The Daily - Lessons From the Last Impeachment Trial

Episode Date: January 21, 2020

As President Trump’s impeachment trial resumes this afternoon, we look back two decades to a time when Google was in its infancy, Y2K was stoking anxiety and partisanship in Congress was not quite so entrenched. That year, 1999, was the last time the Senate considered whether a president had committed high crimes and misdemeanors. So what has changed since the Senate trial of President Bill Clinton, and why is this impeachment such a different story?Guest: Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.Background reading: Four journalists at The Times tell their stories of covering the last impeachment trial.Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, announced rules to try to implement a speedy trial. Here’s how the framework differs from the Clinton precedent.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily. Today, as the impeachment trial of President Trump resumes this afternoon, senators remain bitterly divided over every element of the proceedings. Peter Baker on why it was such a different story during the last impeachment trial.

It's Tuesday, January 21st. Peter Baker, what do you remember from this day almost exactly 21 years ago when the Senate trial and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton begins? Boy, it was just a fraught day. You had Republicans and Democrats trying to figure out how to get through it without blowing up the country.

And I was a White House reporter for The Washington Post at the time. and I was a White House reporter for The Washington Post at the time. I had been covering this story from the first days when the news of the Ken Starr investigation had broke. Potentially damaging cloud is hanging over the White House this morning. CNN has confirmed... That independent counsel Kenneth Starr is investigating whether the president asked a former White House intern to lie about a relationship she says,

or at least alleges to have with the president. It was a time that really divided the public over this president and what he had done. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. He'd been accused of lying under oath and obstructing justice by covering up his affair with a White House intern. A defining day for the future of President Clinton, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, Congress, and the country. Here's the latest.

Details of the Ken Starr accusations are officially out. Dan, this report accuses the president of lying, obstruction of justice, tampering with witnesses before the grand jury. In the view of the independent counsel, it all grows out of the president's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The polls showed that most people were against impeachment, most people were for Clinton staying in office,

but the anger and the emotion of that moment was very real. We are witnessing nothing less than the symptoms of a cancer on the American presidency. If we fail to remove it, it will expand to destroy the principles that matter most to all of us. The question is whether the truth matters. And there are some who seem to be saying that the truth really doesn't matter.

Basically, I think what those people who would assert that have to be saying is that power is what matters. And the risk for us there is that that seems to me to be the sure prescription for tyranny. The House impeachment process was divided and divisive. The president had an affair. He lied about it. He didn't want anyone to know about it. Does anyone reasonably believe that this amounts to subversion of government? Does anyone reasonably believe that this is what subversion of government? Does anyone reasonably believe that

this is what the founding fathers were talking about? The Democrats wanted to encourage this idea that the Republicans were being partisan because that was going to be their defense. This is indeed a Republican coup d'etat. Their defense was they're coming after our guy. It's illegitimate. It's a witch hunt. It's a coup. You may recognize some of these terms. This march to impeachment is an attempt to undo and overthrow a duly elected president and ignores the will of the people. We have frayed our fragile basis for bipartisan cooperation, making the impeachment process just one more pathogen in the medical chest of toxic politics.

And so by the time the issue reaches the House floor for a vote, the country is kind of convulsing here. On this vote, the yeas are 228, the nays are 206. Article 1 is adapted. The House then passes two of the four articles of impeachment that were sent by the Judiciary Committee on largely party line votes, setting up, you know, this very divisive trial to come. The idea that this is not a bipartisan effort at this point, it is the president versus the other party. And it's so divisive that you saw the senators on the other side watching in kind of

horror because they didn't want that to happen. Trent Lott was the Republican leader at the time, a senator from Mississippi. And he talks by phone over this period with Tom Daschle, who was his Democratic counterpart. And both of them were expressing this great nervousness that the Senate would be consumed by the fires that they had seen burn up the house. They did not want a circus-like environment. They did not want the ugliness, the partisanship. And each of them on the phone was kind of relieved to discover that the other one felt the same way.

And why did they feel that way? I mean, if the rest of their party in the next door chamber is behaving this way, what is so problematic about that for them? You know, at the time and traditionally, the Senate has looked at things differently than the House. They have seen themselves as a more mature body, less reactive to the moods of the moment. Remember, they have six-year terms. They don't have to face the voters every two years. They have more freedom to exercise their judgment without worrying about an instant political consequence. So,

traditionally, the Senate has been more restrained and, you know, less partisan than the House. And they wanted to make sure that that stayed that way during the trial that was about to start. So, the Senate Republican leader and the Senate Democratic leader, they're basically having back-channel conversations about how to have a civilized impeachment process. Exactly. Remember, we had not had a Senate impeachment trial of a president since 1868, since Andrew Johnson, because Nixon resigned before there was any trial. So nobody really knew how it was supposed to work. And so it fell to the Republican leader, Trent Lott, and the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, to figure out just the rules of the road.

