Battle lines harden over Trump impeachment trial witnesses

By Nandita Bose and Humeyra Pamuk

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. December 21, 2019. REUTERS/Marco Bello

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Sunday signaled comfort with plans by Senate Republicans to avoid new witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, while a top Democrat seized on a newly released email on the withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine to press his case for testimony.

 

The Democratic-led House of Representatives approved two impeachment charges against Trump on Wednesday over his pressuring of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. There is little chance he will be convicted and removed from office through a trial in a Senate controlled by fellow Republicans.

 

Democrats are pushing to call top Trump aides to testify, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants the Senate to consider the case without hearing from new witnesses.

 

The Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, told reporters in New York that an email made public on Saturday about military assistance to Kiev underscored the need for witnesses.

 

The email, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a court order in a Freedom of Information Act case, showed senior White House budget official Michael Duffey directing the Pentagon to withhold the aid just 91 minutes after Trump concluded a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

 

In testimony to Congress last month, however, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland said he was first informed on July 18 that the White House was withholding security aid to Ukraine. "I was never able to obtain a clear answer regarding the specific reason for the hold," he added.

 

The aid and the Trump-Zelinskiy call are at the heart of the impeachment case put together by Democrats, and Duffey is one of the four witnesses Schumer has proposed calling.

 

"If there was ever an argument that we need Mr. Duffey to come and testify, this is that information," Schumer said.

 

While Trump had indicated an interest in calling separate witnesses in his defense, he has also said he would go along with whatever decision McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders make.

 

In remarks on Sunday talk shows, Marc Short, chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, indicated the White House was on board with McConnell's goal of a speedy trial.

 

"The American people are tired of this sham," Short said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

"To the extent that there's a prolonged trial, we're not anxious about that," he said. "Our administration is anxious to get back to working for the American people ... We've had a lot of witnesses already."

 

Lawmakers left Washington for a holiday break on Friday at loggerheads over how to proceed.

 

To ramp up pressure on McConnell to permit new testimony, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - the top Democrat in Congress - has postponed sending the impeachment charges to the Senate.

 

Republicans have suggested Democrats want witnesses because the case they have assembled is so weak, while Democrats portray Republicans as scared about what new testimony might reveal.

 

"If her case is so air tight ... why does she need more witnesses?" Short said on "Fox News Sunday."

 

REPUBLICAN MODERATES

Trump is only the third U.S. president to be impeached. The others were Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 as he faced the threat of impeachment.

 

The House charged Trump with abusing his power by holding back $391 million in security aid to Ukraine in an effort to get Kiev to announce a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the November 2020 election.

 

Trump was also charged with obstructing Congress by directing administration officials and agencies not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. He says he did nothing wrong and has dismissed his impeachment as a partisan bid to undo his 2016 election win.

 

"The American people and the United States Senate deserve to have a full, fair and complete trial and that means witnesses, it means documents," Democratic Senator Doug Jones told ABC's "This Week."

 

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and Democrats are hoping a few moderate Republicans will support their bid for further testimony and force McConnell's hand.

 

"The leverage is our hope that four Republican senators will stand up ... and say this is much bigger than our current political squabbles," Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, told CNN's "State of the Union."

 

"If four Republican senators step up, it can make a big difference," he said.

 

(Reporting by Nandita Bose, Humeyra Pamuk and Tim Ahmann in Washington; Writing by Tim Ahmann; Editing by Paul Simao and Diane Craft)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-23

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

14 minutes ago, webfact said:

If her case is so air tight ... why does she need more witnesses?" Short said on "Fox News Sunday."

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

One Dem Senator is going to vote to acquit. Game over (Of course it's been over for quite some time)

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones says he'll vote to acquit President Trump if 'dots aren't connected'

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones dismissed concerns that he will lose his seat if he votes to remove President Trump in a Senate trial, but said he would acquit Trump if “dots aren't connected” over “gaps” in the impeachment case.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-senator-doug-jones-says-hell-vote-to-acquit-president-trump-if-dots-arent-connected-203903180.html

Edited December 22, 20196 yr by Kelsall

1 hour ago, webfact said:

through a trial in a Senate

Which this in no way will be. The system was devised before party allegiance overwhelmed senators leaving them unable to vote in an unprejudiced manner. Just look back at past recordings of what McConnell said about needing witnesses to have a proper trial at Clinton's impeachment and it all becomes clear. There is whats 'legal', necessary and obvious when its your party and then there is how you you view opposition. Its well out of hand, runs all the way through the courts where allegiance to a party is now needed to get appointed and is at its worst in the senate. You cannot have a trial in the senate, not one with a meaningful verdict. 

"There's not much leverage in refusing to send us something we do not want." - Sen. Mitch McConnell 

9 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

"There's not much leverage in refusing to send us something we do not want." - Sen. Mitch McConnell 

There's a good reason it's called Trump derangement syndrome. 

Even if they were to remove from office (which they won't), there's this from the Trump-hating San Francisco Gate:

 

Trump is remaking the federal judiciary

 

President Donald Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November's election.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-is-remaking-the-federal-judiciary-14924789.php

 

 

30 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

"There's not much leverage in refusing to send us something we do not want." - Sen. Mitch McConnell 

Be assured Mitch McConnell doesn’t want to go near the impeachment trial.

 

How many ‘game plays’ has he proposed already?

 

And in the background court battles continue to gain access to/deny access to more evidence and more witnesses to more crimes.

 

Sure Mitch, we know you don’t want any of this, but you have no choice in the matter.

