Who oh and welcome to the five thirty politics. Podcast president trumps Senate impeachment trial began on Tuesday with debate focused on the rules of the trial going forward send it majority leader Mitch, Mcdonald's, proposed rules passed on a party line vote orally Wednesday morning after Democrats, Levin amendments all failed. Those amendments were primarily at allowing for witnesses and admission of new evidence during the trial, starting today, Wednesday, the two sides- trumps legal team and the house. Impeachment managers will have twenty four hours each spread out over three days to present their open and arguments, after which the question of new witnesses and evidence will come up again. So we're not planning to cover each day of the Senate trial here on the podcast. But we do want to lay out the political considerations at play and what to expect over the coming days

and weeks and here at me to do that, our senior writer Perry, Beacon, Junior, hey Perry, has gone through the video games and senior writer Amelia Thomson devour you Amelia. I'm great thanks thanks for joining me this morning, verbal according Wednesday morning for the record Perry. Let's start with you, what did we learn about the politics of this trial after day of debate over the rules, so sooner Connell's original rules package, basically would have said there. Two days for each side, meaning you Propaganda have twelve hour day, starting at one p m Sirena ended one a m with up unless anyway, but so you saw during the day he sort of softened on that idea. He also is gonna. Make sure that the

the money from their how side is included from the beginning, and so that tells me that Mcconnell is being moved by Republicans like Susan Collins and Corey Gardener, who in more more vulnerable electronically and twenty twenty. So there are some signs that Mcconnell is adjust. His plan for the for those members debts These are small alteration so far the the general idea from Mcconnell is. He wants to limit the number of witnesses, probably two zero and make this trial as quick as possible and as least damaging for Trump as possible and so far based on yesterday. It appears that his fit you're Publican colleagues are largely going to go along with him in process are. You saw yesterday basely the outlines. What I thought would happen, which is that the Republicans want to shape this trial away, where there's very, does no witnesses Zella.

Information comes out that is damaging to Trump and I think so far Are this looks like this gonna happen, all those important to know Romney and Susan columns particularly said they were going to stick with it publicans and these initial votes, but they said after the two sides make their arguments when witness discussion comes back, Romney's been pre, inclined to say he's going to push for witnesses. I take him at his word on, their collins has had been saw. So that as well, but the key question is: are there for republican four witnesses and if, in the end, that appears to be no but it'll be issuing, and then, if there are four Republicans that are raised Question Hour with John Bolton testifies. I'm sure Republicans will want someone like Hunter Biden who looks bad for the Democrats tests by as well. So I I mean upshot is, I'm not Chevalier stays sort of stars where we were at the beginning. It is that I'm not sure this.

Trial window with witnesses. At this point, we saw a lot of party line votes on Tuesday and into the morning on what stay is the starting assumption here, Amelia. That will also expect a party line vote for the final vote, which is whether to acquit or remove president Trump from office he has been doing some really good coverage of where all of the individual senators might be on this and what their considerations will be. I think, certainly, though, if we don't see a party line vote, it seems likely that it will be very close to a party line vote, and you know one of the things that I really struck by in this first initial day,

of an opening debate. An opening argument was that what we are hearing from trumps legal team was an extremely trompe and aggressive opening argument, and you know I mean. Obviously these are trumps. Lawyers he's presumably very closely watching he's televised proceedings and influencing the legal strategy, but I think it was still striking because you know going into this. One of my questions was okay. We haven't heard a formal defence from Trump, yet that's not because he hasn't been and the opportunity to his lawyers could have appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and they chose not to but work and be hearing from them for the first time now, and are they gonna go all we in on this sort of Trump did nothing wrong. It was a perfect call. This is a witch hunt, type argument or Are they going to modulate a little more you know and and make the kind of argument dead new might have heard. You know, for example,

