Good morning! Here’s how Cascadia’s United States Senators voted on motions pertaining to rules for Donald Trump’s removal trial, which took place in the Senate during the week that ended yesterday and will continue into this week.
(The House of Representatives was in recess.)
In the United States Senate
SETTING RULES FOR DONALD TRUMP’S TRIAL: On a party-line vote of 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 22nd adopted a resolution (S. Resolution 483) establishing procedures for its impeachment trial of Donald Trump:
- A delegation of House Democrats was allowed twenty-four hours over no more than three days to argue for conviction on two articles of impeachment the House approved in December. Trump’s attorneys were granted an equal period to present a defense.
- The resolution then allocates sixteen hours for responses to written questions from senators. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would read the questions aloud and direct them to the House managers, Trump’s defense team or both sides.
- At that point, the Senate will hear four hours of arguments from the two sides on whether to allow motions to subpoena witnesses and documents. If the Senate votes to issue subpoenas, witnesses would be deposed before subsequent votes on whether to call them before the Senate.
- Following any witness testimony, the Senate is to deliberate and vote on the impeachment articles. Approval of either article by a two-thirds vote of senators present would remove Trump from office.
The first article of impeachment charges Trump with abusing the powers of the presidency by withholding military aid to Ukraine and a promised Oval Office meeting in an effort to pressure Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would denigrate Joe Biden, a political rival of the president. The second article charges Trump with obstructing the House’s investigation of his conduct.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R‑Kentucky, said the resolution he sponsored “sets up a structure that is fair, evenhanded and tracks closely with past precedents.” Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, D‑New York, said the resolution “asks the Senate to rush through as fast as possible, and makes getting evidence as hard as possible.” A yes vote was to adopt the resolution.
 | Voting Aye (2): |
 | Voting Nay (2): |
 | Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
REJECTING BOLTON AS TRIAL WITNESS: On a party-line vote of 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 22nd tabled (killed) an amendment to S Resolution 483 (above) that sought to call John Bolton, the former national security adviser to Trump, as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.
Bolton said earlier he would testify if subpoenaed and could, according to his lawyer, provide firsthand accounts of events and conversations, including comments by Trump, on the withholding of security aid to Ukraine.
Jerrold Nadler, D‑New York, said:
“The question is whether the Senate will be complicit in the president’s crimes by covering them up. Any senator who votes against Bolton’s testimony or any relevant testimony shows that he or she wants to be part of the coverup. What other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness?”
Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, replied that House investigators had not sought Bolton’s testimony.
“So for them to come here now and demand that before we even start the arguments — they ask you to do something that they refuse to do for themselves and then accuse you of a coverup when you don’t do it — it is ridiculous.”
A yes vote was in opposition to calling Bolton as a witness.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
REJECTING MULVANEY AS TRIAL WITNESS: On a party-line vote of 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 21st tabled (killed) an amendment to S Resolution 483 (above) that sought to call Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff, as a witness in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
Mulvaney helped Trump use a hold on military aid and denial of an Oval Office visit to solicit political favors from Ukrainian officials. Mulvaney told reporters in October 2019 that it is not unusual for the administration to use foreign aid as a lever to influence the actions of recipients. “We do that all the time with foreign policy.…I have news for everybody. Get over it.”
Hakeem Jeffries, D‑New York, said Mulvaney “was at the center of every stage of the president’s substantial pressure campaign against Ukraine. Based on the extensive evidence the House did obtain, it is clear that Mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation and carrying out the coverup.”
In their reply, Trump’s defenders did not mention Mulvaney but objected to Senate’s calling any witnesses.
Mike Purpura, a deputy White House counsel, said House managers “had their chance to develop their evidence before they sent the articles of impeachment to this chamber. This chamber’s role is not to do the House’s job for it.”
A yes vote was in opposition to calling Mulvaney as a witness.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
REJECTING BLAIR AND DUFFEY AS TRIAL WITNESSES: On a party-line vote of 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 21st tabled (killed) an amendment to S Res 483 (above) that sought to call Robert B. Blair, an aide to White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Michael P. Duffey, an Office Management and Budget official, as witnesses in the Donald Trump removal trial.
Both assisted Trump’s bid to use a freeze on military aid and denial of an Oval Office visit to gain Ukraine’s help in undercutting former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential candidacy. They were subpoenaed by House investigators but refused to comply on due process grounds.
Sylvia Garcia, D‑Texas, said:
“Blair and Duffey are not household names. But they operated the machinery of the executive branch. They implemented President Trump’s instruction to freeze military aid to Ukraine” and “stood at the center of this tangled web.”
Attorney Pam Bondi, a Trump defender, told the Senate that House impeachment investigators “took no action on the subpoenas (they) issued to Mr. Duffey and Mr. Blair because they didn’t want a court to tell them that they were trampling on their constitutional rights. Now they want this chamber to do it for them.”
A yes vote was in opposition of calling Blair and Duffey as witnesses.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
EMPOWERING CHIEF JUSTICE TO RULE ON WITNESSES: Voting 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 22nd tabled (killed) an amendment to S Resolution 483 (above) that would empower Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to rule on the relevance of witnesses and documents proposed to be subpoenaed in Donald Trump’s removal trial. This would change a rule requiring disputes over relevance to be resolved by a majority vote of senators.