39 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

There's a good reason it's called Trump derangement syndrome. 

This Kangaroo Court impeaching Trump for <deleted> is TDS on steroids. 

 

It's going to end so badly for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats... 

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

It was up to the house to do the investigation. The senate need only, IMO, vote on whatever the house sends to the senate. In any event, it would take the Lord Almighty coming down to change any senators mind now, so why waste any more time on this, IMO, farce?

The circus has gone on long enough, now they can just get on with voting, and get back to the election campaign.

It's not as though a not guilty vote will stop the anti Trump hysteria, which will probably keep on for the next 5 years.

 

Apparently there are no procedural rules for a senate trial, and the leaders of the senate can basically do whatever they like. Other than holding a vote, IMO there is no other requirement.

Those that don't like it can get a constitutional amendment.

1 hour ago, Lungstib said:

Which this in no way will be. The system was devised before party allegiance overwhelmed senators leaving them unable to vote in an unprejudiced manner. Just look back at past recordings of what McConnell said about needing witnesses to have a proper trial at Clinton's impeachment and it all becomes clear. There is whats 'legal', necessary and obvious when its your party and then there is how you you view opposition. Its well out of hand, runs all the way through the courts where allegiance to a party is now needed to get appointed and is at its worst in the senate. You cannot have a trial in the senate, not one with a meaningful verdict. 

True, but without a constitutional amendment there is no other option.

Nothing to fear.

And the whole world watches this clowns circus. I feel sorry for those born there.

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

"There's not much leverage in refusing to send us something we do not want." - Sen. Mitch McConnell 

Trump wants it.

Waiting is bad for repubs as evidence is now coming out through other law suits that are relevant. Best now for dems to wait and it will force repubs to call witnesses.

 

what are repubs so afraid to find out.

Trump is impeached , but sadly he will not lose his job . He will just speed up his actions and do what ever he likes . Sad days ahead ...

Guilty or not, you don't have any trial without ALL witnesses and hearing all the evidence.

 and to seal the deal; he'll also win POTY 

 

on Twitter 

Where did all this Trump hate come from on this forum? 

12 minutes ago, nervona81732 said:

Where did all this Trump hate come from on this forum? 

Lot's of deplorable's here 

27 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Guilty or not, you don't have any trial without ALL witnesses and hearing all the evidence.

It's not a trial as we know it. It's political, not criminal, and they can do it any way they like.

Nothing to fear.

49 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Trump wants it.

 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

While Trump had indicated an interest in calling separate witnesses in his defense, he has also said he would go along with whatever decision McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders make.

 

1 hour ago, nervona81732 said:

Where did all this Trump hate come from on this forum? 

Many are trump supporter haters, are you listening? Anybody paying attention knows his approval has never gone above the 43% election approval. trump is exactly who he revealed he was. Supporters are the problem, don't blame him.

Edited December 23, 20196 yr by earlinclaifornia
clarity

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

Pretty much his solid MO. Say one thing like he wants to be vindicated in a trial outcome but knows if witness are called he has to quit. Says one thing and does the exact opposite. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/testify-under-oath-leave-scaramucci-132502633.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-finds-majority-americans-support-174542201.html Independent's, like myself are the reason 52% support removal as only 16% Republicans agree.

Edited December 23, 20196 yr by earlinclaifornia
clarity

3 hours ago, Lungstib said:

Which this in no way will be. The system was devised before party allegiance overwhelmed senators leaving them unable to vote in an unprejudiced manner. Just look back at past recordings of what McConnell said about needing witnesses to have a proper trial at Clinton's impeachment and it all becomes clear. There is whats 'legal', necessary and obvious when its your party and then there is how you you view opposition. Its well out of hand, runs all the way through the courts where allegiance to a party is now needed to get appointed and is at its worst in the senate. You cannot have a trial in the senate, not one with a meaningful verdict. 

Maybe, but the same past recordings show Schumer objecting to witnesses, in 1998, when the Dems controlled the Senate. What happened was that witnesses merely gave depositions, only portions of which were made public and given to the Senate. So, now, McConnell is playing "tit-for-tat." It's all about politics and who is in charge of the Senate, meaning the rules will change to suit the party, in power.

1 hour ago, nervona81732 said:

Where did all this Trump hate come from on this forum? 

a) it is not hate!

b) maybe try to follow the news!

16 minutes ago, skytrooper70 said:

Maybe, but the same past recordings show Schumer objecting to witnesses, in 1998, when the Dems controlled the Senate. What happened was that witnesses merely gave depositions, only portions of which were made public and given to the Senate. So, now, McConnell is playing "tit-for-tat." It's all about politics and who is in charge of the Senate, meaning the rules will change to suit the party, in power.

Comparing a BJ lie to asking for political investigation announcement from a foreign country is tit for tat? Having BJ whitness verses having actual people who know what the first hand truth is?

Edited December 23, 20196 yr by earlinclaifornia
clarity

The impeachment and now this senate trial were only ever for show, and everyone knows it.  The whole process de-legitimises any future precedings of any nature in both houses.  That will be the legacy of this current bunch of spiteful democrats.

6 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

The impeachment and now this senate trial were only ever for show, and everyone knows it.  The whole process de-legitimises any future precedings of any nature in both houses.  That will be the legacy of this current bunch of spiteful democrats.

I disagree and I am more inclined to think those Senators who are up for re-election could cost the Senate majority.

26 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I disagree and I am more inclined to think those Senators who are up for re-election could cost the Senate majority.

You are most certainly entitled to believe anything you like.