Our live coverage of the impeachment inquiry has ended for the day. Read below to get the latest updates.
Following the 232-196 vote in the House on a resolution guiding impeachment proceedings, the White House is seizing on the two Democrats who voted against it as evidence of “bipartisan” opposition to the measure.
Two White House officials said the administration will continue to argue that it’s a ‘big deal’ two Democrats sided with Republicans in “bipartisan opposition” and that two is actually not such a small number in these partisan times.
“Two has always been a threshold with a bipartisan vote. In today’s partisan times, that’s huge,” one official said.
The White House will try to make the case that leadership wasn’t totally successful with two Democrats jumping over for a vote of this magnitude.
“The only bipartisan thing about this impeachment sham is the opposition to it,” the White House tweeted on its official account.
In terms of the GOP arguments against process being undercut by the Democrats’ vote, officials say that messaging doesn’t need to change as of now because closed-door hearings are still taking place next week. The official said until the President’s team begins getting access to witnesses and is able to exercise due process rights, the White House will continue to argue the process is flawed.
One official said it remains to be seen how it will play out and that Democrats want a trial after the verdict has been reached.
White House officials said the unified Republican opposition — which came after massive pressure from Trump — stands in contrast to the two Democratic defectors.
About the votes: Two votes out of 232 is a minuscule figure and hardly represents a bipartisan consensus and Democrats are largely unified in their approach to impeachment. It is also worth noting that both Democrats who crossed party lines come from districts that Trump won by double digits in 2016.
After weathering criticism of paying too little attention to the President’s defenders in the House, the White House has been ramping up its outreach to Senate Republicans ahead of a likely trial in the upper chamber in the weeks ahead.
Some White House aides and advisers still feel as though President Trump hasn’t allowed his people to form an adequate team to defend against impeachment, as he’s resisted forming a war room or hiring more staff and lawyers. However, the President and staff have spent more time in the past week reaching out to the senators who will likely decide Trump’s fate when the House impeaches him.
What happened today: Over plates of chicken in the Roosevelt Room, Trump talked impeachment with a handful of senators just hours after the House voted to formalize the process. Like many White House officials today, Trump focused on the pair of Democratic members who bucked leadership, according to Sen. Josh Hawley, one of more than a half-dozen senators who met with the President at the White House.
White House officials said Trump monitored the impeachment proceedings on the House floor today. Several pointed out that Trump and his team have been stepping up their Senate outreach to shore up support as the inquiry progresses at a remarkable pace in the House.
Many Republicans and advisers remain deeply frustrated with the way the White House is handling the entire situation. But some point to these signs that the President and his staff may be preparing to handle the second phase of impeachment better than the first, as many even within the White House have acknowledged hasn’t gone well.
A senior White House official said the administration’s view is that Tim Morrison’s testimony is good for them because he thought the memo of the call was an accurate and fair representation of President Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
This is noteworthy following the testimony from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who raised doubts about the transcript’s accuracy because of two omissions regarding Burisma and Biden recordings.
Morrison, the top White House official on Trump’s National Security Council for Europe, also said he didn’t think there was anything wrong with the call legally and that the only concern was how it would play in the polarized Washington environment if it leaked out.
The official claimed he conveyed the concern was more about politics in Washington than the actual contents of the call.
The White House is downplaying Morrison’s corroboration of quid pro quo based on what US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told him. Morrison pointed out that Sondland himself said there wasn’t quid pro quo and what Morrison was told didn’t come directly from Trump.
US District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed today with the Justice Department’s claim that there would be “a proliferation of subpoenas to an extraordinary degree” if the House won its case on whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify.
She pointed out that the House won a case involving former nominee to the US Supreme Court Harriet Miers 10 years ago. In July 2007, Miers was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on what she knew about the controversial firing of eight US attorneys in 2006. Former President George W. Bush ordered her not to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.
Jackson also brought up US vs. Nixon, saying Nixon was told to turn over actual tapes of actual conversations, which she said was more invasive than having top aides such as McGahn testify.
The Justice Department pushed back, saying the Nixon case was criminal inquiry and this was not. House lawyer Doug Letter reacted to the Justice Department arguments, saying, “This is what they wish the law were. It is not what the law is.”
