//Key swing-vote GOP Sen. Alexander comes out in opposition to witnesses, paving means for imminent Trump acquittal

Key swing-vote GOP Sen. Alexander comes out in opposition to witnesses, paving means for imminent Trump acquittal

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., introduced late Thursday evening that he wouldn’t help further witnesses in President Trump’s “shallow, hurried and wholly partisan” Senate impeachment trial, seemingly ending Democrats’ hopes of listening to testimony from former nationwide safety adviser John Bolton and paving the best way for the president’s imminent acquittal as quickly as Friday evening.

“If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment have been to succeed, it could rip the nation aside, pouring gasoline on the fireplace of cultural divisions that exist already,” Alexander stated. “It might create the weapon of perpetual impeachment for use in opposition to future presidents at any time when the Home of Representatives is of a special political celebration.”

He added: “The framers believed that there ought to by no means, ever be a partisan impeachment. That’s the reason the Structure requires a 2/Three vote of the Senate for conviction. But not one Home Republican voted for these articles.”

On Tuesday, Trump is about to handle Congress for the annual State of the Union handle, which is more and more more likely to resemble a cathartic victory lap following months of quixotic Democratic requires the president’s removing from workplace.

Republicans have a 53-47 majority within the chamber, and might afford as much as three defections when the Senate considers whether or not to name further witnesses Friday — a query that’s thought-about by a easy majority vote. In the occasion of a 50-50 tie, by rule, the vote on witnesses would fail within the Senate. Chief Justice of america John Roberts is more likely to abstain slightly than assert his debatable power to forged a tie-breaking vote.


Ought to the witness vote fail as anticipated, the Senate would possible then vote on the articles of impeachment Friday evening or someday Saturday. An awfully unlikely two-thirds supermajority vote is required to convict and take away Trump; in any other case he will probably be acquitted.

‘Lengthy evening’ forward

As of midnight Friday, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has introduced she desires to listen to from a “restricted” variety of further witnesses; Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has strongly signaled he desires to listen to from Bolton; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, advised Fox Information late Thursday she was nonetheless weighing the problem and would determine within the morning. (“I’m gonna return to my workplace and put some eyedrops in so I can preserve studying. That’s gonna be my job,” Murkowski advised Fox Information, including that she anticipated a “lengthy evening.”)

​​​​​​​The U.S. Capitol is seen at sunset in Washington, Jan. 24, 2019. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appears to have the votes to end the trial against President Trump. (Associated Press)

​​​​​​​The U.S. Capitol is seen at sundown in Washington, Jan. 24, 2019. Senate Majority Chief Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., seems to have the votes to finish the trial in opposition to President Trump. (Related Press)

However Alexander, in his dramatic late-night assertion that got here on the shut of the Senate’s session Thursday, torpedoed Democrats’ hopes that he can be the fourth Republican defector they want. Alexander flat-out dismissed Democrats’ “obstruction of Congress” article of impeachment as “frivolous,” citing the longstanding precept of govt privilege.

“There isn’t any want to contemplate additional the frivolous second article of impeachment that will take away the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to guard confidential conversations along with his shut advisers,” Alexander stated.

On the identical time, he stated Democrats had simply confirmed their case on the “abuse of energy” depend that “the president requested Ukraine to research Joe Biden and his son, Hunter” and that “the president withheld United States support, at the very least partly, to strain Ukraine to research the Bidens.”

Nevertheless, Alexander, who’s retiring, asserted that Trump’s conduct didn’t justify the extraordinary treatment of his instant removing by the Senate, particularly in an election 12 months.

“Let the folks determine.”   

— U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

“I labored with different senators to guarantee that now we have the fitting to ask for extra paperwork and witnesses, however there is no such thing as a want for extra proof to show one thing that has already been confirmed and that doesn’t meet america Structure’s excessive bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander stated.

