House Democrats may call new impeachment witnesses if Senate doesn't

Key House Democrats pressing the Senate to hear from new witnesses in President TrumpDonald Trump Veteran accused in alleged border wall scheme faces new charges Arizona Republicans to brush off DOJ concern about election audit FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments MORE’s impeachment trial are leaving the door open to another possibility: calling those witnesses themselves if Senate Republicans do not.

House Democrats impeached Trump last month on two charges related to his handling of foreign policy in Ukraine, but their investigations into the issue remain open even as the spotlight turns to the launch of the Senate trial.

Democrats in both chambers are hoping the emergence of new evidence and eyewitness offers to testify will force Senate GOP leaders to consider the unexplored information, including captivating details of Trump’s pressure campaign recently provided by Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman with close ties to Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy GiulianiRudy Giuliani Giuliani lays off staffers: report The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Emergent BioSolutions - Facebook upholds Trump ban; GOP leaders back Stefanik to replace Cheney Former Ukrainian prosecutor says he was fired for not investigating Hunter Biden: report MORE.

Most Senate Republicans, taking cues from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnell McConnell: Taliban could take over Afghanistan by 'the end of the year' McConnell alma mater criticizes him for 1619 comments McConnell amid Trump criticism: 'I'm looking forward, not backward' MORE (R-Ky.), oppose any effort to seek testimony from Parnas and other key figures who refused to cooperate in the initial House investigation — a list that includes John Bolton

John Bolton Republicans request documents on Kerry's security clearance process Trump pushes back on Bolton poll Hillicon Valley: Facebook Oversight board to rule on Trump ban in 'coming weeks' | Russia blocks Biden Cabinet officials in retaliation for sanctions MORE, Trump's former national security adviser, who has since changed his tune and offered to testify under subpoena.

Yet even if McConnell has his way and prevents new witnesses from appearing, they may find a stage in the House, where a number of Democrats are already advocating for their testimony if they’re silenced by the Senate.

“We would be remiss in the House of Representatives not to follow this trail to its conclusion. And Parnas has emerged as an important figure in this criminal conspiracy to force or coerce a foreign government to help Trump's reelection campaign,” said Rep. Hank Johnson

Henry (Hank) C. Johnson Schumer waiting for recommendation on Supreme Court expansion Democrats seek Barrett's recusal from case tied to conservative backers Democrats debate timing and wisdom of reparations vote MORE (D-Ga.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which drafted the impeachment articles late last year.

With Democrats hoping to maximize the pressure on Senate Republicans through the trial phase, Judiciary members have not discussed that strategy in any depth, Johnson emphasized. But it’s likely to gain favor with committee leaders, he said, if Senate Republicans deny new and willing witnesses a voice.

“They have their eye on it,” Johnson said.

Rep. Eliot Engel

Eliot Lance Engel Lawmakers on hot mic joke 'aisle hog' Engel absent from Biden address: 'He'd wait all day' Bowman to deliver progressive response to Biden's speech to Congress Liberal advocacy group stirs debate, discomfort with primary challenges MORE (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which had some jurisdiction over Trump's impeachment, stopped just short of saying Democrats would summon relevant witnesses if the Senate does not. But he left the door wide open to doing so, vowing that Democrats will charge ahead with their Ukrainian investigation “if we're feeling that we're being played and that they're not being forthcoming with the truth.”

“We're not going to just say, ‘OK, we've disposed of it and now the ball’s in their court and there’s nothing left for us to do.’ I think quite the contrary,” Engel said. “The more we hear, and the more things come out, the more resolute we are to make sure that we're dealing with the truth, and that it’s not being swept under the rug.”

The comments came the same day that House Democrats, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff

Adam Bennett Schiff Trump backs Stefanik to replace Cheney Gender politics hound GOP in Cheney drama Senate Intel vows to 'get to the bottom' of 'Havana syndrome' attacks MORE (D-Calif.), presented the two impeachment articles to the Senate, where John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, swore in the 100 senators to do “impartial justice” in weighing whether Trump's conduct merits his removal. The trial begins formally on Tuesday.

The Democrats' impeachment case rests on the argument that Trump violated his office in withholding almost $400 million in military aid to Ukraine last summer to pressure the country's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open investigations into the 2016 elections and the son of former Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden Atlanta mayor won't run for reelection South Carolina governor to end pandemic unemployment benefits in June Airplane pollution set to soar with post-pandemic travel boom MORE. Both probes might have helped Trump politically, and Democrats charged the president on two fronts: abusing his power in seeking foreign help in an election; and obstructing Congress as the House sought to investigate the affair.

