Echoes of Kavanaugh Fight as Bolton Complicates Impeachment Trial Plans

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/us/kavanaugh-bolton-impeachment-trial.html

Version 0 of 1.

WASHINGTON — A reluctant witness finally expresses willingness to step forward in a bitter Senate fight.

Republican leaders are leery but eventually relent, as some of their rank and file insist that fairness — and, equally important, public perception and credibility — depends on hearing the crucial firsthand account and allowing more investigation. But the end result is the same as initially anticipated: Brett M. Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice despite the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

With the former national security adviser John R. Bolton now volunteering to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, the circumstances of the toxic 2018 Kavanaugh showdown could provide a template for what to expect as senators extend their clash over the ground rules for opening the proceeding.

Mr. Bolton’s surprise offer was initially met with silence or dismissal from most Senate Republicans. They prepared on Tuesday to begin the trial with no guarantee to entertain witnesses once Speaker Nancy Pelosi sends over the articles of impeachment.

“I don’t know why we need any witnesses,” said Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, who was in the Senate for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. “In the House, they are supposed to handle all that. I think they’ve got a weak hand.”

But a few Republican senators — notably Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine — left the door open to subpoenaing witnesses later if they saw the need to do so after hearing arguments from House prosecutors and the president’s defenders. They say they are simply applying bipartisan precedents established in the 1999 Clinton trial.

“I’m completely open to witnesses,” said Ms. Collins, who was also in the Senate for the Clinton trial. “I just think we should hear opening arguments first.”

Democrats say they intend to keep the pressure on Republicans and try to pry away enough defectors to insist on calling witnesses, accusing those who refuse of enabling a cover-up ordered by the president. They have argued that any credible impeachment trial concerning Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine must include testimony from key officials like Mr. Bolton, who followed a White House edict against cooperating in the House inquiry. They also want to see internal documents on the nearly $400 million in military aid Mr. Trump is accused of withholding from Ukraine as leverage to pressure its president to investigate his political rivals.

Democrats are banking on the notion that some Republicans, particularly those in tough re-election races in November, will want to show independents and voters dubious of Mr. Trump that they made an objective effort to get to the bottom of the matter and reached a reasoned decision. They anticipate that some Republicans could be made to squirm if Democrats are able to persuasively press the issue of why a witness like Mr. Bolton would not be allowed to resolve some open questions if he was willing to testify.

“Republicans may run but they can’t hide,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “There will be votes at the beginning on whether to call the four witnesses we’ve proposed and subpoena the documents we’ve identified. America and the eyes of history will be watching what my Republican colleagues do.”

At the moment, Republicans appear content to plunge ahead with their approach modeled on the Clinton proceeding, and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, is confident he has his troops on board.

As in the Kavanaugh confirmation, Mr. McConnell has no worries whatsoever about the vast majority of Senate Republicans who appear ready to acquit the president without going much beyond opening arguments. On Twitter and in interviews, they argued that it was not the Senate’s responsibility to repair what they saw as a defective investigation by the House.

“Our job is to vote on what the House passed, not to conduct an open ended inquiry,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, declared on Twitter.

Instead, Mr. McConnell’s concern in the Kavanaugh fight was the handful of Republicans who might break from the pack — Ms. Collins, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona — and sink the nomination.

As a result, Mr. McConnell needed to pay heed to their wishes as they pushed for reconvening the hearings to allow Ms. Blasey Ford to testify, and later to reopen the background check of Judge Kavanaugh to pursue new material that surfaced about his conduct. The renewed F.B.I. investigation was very limited in its scope, frustrating Democrats, and produced no damning material.

While the additional inquiry of less than a week did not satisfy their critics, it did allow Republicans who had not yet committed to voting for Judge Kavanaugh to say they had taken the accusations seriously and that they backed a more thorough inquiry. Ms. Collins and Mr. Flake, who has since left the Senate, ultimately voted for Justice Kavanaugh, though Ms. Murkowski did not.

In this case, Mr. McConnell can be expected to keep his eye on Ms. Collins, Mr. Romney, Ms. Murkowski, a few retiring senators and Republican incumbents facing difficult re-elections to make sure they are comfortable with the way the trial is unfolding and that they feel prepared to defend it and themselves to the voters back home.

The major difference between the two cases is that Republicans have a larger majority to work with in the impeachment trial. During the Kavanaugh battle, Republicans held a 51-to-49 advantage and could afford to lose only one vote, making every vote essential. Republicans now control the Senate 53 to 47 and have more room to maneuver since Democrats would need to win four votes from Republicans to call witnesses.

It would take 67 votes to remove the president, and no one believes that is even a remote possibility. But if four or more Republican lawmakers defected on procedural questions, Democrats could effectively gain control of the impeachment trial, an outcome that Mr. McConnell wants to avoid at all costs.

While Senators Collins, Romney and Murkowski are in the spotlight because of their statements and history, it is difficult to identify which other senators — if any — might be willing to break with their party on the question of witnesses and risk the wrath of the president, not to mention a rebuke from their colleagues who want the trial to quickly conclude.

Even if Mr. Bolton testified, it was unclear what he would say and whether it could significantly change the course of the trial. As the Kavanaugh example showed, new testimony — however explosive it may seem to some — does not necessarily change enough minds in the Senate to change an outcome.