Dems’ Impeachment Challenge: Making A Case With No New Facts


House Democrats pressed into the second day of arguments in President Donald Trump’s impeachment case focused intently on the charge of abuse of power, which top prosecutor Adam Schiff said would leave senators with no choice but a finding of “guilt and conviction.”

Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged as he stood before restless senators forced to sit silently for another long day there would be “some repetition of information” from the overview heard on day one.

But he promised a stitching together of the facts to an inevitable conclusion.

“You’ve now heard hundreds of hours of depositions and live testimony from the House,” Schiff said. ’We will now show these facts and many others and how they are interwoven … to a finding of guilt and conviction.”

The challenge is clear as Democrats try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year.

The top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, acknowledged Thursday that many senators “really don’t want to be here.”

But Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case abou t Trump’s pressure on Ukraine and the scheme to cover up the charges and many Republicans are hearing it for only the first time. He contended they can’t help but be “glued” to his testimony.

Once reluctant to take on impeachment during an election year, Democrats are now marching toward a decision by the Senate that the American public also will judge. They are one-third of the way through 24 hours of opening arguments.

Trump blasted the proceedings in a Thursday morning tweet, declaring them the “Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!”

House Democrats impeached Trump last month, arguing he abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while withholding crucial military aid. They also charged him with obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe. Republicans have defended Trump’s actions as appropriate and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken the president in the midst of his reelection campaign.

Campaigning in Iowa, Biden stood by the effort to remove Trump from office.

“People ask the question, ‘Isn’t the president going to be stronger and harder to beat if he survives this?’ Yes, probably. But Congress has no choice,” he said. Senators must cast their votes and “live with that in history.”

Each side has up to three days to present its case. After the House prosecutors finish, likely Friday, the president’s lawyers will launch their 24 hours. It’s unclear how much time they will actually take, but Trump’s team promises not only to defend the president but to take apart the Democrats’ case. The Senate is expected to take only Sunday off and push into next week.

“There’s a lot of things I’d like to rebut,” said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow at the Capitol, “and we will rebut.”

After that senators will face the question of whether they do, or do not, want to call witnesses to testify.

On the first day of opening arguments, Schiff appealed to senators not to be “cynical” about politics, but to draw on the intent of the nation’s Founding Fathers in providing the remedy of impeachment and removal. He spoke directly to Republicans to join in voting to oust Trump from office to “protect our democracy.”

Holding the room proved difficult. Most senators sat at their desks throughout, as the rules stipulate, though some stretched their legs, standing behind the desks or against the back wall of the chamber. Sometimes they yawned. Republicans sometimes quietly smirked at the presentation from Schiff and the lesser-known House Democrats prosecuting the case.

Nearing nine long hours of arguments, the empty seats became glaringly apparent. Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., was under the weather and left early. Some lawmakers dashed down the hall to appear on television. Visitors thinned from the galleries, one briefly interrupting in protest and being removed by Capitol police.

GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina told reporters he was “hearing exactly what they said yesterday…. nothing new whatsoever.”

But another Republican, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, acknowledged that the case against the president is probably new information for most of them. ”’Nine out of 10 senators will tell you that they have not read the transcript of the proceedings of the House. And the 10th senator who says he has is lying.”

The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election. All four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail, seated as jurors.

Several GOP senators said Wednesday they’d seen no evidence to support the allegations against Trump even though, just 24 hours earlier, they had rejected subpoenas for additional witnesses as well as documents. Democrats, meanwhile, described the evidence against the president as overwhelming but said senators had a duty to gather more.

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not, 45% to 40%. But a sizable percentage, 14%, said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.

One issue with wide agreement: Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial. About 7 in 10 said so, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats, according to the poll.

The strategy of more witnesses, though, seemed all but settled. Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides including former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week.

Senators were likely to repeat that rejection next week, shutting out any chance of new testimony.

Some Republicans expressed disdain for it all. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa spoke sarcastically about how excited she was to hear the “overwhelming evidence” the House Democrats promised against Trump.

“And once we’ve heard that overwhelming evidence,” she said, raising her voice mockingly, “I don’t know that we’ll need to see additional witnesses, but let’s hear about that overwhelming evidence.”

Republicans remained eager for a swift trial. Yet Trump’s legal team passed on an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss the case on Wednesday, an acknowledgment that there were not enough Republican votes to support it.

The White House legal team, in its court filings and presentations, has not disputed Trump’s actions. But the lawyers insist the president did nothing wrong.



  1. The word “new” in the headline is redundant. There are NO facts indicating misconduct. There is nothing wrong with the president asking a foreign government to investigate corruption involving the previous administration, and he fact he should so to indicate the the previous administration’s “protection” of the corrupt behavior is no longer in effect.

  2. It is rather disingenuous for the Senate to complain about no new evidence when they refuse to have new evidence admitted. Same with the Presidents claims of innocence. Why not submit proof of innocence, or witness that can attest to innocence?

    In the long run the Senate will move to dismiss, the Chief Justice won’t uphold the motion and the Senate will vote and override Roberts opinion. This will end the problem for some. There are Senators up for reelection in areas where their constituents disagree with there stonewalling.

  3. ” Why not submit proof of innocence, or witness that can attest to innocence?”

    For the same reason that neither Hunter Biden nor Schiff will testify. This whole impeachment is just a dirty political game that will achieve no purpose other than to further divide the country. It shows there are no grown-ups in Congress.

  4. Amil Zola: You seem to be unaware that in the Common Law tradition, a person accused of a crime does not need to submit “proof of innocence”. Unlike many countries whose systems are based on Roman law, under the Common law it is the accuser (the prosecutor, or in the case, the Democratic-controlled House of Representative) that needs to produce evidence of guilt, which they need to have before making a charge. In more mundane criminal proceedings, if an indictment does not stand on its own with supporting evidence, it gets dismissed without a trial. If the accuser doesn’t have a case, they shouldn’t be making an accusation. If the Democrats had no evidence that the job given to Hunter Biden was legitimate, then Trump would have been correct legally to demand the Ukraine investigate it – and the Democrats have offered no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden’s “job” was other than bribe to the Obama administration.

  5. Akuperma,

    You are relating the president’s defense team’s position. They are the defense because Trump was impeached.
    Their position is not automatically accepted after he was impeached. And you should not believe it until after the trial.
    The senate does not have a choice to throw out the impeachment. That is not the way the constitution was written.
    They must hold a trial. If they hold a sham trial without calling witnesses than that shows you that Moscow Mitch and his cohorts are complicit in destroying the constitution.
    The defense must defend itself against the prosecutor’s (i.e. Congress) claims.
    The prosecution claims based on multiple witnesses and testimony that Trump was acting for the good of himself and not for the good of the US. (This is also clear from anyone who has a little common sense. What does Guliani doing in the Ukraine when he is not a US government employee ?)
    Trump has also held back all witnesses and documents because he is guilty of obstructing congress. That was his second impeachable offense.
    He can be removed for either offense. He certainly is guilty of the second one.

    Whether Biden or his son have committed offenses is completely irrelevant to the impeachment.
    They could have murdered someone on fifth avenue and Trump would still be guilty as sin.

  6. jackkass, all of you Democrats are crazy lunatics. There is no difference between Brett Kavanaugh, Russia collusion Hoax and Trump’s so called “impeachment”. Trump debunked Democrat lies by releasing the transcript of his call with Ukrainian president, case closed, unless you are a Democrat where truth does not matter because the end justifies the means.