“The president necessitated this by his abuse of power and his obstruction of Congress and his actions which undermined our national security, violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and jeopardized the integrity of our elections,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi On The Money: Weekly jobless claims fall to 498K, hitting new post-lockdown low | House to advance appropriations bills in June, July Rural Democrats urge protections from tax increases for family farms Cheney fight stokes cries of GOP double standard for women MORE (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

Throughout the months-long House investigation, lawmakers heard from a host of diplomats and national security officials — both current and former — with insights into Trump's campaign to win the investigations he sought from Ukrainian leaders. Many sounded warnings that the shadow foreign policy in Kyiv — led by Giuliani — prioritized Trump’s political interests even as it threatened U.S.-Ukraine relations and efforts to contain Russian aggression in the region.

This week, Parnas offered vivid new details of that campaign, providing Democrats with a trove of documents, phone records, emails and text-messages related to his communications with Giuliani, a disreputable Ukrainian prosecutor, an unstable Republican landscaper and others who participated in the effort to oust Marie Yovanovitch

Marie Yovanovitch The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Emergent BioSolutions - Facebook upholds Trump ban; GOP leaders back Stefanik to replace Cheney Former Ukrainian prosecutor says he was fired for not investigating Hunter Biden: report DOJ asks for outside lawyer to review Giuliani evidence MORE, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine whom Trump recalled in April.

“President Trump knew exactly what was going on,” Parnas told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow

Rachel Anne Maddow Schumer works to balance a divided caucus's demands Matt Taibbi: Rachel Maddow has become the new Bill O'Reilly Ocasio-Cortez eyeing T over 10 years for infrastructure MORE last week. “He was aware of all my movements.”

Trump, for his part, has denied any connection to Parnas.

“I don’t know who this man is,” Trump said Thursday.

Parnas and another Soviet-born businessman, Igor Fruman, were both arrested in October and charged in New York on unrelated campaign finance charges. Given those legal troubles, many Republicans have dismissed Parnas as a potential witness, saying he simply lacks the credibility to be of any value in the case.

“I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him,” Sen. Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Olin Graham House to advance appropriations bills in June, July The unflappable Liz Cheney: Why Trump Republicans have struggled to crush her The Memo: The GOP's war is already over — Trump won MORE (R-S.C.) said last week.

Democrats have a different view, noting that much of the information Parnas provided came in the form of concrete communications records and physical documents.

Rep. Val Demings

Valdez (Val) Venita Demings Florida Democrats' midterm fantasy faceoff: DeSantis vs. Demings Running as a Democrat, Crist looks to join the smallest club in American politics Crist launches bid for Florida governor, seeking to recapture his old job MORE (D-Fla.), the former police chief of Orlando and now one of the seven Democratic impeachment managers, acknowledged that Parnas is ”someone who's had his issues.”

“But as a former law enforcement officer,” she quickly added, “I also know that we've been able to put some pretty strong cases together for people who ... have started on the wrong side, but decided to try to right their wrongs by cooperating with our state attorney. And that could be the situation here.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky

Janice (Jan) Danoff Schakowsky Overnight Health Care: Biden sets goal of at least one shot to 70 percent of adults by July 4 | White House to shift how it distributes unallocated vaccines to states Pressure builds for Biden to back vaccine patent waivers Acting FTC chair urges Congress to revive agency authority after Supreme Court decision MORE (D-Ill.) agreed.

“They may find him credible, may not, but it also may lead to other information," she said, urging the Senate to call him in.

Included in the records Parnas relinquished was a previously unknown May 10 letter from Giuliani to Zelensky asking for a 30-minute meeting — a request Giuliani said was made “with [Trump's] knowledge and consent.”

Trump last week denied any knowledge of the Giuliani letter. “But if he wrote a letter,” the president added, “it wouldn't have been a big deal.”

Aside from Parnas and Bolton, Democrats are also clamoring to hear testimony from a number of other administration officials, many of whom had declined to appear before the lower chamber last year after the White House blocked their participation.

Schakowsky said she wants to summon Giuliani to testify, while Johnson suggested Mick Mulvaney