About today’s case: The hearing is part of a lawsuit over whether McGahn must appear for testimony in the House. The House subpoenaed McGahn in April as it examined whether the President obstructed justice by attempting to stymie the Russia investigation.
The White House had claimed McGahn has “absolute immunity” from being forced to speak to Congress.
Brown didn’t say today when she would issue a ruling in the McGahn’s case. The timing of her decision could have a domino effect on other witnesses in the fast-moving impeachment inquiry. If the parties want to expedite her decision, Jackson said she is open to ruling from the bench, with a written opinion to follow, but the parties would need to make a formal request.
In the legal fight over impeachment witness Charles Kupperman’s testimony, a major question will be whether he can even sue, and whether the court has a role to play in this case.
A lawyer for the House of Representatives told the judge today this isn’t a legitimate case.
Kupperman’s attorney Chuck Cooper noted that the Justice Department has been arguing in another hearing today that federal judges should stay out of witness subpoena fights. A lawyer for the Justice Department, representing President Trump in this lawsuit, didn’t show her side’s cards.
Cooper, speaking for Kupperman, said he believed the court should take this case. But he said he wouldn’t side with the White House’s immunity assertion or the House subpoena, when the case got to that point.
Todd Tatelman, a lawyer for the House, called Kupperman’s lawsuit one that “serves no other purpose than to attempt to delay” the House’s inquiries.
The judge responded by saying the lawsuit may potentially be more efficient, compared to holding Kupperman, Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, in contempt of Congress, then pushing his abstention into court.
The attorney for Charles Kupperman, who served until last month as deputy national security adviser at the White House, and President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton wouldn’t say in court today whether Bolton will file a lawsuit asking the courts to decide what he should do if he’s subpoenaed by the House.
Kupperman filed a lawsuit last week after he was subpoenaed by the House committee to testify. The White House told him he was immune from testifying and should not appear this past Monday. Bolton is scheduled for a deposition in the House next Thursday.
Judge Richard Leon addressed Bolton’s scheduled testimony and asked Kupperman’s attorney if the issues for the former national security advisor would be the same.
Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper didn’t give a straight answer on his plan, and instead kept open the possibility he could also file a lawsuit for Bolton.
Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, has just wrapped up his testimony before House impeachment investigators.
About his deposition: Morrison told lawmakers that he was concerned the July 25 call transcript between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would leak and could have negative ramifications, according to multiple sources. But he made clear he saw nothing wrong with the July call, saying he was “not concerned” that “anything illegal” was discussed, according to one source.
Morrison was involved with discussions after the call about how to handle the transcript, the sources said. Ultimately, the call transcript was filed in a highly classified system, a decision that’s among the issues Democrats are seeking answers about in their impeachment investigation into Trump and Ukraine.
The issue over whether witness Charles Kupperman must testify in the impeachment inquiry won’t be resolved soon.
US District Court Judge Richard Leon told the Justice Department, the House of Representatives and Kupperman that he will hear arguments on Dec. 10 on whether Kupperman needs to testify.
That means Kupperman’s testimony and potentially the testimony of his former boss John Bolton may not be resolved until then or later.
What we know: Kupperman, who served until last month as deputy national security adviser at the White House, was listening in on the July 25 phone call when, according to a White House transcript, Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
The House has subpoenaed Kupperman but the White House blocked him from testifying on Monday, claiming absolute immunity for White House officials in the impeachment probe.
The opening statement from Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, includes passages addressing Ukraine in the ongoing impeachment inquiry.
Part of the statement mentions Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, who testified that he had been told President Trump would withhold military aid to the country until it publicly declared investigations would be launched that could help his reelection chances — including into former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a copy of Taylor’s opening statement obtained by CNN.
Taylor said he was told that “everything” Ukraine wanted — from a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to hundreds of millions in security aid — was dependent on publicly announcing an investigation that included Burisma, the company that hired Biden’s son Hunter, and Ukraine’s alleged involvement in the 2016 election.
Morrison’s statement also mentions US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Taylor testified that Sondland told him he’d made a mistake by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations.”