“There isn’t any want for extra proof to show that the president requested Ukraine to research Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he stated this on tv on October 3, 2019, and through his July 25, 2019, phone name with the president of Ukraine,” he continued. “There isn’t any want for extra proof to conclude that the president withheld United States support, at the very least partly, to strain Ukraine to research the Bidens; the Home managers have proved this with what they name a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There isn’t any want to contemplate additional the frivolous second article of impeachment that will take away the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to guard confidential conversations along with his shut advisers.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a overseas chief to research his political opponent and to withhold United States support to encourage that investigation,” he continued. “When elected officers inappropriately intervene with such investigations, it undermines the precept of equal justice underneath the legislation. However the Structure doesn’t give the Senate the facility to take away the president from workplace and ban him from this 12 months’s poll merely for actions which can be inappropriate.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced he would not support additional witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial -- in a major win for President Trump that likely ensures his imminent acquittal. (Associated Press)

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., introduced he wouldn’t help further witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial — in a significant win for President Trump that possible ensures his imminent acquittal. (Related Press)

Certainly, Alexander stated, “Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

“The query then is just not whether or not the president did it, however whether or not america Senate or the American folks ought to determine what to do about what he did,” Alexander stated. “I imagine that the Structure offers that the folks ought to make that call within the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. The Senate has spent 9 lengthy days contemplating this ‘mountain’ of proof, the arguments of the Home managers and the president’s legal professionals, their solutions to senators’ questions and the Home document. Even when the Home fees have been true, they don’t meet the Structure’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ customary for an impeachable offense.”

The left reacts

Response from the left was instant and emotional. Mara Homosexual, a member of The New York Instances editorial board, lamented on MSNBC that the state of affairs was “actually a capstone in a, simply, whole collapse of religion in American establishments.”

Homosexual went on to say that her father grew up within the Jim Crow-era South, and declared that Republicans’ arguments have been “fairly acquainted” and reminded her of that point.

“And you realize, I’ve to say, as someone who grew up with a father who grew up within the Jim Crow South, and in, uh, Jim Crow Detroit, loads of what this has appeared like from the Republican facet, the type of a maddening and farcical nature of this, the shortage of good-faith argument, sounds very acquainted to me. It is really very scary.”

Anchor Brian Williams, who notably lied repeatedly with the intention to embellish his time in Iraq, then stated that Homosexual spoke for a “metric ton” of the community’s viewers.

The Senate impeachment trial question-and-answer section wrapped up Thursday evening after a complete of 180 interrogatories, organising the pivotal vote Friday on whether or not to subpoena further witnesses and paperwork, or to carry a closing vote on whether or not to question or acquit President Trump.

Dry January

Final December, Senate Majority Chief Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., printed the Senate schedule for 2020. He solely put 11 months on the calendar, utterly leaving out January, as a result of nobody fairly knew what was in retailer for the Senate with a attainable impeachment trial. If the Senate wraps up the trial Friday evening, McConnell may have appropriately predicted how lengthy it could take to acquit the president.

In the meantime, as anticipated, Collins introduced after the conclusion of questioning that she helps listening to from a “restricted” variety of further witnesses.

“I imagine listening to from sure witnesses would give all sides the chance to extra totally and pretty make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and supply further readability,” Collins stated. “Due to this fact, I’ll vote in help of the movement to permit witnesses and paperwork to be subpoenaed. … If this movement passes, I imagine that probably the most wise strategy to proceed can be for the Home Managers and the President’s attorneys to aim to agree on a restricted and equal variety of witnesses for all sides. If they will’t agree, then the Senate may select the variety of witnesses.”

Individually, although, Collins has signaled reluctance about Democrats’ case: On Wednesday, she was seen shaking her head as Democrats tried to clarify why they felt non-criminal conduct like “abuse of energy” ought to be impeachable.


Trump protection counsel Patrick Philbin stated late Thursday that if Democrats need to “go down the street” of including extra witnesses, then Trump’s staff would push aggressively to study extra concerning the Ukraine whistleblower’s contact with Democrats in the House previous to submitting his criticism, in addition to the whistleblower’s own apparent partisan bias.

