
69th question from @SenTinaSmith for House: if Trump were so confident of his actions, why wouldn't he let officials testify?
[Very bad question.]@RepAdamSmith: [Inquisition] Adds Chief Justice CAN make decisions, Senate only overrules in SOME circumstances.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
.@RepAdamSchiff goes Joe McCarthy.
He said Democrats will agree in advance to obey the Chief Justice's rulings, but Republicans will not.
(You see: Refusing to give up rights = guilt.)
"They're afraid he'll be fair! They're afraid he'll make a fair ruling!"#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/0ChNzXkYef
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
70th question, from @BenSasse et al. to WH on "golden rule of impeachment."
Cipollone: listen to what Democrats themselves have said in the past. No partisan impeachments.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Cipollone makes three fantastic points.
1. Democrats don't want witnesses — just THEIR witnesses.
2. "Fairness" in a trial applies primarily to the accused.
3. The Dershowitz standard is a good one: how would I feel if the president were from my own party?#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/aBOBQ7A3nv
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
71st question from @SenatorDurbin to House: if POTUS asserts executive privilege, doesn't he have to identify specific documents/witnesses?@JerryNadler: repeats claims of abuse of excessive privilege. Claims facts "proven beyond any doubt at all."#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Again @JerryNadler says — in a question demanding more witnesses! — that the House case is "proven beyond any doubt at all."
"Doesn't mean you shouldn't have more proof if it comes forward!"
That's an argument for an Inquisition. Also, undermines their argument for witnesses. https://t.co/0GBspLf7zC
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
72nd question from @SenatorRomney, aka Pierre Delecto, to WH: at what date did Trump order hold, and did he explain?
Philbin: Nothing in the record about a date, first rationale is June 24 email asking about burden-sharing.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
73rd question, @SenCortezMasto to House: describe due process Trump received?@RepValDemings: The president is not the victim here. The victim in this case is the American people. (True, but not the way she thinks.) She cites Judiciary. OMITS Intel. [Come ON.]#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
.@RepValDemings seriously just cited the fact that Trump was asked to provide evidence to the Intelligence Committee (with no lawyer, no cross-examination, no Republican witnesses!) as evidence of due process. Claims GOP got 3 witnesses [none that THEY chose!].#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/A24Ha74Okf
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
74th question, from Republican (didn't catch who) to House: Why didn't House cure defective subpoenas?@RepSylviaGarcia; "Red herring … fully authorized." House decides how to conduct inquiry.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
75th question, from D to WH: You didn't answer earlier question about what Trump said about Bidens. What did he say, to whom, and when?
[How can they answer that?]
Philbin: House managers told us to stay in the record. I answered to best of my ability.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
76th question, from @HawleyMO to WH about whether Biden was given green light by ethics office, ask Hunter to step down from Burisma, etc.
Philbin: @JoeBiden never sought any ethics opinion about it. Witnesses raised the issue; nothing done.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
76th question, from @HawleyMO to WH about whether Biden was given green light by ethics office, ask Hunter to step down from Burisma, etc.
Philbin: @JoeBiden never sought any ethics opinion about it. Witnesses raised the issue; nothing done.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Correction — this was asked to both sides.@RepValDemings tries to defend @JoeBiden's conflict of interest by claiming he didn't do anything wrong, and Shokin was corrupt. (Maybe. Doesn't change the conflict of interest, regardless.)#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/rmWG6GwCFy
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
77th question, from @SenAngusKing to House: Giuliani on a political errand alone, by his own admission [sic, false assertion]@JerryNadler: [reads boilerplate about Giuliani]#ImpeachmentTrials
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
78th question, from R to WH about partisan impeachments.
Dershowitz: Alexander Hamilton said greatest danger of impeachment is if it turns on the votes of one party. "The House of Representatives is not above the law."#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Dershowitz giving @RepAdamSchiff a clinic on the difference between criminal intent and motive.
Then invokes @ScottAdamsSays
argument re: Biden.Imagine Trump in 2nd term! It's easier to see that it'si a national interest to know if @JoeBiden's son is corrupt#ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/buSy3o3JNf
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
79th question from @SenAmyKlobuchar to House: judicial impeachments hear witnesses in Senate, why not presidents?@RepAdamSchiff case for witnesses more compelling in presidential impeachment.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
80th question, from R to WH: explain difference between articles of impeachment against judges and those against Trump.
Dershowitz: No comparison beween impeaching judge and POTUS. Constitution says judges serve in "good behavior." Tougher to impeach president#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Dershowitz repeats a point from earlier: the British had a broad definition of impeachment, but it did not apply to prime ministers. They got rid of those thru no-confidence votes. And that's what the Framers rejected. They wanted voters to chose the president. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/VuEZoC9Siu
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Dershowitz, line of the night: "Your job is not to fill in the gaps. Your job is to apply the Constitution as the Framers wrote it." #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
81st question, from D to WH: does Trump believe foreigners' involvement in US elections is illegal?
