Outraged speeches mark impeachment trial’s debut as McConnell partially retreats

Everyone knew it would be a long day when Chuck Schumer held a morning presser to object to Mitch McConnell’s rules.
And that’s precisely how the President Trump’s impeachment trial started off a couple of hours later.
These are questions that have been debated in some form for many weeks in the court of public opinion. Now it’s before a legislative body acting as a court.
In short, the Senate trial began Tuesday with elaborate arguments over process. Now process is crucial in this context, in many ways the whole ballgame. But rather than focusing on whether Trump violated his oath of office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival, the lawmakers spent much of their time debating procedures—and Republicans gave a little ground.
Many Democrats used the televised forum to repeat their accusations about Trump, Ukraine and obstruction—charges that those who have been paying attention can practically recite from memory.
With the president in Davos talking about the world economy, McConnell took the floor to respond to the Schumer news conference, in which the minority leader said “a trial with no evidence is not a trial at all—it’s a coverup.” The majority leader said his rules were “straightforward” and that pursuing witnesses could indefinitely delay the trial. Then Schumer took the floor to respond to McConnell’s response.
And the outraged speechifying began.
White House counsel Pat Cippolone was relatively brief in his opening statement, saying “there is absolutely no case” against Trump.
But Adam Schiff delivered a stemwinder for the Democrats, complete with graphics and video. The House manager said Trump tried to cheat in the election and that under the president’s approach, he “cannot be indicted, cannot be impeached. It makes him a monarch.”
Another Trump lawyer, Jay Sekulow, said the articles contained “a vague allegation about a non-crime…Why are we here? Are we here because of a phone call?” Cippollone called the charges “ridiculous” and “dangerous to our republic…A partisan impeachment is like stealing an election.”
A series of Schumer amendments were defeated over the course of the day; the GOP had the votes.
Yet McConnell did back off, under pressure from Susan Collins and other Republicans, by allowing evidence to be automatically entered into the official record, which he had tried to bar. And after insisting that each side use its 24 hours of debating time within two days, he lengthened that to three—making it less likely that the sessions would stretch into the wee hours when most of the country is asleep.
For what it’s worth, 69 percent of those in a new CNN poll say the Senate trial should call witnesses, including a 48-44 plurality among Republicans. But McConnell didn’t budge on that point for now.
The day was spent voting on a series of Schumer amendments. In the first pair of tests, Republicans beat back Schumer’s bid to subpoena White House emails and other documents and State Department documents. Both votes -- 53-47 -- were, as expected, along party lines.
There was, of course, a certain predictability to the trial’s first day, just as both sides fully expect Trump to be acquitted. I seriously doubt if the lawyers and lawmakers thought they were changing a single mind in the chamber.
And yet, as they spoke under the watchful eye of Chief Justice John Roberts, there was a sense of the gravity of the moment. This was not another cable-news debate; this was the trial of the president. And in some ways the senators are playing to a broader audience, and to the verdict of history.

Trump, in Davos, appears confident of Senate impeachment trial outcome: ‘We have a great case’

President Trump voiced optimism regarding the Senate impeachment trial as he arrived for a breakfast meeting with American CEOs and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday morning.
“We have a great case,” the president said to reporters gathered at the Davos Congress Center after his motorcade arrived from the Intercontinental Hotel. He added that he thought his legal team was doing “a very good job,” according to the Associated Press.
The brief comment from Trump came just hours after a marathon first day of the impeachment trial concluded across the Atlantic in Washington, capped off just after midnight by a shouting match between Republicans and Democrats that prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to admonish both sides.

President Trump flashes a thumbs-up as he arrives at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2020. (Associated Press)

The confrontation was sparked when Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., accused Senate Republicans of “voting for a cover-up” after a series of trial-rules amendments proposed by Senate Democrats went down in defeat in party-line votes.
The amendments had called for permitting testimony from new witnesses and the release of documents, but were rejected 53-47 each time.
While most of the Senate spent Tuesday sitting in silence at the impeachment trial, Trump spent part of the day boasting of a robust U.S. economy in a speech to the global business community at the Switzerland gathering.
“Today I'm proud to declare the United States is in the midst of an economic boom, the likes of which the world has never seen before,” he said, vowing to never to let “radical socialists destroy our economy.”
Trump was expected to participate in a pair of bilateral press conferences with leaders from Kurdistan and Iraq before returning to Washington later Wednesday.
Fox News' Rachel O'Neill and Edmund DeMarche and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