Moreover, Trump’s protection staff argued that Democrats contradicted themselves by saying their case was “overwhelming” and that Trump was responsible past “any doubt” — at the same time as they insist that they should name extra witnesses and see extra proof.

Momentum has been shifting away from a vote in favor of witnesses, ever since Trump tweeted a link Wednesday to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 the place he discusses Ukraine coverage. Within the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton makes no point out of any illicit quid professional quo, and acknowledges, as Republicans have claimed, that combating “corruption” in Ukraine was a “excessive precedence” for the Trump administration.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced she supported hearing from a limited number of addiitonal witnesses. She is a key moderate swing vote.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, introduced she supported listening to from a restricted variety of addiitonal witnesses. She is a key average swing vote.

Bolton additionally known as Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “heat and cordial,” with out mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton’s forthcoming guide alleging that Trump explicitly advised him he needed to tie army support to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

Trump captioned the video: “GAME OVER!”

Dems’ headscratchers

Home impeachment supervisor Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and presidential contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., raised eyebrows in the course of the proceedings Thursday — together with from Chief Justice Roberts.

At one level Thursday afternoon, Jeffries argued that the Steele file — written by a overseas ex-spy and dependent partly on Russian sources — didn’t represent improper overseas election interference as a result of the Hillary Clinton marketing campaign and Democratic Nationwide Committee (DNC) paid for the file, slightly than receiving it for free of charge.

His declare got here in response to a query from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., that was aimed toward arguing how the Democrats would not need to apply their requirements to their very own candidates.

“Hillary Clinton’s marketing campaign and [the] Democratic Nationwide Committee employed a retired overseas spy to work with Russian contacts to construct a file of opposition analysis in opposition to their political opponent, Donald Trump. Below the Home managers’ customary, would the Steele file be thought-about overseas interference within the U.S. election, a violation of the legislation, and/or an impeachable offense?” Burr requested.

Jeffries then rose and declared, “The analogy is, uh, not relevant to the current state of affairs as a result of, first, to the extent that opposition analysis was obtained, it was opposition analysis that was bought.”

He then accused Republicans of avoiding details and attempting to distract from Trump’s conduct.

Jeffries’ response drew mockery on-line from a slew of commentators — “Minimize a test to Ukraine. We’re carried out right here,” wrote one — and an instantaneous rebuke within the chamber from Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow.

“So, I assume you should purchase — that is what it seems like — you should purchase overseas interference? You should purchase it? You should purchase their opposition analysis and I assume it is OK?” he requested.


One of many file’s overseas sources was the previous deputy overseas minister for Russia, Vyacheslav Trubnikov — a identified Russian intelligence officer. A lot of the Steele file has been proved unsubstantiated, together with the file’s claims that the Trump marketing campaign was paying hackers primarily based out of a nonexistent Russian consulate in Miami or that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Former Particular Counsel Robert Mueller additionally was unable to substantiate the file’s claims that Web page had acquired a big cost referring to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil big, or {that a} lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.

Nonetheless, the FBI relied closely on the file to acquire a secret surveillance warrant to observe a former member of the Trump marketing campaign, Carter Web page. Information of that warrant leaked, and along with the file’s salacious accusations, fueled months of unfounded hypothesis that the Trump marketing campaign had conspired with Russia.


Individually, on the Senate impeachment trial Thursday, Warren posed a query that, by rule, was learn aloud by Roberts — and even Democrats within the chamber appeared visibly puzzled by the interrogatory.

“At a time when giant majorities of People have misplaced religion in authorities, does the truth that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial by which Republican senators have to date refused to permit witnesses or proof contribute to the lack of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court docket and the Structure?” Roberts learn from the cardboard handed to him by the clerk.

When he completed studying the query — explicitly posed to the Home impeachment managers — Roberts pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.