[Lots of 'Dreamers' work for Democrat campaigns.]
Philbin: Congress has specified when & how foreigners can participate. DOJ found no violation in Ukraine call#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
82nd question, from @JohnCornyn et al to WH: didn't @RepAdamSchiff's role create due process problems, because of his staff contact with whistleblower?
Philbin: Yes, and it's all still a secret.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
83rd question, from @SenGaryPeters to House: does impeachment require a corrupt plan actually succeeds?@RepZoeLofgren: No, the attempt is enough. (Turkey ridiculed this in the House Judiciary Committee)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
This attempt by Democrats to pretend that ALL foreign assistance is prohibited in elections means they must, immediately, fire EVERY non-U.S. citizen who works or volunteers for a campaign.
(Bye, "Dreamers.")#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
84th question, from @SenJohnBarrasso et al to WH: can Senate convict for obstruction if president is exercising constitutional duty?
Philbin: No, it would be an unconstitutional abuse of power.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Do the Democrats not realize that they PAID for foreign information to come into the 2016 election in the form of the Steele dossier? British spy, Russian sources, etc.? How far down this road do they want to go? #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/IcaBwAvmfv
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
85th question, from @SenBlumenthal et al. to House, attempts to suggest accepting foreign info in an election violates election law.@RepAdamSchiff: Republicans are saying what Mueller investigated was OK.
[Schiff should indict @HillaryClinton and the DNC!]#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
We're sitting here listening to @RepAdamSchiff and the Democrats explain that it should be a crime to accept foreign info in an election.
When they paid MILLIONS for it in 2016.
Then they used the Steele dossier for "Russia collusion," which has now come into #impeachmenttrial. https://t.co/wJYWUdHf5C
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
86th question, from @SenatorCollins to House — why didn't you cite bribery and honest services fraud in articles, if included in your report?@RepAdamSchiff sends @RepJeffries to answer because he doesn't want to have to answer himself.
(1/2)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
.@RepJeffries starts making a case for bribery. (Dear lord, they've lost the plot.) "Solicited a thing of value."
He then tells Dershowitz they've met HIS standard of "akin to a crime."
So… WHY NOT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?
(2/2)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
87th question, from @SenGillibrand et al., to House about how holds on aid are supposed to work.@RepJasonCrow: Ukraine hold was different. Because. Because it was. [Even though David Hale said not.]#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
88th question, from @RoyBlunt et al., to WH: what does supermajority threshold say about standard of proof to be considered in Senate?
Dershowitz: the 2/3 threshold is meant to discourage partisan impeachments.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
89th question, from @ChrisMurphyCT to WH: House says they will agree in advance to all Chief Justice rulings. How about you?
Sekulow: We are not willing to do that…not the constitutional design." Can't expect executive to surrender to Senate/Judiciary! 100%#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
90th question from @SenMcSallyAZ et al. for Dershowitz: describe the danger of impeachment.
A: We live in the most divided time in my life, more than McCarthy or Vietnam. Senate's job to keep divisions from growing. Partisan impeachment would not be accepted.#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
90th question, from @SenatorSinema to WH: why didn't WH reveal hold on aid w/Ukraine to Congress, countries?
Philbin: Did not want to send bad signal to Ukraine/Russia.#ImpeachmentTrial #ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Sorry, 91st I think
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
92nd question, from Indiana senators to both sides: why is the ICIG transcript from House being kept secret?@RepAdamSchiff: no real answer. Said could have included bribery, but that "abuse of power" is "HIGHEST" crime. [Absurd: where in Constitution?]
(1/3)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
This is literally nuts. @RepAdamSchiff is trying to argue that "abuse of power" is not only included in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but that it is a HIGHER crime than "Treason." Or "Bribery."
The Constitution did not mention "abuse of power."
(2/3)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Sekulow: House managers have repeatedly said "overwhelming" evidence etc.
(3/3)#ImpeachmentTrial
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
3 takeaways from Day 1 of Q&A in #ImpeachmentTrial
– Schiff undermined case for witnesses/docs by withholding whistleblower & ICIG
– Collins & Murkowski asked fact question the record doesn't answer & that Dems say Bolton might
– Democrats dented credibility w/"bribery" claim
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
Game ball today goes to Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin. #ImpeachmentTrial https://t.co/dVLDs0Tzkf via @BreitbartNews
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 30, 2020
The second question-and-answer session will be held Thursday.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.