Chief Justice Roberts admonishes both sides at Senate impeachment trial, after marathon session erupts into shouting match

A marathon, 12-hour first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.
Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day, which was proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., just as the clock struck midnight. The proposal would have amended the trial rules offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to immediately subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
McConnell's rules, which were eventually adopted in a 53-47 party-line vote at 1:40 a.m. ET Wednesday and largely mirror those from the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, permit new witnesses and documents to be considered only later on in the proceedings, after opening arguments are made.
But Nadler, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena amendment, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence." Bolton has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal," and he has indicated he would be willing to testify and provide relevant information.
“It’s embarrassing,” Nadler began. “The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror? ... Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct? Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's coverup? So far I'm sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”
Trump's legal team, which has argued that Democrats' impeachment case couldn't be as "open-and-shut" as advertised given the apparently urgent need for new evidence even after the House impeachment inquiry, immediately rose in response.
"We've been respectful of the Senate," an animated White House counsel Pat Cipollone fired back. "We've made our arguments to you. And you don't deserve, and we don't deserve, what just happened. Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations against all of you; he accused you of a cover-up. He's been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler is you, for the way you've addressed the United States Senate. This is the United States Senate. You're not in charge here. ... It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing."
Then, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow hammed Nadler for suggesting that executive privilege, a longstanding constitutional principle protecting executive branch deliberations from disclosure, wasn't legitimate. The White House has said the privilege prevents Democrats from forcing administration officials to provide testimony before Congress.
"At about 12:10 a.m., January 22, the chairman of the [House] Judiciary Committee, in this body, on the floor of this Senate, said 'executive privilege and other nonsense,'" Sekulow said. "Now think about that for a moment. 'Executive privilege and other nonsense.' Mr. Nadler, it is not 'nonsense.' These are privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. And to shred the Constitution, on the floor of the Senate. To serve what purpose? The Senate is not on trial. The Constitution doesn't allow what just took place. Look what we've dealt with for the last, now 13 hours. And we hopefully are closing the proceedings, but not on a very high note."
Sekulow accused Democrats of hypocrisy given that Attorney General Eric Holder had similarly cited executive privilege to avoid providing documents as part of House Republicans' "Fast and Furious" gunrunning probe. Holder was later held in contempt of Congress.
"'Only guilty people try to hide evidence?'" Sekulow asked, quoting Nadler incredulously. "So, I guess when President Obama instructed his attorney general to not give information, he was guilty of a crime? That's the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that the way you view the United States Constitution? Because that's not the way it was written, that is not the way it's interpreted, and that's not the way the American people should have to live."
The outbursts prompted Roberts, who as Chief Justice of the United States is constitutionally required to serve as the presiding judge in the impeachment trial, to issue a highly unusual rebuke to both sides of the debate.
"It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body," Roberts said. "One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse. "
Roberts continued: "In the 1905 [Judge Charles] Swayne trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word 'pettifogging' -- and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are."
The vote on the Bolton amendment, like the roll call on Schumer's previous failed quixotic proposals on the day, was not a final determination on any witness or document request, because McConnell's proposal would allow new evidence to be considered later on in the process.
At 1:30 a.m. ET, Schumer introduced his last amendment to McConnell's rules-- and he unexpectedly put Roberts back in the spotlight. The proposal would have allowed Roberts to decide the appropriateness of witnesses, which Republicans nixed because the Constitution affords the Senate the "sole" power over impeachment trials.
That last amendment was tabled by a 53-47 party-line vote, just like ten of Schumer's other proposals.
When McConnell thanked Roberts for his "patience" as the proceedings wrapped up at 1:40 a.m. ET following that vote, Roberts remarked to applause, "It comes with the job." The trial adjourned until 1 p.m. ET on Wednesday.
As some Democratic impeachment managers told Fox News that they were exhausted from the "long day" while staffers streamed out of the Capitol complex at 2 a.m. ET, McConnell smirked and simply told Fox News that it had been a "good day."

