Impeachment week: Trump probe hits crucial point

It all comes down to this.

House Democrats charging ahead with their impeachment investigation will hit a critical juncture this week, throwing the process into the public spotlight as they fight to convince voters of a verdict they themselves have all but ratified: that President TrumpDonald John TrumpKaine: Obama called Trump a 'fascist' during 2016 campaign Kaine: GOP senators should 'at least' treat Trump trial with seriousness of traffic court Louise Linton, wife of Mnuchin, deletes Instagram post in support of Greta Thunberg MORE abused the office and should be sent packing.

The shift is a pivotal development in the seven-week-old investigation, one bearing enormous stakes for a Congress and country bitterly divided along partisan lines, while ensuring — even more than before — that the 2020 elections will be a referendum on the mercurial figure in the Oval Office.

ADVERTISEMENT

Since Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiClinton says Zuckerberg has 'authoritarian' views on misinformation Trump defense team signals focus on Schiff Trump legal team offers brisk opening defense of president MORE (D-Calif.) formally launched the impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24, Democrats have kept their investigation largely from the public eye, interviewing more than a dozen diplomats and national security officials — obscure figures, to the name — in a secluded meeting room of the Capitol, three stories below ground, where even lawmakers must check their cellphones at the door.

That will change on Wednesday, when Rep. Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for week two of impeachment trial Trump defense team signals focus on Schiff Schiff pushes back: Defense team knows Trump is guilty MORE (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, will launch a Phase 2 of public hearings into Trump's dealings with Ukraine, featuring a pair of witnesses embroiled in the administration's campaign to pressure foreign leaders in Kiev to find dirt on Trump's political opponents at home.

William Taylor, the chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, and George Kent, another top State Department official overseeing Kiev, had both testified last month behind closed doors, delivering damning assertions that Trump and his allies had politicized U.S. policy in Ukraine at the expense of national security.

A third witness, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was abruptly removed from the post in May, is scheduled to testify Friday. She, too, had previously relayed deep concerns that Trump's personal lawyer Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiDemocrats see Mulvaney as smoking gun witness at Trump trial Pompeo lashes out at 'shameful' NPR reporter Trump legal team launches impeachment defense MORE was conducting a shadow foreign policy in Kiev to advance Trump's political interests at risk of empowering Russia's hand in the region.

The investigation is historic: these will be the first public presidential impeachment hearings in more than 20 years. 

Trump is just the fourth president to be subject to impeachment proceedings. And the hearings are a made-for-TV moment, one that's sure to garner live blow-by-blow coverage from the major news networks — and provide voters for the first time with a clear window into deliberations that both parties, up to now, have said support their conflicting judgments about the propriety of Trump's foreign pursuits.

The duration of the public stage remains unclear; Schiff has not said how many more hearings he'll hold or when they'll end. But both sides are digging in as Democrats appear increasingly hopeful they can wrap up their investigation — and potentially vote on impeachment articles — before year's end.

That timeline is relatively short. Congress began televised public hearings on Watergate, for instance, 14 months before the House Judiciary Committee passed impeachment articles against President Nixon. And because impeachment is a political exercise, as much as a legal one, Democrats are effectively gambling that voters will quickly join their side once the TV footage starts rolling.

"The American public needs to understand we're not dealing with a gray area here," Rep. Steve CohenStephen (Steve) Ira Cohen2019 in Photos: 35 pictures in politics Gabbard under fire for 'present' vote on impeachment Gabbard votes 'present' on impeaching Trump MORE (D-Tenn.) said on CNN over the weekend. "This is a black-and-white violation of the Constitution."

The impeachment inquiry was sparked by an anonymous whistleblower’s allegation that Trump had threatened national security by withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine to press the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open investigations into the 2016 elections and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenDes Moines Register endorses Elizabeth Warren as Democratic presidential nominee Sanders faces lingering questions about appeal to women voters George Conway: Witness missing from impeachment trial is Trump MORE.

For Trump, those investigations might have benefited him in two ways — both of them political. First, it would damage Biden, a leading presidential contender, amid Trump's bid for reelection in 2020. And second, it would promote the theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that had interfered in the 2016 election, thereby casting new doubts on a central verdict of the Mueller report: that Moscow had meddled to help Trump get elected.

Republicans have dismissed the investigation, accusing Democrats of conducting a "witch hunt" designed to overturn a presidential election simply because they didn't like the outcome. GOP leaders have repeatedly noted that the military aid was ultimately delivered even without Zelensky launching the investigations Trump sought, eradicating allegations of a quid pro quo.

"As we hear more testimony ... it's actually getting easier to defend the president from a standpoint there is no linkage between aid [and investigations]," said Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for week two of impeachment trial Meadows says Trump told him he didn't threaten senators on impeachment vote Impeachment trial to enter new phase with Trump defense MORE (R-N.C.), a staunch defender of Trump. 

Democrats have reached different conclusions, pointing to mounting evidence — including witness testimony and the rough transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, released by the White House — which they say implicates Trump in a campaign to enlist a foreign leader to boost his reelection chances.