How are they going to proceed? What would it look like? Who would say what, when? What possible actions would be allowed during a trial? And rather than have a food fight over just the rules, they sat on the phone during this Christmas season before the new year when they would start the trial, kind of beginning to talk through these various issues. How can we join together? Tom Daschle said, we're going to co-pilot our way through this together. They wanted to get through this hand in hand, even though they were going to vote in different ways when it came to the actual conviction or acquittal, they wanted to hold hands through it so that the process at least didn't fracture the Senate the way it had the House. Senator Lott and I have worked probably more closely in the last two or three weeks in trying to resolve how we're going to proceed than we've worked on anything since we've

been leaders. So how did they actually go about co-piloting the Senate trial? I'm very pleased that we are here together to announce that at 9.30 tomorrow morning in the old Senate chamber that we will have a bipartisan Senate conference so that we can talk to each other and listen to each other and understand what we're actually suggesting as to how we should proceed. You know, it led to a meeting in the old Senate chamber. Now, the old Senate chamber is where the Senate used to meet before the big wings were built on the Capitol. And it's a smaller, more intimate and historic room.

And so in that room, no reporters, no cameras. They all sat there and talked through their views about how the process should work. And really, it's Trent Lott and Tom Daschle leading the way. They didn't want to tear apart the institution. They knew at the end of the day, when the trial was over, they still had to work together. They still had a couple more years of governing before the next election. And they didn't want that to be consumed by bitterness and bile. So, Peter, how does all of this consensus at the top of the Senate, on both sides of the aisle. How does that influence the rules for the trial? Well, one thing that was different than it is now is that there was kind of an agreement

by Republicans and Democrats that they weren't all that excited about the idea of witnesses. Everybody who had anything to tell us about this episode had already testified to the grand jury. We knew what everybody's point of view was. We knew what the evidence was. Unlike now, right? Today, there are witnesses that we've never heard from. We don't know what they would tell us. Back then, we knew what Monica Lewinsky's story was. We knew what President Clinton's story was. And so the argument was, why have witnesses? Particularly because it was of sensitive matter. Nobody, Republican or Democrat, wanted Monica Lewinsky on the floor of the Senate talking about various sex acts, right? That was just way beyond what any senator thought they

could stomach. And so they came up with a set of rules that would put off the question of witnesses first and say, let's just open the trial with 24 hours of opening arguments by the House managers, the prosecutors, and 24 hours of arguments by the White House managers, the prosecutors, and 24 hours of arguments by the White House side defending him. And then we'll have questions from the senators passed up on note cards to the chief justice who will then ask them out. And then after we have that, then we can decide whether we want any witnesses or not. So they came up with a set of rules and the Republicans and Democrats agreed on it. Not only did they agree on it, they actually voted 100 to zero to approve the set of rules,

which is pretty remarkable if you think about it today. Every single senator without fail agreed on the rules for this trial. Exactly right. And that just freaked out the White House. The White House. What do you mean? Well, they didn't want consensus.

Consensus is not good for them. 100 to 0 was not a vote they wanted. They wanted a party line vote because a party line vote meant that the president could not be removed from office. As long as the battle was us versus them, as long as it was about Republicans versus Democrats, there was no way that the president's critics could get to two-thirds majority to remove him from office. So they wanted to maintain this as a partisan process. And the 100-0 vote sent the wrong signal. In fact, it falls to John Podesta, the White House chief of staff, to call up Senator Daschle's aides.

And he's furious. He's living. What are you guys doing, he's asking. You know, he made fun of all the senators in their, quote, preening little unity dance, he said. I hope they feel good about it. 100-0 vote was nerve-wracking for this White House. So the White House message is, we don't like the kind of consensus that you are reaching

because it's not politically advantageous to us, even though it would seem to represent a modern achievement of nonpartisanship. So how does Daschle respond to that? Well, Daschle makes a point of not directly talking to them, but his staff says, trust us. It's going to be okay. We're going to get through this. You're not going to be convicted. This doesn't change the votes. It just means that we're going to do it in a different way than the House did it. We're not going to, in fact, let it become the spectacle

that we think the House had become. So, you know, the White House is left kind of on the sidelines here a little bit. They're not able to dictate the process the way they would have liked to, and they're kind of nervous about it. Now, it seems notable, is it not, that Daschle is not talking to the White House? Is that a deliberate strategy on his part? It is. He thinks that talking to the White House

would optically look bad. His job now is to be a juror of sorts. And while, of course, everybody understood which side he was going to be on in the end, he thought that he be on in the end he thought that you know he at least had the obligation to look independent of the white house of course the staffs were talking all the time so it wasn't all independent but at least for an external appearance he thought it was important the senators not look like they're simply coordinating