McConnell's rules package

Under McConnell's final, adopted rules resolution, both the Democrats' impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers will now have three session days, totaling 24 hours, allocated to present their case.
McConnell's original resolution had allowed 24 hours of arguments over only two days. Democrats complained that that would push the trial into “the dead of night,” and McConnell expanded the timeline with a handwritten note on the resolution on Tuesday after the GOP moderates voiced similar concerns.

A copy of revised U.S. Senate Resolution 483, which provides procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, released Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has abruptly changed his proposed rules for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial after some of his fellow Republican senators objected. (AP Photo/Wayne Partlow)

A spokeswoman for Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said that she and others had raised concerns. Collins saw the changes as significant improvements, the spokeswoman said. Additionally, Ohio GOP Sen. Rob Portman and a substantial number of other Republicans from across the party's ideological spectrum reportedly wanted to make the changes.
The rules for Clinton’s trial give the two sides 24 hours each for arguments but didn't specify how many days. They each took three.
The rules for senators’ questions are identical as compared with the Clinton trial: “Upon the conclusion of the president’s presentation, senators may question the parties for a period of time not to exceed 16 hours." Per underlying Senate rules, upon which both resolutions were based, the senators have to submit those questions in writing.
After the senators' question period, Trump’s trial will follow Clinton’s format with debate over witnesses. In the Trump trial, the House prosecutors and White House defense will have four hours of debate over the question of whether to subpoena witnesses or documents.
The Clinton resolution was similar, but it gave the two sides six hours of debate. Both sets of rules also require witnesses to be deposed before they testify publicly.
In Clinton’s trial, the Senate eventually decided to depose three witnesses and allow video excerpts to be played on the Senate floor. But the public had already heard from all three of those witnesses, as they had been interviewed by Starr’s team.
It’s still unclear what will happen with witnesses in Trump’s trial.
The Clinton rules resolution provided that there would be a vote on a motion to dismiss the charges. McConnell’s resolution does not mention a motion to dismiss, known as a "kill switch" in GOP circles, but does not rule it out.
Trump has tweeted that he would like such a motion, but Senate Republicans have indicated that they don’t have the votes to pass it and that they would prefer for the president to be acquitted, as he is expected to be. Still, any senator could offer a motion to dismiss the two articles.
With the rules debate resolved, all indications are that the days ahead are likely to be acrimonious. Shortly before the trial dragged on overnight into the wee hours Wednesday with a series of Democrat-proposed subpoena requests that Republicans methodically shot down one-by-one, McConnell had offered Democrats an option: bundle all of their document requests into a "stack" for a single vote, so that the process could move along.
But, Schumer was having none of it -- and made clear that he wanted individual votes on each of Democrats' proposed amendments to McConnell's trial rules, no matter how long it took. McConnell's rules passed 53-47 followed immediately by adjournment until 1 p.m. Wednesday.
"A number" of additional amendments were going to be offered, Schumer promised. Indeed, at 10:30 p.m. ET, Schumer rose to present his sixth proposal of the day: a subpoena for the testimony of White House budget aides Robert Blair and Michael Duffey. Debate on that proposal wrapped up in a little over an hour before the Senate voted to table it.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, arrives at the Senate for the start of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Then, at 11:19 p.m. ET, Schumer introduced yet another amendment, in the form of a procedural modification requiring that if any party "seeks to admit evidence that has not been submitted as part of the record of the House of Representatives and that was subject to a duly authorized subpoena," then that party "shall also provide the opposing party all other documents responsive to that subpoena."  However, Trump's lawyers objected to the premise that the House's subpoenas were "duly authorized," given that the subpoenas were not issued pursuant to an impeachment inquiry authorized by a vote of the full House.
The Bolton amendment came next, followed by another procedural amendment on subpoenas.
In all, the Senate handed President Trump a series of wins throughout the day Tuesday by voting 53-47 ten separate times to effectively kill a series of previous proposals from Schumer to subpoena White House, State Department, Defense Department, and Office of Management and Budget documents, as well as testimony from acting White House Chief of Staff Mike Mulvaney, Blair and Duffey, respectively.
The party-line votes demonstrated GOP unity at the start of the trial, which is all but certain to result in the president's acquittal.

