Trump impeachment trial: President's defense team goes after Bidens
Trump's lawyers say Democratic House managers "opened the door."
Revelations in Bolton book rock Senate impeachment trial, Trump lawyers focus on Bidens in 2nd day of arguments
GOP's Romney wants to hear from Bolton, Collins says reports strengthen case for witnesses
Trump calls Bolton allegations 'false,' says he hasn't seen manuscript
As White House lawyers spent their second day defending President Donald Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday, questions raised by a reported draft manuscript of a forthcoming book by former national security adviser John Bolton gave Democrats new hope in their call for new witnesses to testify.
In an unpublished version of Bolton’s book "The Room Where It Happened" reported by the New York Times on Sunday, Bolton said Trump told him he wanted to continue withholding nearly $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials in Ukraine helped investigate Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden.
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, one of four GOP moderates Democrats have targeted in hopes of getting their support for witnesses, said Monday it's "important" senators hear Bolton's account to make an "impartial judgment."
"It's pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice," Romney said. GOP Sen. Susan Collins said the reports about Bolton's book "strengthen the case for witnesses."
Trump denied Bolton's allegation in tweets early Monday morning.
The ABC News team of correspondents and producers is covering every aspect of this story.
Here is how the day unfolded.
9:02 p.m. Second day of defense team's opening arguments ends
Dershowitz's arguments were largely constitutional and, at times, very scholarly. At one point he read William Blackstone quotes from two very old, large, yellowing books, which were dogeared with pink sticky notes.
He acknowledged that his position on the matter has evolved over time and said that a crime is necessary for a president to be impeached.
Impeachable offenses, he said, are treason, bribery or those actions that are similar, but perhaps lack certain jurisdictional elements. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not similar crimes, Dershowitz argues.
"This is the key point in this impeachment case, please understand what I'm arguing, is that purely noncriminal conduct, including abuse of power and obstruction of congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses," Dershowitz said.
"The framers did intend to limit the criteria for impeachment to criminal-like conduct akin into treason bribery," he added. "And they certainly did not intend to extend it to vague and open-ended and non criminal accusations such as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress."
At the close of arguments for the day, Cipollone encouraged senators to consider the "golden rule of impeachment.
"For the Democrats the Golden Rule could be do unto Republicans as you would have them do unto Democrats," Cipollone said. "And hopefully we will never be in another position in this country where we have another impeachment but vice versa for that rule."
The defense team's opening arguments will continue on Tuesday.
--ABC News' Allison Pecorin
8:47 p.m. Dershowitz argues Bolton revelations do not rise to the level of an 'impeachable offense'
The Harvard professor emeritus raised the new revelations from Bolton's transcript, as reported on by the New York Times, in his presentation before senators.
He argued that the details in the new reporting, even if true, do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense that is clear from the history that is clear from the language of the Constitution," Dershowitz said. "You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit."
--ABC News' Allison Pecorin
7:46 p.m. Robert Ray argues charges 'cheapen' impeachment process
Robert Ray argued the charges against Trump "cheapen" the impeachment process by relying on what he called insufficient evidence and that Trump actions do not rise to the level that they warrant removal from office.
"The charge must be treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It must be one for which clear and unmistakable proof can be produced. Only if the evidence actually produced against the president is indeed irrefutable such that his own constituents, in this case the sixty-three million people like me, who voted for President Trump accept his guilt of the offense charged in order to overwhelmingly persuade a super majority of Americans and thus their senators of malfeasance warranting his removal from office," Ray said.
6:49 p.m. GOP senators praise Trump team going after Bidens
During the dinner break, some Senate Republicans tell reporters they’re impressed with this last hour of opening arguments made by the White House legal team. including Eric Herschmann, who continued the attack on Hunter Biden's work on the board of Burisma.
"Why do they want to pay him millions of dollars?" Herschmann asked. "Well, he did have one qualification, he was a son of the vice president of the United States. He was the son of the man in charge of the Ukrainian portfolio for the prior administration and we are to believe there is nothing to see here, that for anyone to investigate or inquire about this would be a sham."