More from Morrison’s testimony today: Morrison made clear he saw nothing wrong with the July call between Trump and Zelensky, saying he was “not concerned” that “anything illegal” was discussed. He wasn’t concerned that Trump asked Zelensky about “a favor,” the source said.
Morrison’s concern, CNN reported today, was about potential leaks of the transcript. He was concerned about how the leaked transcript would play out in a “polarized environment” in Washington, how it would impact bipartisan support for Ukraine in Congress and how it would impact the Ukrainian’s perception of the US.
Your impeachment questions, answered
Article I of the Constitution broadly grants the Senate “sole power to try all impeachments” and provides that “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.” But the Constitution does not specify the manner in which the Senate must take that vote.
In the absence of any specific Constitutional direction, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have broad discretion to determine how a vote will take place at the end of a Senate trial. He may feel that if the vote is held in private, senators from both parties will be more likely to vote their true conscience and to break from party lines.
But both precedent and politics favor an open, public vote. In terms of precedent, the Senate impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton both concluded with open, public votes. And politically, it likely will be difficult for McConnell and other senators to justify anything but open, transparent, senator-by-senator voting. Impeachment and conviction are too important for senators to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
US District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested today federal courts have a role to play in the ongoing fights between the House and the White House during impeachment proceedings.
The ongoing hearing over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify in the impeachment inquiry has dug into core questions about the checks and balances that underpin the American government. It comes on a day the House approved a resolution to formalize the procedures of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Some courts in the past have attempted to stay out of fights between the other two branches of government and a Justice Department attorney argued today that the judge should follow that model. But Jackson said she believed courts could referee these disputes.
In another exchange, DOJ attorney James Burnham argued: “The branches can’t sue each other.”
But Jackson cut him off, saying, “Doesn’t mean it can’t be done!”
In the latest episode of “The Daily DC: Impeachment Watch” podcast, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig covers:
Honig is joined today by CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip and CNN crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz.
Republican senators met with President Trump today at the White House to talk about a variety of issues, including impeachment, according to Sen. Josh Hawley.
Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said that Trump told the senators the meeting was designed to talk to folks and hear what’s on people’s minds. He said Trump was in a jovial mood and that they all ate chicken for lunch in the Roosevelt Room.
The subject of needing Republicans to better to defend him didn’t come up.
Sens. John Cornyn, Roger Wicker, John Barrasso, Rick Scott, Masha Blackburn and Tom Cotton, along with Hawley, attended the meeting.
Trump mentioned the Democrats in the House who voted against the impeachment resolution. He said repeatedly, “read the transcripts” and said he was glad he released the transcripts.
Hawley said he also raised needing to take action on prescription drug prices and holding big drug companies accountable.
Trump gave a brief status report on Syria and discussed the US raid of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s compound, but nothing he hasn’t said publicly.
A federal judge in Washington expressed disbelief that the White House could control what its former officials might talk about when they’re subpoenaed by Congress or otherwise.
What this is all about: The hearing is part of a lawsuit over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear for testimony in the House. The House subpoenaed McGahn in April as it examined whether the President obstructed justice by attempting to stymie the Russia investigation.
The White House had claimed McGahn has “absolute immunity” from being forced to speak to Congress.
Judge Jackson said she sees “almost every day people who are former executive branch officials giving information to the media. People are out there talking, people are saying things.”
The Justice Department’s attorney, James Burnham, countered that the House sued because it only needs McGahn to speak about his capacity as an official in his time working for Trump. President Trump still would have the ability to claim executive privilege over McGahn’s work for him, Burnham said.
“The President doesn’t own it in respect to the people who are talking on MSNBC all the time?” Jackson asked.
Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators that he was advised by then-White House official Fiona Hill to stay away from the parallel Ukraine policy being pursued by Rudy Giuliani, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Morrison also seemed critical of the role that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland played over Ukraine policy, the source said.
Still, Morrison made clear he saw nothing wrong with the July call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying he was “not concerned” that “anything illegal” was discussed. He wasn’t concerned that Trump asked Zelensky about “a favor,” the source said.
Morrison’s concern, CNN reported today, was about potential leaks of the transcript. He was concerned about how the leaked transcript would play out in a “polarized environment” in Washington, how it would impact bipartisan support for Ukraine in Congress and how it would impact the Ukrainian’s perception of the US.