"I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are."
— Chief Justice John Roberts, after midnight

An additional, less consequential amendment on written responses was tabled by a 52-vote majority. Collins joined with Democrats on that vote, marking the first time a Republican did so all day.
There were signs that attention was flagging in the chamber with the night winding on. As of 10 p.m. ET, the galleries to watch the proceedings contained only 29 members of the public.
"It’s getting late," White House counsel Pat Cipollone said late Tuesday night. "I would ask you, respectfully, if we could simply start, maybe tomorrow we can start -- and they can make their argument, and they can, I guess, make a case that they once called 'overwhelming.' We'll see... Seriously, can we please start?”
Meanwhile, a report emerged in Politico that Democrats' lead impeachment manager, California Rep. Adam Schiff, may have publicly mischaracterized evidence in the case. Schiff had asserted that Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas “continued to try to arrange a meeting with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky" -- but the "mr Z" that Parnas was referring to in his text message was apparently not Ukraine's president, but Ukrainian businessman Mykola Zlochevsky.
Separately, as Democrats' amendments were being summarily shot down, reports emerged that some Democrats were privately considering something of a compromise: calling for the testimony of Hunter Biden in exchange for the appearance of some key administration officials. Biden obtained a lucrative board role with a Ukrainian company while his father, Joe Biden, was overseeing Ukrainian policy as vice president.
Trump had asked in his now-infamous July 25 call with Ukraine's president for a look into Joe Biden's admitted pressure campaign to have Ukraine's top prosecutor fired.
Republicans have sought to portray Trump's push for a probe as a legitimate request given the Bidens' dealings in Ukraine, while Democrats have alleged that senior administration officials would testify that the administration withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to secure a politically motivated probe. Mulvaney, for example, has publicly argued that there is nothing wrong with tying financial assistance to anti-corruption efforts and other U.S. objectives, even as the administration has denied specifically targeting the Bidens for political purposes.
The barrage of amendments Tuesday night killed early hopes that the senators would have time to meet in a closed session to converse -- which would be a valuable opportunity, given that the senators were legally barred from having any sustenance other than water or milk at their desk all day, and could not communicate verbally with one another during the proceedings.
The restriction on cellphone possession and oral interaction led some members to pass and flash written notes to each other like students in a classroom, as Democratic House impeachment managers and the president's legal team traded lengthy legalistic arguments.
At one point during the proceedings, former Bill Clinton press secretary and CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart wrote on Twitter that Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz could go to "prison," noting that Cruz's Twitter account was posting tweets during the trial. Lockhart was quickly mocked by social media users pointing out that it's common for senators' Twitter accounts to be run by staff, and Cruz's representatives confirmed to Fox News that Cruz had not sneaked his phone into the chamber.
Even Cruz's staff couldn't resist poking some fun at Lockhart, writing "COME AND TAKE IT," with an image of a cellphone.
It was a moment of levity in an otherwise emotionally charged day, with Democrats accusing the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Republicans calling out what they see as a transparent partisan stunt.
"It's a partisan impeachment they've delivered to your doorstep in an election year," Cipollone thundered early in the day, pointing out that Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and others, were being pulled off the campaign trail. "Some of you should be in Iowa."
"They're not here to steal one election, they're here to steal two elections," Cipollone added.
Trump attorney Patrick Philbin said Democrats' document requests were a "stunning admission" that House prosecutors, who had full rein to conduct their own impeachment inquiry, were now essentially asking the Senate "to do their job for them."

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts arrives at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020. President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial quickly burst into a partisan fight Tuesday as proceedings began unfolding at the Capitol. Democrats objected strongly to rules proposed by the Republican leader for compressed arguments and a speedy trial. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, one of the House Democrats' impeachment managers, countered in her remarks on the Senate floor that additional documents were needed to provide "clarity."
“As powerful as our evidence is," Lofgren said, "we did not receive a single document from an executive branch agency including the White House itself."

This artist sketch depicts Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking in the Senate chamber during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020. (Dana Verkouteren via AP)

Lofgren specifically sought, among other materials, summary notes from an Aug. 30, 2019 meeting between Trump, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in which they apparently tried to convince the president that freeing up aid money for Ukraine would be "the right thing to do."
“It would be wrong for you senators ... to be deprived of the relevant evidence,” Lofgren said.

For his part, Trump appeared undeterred by the proceedings, and committed to conducting business as usual.