The Senate, which has 53 Republicans and a Democratic caucus of 47 senators, could vote to overrule the chief justice’s opinion.
Adam Schiff, D‑California, told Republicans: “If you can’t trust the chief justice, appointed by a Republican president, to make a fair decision about materiality [of witnesses and documents], I think it betrays the weakness of your case.”
Attorney Jay Sekulow of the president’s defense team said: “With no disrespect to the chief justice, this is not an appellate court. This is the U.S. Senate. There is not an arbitration clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. We oppose the amendment.”
A yes vote was in opposition to the amendment.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
TIGHTENING IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE RULES: Voting 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 21st tabled (killed) an amendment to S Resolution 483 (above) that would govern subpoenaed but thus far withheld documents the administration might later submit as evidence in President Trump’s impeachment trial. Under the amendment, if the president produced any such material, he would have to also provide Democratic trial managers with all other documents that were demanded by the same subpoena. The requirement was intended to prevent the administration from selectively introducing subpoenaed evidence.
Adam Schiff, D‑California, said that without this amendment, the GOP-drafted evidence rule “would enable the president to use his obstruction not only as a shield to his misconduct but also as a sword in his defense. [This] is an amendment based on simple fairness, and it will help the Senate and the American people get to the truth.”
Attorney Patrick Philbin of the White House team called the amendment invalid because House investigators issued most of their subpoenas before the full House voted on October 31st, 2019, to formally authorize impeachment proceedings. He said the first 23 House subpoenas “were all unauthorized…and that is why the Trump administration did not respond to them and did not comply with them.”
A yes vote was in opposition to the amendment.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
STREAMLINING RULES FOR ADMITTING WITNESSES: Voting 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 22nd tabled (killed) an amendment to streamline how the Senate will determine whether it will hear testimony during the impeachment trial from witnesses including John Bolton, the former national security adviser, or Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff.
The Republican-written rules adopted on January 22nd (S Resolution 483) call for four hours of debate and a vote later in the trial on whether any motions to subpoena witnesses or documents will be considered.
If any witnesses were eventually subpoenaed, they would be deposed before another vote on whether to call them to testify before the Senate.
This amendment would eliminate the first vote on whether to consider calling any witnesses, thus allowing guaranteed up-or-down votes on whether to hear from specific witnesses.
The amendment also specified that senators would hear from witnesses in person as opposed to via videotape or by reading a deposition transcript.
Adam Schiff, D‑California, said that without this rules change “there is no guarantee that you are going to get a chance to vote on specific witnesses.”
Mike Purpura, a deputy White House counsel, said the amendment would impair the Senate’s “discretion as to whether to hear from the witness live [and] if there are witnesses at some point or not.”
A yes vote was in opposition to the amendment.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
DENYING SUBPOENAS FOR WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS: Voting 53 for and 47 against, the Senate on January 22nd tabled (killed) an amendment that sought to authorize the removal trial of Donald Trump to subpoena White House documents that are directly relevant to charges leveled against the president.
The amendment to S Resolution 483 was in response to the White House’s total refusal to comply with subpoenas they received last year from House impeachment investigators.
In addition to shunning House requests for thousands of White House documents including correspondence, emails and text messages related to the impeachment articles, the regime has disregarded House subpoenas issued to the Department of Defense, Department of State and Office of Management and Budget.
Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, also introduced trial amendments to compel those agencies to respond to a new round of subpoenas, and those measures were also killed by 53–47 party-line votes.
Zoe Lofgren, D‑California, said:
“As powerful as our evidence is — and make no mistake, it overwhelmingly proves [Trump’s] guilt — we did not receive a single document from the executive branch including the White House itself.”
Attorney Patrick Philbin, a defender of Donald Trump, said:
“It is a stunning admission of the inadequate and broken process that the House Democrats ran in this impeachment inquiry that [they] failed to compile a record to support their charges.”
A yes vote was in opposition to the amendment.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTIONS: The Senate on January 22nd tabled (killed) an amendment to S Resolution 483 that sought to increase from two hours to about 24 hours the time allotted both sides for filing responses to initial motions in the removal trial of Donald Trump.
Of the twelve roll calls conducted during the trial’s opening sessions, this was the only one not decided by a 53–47 party-line vote. The tally on this roll call as 52–48, with Susan Collins, R‑Maine, voting with the Democratic caucus.
Adam Schiff, D‑California, said a two-hour window “really doesn’t give anybody enough time to respond to a written motion.”
Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said “we are ready to proceed.…We would ask the chamber to reject this amendment.”
A yes vote was in opposition to the amendment.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
Key votes ahead
The Senate will continue its removal trial of Donald Trump in the week of January 27th. The House schedule was to be announced.
Editor’s Note: The information in NPI’s weekly How Cascadia’s U.S. lawmakers voted feature is provided by Voterama in Congress, a service of Thomas Voting Reports. All rights are reserved. Reproduction of this post is not permitted, not even with attribution. Use the permanent link to this post to share it… thanks!
© 2020 Thomas Voting Reports.