World

As they head into Day 4 of impeachment trial, Democrats hope to leave senators wanting more

Democrats are in their final day of presenting arguments in the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump but hope their relentless barrage of testimony and constitutional rhetoric was convincing enough to buy them more time to make their case later in the trial.

Pace of Senate trial has been punishing, but Democrats hope they'll get a chance to present more testimony

Rep. Adam Schiff, left, and Rep. Jerry Nadler lead some of their fellow House managers to the Senate floor on the third day of the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington. The managers are the Democratic legislators who are prosecuting the case. (Mary F. Calvert/Reuters)

As the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump enters its fourth day in the U.S. Senate, stamina is waning.

Among viewers at home, interest has dropped off — from about 11 million viewers to a little less than eight million, a mere six per cent of those expected to vote in the November 2020 election.

In the halls of the Senate, the press corps is getting restless, still chasing every media availability but privately cursing the long hours they've put in covering a trial that has stretched beyond nine hours each of the past three days.

On the Senate floor, while some senators keenly flip through massive binders of supporting documentation, highlighting relevant sections, others slouch, yawn or slip in and out of the chamber, where strict rules dictate they're only allowed to consume milk or water.

Democrats are hoping they can sustain the punishing pace for at least one more day as they wrap up their case against the president Friday and make a final push to convince the Senate and the American people that Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival was a brazen abuse of power intended to give him an advantage in the 2020 election.

"It is an unprecedented betrayal of the national interest," said Jerrold Nadler, one of seven Democratic legislators, or so-called managers, prosecuting the case, Thursday.

"It is a shocking corruption of the election process. And it is without doubt a crime against the constitution, warranting — demanding — removal from office."

WATCH | Jerrold Nadler lays out the case for abuse of power:

Jerrold Nadler accuses U.S. President Donald Trump of attempting to 'kneecap his political opponents' by seeking information on Joe and Hunter BIden during the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. 0:58

'Effective use of the House evidence'

The Democrats have been using video clips of testimony from the House impeachment hearings last year and Trump's own statements to methodically weave a director's commentary of sorts, chronicling a by now familiar story: Trump's withholding of $400 million US in military aid and a White House meeting as a means of pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter and revive a discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

"This is actually a very effective use of the House evidence because it digests the moments that constitute evidence for the Democrats," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert in political communication at the University of Pennsylvania who runs FactCheck.org.

Constitutional law scholar Michael Gerhardt testified during one of the hearings before the House judiciary committee late last year. He was also a witness in the Clinton impeachment trial — for both sides. (Jacquelyn Martin/The Associated Press)

And while much of the testimony was familiar to anyone who paid attention during the House hearings, several senators from both sides of the aisle admitted they were hearing some of it for the first time.

"This may have been the first time that they have heard the entire case presented sequentially," Jamieson said. "And they are having a very different experience than the public has had, because very few in the public are watching from one o'clock until whenever the proceedings [end]."

Although several of Trump's defenders in and outside the Senate denounced the presentation as same old, same old, Republicans might end up using their own samples of House testimony to rebut the Democrats' case when they begin presenting their defence Saturday. 

'The breach between the parties'

It would be a mistake for the lawyers representing Trump to discount evidence of misconduct altogether, said Michael Gerhardt, an expert on constitutional law and the legislative process at the North Carolina School of Law. 

Instead, they should clearly spell out how the Senate should assess whether it rises to the level of an impeachable offence.

"Merely saying all he did was perfect is shameful. It is false and leads any neutral observers to lose confidence in their case," said Gerhardt.

Republican Sen. Rick Scott said he hasn't been convinced by the Democrats' argument so far. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Gerhardt was a witness for both sides in the 1999 impeachment trial of Bill Clinton and in the Trump impeachment hearings in the House, and Nadler played some of his testimony at the start of Thursday's session.

He says he regrets that there are no joint witnesses in the current impeachment process.

"The breach between the parties is much worse than it was 20 years ago, and it was bad then."

Whetting senators' appetite

The importance of hearing from additional witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, has been a key focus for the Democrats. It will likely come up again in their final day of arguments as they attempt to prove the second article of impeachment and show that Trump obstructed Congress by stymying the inquiry into how he handled the Ukraine matter.

They'll need to convince at least two Republicans (along with the two independents, who are expected to vote with Democrats) to get the 51-member majority they need to vote in favour of calling of witnesses once Trump's defence team presents their case.

Adam Schiff, the congressman leading the prosecution, has goaded senators over the past two days, hinting at the incriminating details that might be in the diplomatic cables and other subpoenaed documents that the Democrats have also requested but that the White House has thus far refused to release. 

"They're yours for the asking," he told senators on the first day of arguments.

WATCH | Adam Schiff calls on senators to demand the release of subpoenaed documents:

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff urges the jury in U.S. President Donald Trump's impeachment trial to allow the notes of U.S. diplomats and aides with knowledge of Trump's dealings with Ukraine to be entered as evidence. 0:49

"As they built the narrative, they would establish what they knew, argue that it was strong enough to impeach based on what they knew and then say, 'But wouldn't you also want to know this?'" Louis Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said of the Democrats' strategy.