In this image from video, impeachment manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., speaks in support of an amendment offered by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020. (Senate Television via AP)

“READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” the president tweeted from overseas, as he returned to his hotel far away from Washington's impeachment drama, at a global leaders economic conference in Davos, Switzerland.
As the contentious day wrapped up in Washington well after midnight, Trump posted another high-spirited tweet from Davos that again pointedly avoided commenting on the trial.
"Making great progress in @Davos," Trump wrote. "Tremendous numbers of companies will be coming, or returning, to the USA. Hottest Economy! JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!"
Fox News' Chad Pergram, Mike Emanuel, Caroline McKee, Jason Donner, and Adam Shaw contributed to this report, as well as The Associated Press.

Amy Klobuchar Cartoons

Karl Rove explains why some Democratic senators may vote to acquit Trump

Fox News contributor Karl Rove explained Monday why he believes some Democratic senators could break ranks with their colleagues and vote to acquit President Trump following the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.
"Looking at it, you've had a number of Democrats, [Sen. Joe] Manchin of West Virginia, [Sen. Doug] Jones of Alabama...all have sort of [made] temperate comments about this," Rove said on "America's Newsroom."
"Sure, most Democrats are gonna be like Kamala Harris and these others who have made it clear they're voting to convict no matter what," Rove continued, emphasizing that some Democratic senators are questioning whether Trump's removal is "what we ought to be doing as a country" and whether they should "just be going along with the herd."
Over the weekend, Rove told "Fox News Sunday" that he believed "it is much more likely we'll have more Democrats voting to retain the president in office than Republicans [voting to convict]."
In December, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shared similar sentiments on "Hannity," saying he believed that one or two Democratic senators who hail from states won by Trump in 2016 could vote to acquit-- singling out Jones and Manchin.
"I'm very much torn on it," Manchin told CNN recently. "I think it weighs on everybody."
Jones, considered by many analysts to be the most vulnerable incumbent up for reelection this year, said last month that he was "concerned" of the ramifications that an impeachment inquiry would have on the country.
Rove predicted that while all senators will vote with their respective party on procedural matters, their ultimate vote may prove to be in Trump's favor.
"I think they'll go with the rest of the Democrats on procedural questions like...witnesses...," Rove said, "but I think that's going to be a different question than the ultimate one of should we remove the president from office."
After formally opening Thursday, the Senate's impeachment trial will begin in earnest Tuesday afternoon.
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Why NY Times, hedging its bets, actually favors Klobuchar over Warren

It’s perfectly obvious that the New York Times copped out when it comes to backing a Democratic candidate. The more interesting question is why.
The editorial board, seemingly unable to settle on one contender, endorsed two instead, picking Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Voters, of course, only get one pick (or risk jail as a result). The central conceit of newspaper endorsements is that editors study the candidates and their records—and, in the case of the Times, interview them—to make a recommendation for busy people who don’t have time to conduct that kind of examination. Instead, they punted.
But a careful reading suggests the Times is really endorsing Amy Klobuchar, and not just because her name was first. Given its determination to defeat President Trump, the paper is hedging its bets, with the Minnesota senator still mired in single digits and betting most of her chips on Iowa. If she gets knocked out, the Times is still backing Warren.
The editorial begins by praising Warren as a great storyteller with “the passion of a convert,” a former Republican from Oklahoma. And it hailed many of her liberal proposals. But then come the cavernous caveats.
Warren’s wealth tax is “constitutionally suspect” and would be tied up in the courts for years.
She’s displayed “some questionable political instincts.” She can sound like she sees “a universe of us-versus thems.” She’s backed away from Medicare for All. She goes too far in “placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. The country needs a more unifying path.”
That sounds like a rationale for not supporting the Massachusetts senator, and that’s the point where the piece pivots.
Amy Klobuchar is “the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.” Her “bipartisan credentials” would make her “a deal maker…and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.”
Sounds like a closing argument.
While there’s a mild swipe about Klobuchar treating her staff poorly and having “struggled” to gain traction on the trail, the Times says she’s “enormously popular” in Minnesota. It’s pretty clear the editors would like her to be president.
But here’s the thing: Warren is a full-throated progressive who’s embraced some of Sanders’ proposals. Klobuchar is a moderate liberal who’s running against their big-government plans. It’s inconsistent for the Times to embrace both, except to have a horse in each lane.
Newspaper endorsements don’t have nearly the clout they once did, except perhaps locally. The Washington Post helped elect a couple of D.C. mayors, and the Union-Leader’s nod in New Hampshire is a boost to GOP candidates.
For Klobuchar, the support of the Des Moines Register would be worth its weight in gold. In fact, she joked that the backing of the Quad-City Times was more important because it covers four cities and the Times serves only one.
The Times endorsement is like chicken soup and certainly doesn’t hurt a Democratic candidate. But a co-endorsement is like a weak handshake instead of a big kiss.