After a second, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead impeachment supervisor, appeared on the dais to reply the query — standing mere ft in entrance of Roberts.


Schiff appeared to attempt to distance himself from Warren’s query, providing a brief reply to the query earlier than talking at size a couple of tangential alternate.

“I wouldn’t say that it results in a lack of confidence within the chief justice,” Schiff stated, including that Roberts has to date “presided admirably.”

He then shortly pivoted to a criticism of President Trump and a dialog he had concerning the impeachment trial with Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J.

Whistleblower showdown

Justice Roberts shut down a query Thursday from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that talked about the identify of the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, prompting Paul to storm out of the impeachment trial and maintain an impromptu information convention to learn the query anyway.

The conflict got here after the chief justice, who’s presiding over the trial, equally rebuffed Paul a day earlier. (Paul, in line with reporter Niels Lesniewski, was apparently fuming afterward, shouting to a staffer: “I do not need to have to face as much as try to combat for recognition. … If I’ve to combat for recognition, I’ll.”)


“As you may have noticed, we had something slightly atypical downstairs. I asked a question and the question was refused,” Paul advised reporters after exiting the Senate chamber and dashing upstairs to the Senate TV studio.

After seeing Paul’s query on a notecard, Roberts dominated in opposition to presenting it within the trial: “The presiding officer declines to learn the query as submitted,” he stated.

Paul asserted that Roberts’ ruling was fallacious as a result of nobody is aware of if the identify of the particular person on his query card is the whistleblower.

“I feel it was an incorrect discovering,” Paul stated.

Paul needed to ask whether or not Schiff, who chairs the Home Intelligence Committee, and the White Home counsel have been conscious that an intel committee workers member had an in depth relationship with the reported whistleblower once they have been on the Nationwide Safety Council collectively.

“How do you reply to experiences that [the whistleblower] could have labored collectively to plot impeaching the president earlier than there have been formal Home impeachment proceedings?” Paul stated he wrote on the cardboard.

He added that his query “makes no reference to anybody who may or may not be a whistleblower,” and that it was curious that Roberts apparently assumed the person he named was, the truth is, the whistleblower.

Schiff has made public inconsistent statements regarding the Home Intelligence Committee’s contacts with the whistleblower. He first denied that his panel had such contact, then reversed course and admitted that members of the committee had spoken to the whistleblower.

Paul’s query reportedly included the names of two people. Fox Information has not confirmed the whistleblower’s identify.

Federal legislation protects whistleblowers solely from retaliation within the office and doesn’t guarantee their anonymity; Republicans have disputed whether or not this explicit whistleblower would even qualify for these restricted protections, saying his criticism issues a coverage dispute and doesn’t allege legal or civil wrongdoing by the president.

Ultimately, Republicans have been allowed to ask basically the identical query Paul proposed, besides with out the whistleblower’s identify in it. Schiff declined to reply, calling it a smear.

Particularly, Republicans requested Schiff, “Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky?”

In keeping with unconfirmed experiences, Misko was overheard telling the alleged whistleblower, “We have to do all the pieces we will to take out the president,” at a Nationwide Safety Council assembly.

It may very well be, Republicans have asserted, that the whistleblower coordinated his criticism with Schiff’s panel for partisan causes — a disclosure that, if true, would possible undermine the credibility of the impeachment proceedings and presumably expose Schiff to his personal “abuse of energy” allegations. So far, the impeachment effort has arguably been elevated in significance from regular partisan bickering partly by the gravitas afforded to the supposedly well-meaning whistleblower on the middle of the case.


Republicans have sought extra info on the whistleblower ever because the intelligence group’s inside watchdog discovered several indicators that the particular person might need a political bias.

Fox Information has beforehand reported that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat and had a prior work history with a senior Democrat running for president. Moreover, the whistleblower faces an Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) complaint for allegedly violating federal legislation by elevating cash ostensibly to pay for his authorized charges, together with cash that may very well be coming from overseas sources.