"He went on a telephone call with the president of Ukraine and said 'I have a favor though' and then proceeded to ask for an investigation of his rival," Rep. Jackie SpeierKaren (Jackie) Lorraine Jacqueline SpeierSenator-jurors who may not be impartial? Remove them for cause Poll: 69 percent of Americans say they are watching impeachment closely The Hill's Morning Report — Impeachment face-off; Dems go after Buttigieg in debate MORE (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "This is a very strong case of bribery."

To make that case, Democrats are leaning on accounts from a cadre of officials with long and distinguished careers in the foreign service, but no name recognition in the general public. Indeed, all the prominent Trump figures summoned by Democrats — Rick PerryRick PerryTrump: Senate should decide on witnesses; Bolton testimony poses national security risk Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers gear up for Senate impeachment trial Parnas pressure grows on Senate GOP MORE, John BoltonJohn BoltonRomney: 'It's very likely I'll be in favor of witnesses' in Trump impeachment trial George Conway: Witness missing from impeachment trial is Trump Democrats see Mulvaney as smoking gun witness at Trump trial MORE, Mick MulvaneyJohn (Mick) Michael MulvaneyDemocrats see Mulvaney as smoking gun witness at Trump trial Trump legal team offers brisk opening defense of president Trump legal team launches impeachment defense MORErefused to appear, citing executive privilege. That blockade is sure to persist as the investigation goes public, as Trump and his allies — after blasting the closed-door phase as surreptitious — now say the process is too tainted to merit their participation.

“Why would we try to be complicit in an impeachment inquiry when we don’t know what it’s about?” asked White House counselor Kellyanne ConwayKellyanne Elizabeth ConwayGeorge Conway: Witness missing from impeachment trial is Trump Kellyanne Conway knocks Biden, talks up Sanders in Wash Post op-ed Democrats sharpen case on second day of arguments MORE.

Still, a long list of current and former administration officials have bucked the White House barricade to appear in private depositions, most of them under subpoena. And Schiff has declined to press the courts for the testimony of those refusing to cooperate — a significant tactical shift from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerTrump defense team signals focus on Schiff Impeachment has been a dud for Democrats Nadler calls Trump a 'dictator' on Senate floor MORE's (D-N.Y.) probe into Russia's 2016 election interference, as outlined by the Mueller report.

In the Ukraine affair, Democrats think they have a cleaner narrative of Trump abusing power, one more easily digestible for the public — and with more power to sway independents and moderate Republicans.

"We're not going to follow a rope-a-dope strategy where we have to wait months or even years to have people come in," said Rep. Eric SwalwellEric Michael SwalwellMartha McSally fundraises off 'liberal hack' remark to CNN reporter Enes Kanter sees political stardom — after NBA and WWE Swalwell pens op-ed comparing Trump impeachment to XYZ Affair MORE (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence panel. "We have enough evidence here."

They have their work cut out. No Republican has endorsed the impeachment effort in either chamber. And while Democrats can push articles through the House with a simple majority, removing Trump would require support from two-thirds of the Senate — a colossal lift in a chamber where the controlling GOP is already forming sharp lines of defense.

"I made my mind up. There's nothing there," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for week two of impeachment trial Trump defense team signals focus on Schiff Trump legal team offers brisk opening defense of president MORE (R-S.C.) told an Iowa radio station on Saturday.

With much at stake, House Republicans are also steeling for the public battle ahead. They've shifted Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanJordan says he thinks trial will be over by next week Cheney's decision not to run for Senate sparks Speaker chatter The Hill's Morning Report - Trump trial begins with clash over rules MORE (R-Ohio) to the Intelligence Committee, where the combative former collegiate wrestling champion is sure to play an outsized role sparring with Schiff on the panel.

GOP leaders also submitted their own request for witnesses, including the whistleblower and Biden's son Hunter, who was employed by a Ukrainian energy giant when his father was still vice president. Republicans have charged, without evidence, that the elder Biden had pressured Kiev to oust a top Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect the company.

Schiff moved swiftly to deny the whistleblower request — a power granted him under a package of rules passed by the House last month — but that's only fueled Republican accusations that Democrats are shaping their investigation to deny Trump a fair defense.

"They're going to give the president a fair and impartial firing squad," Sen. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.) said Sunday on CBS News's "Face the Nation" program. "And that’s not due process."

Democrats have countered that the quid pro quo central to the whistleblower complaint has been subsequently verified by numerous witnesses, making the whistleblower's appearance unnecessary. The abuse is clear, they say. Now it falls to Congress to decide if it's impeachable.

"We have significant evidence from multiple witnesses that tells us that it did happen. And it's for us to judge whether that's appropriate or not," said Rep. Tom MalinowskiThomas (Tom) MalinowskiSanders, Warren battle for progressive endorsements NJ lawmaker flips endorsement to Biden after Booker drops out House votes to temporarily repeal Trump SALT deduction cap MORE (D-N.J.), who represents a swing district. "And in my judgment it is completely and utterly wrong."

Democrats have convinced themselves; their task now is to convince the public.