He did not raise any concerns about the call to the NSC counsel, as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the White House’s top Ukraine expert, did. And Morrison described the rough transcript released by the White House as a “fair representation” of the tone and content of the call.
While he backed up Bill Taylor’s testimony, he did differ on some details — like the location of a meeting. In describing a conversation he had with Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, Morrison also said that Sondland indicated it would have been sufficient for Trump if the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced the investigations he sought. Taylor said that Morrison indicated Trump wanted Zelensky to announce the probe.
Megan Barbero, a lawyer representing the House in the hearing ongoing about executive privilege, is arguing that the House needs Don McGahn to testify so that the House can test his credibility, ask him questions and “have a live witness.”
Former White House counsel Don McGahn’s refused to testify this spring in the Russia investigation. The hearing concerns whether or not he can be compelled to testify — which may have large consequences on the ongoing impeachment investigation.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is presiding over today’s hearing and said the issue of jurisdiction will be argued first — that is, whether the jurisdictional issue focuses on whether the courts should be involved in this fight.
There will be a second round of arguments on the merits of the case, specifically on the actual legal questions about “absolute immunity” asserted by the White House.
“We expect executive privilege would be asserted,” House General Counsel Doug Letter says, about what may happen if McGahn were to appear for testimony.
Judge Jackson, who zeroed in on how much force an immunity assertion by the President has, asks if the courts should even be involved in this House v. White House fight. Inter-branch fights have been happening for centuries, she said, and “there’s only been a handful of times the courts have been utilized to resolve those disputes.”
Asked why this dispute belongs in the courts, Barbero said it is preferable for a judge to settle the matter instead of getting the House Sergeant-at-Arms involved to enforce a subpoena.
The first of two hearings on whether the courts can force witnesses close to President Trump to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry is underway.
The first hearing concerns former White House counsel Don McGahn’s refusal to testify this spring in the Russia investigation, and could last hours.
The second hearing, about former National Security official Charles Kupperman not appearing for his subpoenaed testimony on Monday, could set the tone for how fast the court system may move on major impeachment-related questions.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is laying out the course of the hearing, and says the issue of jurisdiction will be argued first.
The jurisdictional issue focuses on whether the courts should be involved in this fight.
Then there will be a second round of arguments on the merits of the case, specifically on the actual legal questions about “absolute immunity” asserted by the White House.
Why this matters: The back-to-back hearings could be the deciding factor in how much evidence Democrats are able to gather. The White House has sought to limit the ability of witnesses to testify, citing executive privilege. Should that defense be shattered, it could open the floodgates to Trump officials and associates forced to appear before lawmakers.
Democratic California Rep. Katie Hill, who announced her resignation from Congress earlier this week, just gave her final speech on the House floor.
In her address, Hill talked about casting her final vote before she leaves office — a vote in favor of the resolution to move forward with the impeachment resolution.
She continued: “Today as my final act I voted to move forward with the impeachment of Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America.”
About Hill’s resignation: Hill resigned after nude photos of her were shared without her consent with a conservative blog that published the photos online. She announced her resignation on Sunday after she admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer before coming into office.
In her speech, Hill addressed the leaked photos in her explanation for why she’s leaving office.
After House Democrats voted to formally set the rules for his impeachment, President Trump is continuing to insist his dealings with Ukraine were “perfect.”
Speaking to UK Brexiteer Nigel Farage in an interview, Trump said his July phone call with the Ukrainian president was “perfect” and “very appropriate.”
Trump said he knew that “many people” were listening to the call as it happened. And he called Democrats “desperate” as the impeachment efforts proceed.
“They have nothing,” he said. “We call them the do-nothing Democrats and it’s really sticking.”
He insisted they were seeking to overturn “one of the greatest elections of all time,” and listed his accomplishments as proof he shouldn’t be impeached.
What happened today: The House voted on a resolution formalizing the rules of the impeachment process, including setting up guidelines for public hearings. The President is under investigation for dealings with Ukraine involving the withholding of military aid from the country in return for Ukraine’s investigating Trump’s political opponents.