"Let's take a step back and realize what actually transpired, because the House managers would have us believe this had nothing at all to do with our government, nothing at all to do with our country's interests, nothing at all to do with our vice president, nothing at all to do with the State Department," Herschmann said. "It's simply private citizen Hunter Biden doing his own private business, it was purely coincidental that it was in his father's portfolio in Ukraine in the exact sector, the energy sector, that his father said was corrupt."
"This afternoon was devastating for the House managers," Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas says. "We have heard just the beginning of the serious evidence of corruption, involving Burisma Ukrainian natural gas company that paid Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, a million dollars a year." (There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens.)
"So, I get the press loves to obsess over the latest bombshell," he says, referring to a report abut John's Bolton's allegations. "Listen, I don't know what John Bolton's book says or doesn't say, I've seen the New York Times coverage but at the end of the day, it doesn't impact the legal issue before the Senate. The legal issue before this Senate is whether it president has the authority to investigate corruption," Cruz says.
GOP Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming takes a shot at the presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side, joking that they sat with eyes "wide open" in shock.
"Everyone was paying close attention for the discussion about the Bidens but the four people whose eyes were fully wide open were Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bennett and Amy Klobuchar," Barrasso says.
Ernst, from Iowa, then chimes in with a laugh, and a taunt about Iowa caucuses next week. "Iowa caucuses, folks. Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening and I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters," she says.
--ABC News' Mariam Khan
5:05 p.m. Bondi uses Bidens to claim Trump's concern about Ukraine corruption justified
Hitting on the alleged conflict of interest theme, Bondi uses a video clip of House testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent in November: "I raised my concern that Hunter Biden status as a board member to create the perception of a conflict of interest," Kent, who oversaw Ukraine policy, says.
Questioning Hunter Biden's qualifications to hold a board position, Bondi cites the generous monthly compensation he received as more grounds for suspicion.
Bondi turned to Vice President Joe Biden’s efforts to force the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor general Victor Shokin out of office, in exchange for $1 billion in security assistance, alleging that Shokin was investigating the Ukrainian oligarch owner of Burisma at the time.
Bondi played a 2016 video clip of Vice President Biden appearing to brag about his ability to use the U.S. aid as leverage to get the Ukrainians to vote Shokin out: "I'm leaving in 6 hours, if the prosecutor's not fired you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden says in the clip.
She then suggested that Joe Biden advocated for the Shokin's 2015 dismissal in an effort to protect his son, Hunter.
"What he didn't say on that video, according to the New York Times, this was the prosecutor investigating Burisma -- Shokin," Bondi says. "What he also didn't say on the video was that his son was being paid significant amounts by the oligarch owner of Burisma to sit on that board."
But there is a notable omission: Shokin faced widespread criticism from several high-profile international leaders (and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine) who said Biden's recommendation was well-justified.
The IMF threatened to withhold aid to Kiev in early 2016 citing "Ukraine’s slow progress in improving governance and fighting corruption," according to Christine Lagard, the IMF’s managing director. And once Shokin was removed, the European Union's envoy to Ukraine, Jan Tombinski, lauded the decision as "an opportunity to make a fresh start."
She also doesn't mention that Kent repeatedly denied GOP suggestions that Biden did anything wrong. In fact, Biden was acting in accordance with U.S. policy and in agreement with concerns raised by European governments and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine
Bondi then, in the context of all these allegations against the Bidens, quotes Trump's request from the transcript of the call with Zelenskiy.
"The House managers talked about the Bidens and Burisma 400 times but they never gave you the full picture," Bondi argues. She attempts to make the request sound fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
After laying the narrative out, Bondi says there is enough to make the case that it was fair for Trump to ask Zelenskiy to look into the matter from an anti-corruption standpoint.
"You've heard from the House managers, they do not believe that there was any concern to raise here. That all of this was baseless," Bondi says. "And all we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and that is enough," she says.
--ABC News' Sarah Kolinovsky and Lucien Bruggeman
4:45 p.m. Trump's defense team goes after Bidens at length
Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general and a member of Trump's defense team, brings the argument back to Hunter Biden and the questions from Republicans about whether his role with the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma was a conflict of interest with his father's position in the Obama administration.
