It’s tough to tell how having the asterisk of impeachment will affect his reelection bid because Democratic voters largely support his impeachment, while Republicans largely oppose it, and independents are split. In other words, something as remarkable as impeaching a president in an election year polls predictably for the partisan era we’re in.
On Monday, both sides gave closing arguments to try to sway the Senate and the American public anyway. Here’s what they said.
Democrats: Not convicting Trump puts the next election at risk
Another key quote from the prosecution’s closing arguments: “He has not changed. He will not change. … A man without character or ethical compass will never find his way.”
That’s lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), talking about Trump in a scathing speech to close Democrats’ case Monday. His point was: If Trump invited the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016, if Trump invited China to also investigate Hunter Biden, and if Trump has not acknowledged wrongdoing or apologized for the things he was impeached for (like Bill Clinton did), what will he do next if he stays in office?
Schiff’s broader message was that Senate Republicans will look foolish for allowing Trump to stay in office when he inevitably does such things again. “If you find that the House has proved its case and still vote to acquit, your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history,” he said.
Trump’s defense: Removing Trump in an election year is too radical
Another key quote from the defense’s closing arguments: “You’re being asked to do this when tonight, citizens of Iowa are going to be caucusing for the first caucus for the presidential season. … Tonight!”
And another key quote: “You didn’t follow the rules. You should have.”
That’s former special prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr attacking House Democrats’ process for impeaching Trump.
It’s notable that the president’s defense leaned heavily on a process argument in Monday’s closing appeal. There were plenty of times throughout the trial when White House lawyers argued the evidence against Trump and said he did nothing wrong. (Though they relied on shaky and disingenuous points in doing so.) But as Republicans in the Senate, especially vulnerable ones up for reelection this year, prepare to acquit the president of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, many of them are leaning on blaming the Democrats for not fully proving their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Trump’s team emphasized that on Monday.
Of course, Democrats say that new witnesses would have helped them further prove their case.
On Monday, moderate Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who hasn’t said how he’ll vote on Wednesday, offered up a resolution for the Senate to censure Trump. That would mean Trump gets an official slap on the wrist from the Senate, even if he’s not convicted. But it’s not clear that there’s enough appetite for this middle-of-the-road course.
The facts continue to drip out
Hours after the Senate voted down witnesses Friday night, the Justice Department said they have in their possession about two dozen emails from White House and defense officials that could shed light on the key question in this trial: Did Trump withhold military aid to Ukraine specifically to get them to announce investigations into the Bidens?
We don’t know what the emails say; the Justice Department is trying to keep them secret precisely because they lend insight into the president’s decision-making. This was in response to a request from a watchdog news organization, Center for Public Integrity, which has been trying to get this information.
It raises the question: What else could come out in the coming days or weeks? Four things I’m watching for:
1. Do House Democrats call former national security adviser John Bolton to testify now that he says he would have testified in a Senate trial? Bolton has written in an upcoming book that Trump tried to leverage Ukraine’s military aid to help his reelection.
3. What other White House emails come out? News organizations are still trying to get documents through the courts. Before the Senate trial started, some leaked to the defense blog Just Security. All the private emails we’ve seen point to White House budget officials trying to pause the aid to Ukraine under mysterious circumstances that other administration officials disagreed with.
4. What does the Supreme Court decide about whether former White House counsel Donald McGahn can testify to Congress? House Democrats are nine months into a court battle to hear from McGahn on what he knows about the investigation by then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russia. It is expected to go to the Supreme Court; if it does and they rule in favor of the House being able to subpoena Trump officials who claim “absolute immunity,” could House Democrats reopen investigations in the House on Ukraine? And if so, what kind of political risk does that entail for them?
About this newsletter
In case you were worried this newsletter may disappear when impeachment comes to an end … fear not! We’ll have some news about what happens next in the next few days.