Harmeet Dhillon: Trump impeachment -- If Schiff were a prosecutor, he'd be in serious trouble

It’s good for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., that his prosecutor days are behind him, and that he’s now only playing one on TV as House manager for the impeachment. He’s enjoyed putting on a show for the cameras, pretending to be a brave civil servant prosecuting President Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But if he behaved in a real courtroom the way he has since Democrats’ crusade against the president began, a court would sanction him and throw him off the case, and his law license could be taken away.
From the very beginning of the impeachment charade, Schiff has injected himself and his own personal hatred into what is meant to be a rare, solemn, and bipartisan process, all while pantomiming the restrained, professional behavior of an officer of the court. He’s blatantly lied, in the committee room and in public, about the evidence we've seen, ranging from a series of breathtaking whoppers regarding now-discredited surveillance warrants to fictionalizing the content of the president’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Schiff repeatedly refused to allow cross-examination of his supposed witnesses — including the “whistleblower” who, by his own admission, holds no first-hand knowledge of the facts in question. (Where are those whistleblower transcripts, by the way? Suppressed by Schiff.) Worst of all, he’s had access to evidence and knowledge that casts doubt on his entire contrived corruption narrative, and he’s prevented the president and Republicans from using it in their defense.
If the U.S. attorney or district attorney in charge of Schiff’s office didn’t have the good sense to remove such a prosecutor from trying a case, a judge would do it for them. Even if he were the head prosecutor, he might well be referred to the state bar for disciplinary charges.
Making things up, trying to railroad the defendant, manipulate the jury, bias the outcome, suppressing evidence, procuring false evidence, tampering with evidence – any one of these things can and do get prosecutors disbarred. Just ask Mike Nifong, the North Carolina district attorney overseeing the now-infamous 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case.
Like Schiff, Nifong took a thin and implausible case, based on the accusation of a troubled young woman, and twisted it to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent Duke lacrosse players. He tried parading them in front of the country as brutal, privileged rapists, while presenting himself as the champion of the voiceless, a lone defender of justice.
Like Schiff, Nifong viewed the defendants in his case as merely a means to further his own fame and political career, going on a TV-talking-head-spree like an early precursor to Schiff. He exploited a tense political situation around racial division and campus sexual assault the same way Schiff is exploiting political polarization in America today.
And like Schiff, Nifong messed up. He got caught. Remember when Schiff had to ridiculously claim he didn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, despite his office advising him on how to come forward with his conspiracy theory about the president’s phone call with Zelensky? Nifong had to claim he didn’t have the DNA evidence to show the Duke kids were innocent, despite the fact that he had worked with the crime lab director to withhold it.
The difference is that, because he was a real prosecutor, Nifong paid for his actions when he was caught. Evidence that can exonerate defendants in a criminal case is called “Brady material.” Withholding it is a classic example of prosecutorial misconduct. Nifong was brought up on ethics charges, resigned from his office, and was forced to surrender his law license. For good measure, he then spent a day in jail for contempt of court. Schiff’s sentence for his Pinocchio behavior? More time on cable news.

From the start, this entire impeachment process has been political and illegitimate. Impeachment is always inherently political, but the denial of due process to the president is historic.