in the Clinton trial, or you know, trial, where there had been a little bit more admission of. Maybe this behaviour was inappropriate or you know I'm not just not just declaring that nothing bad happened, and so that kind of argument would be more this behaviour doesn't rise to the level of an impartial offence and here's. Why? And it was really an extremely aggressive defence of the president that we were hearing in just those sort of first few opening shots of debate were obviously going to be hearing a lot more of that from trumps legal team. Does that affect how republican or democratic of senators behave throughout this trial or the ultimate conclusion that they come to is. Does it make it any more likely for a couple, moderate Democrats to switch sides or a couple motto, Republicans to switch sides? The way that trumpets argue, in this case, I think we have to go with the fundamental that lawmaking,

decide this based on their own electoral situation, so in general. I would suggest that is very unlike any Republican will vote for Mps because I don't think that makes a lot of sense in a party where ten percent of peoples and peace, but I'm not sure we can discuss Mitt Romney individually, but the incentives are not aligned well for most republic, as of both for impeachment, his purely because its oppose I almost republican voters almost uniformly so measure the trumps legal strategy effects that at all on the democratic society of a few senators at most, notably Doug Jones of Alabama, who, I think, probably the electors once and if we are to vote against impeachment because he lives in a conservative very pro trumps states. So I would say that when we talk of computerized- as I think the vote has already been decided- were more discussing, what is the process in which trump is acquitted? There is Trump acquitted

and so to some extent, like trumps lawyers. You know not giving particularly good legal arguments doesn't matter in terms of a vote count. I think the only question here is like we still have a lot of evidence. The trump try to get the Ukrainians to invest the binds does not really under much dispute, and so that the real question here is like the Democrats, no Republicans have go to acquit and there are trying to do is make those votes make this process as painful as possible. For us, Susan columns or a quarry gardeners, you saw yesterday they had eleven different votes, I think all of which made Susan Collins and gardener and mark them Sally and other Republicans who might lose, and twenty twenty have devote a lot of times pro tromp. I think if you look at the polling, pretty clear, most Americans even a sizeable republican support. Having witnesses of his trial, so basically

nothing. We washing here as Democrats trying to make the acquittal process really painful for the reply, begins and on that- and I do think so. Columns were probably prefer if Lawyers were a little less bombastic and a little bit more would have been more modest and their arguments, but she's I can get them from them. Obviously she doesn't she dealing with I'm sure on the democratic sigh the crews feeling the most pressure other than Doug Jones, I'm begging Joe Mansion or somebody even like cursed in cinema. What's the cross pressure for that think Cinema or Joe Mansion have much pressure, or is there up for reelection, not until twenty twenty four, they just one theirs it's. So I don't know that people get I've any that the vote of a vote for you can now being considered five years from now like matters to some extent and in cinemas. Also in a fairly liberal, like a swing states, I think for so managing a cinema is more like a centrist person. I think she might

permission to leave more to vote to acquit because she's a centrist and thinks washing is too partisan and they, her actual problem in terms of voting to quit, would be maybe drawing in some kind of means. Building up left in Arizona getting them angry at heart, where they might challenge our primary. Even that, I think, is way of aid. The only person among Democrats, who has any real electoral problem here is dug Jones Amelia you both boldly out there, it seems a pretty predetermined process. So what are the goals of the two sides? You mentioned that trumps team was making a pretty bombastic and trompe in argument? Why are they doing that? What's the purpose in the weight of their presenting the argument? Well, one easy responses. The president is watching and or we can at least presume that that he is watching and that's the kind of defence he's offered throughout

as Perry mentioned, even in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence that he was trying to get the Ukrainians to investigate the violence. He has denied that he's done. Anything wrong in his sort of defence throughout the process has been along those lines, and so you know in some ways it would have been more surprising to see trumps lawyers come out and make a defensive him, though, with it wasn't pretty bombastic and aggressive. And you know for the democrats- it's it's funny to watch. We were talking about this on the live blog a little bit yesterday, but it's just kind of easier to be on the defensive in these. Sort of settings, because you can just kind of complain about the process and try to dino. Obviously, the Democrats are trying, over and over again to force these votes. That could look embarrassing for Republicans, because that kind of go against public opinion.