The whistleblower’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, openly admitted in 2017 {that a} “coup” had began in opposition to the president from inside the administration, and that CNN’s protection would play a “key position” within the effort.

On Wednesday, Schiff once more denied figuring out the identification of the whistleblower, whereas Republicans accused him of intentionally mendacity. Schiff repeatedly shut down GOP questions in the course of the Home impeachment proceedings regarding White Home leaks — regardless that doing so at one level seemingly demonstrated that Schiff possible knew the whistleblower’s identification.

“Lieutenant Colonel [Alexander] Vindman, did you talk about the July 25 telephone name [between Trump and Ukraine’s president] with anybody outdoors the White Home on July 25 or the 26 and if that’s the case, with whom?” Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., requested final 12 months.


“Yes. I did,” responded Vindman, who has additionally claimed to not know the whistleblower’s identification. He stated he had spoken to Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, however earlier than he may point out the opposite particular person, Schiff intervened and urgently blocked the questioning.

“We need to protect the whistleblower,” Schiff interjected. “Please stop. I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistleblower through these proceedings. If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we’re here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly.”

Dershowitz faces off with Toobin

Harvard Legislation Professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s protection staff, wasn’t within the Senate chamber Thursday on account of household obligations. However he did publish on Twitter and make a prolonged look on CNN, telling the community that it ought to cease mischaracterizing his arguments on impeachment.

The second was considerably private for Dershowitz, as CNN’s chief authorized analyst Jeffrey Toobin is one in all his former college students at Harvard. A number of media retailers, together with CNN, misrepresented Dershowitz all through the week as saying that presidents can do “something” so long as they will argue it is within the “public curiosity.” Moreover, a number of politicians, together with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., falsely claimed that Dershowitz argued Trump’s conduct was “OK.”

In truth, Dershowitz maintained that legal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, no matter its motivation. And he didn’t endorse Trump’s habits. As an alternative, Dershowitz asserted the Senate shouldn’t be within the enterprise of eradicating elected presidents primarily based on nebulous and unconstitutional “abuse of energy” or “obstruction of Congress” fees that the framers expressly rejected.

“I’ve by no means stated {that a} president can do something if he believes that his election is within the public curiosity to get reelected,” Dershowitz advised Toobin and CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer. “That is merely false. I began my speech within the Senate by saying I utterly help the impeachment of [Richard] Nixon, who all the pieces he did, he did as a result of he needed to get reelected. And clearly he thought his reelection was within the public curiosity.”

He added: “I by no means stated, by no means urged — and it was a complete distortion, not a misunderstanding, distortion of my level — that I feel a president can do something … It is nonsense. And your community ought to by no means have stated that.”

“What’s fallacious with taking a look at whether or not a president has a corrupt intent in his actions?” Toobin responded. “I imply, that appears to be the center that’s the subject right here.”

“It is not, it isn’t,” Dershowitz stated. “The query is the way you outline corrupt, and my argument was there is a massive distinction between taking a bribe — I gave an instance proper on the ground of the Senate. If the president stated, ‘I am not supplying you with your cash, I am withholding the cash except you let me construct a lodge and have my identify on it or give me a million-dollar kickback.’ That is corrupt. That is clear.”

Dershowitz went on to say it could be a “harmful” precept to say {that a} president might be impeached if he acts, partly, on account of private political motivation, as a result of “it is going to permit impeachment of any president who look to his personal reelectability as even a small issue.”

To show that time within the Senate on Wednesday, Dershowitz made thinly veiled references to former President Barack Obama’s refusal to ship army support to Ukraine, in addition to his failed, unenforced “pink line” warning for Syria to not use chemical weapons. Obama was also caught on a hot microphone promising Russia’s president he would have “extra flexibility” on missile protection points after the 2012 election.