It's the first time Trump's defense team has brought up the Bidens at length.
Bondi argues that Democrats have made Biden part of the impeachment issue even though Democrats did so saying accusations of any wrongdoing are "baseless." So have the Bidens.
"We would prefer not to be discussing this. But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it," Bondi says before reviewing the timeline of Hunter Biden's involvement with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma and news media coverage and questions about the appearance of a conflict of interest when he served on the company's board.
"Now, the House managers might say without evidence that everything we just have said has been debunked, that the evidence points entirely and unequivocally in the other direction," she says.
"That is a distraction you've heard from the House managers, they do not believe that there was any concern to raise, all of this was baseless and all we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue and that is enough."
Bondi has the chamber riveted, according to ABC News’ Devin Dwyer. As she started on the topic of Hunter Biden, Sen. Maria Cantrell mouths "bull****" as she turns to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen beside her.
There are expressions of dismay and concern on several faces of Democratic senators. Sen. Cory Booker openly scowls as he stands in the back of the chamber.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stares dead on at Bondi with a look of skepticism. Sen. Chris Coons, a close ally of former Vice President Joe Biden, aggressively takes notes.
Many of the president’s Republican allies — Sens. Graham, Barrasso, Braun, Thune — are nodding along. Sens. Romney, Collins and Murkowski diligently take notes.
4:26 p.m. Inside the Senate chamber: Republicans listening intently
ABC News' Katherine Faulders reports on the scene inside the Senate chamber:
During Jane Raskin’s presentation focusing on Rudy Giuliani (in which she tried to downplay his role while attempting to distance the White House from Giuliani by telling senators his style may not appeal to them), senators seemed very engaged - especially Republicans - who intently listened and took notes.
GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are especially engaged, and members of the Trump defense team are noticeably craning their necks during certain portions of the presentation to see how senators are reacting.
3:30 p.m. Raskin: Democrats using Giuliani as 'a colorful distraction'
"Rudy Giuliani is the House managers' colorful distraction," another member of the president's legal team, Jane Raskin, tells senators, in her first turn speaking during the Senate arguments.
"The House managers would have you believe that Mr. Giuliani is at the center of this controversy. They’ve anointed him the proxy villain of the tail the leader of a rogue operation their presentations were filled with ad hominem attacks and name-calling: 'cold-blooded political operative,' 'political bagman.' But I suggest to you that he's front and center in their narrative for one reason and one reason alone: to distract from the fact that the evidence does not support their claims," she says.
Raskin argues the Democrats' case is based on assumptions around Giuliani's role, including that his motivation was to benefit the president politically, and that the case for impeachment doesn't put his role in context as the president's personal attorney.
She says Giuliani has said multiple times that his interest in Ukraine is not related to the 2020 presidential election and predated the announcement of former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign, a big talking point in the Democrats' argument about the timeline of events.
Raskin argues Giuliani was a "minor player" and a "shiny object" designed to distract senators and that his work related to Ukraine would be used to defend Trump against allegations that were the focus of former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation -- that his campaign colluded with Russian operatives to interfere in the 2016 election.
Giuliani, like Trump, has pushed a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, and not Russia, sought to interfere in the election, even though U.S. officials have said there is no information to support that claim.
"As he has stated repeatedly and publicly, he was doing what good defense attorneys do," Raskin says. "Following a lead from a well-known private investigator, he was gathering evidence regarding Ukrainian election interference to defend his client against the false allegations being investigated by special counsel Mueller."
Mueller's report found that while there was insufficient evidence to charge members of the Trump campaign with engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election -- it did not find there was no evidence of contacts and cooperation or "no collusion" as Trump has claimed. It also found that Russian operatives sought to manipulate the election through misinformation and other types of interference.
"If Rudy Giuliani is everything they say he is, don't you think they would have subpoenaed and pursued his testimony? Ask yourselves, why didn't they?" Raskin says. "In fact it appears the House Committee wasn't particularly interested in presenting you with any direct evidence of what Mayor Giuliani did or why he did it. Instead, they ask you to rely on hearsay, speculation and assumption evidence that would be inadmissible in any court."
Related Topics
Related Stories
ABC News Live