Schiff is not a prosecutor. He’s a politician, and ultimately the only price he’ll pay for his utter contempt of the Constitution and the public trust is the political hit that he will take when the president is speedily acquitted in the Senate.
From the start, this entire impeachment process has been political and illegitimate. Impeachment is always inherently political, but the denial of due process to the president is historic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., miffed by Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s lackluster showmanship in the House Russiagate hearings, delegated the hastily conjured impeachment process to Schiff, who has made a mockery of the role of a prosecutor.
Schiff is the one who solicited evidence, colluded with “witnesses” who were anything but, suppressed evidence that would be Brady material in a court of law, lied to his own “grand jury” by falsely mimicking the president, and went on television to poison the “jury pool” of senators with his running commentary, lies and pressure tactics. He’s never been held accountable for his daily shredding of the Constitution he swore to uphold, and he probably never will be, given the far-left district he represents in Los Angeles County.
Courts and bar associations come down hard on lying, cheating, feckless prosecutors not only because they fail to uphold their duties to the defendant and to the courts, but also because they undermine public confidence in the system of justice itself. What Schiff is doing is a million times worse, because every American is watching this charade and seeing a lawyer with power misbehave and make a mockery of our ultimate law, the Constitution. His disgraceful performance will permanently mar our civic fabric and people’s confidence in fair trials, due process, equal protection of the laws.
Only the voters in Schiff’s district can hold him accountable – but his misconduct leaves a stain on Nancy Pelosi’s legacy as speaker of the house, and on the Democratic Party, whose leaders’ zeal to overturn the results of the 2020 election have blinded them to the maxim that a prosecutor’s first job is to do justice, not rack up indictments regardless of merit.

Senate impeachment trial set to begin as Trump adds last-minute reinforcements to defense team

After an opening salvo of back-and-forth arguments from President Trump's attorneys and Democrats' impeachment managers on Monday, Senate impeachment trial proceedings are set to begin at 1 p.m. ET on Tuesday with the expectation they will stretch well into a wild night on Capitol Hill -- even as key procedural questions, including the timeline for debate and whether additional witnesses will testify, remain undecided and hotly contentious.
In a surprise move Monday night, a detachment of high-profile House Republicans announced that they would formally join the president's legal team, including Reps. Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik and Lee Zeldin. The last-minute show of force underscored the fluid nature of the Senate trial, which is also set to feature full-throated arguments against impeachment from constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton independent counsel Ken Starr.
“We are not planning for them to present statements on the Senate floor," a senior administration official told Fox News, referring to the latest additions to Trump's defense team, headed up by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump's personal attorney Jay Sekulow. "The group will continue to give critical guidance on the case because of their strong familiarity with the facts and evidence."
Jordan Sekulow told Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday night that his father and the rest of Trump's legal team were "champing at the bit and ready to go." He maintained that executive privilege, a longstanding constitutional principle protecting executive branch deliberations from disclosure, by itself defeated the "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment, while Democrats had only hearsay evidence and speculation to support their "abuse of power" charge. Neither "obstruction of Congress" nor "abuse of power" are federal crimes, and they have no established definition.
Democrats have seethed openly ever since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., failed in her gambit to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand before the House would turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi had sought a commitment allowing Democrats to call witnesses prior to arguments in the trial -- but, with just hours to go until the proceedings commenced, McConnell, R-Ky., dashed those hopes.
McConnell specifically revealed Monday that he wanted a condensed, two-day calendar for each side to give opening statements, at 12 hours per day. After the four days of opening arguments, senators would be allowed up to 16 hours for written questions to the prosecution and defense, followed by four hours of debate. Only then would there be votes on calling other witnesses, likely next week. At the end of deliberations, the Senate would then vote on each impeachment article.
Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said in a statement Monday night that McConnell's resolution, overall, "aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts." Romney was among a small number of Republican senators who said they wanted to consider witness testimony and documents that weren't part of the House impeachment investigation.
Democrats, however, were incensed by the speedy timeline. Some took to calling McConnell "Midnight Mitch," the latest in a string of unintentionally flattering nicknames. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called McConnell's rules package a "national disgrace," adding, "it’s clear Sen. McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through."
Even before McConnell's announcement, congressional Democrats apparently were off-balance: "The House managers have absolutely no idea what the structure of the trial two days before the trial begins,” one source with House Democrats working on the impeachment trial complained to Fox News late Sunday.
“It is completely unfathomable,” fumed another source with the Democrats. “Is Sen. McConnell going to have 12-hour trial days which run until 2 or 3 in the morning?”
McConnell is expected to kick off the afternoon's proceedings by introducing his proposed resolution for the parameters for the trial, which he has said will pass with at least 53 votes. Senators will not be directly speaking out in the debate over McConnell's resolution, which is slated to last for approximately two hours -- only members of Trump's defense team, and the seven Democrats serving as House impeachment managers, are expected to participate.
Schumer likely will then present his counter-proposals to McConnell's motion, followed by another two hours of debate among the managers and Trump's counsel. Potential proposals include requests to subpoena specific witnesses -- including, perhaps, Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas or former National Security Adviser John Bolton -- or to adjust debate time.
Then, at approximately 6 p.m. ET or even later, Fox News is told to expect a closed Senate session of indeterminate length after the debates. When the Senate returns to open session, lawmakers -- including two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- likely will vote in turn on any amendments to McConnell's proposal, then McConnell's proposal itself.
McConnell's proposal also was said to include a so-called "kill switch," allowing Trump's team to move to dismiss the articles of impeachment in the Senate quickly.
In a sign of the prevailing give-no-ground mentality ahead of the trial, Trump's legal team traded blows with House prosecutors on Monday, asserting that the president did "absolutely nothing wrong" and urging the Senate to reject an impeachment case it called “flimsy" and a "dangerous perversion of the Constitution."
House Democrats impeached the president for "abuse of power" related to his administration's withholding of U.S. military aid to Ukraine while he suggested the country investigate rival Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine. The aid was eventually released, and Ukrainian officials have denied feeling any undue pressure. The administration's refusal to comply with Democrats' probe, citing executive privilege, led to the "obstruction of Congress" count.