On the witnesses and they're kind of all. You know aligning the Republicans with these bombastic arguments from trumps, lawyers, gothic, if the challenges and watching this trial is the feeling that the outcome is pretty amend and so how much does all of this sort of negotiating and rhetorical flourish really matter, I mean, I think, as if you know, for no other reason than we heard a lot yesterday about sort of how much did these rules Hugh to the Clinton impeachment rules and do they do do they divergent? Do they not and that's a problem, because the Clinton impeachment rules are getting held up as kind of bastion of fairness, which is pretty funny onto here Democrats doing in twenty two

t and I think there would have been surprised to hear that back in eighteen, ninety nine, so I think basically the point being the precedent matters, because the constitution says very little about how impeachment trials are supposed to go, and so you know what happened in the last impeachment trial could matter you know if there is another presidential impeachment trial down the road? We could be hearing about what happened in the Trump impeachment trial and there were no witnesses or the arguments were spread out over three days, and so I think it matters from that perspective, an as Perry was saying, you know it's just this kind of final rehashing of where everyone stands on this and sort of a last attempt to try to shape the public narrative try to score political points. I think we can gas from the way this has unfolded so far. Public opinion has been incredibly steady on impeachment throughout the process. So you know, I think our best guess is that it's probably-

remained steady, barring some remarkable developments as the trial goes on, but you know the these theatrical do matter in in some senses, even if we have a sense of the outcome being a little inevitable or preordained Amelia. As far as public opinion goes I'll just mentioned that, according to five thirty eight impeachment tracker today January twenty second, fifty percent of Americans support impeaching and removing the president. Forty five percent of Americans do not- and that includes eighty seven percent of Democrats, forty seven percent of independence and eleven percent of Republicans, so that gives people some

and of the starting point as this trial gets under way. I wanna talk a little bit more about whether there will or won't be witnesses, but first today's podcast is brought to you by eighty t, commercial for business. It's not politics as usual these days and it's not business as usual at eighty. Eighty commercial service, businesses, ranging from mid sized organizations to large scale enterprises think of them as national security advisers. Just for your company. They provide comprehensive security, fire life safety and risk management solutions, professional great systems for commercial, great businesses. Businesses choose eighty commercial, the fortune, one thousand trust, eighty commercial for highly complex scalable,

degraded solutions and if you're looking for great partner to upgrade or take over the monitoring and service of your current system, eighty commercial can help to install and maintain large scale and multi site business dependency. Businesses choose eighty commercial for their complex security solutions. Visit. Eighty t, dot com, slash five, three: eight to learn more again, that's eighty t, dot com, slash five three eight. Today's podcast is also brought to you by light stream. The holidays are over and it's a brand new year. If you're thinking about the high interest credit card you used over the holidays and the bills that will be coming here is an idea to use your mind: have your credit card balances and save with a credit card consolidation loan from light stream role, multiple credit card payments into just one payment at a lower, fixed rate, late, strange credit card consolidation loans have rates as low as five point: nine five percent, a pr with ATO pay, plus those absolutely no fees. No application of these no origination fees, no transaction fees,

prepayment penalties? The application is so quick and easy. You can apply right from your phone just for listeners, apply now and get a special interest rate discount. The only way to get that discount is to go to light stream dot com slashed five, three eight, that's Elijah, each t as to our e m dot com, slash five three eight subject: accredited approval rate includes point five percent Otto paid discount terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice visit, light stream, dot com, slash five, three aid for more information, we're back and, of course we don't know what we don't know, but Democrats are focusing, so much on whether there will or won't be witnesses or new evidence in this trial, both Perry and Amelia. You have mentioned that its impart political right to just shape the process and the public's eyes as on air and driven by republican concerns for the president, but from the point of view,

getting new information. What kinds of things could a Mick, Mulvaney or John Bolton testify to that? We don't already now There's this one sort of big piece of the puzzle: there has still been missing, which is did Trump and deliberately condition aid to Ukraine. On this investigation of the burdens- and you know we have a lot of evidence- that kind of strongly suggests that there was a connection between those two things His the people who are closest to the president were actually presumably a of Mc Mulvaney this state of mind and his intentions and who were actually not a case of Mc Mulvaney executing his decisions, or you know, perhaps pushing back against the eventual John Boltons case. It's a little one clear was happening there. Those people we haven't heard from, and so I think of those people were to testify and were to testify in a public setting which is a sort of important because they think it's him.