Most Americans want to hear from witnesses

It's a strategy that seems to be tapping into public sentiment. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken Jan. 20-23 found that 66 per cent of Americans, including 45 per cent of Republicans, agreed that the Senate should call new witnesses to testify.

"They have to sustain public support for witnesses. In fact, get it to increase if they can, because that puts pressure on the susceptible Republicans who might be willing to vote that way," Seidman said.

Hunter Biden is not a 'relevant witness' in the impeachment proceedings, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, left, told reporters on her way to the Senate trial Wednesday. (Julio Cortez/The Associated Press)

Rick Scott, of Florida, is one of those Republicans. But he told reporters Thursday that Democrats had their chance to pursue witnesses during the House hearings and could have gone to court to fight the president's refusal to comply with their subpoenas.

He and other Republicans have, however, said they want Hunter Biden to testify about his association with Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where he was a paid member of the board from 2014 to 2019. Trump and other Republicans have alleged Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to dismiss the country's prosecutor general in order to shield Burisma from a corruption investigation.

In their arguments Thursday, Democrats tried to debunk that theory and show that Biden's actions were part a wider international effort to root out corruption. 

"The whole idea of a fair trial is you bring in relevant witnesses," said Democratic senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on her way into the Senate chamber Wednesday.

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar is running to be the presidential nominee for the party but has had to take a break from the campaign trail to be at the Senate trial. (Jacquelyn Martin/The Associated Press)

"Relevant witnesses here are people who know what Donald Trump did and what his intent was and what its impact was on our national security and on the security of the Ukraine. Hunter Biden doesn't have any knowledge of that or any bearing on that."

Her fellow presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar said she's been keeping the pressure up on her Republican colleagues, urging them to at least agree to hear from witnesses, even if they don't vote to remove Trump from office.

 "Why are you here if you're not going to stand up?" she said she told senators.

Trump's personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, is one of several lawyers representing the president in the Senate trial. (Handout/U.S. Senate TV/Reuters)

'Unprecedented coverup'

Democrats used strong language in their presentation to the Senate to characterize Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to announce investigations that the House managers said served only his own interests: "plot," "scheme," "unprecedented coverup." (He countered with some of his favourite terms: Nadler was a "sleazebag"; Schiff a "con job" and the trial "a hoax," he said from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.)

They went to great lengths to underscore the gravity of the charges and the historic nature of the process, repeatedly invoking the so-called Framers of the Constitution.

"Impeachment is not for petty offences," Nadler said on the second day of arguments. "It does not apply to acts that are merely unwise or unpopular. "

And if there was any doubt about just how sombre of an occasion it was, the opening words of the sergeant at arms at the start of every session were there to remind us: "Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment."

As were the stern security staff who were quick to reprimand reporters and lookers-on for the smallest infraction, handing them a photocopied list of rules, with the one they've violated emphatically underlined: no cellphones, no talking, no eating, no leaning, no standing.

WATCH | Adam Schiff they'll be authors of their own decline if they don't hold Trump accountable:

Adam Schiff warns at the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump that if the Senate jury doesn't hold Trump to account, it will give free rein to future presidents to abuse their presidential powers   0:34

Democrats argue against leaving Trump's fate to voters

In advance of their final day of arguments, the managers presenting the Democrats' case issued a warning to those who might be convinced Trump abused the power of his office but hesitant to remove him.

"The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box," Schiff said near the end of another nine-hour-plus session. "For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won."

But it will take more than that to convince Trump's most vocal defenders in the Senate that he must go.

"When it comes to replacing this president nine months-plus from the election, you've got an uphill battle with me, because I really do believe that the best group people to pick a president are the voters," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said it will be an 'uphill battle' convincing him to remove the president from office before the 2020 election. (Erin Scott/Reuters)

Even Seidman, who supports the impeachment process, thinks a vote to remove Trump would be risky and potentially destabilizing given that a percentage of Americans would find such a process tantamount to a coup d'état.

It's also highly unlikely to happen, contingent as it is on a two-thirds majority in the Republican-controlled chamber, where Democrats hold 47 of 100 seats.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the impeachment process is a futile exercise, said Seidman.

"There is the impact that this has on the American people, on Trump's chances for re-election, on his historical reputation, on how much political power he has going forward," he said.

WATCH | Adam Schiff warns of dire consequences if Trump remains in office:

An emotional Rep. Adam Schiff closed Thursday's impeachment trial session arguing that 'the truth matters.' 2:25

About the Author

Kazi Stastna

Senior Producer

Kazi Stastna is a senior producer with CBCNews.ca. She has worked as a features writer and copy editor with CBC's digital news team for 10 years. Prior to that, she was a reporter and editor in Montreal, Germany and the Czech Republic. She's currently writing from Washington, D.C.

With files from Reuters

Comments

To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.