"It is a constitutional travesty."
— President Trump's legal team, on the impeachment proceedings

The 110-page filing from the White House condemned the "rigged" House impeachment process, calling the majority vote to impeach there a "brazenly political act ... that must be rejected."
The White House's legal argument hinged in part on Trump’s assertion he did nothing wrong and did not commit any recognized crime, as well as on poking holes in the hearsay witness testimony offered by Democrats.
For example, the White House pointed out that EU ambassador Gordon Sondland had said he "had come to believe" that aid to Ukraine was linked to an investigation of Biden, "before talking to the president." Additionally, Trump's lawyers pointed out that Sondland admitted having "no evidence" other than his "own presumption," and that he was "speculating" based on hearsay that the Trump administration ever linked a White House meeting with Ukraine's leaders to the beginning of an investigation.
"After focus-group testing various charges for weeks, House Democrats settled on two flimsy Articles of Impeachment that allege no crime or violation of law whatsoever—much less 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' as required by the Constitution," the lawyers wrote. “It is a constitutional travesty."
Additionally, the White House released Justice Department legal opinions meant to bolster its case that defying subpoenas from Congress did not amount to "obstruction of Congress."
One opinion, dated Sunday, said Trump administration officials were free to disregard subpoenas sent last fall before the House of Representatives had formally authorized an impeachment inquiry. That approval, the memo said, was necessary before congressional committees could begin their own investigations and issue subpoenas for documents and testimony.

A copy of a Senate draft resolution to be offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., regarding the procedures during the impeachment trial of President Trump. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)

Meanwhile, the prosecution team of House managers was spending another day on Capitol Hill preparing for the trial, which will take place under heavy security. The Democrats made their way through crowds of tourists in the Rotunda to tour the Senate chamber.
In their own filing Monday, House prosecutors replied to Trump's "not guilty" plea by making fresh demands for a fair trial in the Senate. "President Trump asserts that his impeachment is a partisan ‘hoax.' He is wrong," the prosecutors wrote in their reply.
They wrote that the president can't have it both ways -- rejecting the facts of the House case but also stonewalling congressional subpoenas for witnesses and testimony. "Senators must honor their own oaths by holding a fair trial with all relevant evidence," they wrote.
No president has ever been removed by the Senate. The current Senate, with a 53-47 Republican majority, is not expected to mount the two-thirds voted needed for conviction. Even if it did, the White House team has argued it would be an "unconstitutional conviction'' because the articles of impeachment were too broad.
Administration officials have argued that similar imprecision applied to the perjury case in Clinton's impeachment trial.
The White House has also suggested the House inquiry was lacking because it failed to investigate Biden or his son Hunter, who served on the board of a gas company in Ukraine in a lucrative role while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president. Should Democrats insist on calling witnesses like Parnas and Bolton, Republicans have openly suggested that they might then push for a subpoena the Bidens.
In a show of confidence, Trump tweeted a video late Monday touting his achievements in office, including the nation's historically low unemployment rate, booming stock market and rising wages, with the note: "THE BEST IS YET TO COME!"
Fox News' Caroline McKee, Chad Pergram, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.