I remember that in the Clinton impeachment there were witnesses, but they didn't testify publicly. So there is an option to be no potentially have witnesses be privately deposed, and so we would actually get to hear from some. Unlike John Bolton and I think that could potentially kind of dampen- perhaps the effect of of what he would have to but you know those people testifying and sharing what they know could be a pretty big deal, and so you know, I think it's understandable fur Mcconnell. Plainly too, wants to get the trial over with with as little damage to tramp, is really fighting having witnesses tooth and nail, even if John Bolton were sort of counterbalanced by someone like Hunter Biden, who might draw attention to a part of the narrative that isn't good for Democrats, you said

it could be important, but is there you know Perry? Is there anything that John Bolton are met? Mulvaney could save. That would change the equation of the trial so much that Trump might be acquitted D. I mean I assume there are certainly things the trump could do better, but they were of dead would be so problematic that they would change dynamics. Your I dont know what I want to get in the sentiment speckly too far in terms of what is the worst thing trunk I do so. I want to say that there is nothing they could say they can change anything. That said, I think the broad outlining the first of all, I think, Albania testified, he would was called for justify he would even in bulk executive privilege like after he gave his name, bring me my son. I think he would say anything anyway and then it be a different attitude about is required to testify, and we know whether this is the president's top aid require. The discuss comes up with the president. That's a hard question is ethic bomb wants to talk. I think there

objections on executive privilege grounds are listening in bonds case. He has leaked a bit, so we do have some sense. Like defected, Bolton thought this was a quota, chrome drug deal is sort of well known because it's been a New York Times been on television. The owner hill set it in a hearing, so buttons and can himself will be different and unique. I guess, but I'm not sure I'm. I guess I've. I've left this process being sceptical more and more that the importance of public testimony as opposed the private testimony is what we think it is because we just had a bunch of hearings in house. There were very gripping very public and moved no one as far as the polls show, so I'm just not sure. So I don't know. I think that public money is important. Nothing testimony is important. There are good reasons to require test them the greens do not allow the president a sort of stop all investigations of him that, since this idea, that alike move the public more and I was eleven

We're had excited too, like Hunter Biden testifies. I dont think that alike in Joe Biden campaign either. So I don't think it. I don't think these testimonies will have this kind of impacted. We are there's a soda, some sort of implied in discussion with the decimal. I mean if it became that one for one strategy on witnesses if they found for Republicans in favour. It sounds like right now, there's only two years: there's collins and met Romney. Would it be like a good deal for Republicans or Democrats to say, hey we're gonna have both huh Biden and John Button testify. I think that the big question is like you got John bold and it certify as Perry was saying. What would you know what we can say this stuff that has already come out, is pretty

You know potentially damaging, but it's already out there and perhaps hearing it out of John Boltons Mouth would make a difference. I think I'm I'm on the same page with Perry that I am a little sceptical that serve simply hearing him say what we already heard. Other people say he said, would sort of shift the public narrative in any meaningful way. John Bolton, is sort of prepared to testify that, Yes, I saw you know this aid being deliberately. Can and on the investigation, and I tried to stop at or whatever that's potentially something that that might be worth it for Democrats I mean I do think, there's a danger for them. In offering someone like Hunter brightened testified because it you know, really no evidence that Joe or Hunter Biden did anything.