“Let’s contemplate a hypothetical,” Dershowitz stated. “Let’s assume that President Obama had been advised by his advisers that it truly is essential to ship deadly weapons to the Ukraine. However then he will get a name from his pollster and his political adviser, who says we all know it is within the nationwide curiosity to ship deadly weapons to the Ukraine, however we’re telling you that the left-wing of your celebration is basically going to provide you a tough time in case you begin promoting deadly weapons and doubtlessly get right into a deadly struggle with Russia. Would anyone right here recommend that’s impeachable?”


He continued: “Or let’s assume President Obama stated, ‘I promise to bomb Syria if that they had chemical weapons. However I am now advised by my pollster that bombing Syria would harm my electoral probabilities.’ Merely not impeachable in any respect.”

Earlier within the day, additionally on CNN, Harvard Legislation Faculty professor Nikolas Bowie disputed Dershowitz as as to if “maladministration” — a time period the framers rejected as a viable grounds for impeachment — was basically the identical as “abuse of energy,” one of many Democrats’ fees in opposition to Trump.

Bowie known as Dershowitz’s interpretation a “joke,” in a slam that was particularly notable as a result of Dershowitz had cited Bowie’s scholarship on the Senate flooring.

Dershowitz was merely fallacious, Bowie argued, that maladministration is synonymous with abuse of energy. The previous is equal to doing all your greatest however delivering poor work product, he argued; the latter is basically legal, even when it isn’t outlined wherever in a statute.

What’s forward

The impeachment trial reconvenes at 1 p.m. ET Friday. The Senate will instantly go to as much as 4 hours of arguments by the Democratic impeachment managers and the protection counsel. There is also deliberation by senators, which could contain a closed session and even debate among the many senators themselves on the ground.

Regardless, as soon as that’s carried out, the Senate will debate a proposal to subpoena paperwork or witnesses. That might devour as much as two hours on the ground – and won’t unfold till the night.

After that’s full, the Senate will take what’s termed the “gateway” vote as as to if or to not open the door to subpoenaing witnesses or paperwork.

If, opposite to expectations, senators vote to open up the gateway to witnesses or paperwork, a large number of proposals may observe over a number of hours from McConnell and Senate Minority Chief Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. These would possible be numerous slates of witness proposals. Democrats want to get Republicans on the document opposing sure witnesses. Democrats would then attempt to boomerang that vote on susceptible Republicans this fall and argue that McConnell tilted the taking part in discipline within the trial towards the president.

Former National security adviser John Bolton leaves his home in Bethesda, Md. Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020. President Donald Trump's legal team is raising a broad-based attack on the impeachment case against him even as it mostly brushes past allegations in a new book that could undercut a key defense argument at the Senate trial. (Associated Press)

Former Nationwide safety adviser John Bolton leaves his house in Bethesda, Md. Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020. President Donald Trump’s authorized staff is elevating a broad-based assault on the impeachment case in opposition to him even because it largely brushes previous allegations in a brand new guide that might undercut a key protection argument on the Senate trial. (Related Press)


If for some motive the Senate votes in favor of a person witness, then the trial is way from carried out. The Senate trial guidelines require senators to depose the witness in personal. That might are available days or even weeks, however within the meantime, the trial on the ground would go darkish. (Nevertheless, the Senate may contemplate different enterprise throughout this era. The Senate would finally must vote to summon a given witness to the ground.)

If the Senate rejects the gateway vote, the impeachment trial is probably going on a glide path to conclusion. There may very well be further debate after that; the Senate may contemplate a movement to dismiss the articles; or there may very well be closing verdict votes on each articles of impeachment.


It stays attainable the Senate may take closing votes on every article of impeachment — there will probably be separate, distinct votes on abuse of energy and obstruction of Congress — late Friday night, within the wee hours of Saturday morning or later within the day Saturday.

A number of Democratic senators have privately signaled they need the trial to wrap up shortly — partially out of exhaustion, but in addition as a result of Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren urgently need to get again to Iowa to marketing campaign forward of subsequent week’s important caucuses.

Fox Information’ Chad Pergram, Mike Emanuel, Marisa Schultz and Charles Crietz contributed to this report.