Really wrong. You know, I think you can debate whether the Son of the vice president, should you no sooner be doing the things that that Hunter Biden did just from an optics perspective, but I think maybe the ring is that it creates kind of equivalence between the much serious things that Trump is accused of doing and the debate over Joe and Hunter Biden Dat beings Ed. I I don't think it's it's that big of a risk for Democrats to have someone like Hunter brightened testify. I guess I'm

not sure you know, I think, there's a pretty decent possibility that if they got even if they got John Bolton to testify that he would not offer the kind of perspective that would be sort of sufficiently damaging sufficiently dramatic to change the narrative at a point when all the evidence we have is a public opinion is, is really really baked in on the issue of impeachment after

You know three plus months of investigation and hearings, etc. I was sort of amazing was so you ve John Bonham Testify that Donald Trump had a plan for the Ukrainians to investigate by them for the Chinese, to investigate Warren for the North Koreans, investigate Buddha, judge for the French to investigate closure, and so on you and I'm giving a ridiculous example, because I mean yes, so other things John Bolton might know their uncle John Bonham was an escort adviser is involved in a lot of policy across the government. Are the thing including Ukraine, to the things that he in his realm of knowledge might know. There would be really earth shattering, really big news, em and maybe make even republicans rethink dumb impeachment, yes, but I'm but I've, but I'm guessing if the range of things he says well, we kind of already know, which is that

who does that Ukraine aid was held with, but only Ukraine a bit, isn't really change where we are that much yeah. So is it fair to say short of that that we should be viewing? What we see over the coming week in a half potentially plus through the lens of building a case in the public's I bleeding up to twenty two, basically just trying to do damage to either side in the general election O the report. We trying to do damage think they're trying to minimize damage. I guess maybe a different question. Like the Republicans, I don't think like even if Hunter by testifies, maybe dust I could hundred binding has been interviewed about this stuff on tv. It sounds like his

normal comments will be kind of on the lines of yeah did something there wasn't grade, and so are you nothing illegal than I do think their democratic Spanish always trying to really raise the stakes of this here, both for tromp but also for the Collins's in the gardeners. An example is just wrapping up. What should we expect from this process over the next week in a half hour, sound You know, I think we're probably gonna, see a lot more of what we saw on Tuesday, which is a lot of acrimony, alot of sort of elevated and aggressive rhetoric from both sides and attempts by the Democrats to sort of keep Mcconnell from making this trial as show and narrow in terms of evidence as possible and be no attempts by Morocco

or to wrap this up quickly and make sure there is little damage to Trump as possible, and next week I think, will really be kind of the next round of serious drama, because that's when this vote on the witnesses happens and that's when people like Romney and com, and are gonna have to decide where they're gonna land on that. But you know at this point I think a lot of what's happening does seem to just be the sort of rhetoric and thus scoring of political points, and I'm not expecting right now. Obviously this could this. Could all change live to eat my words, but you know, sort of big surprise those in terms of how the trial unfolds over the next couple weeks. One point in all this is that I think that the most important things are gonna be happening off stage off camera like this is,

most important things. I think that happened yesterday were like Susan Collins, pushing Mcconnell to change the rules slightly and net. So I sort of thing the argument. On the arguments from the lawyers will be things you sort of already no, and in fact yesterday a lot of things were said were set in the House Intel hearings a few months ago. So I think the negotiations between Collins and MC in the more moderate bookends on one end and the other in I assume at some point becomes the onto Hunter by intensifying the senators like Diane Feinstein that are close to Joe Biden me the hearing from by it and her his care proposed them saying: hey, we don't really want this and can use. I think the negotiations, kind of all states will be more issuing them. What's going on in front of us are well, we will watch and I'll play out. Thank you. So much bury thank you, danger, Amelia, thanks guys

and before we leave you listeners, I want to let you know that we have a vibe show coming up in Manchester New Hampshire on February. Ninth, that's just two days before the New Hampshire primary reveal a lot of fun. You can get your tickets at five. Thirty, eight dot com, slash live again, that's five! Thirty, eight dot com slashed live and we will see their. My name is Galen droop Tony Chow is in the control room touch my emailing us at podcast at five thirty dot com. You can also, of course, tweeted us with questions or comments. If you're a fan of this leave us a rating or reviewed and Apple podcast, store or tell someone about us, thanks in