coordinating directly with the white house exactly and there were democrats who were very angry, particularly in the Senate, at President Clinton and expressed so. In fact, you know, at one point, Pat Leahy, the Democratic senator from Vermont, is talking to the president on the phone late one night from home. And he's so upset. He says, Bill, you're a damn, damn, damn fool. Wow. So there was this sense that anything could happen. In fact, Tom Daschle had a list of about 10 Democratic senators he was kind of worried about that he thought in theory could, under some circumstances, jump ship. And that might create a cascade effect that if it didn't convict the president, it might put pressure on

him to resign the way Republicans put pressure on Richard Nixon to resign in 1974. One of President Clinton's top aides told him during the impeachment process, he said, Republicans won't be able to remove you from office, but Democrats might be able to. And that was where it was as the trial was about to get underway. We'll be right back. The Senate will come to order. The Senators will take their seats. All the others will remove themselves from the floor. Peter, what actually happens once the Senate trial begins? Senators, I attend the Senate in conformity with your notice

for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the President of the United States. Well, you had this remarkable display. First of all, you had the Chief Justice William Rehnquist as the presiding officer. That's the way the Constitution has it. At this time, I will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber. Displayed in front of him are 100 United States senators all sitting in their desks. That by itself is extraordinary. That almost never happens. Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton,

that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God. To the Chief Justice's right, there were 13 members of the House of Representatives, all Republicans from the Judiciary Committee, who were going to be the prosecutors. They're called managers under this system. To the left of the chief justice was the table for the White House team. That included the White House counsel and a handful of other attorneys, both government and private, who were going to defend him in this case. And you had

words like impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, warrants the removal. These words were hanging in the air and gave, I think, a sense of gravity to the moment, even to people who were very partisan and knew already which way they wanted to vote. And as the Republicans, as the House managers who are prosecuting this case, start to make their case, what are the points that they're making?

Well, one thing about this case is that the facts were more or less set. We knew that the president had not told the truth under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And a lot of people believe he had also obstructed justice by encouraging other witnesses to lie. So the issue was less about the facts than it was what you made of the facts. Really, the question is, OK, if he committed a crime, if you believe he committed a crime, is it a high crime? Is it worthy of removal from office?

The managers for the House of Representatives have 24 hours to make presentation of their case. The Senate will now hear you. The presiding officer recognizes Mr. Manager Hyde to begin the presentation of the case for the House of Representatives.

And leading off the case is Henry Hyde, who's the head of the managers. We are brought together on this solemn and historic occasion to perform important duties assigned to us by the Constitution. And he starts off in his classically, typically, you know, high-altitude, lofty kind of tones about duty and honor and the Constitution. We are here, Mr. Chief Justice and distinguished senators, as advocates for the rule of law, for equal justice under the law, and for the sanctity of the oath.

Remember, though, because they had 13 managers, everybody had to get up and say something. They're all politicians. Each of them wanted their moment in the Senate, and not all of them were as good as the others. But then there was this guy from South Carolina. We're here to judge our president. We're here to say whether or not he's guilty,

to begin with, of some serious offenses. A young congressman named Lindsey Graham who gets up. That are colored by sex, and there's absolutely no way to get around that. And I know it's uncomfortable to listen to. And he wasn't very well known to that point, but there he was on the floor. He didn't follow the script as carefully as the others.

He wasn't arguing points of fact. He was talking a very down-home, South Carolina, Southern accent in a very folksy and compelling way about, you know, what made sense to him. What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurt somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly, but I think it's the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes.

Lindsey Graham's point is we know what happened here. We know what this president did, and what he did was reprehensible not just to his wife and his personal life, but reprehensible to the rule of law in this country. And I would argue that every president and every citizen has a constitutional duty not to cheat another citizen, especially the president, and they get out of bounds. It's up to us to put them back in bounds or declare it illegal. And if you let him off the hook, then you're saying the president can violate the law with impunity.

He makes it in a very persuasive way, I think, certainly for a lot of Republicans who were doubting the case, and even for some of the Democratic senators. I think they found him compelling. Now, at one point, though... This question is from Senators Cole and Edwards. It's to the House managers. Because he does think quickly on his feet

and he does tend to say what he thinks in a more candid way rather than following a script, he says something that ends up angering his fellow managers. So let me ask you this. Even if the president engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion that as a matter of law he must be convicted and removed from office? Yes or no?

Absolutely. It's never been hard to find out whether Bill Clinton committed perjury or whether he obstructed justice. That ain't a hard one for me. But when you take the good of this nation, the upside and the downside, reasonable people can disagree on what we should do. That reasonable people could disagree about whether or not this should be enough to remove a president from office. Well, he cracks open the door to acquittal. Exactly.

And once you've said that, once you've said that reasonable people can disagree, then of course Democrats are going to hold on to that like a life raft and say, well, even Lindsey Graham says it's reasonable for me to take this position. So in the Clinton impeachment trial, it is Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who ends up offering a kind of olive branch to the Democrats, who ends up emerging as a figure of moderation and then maybe even just a little bit of ambivalence. Right. He's trying to connect with the Democrats and say, I get where you're at. I have my own issues with this, too.

But in the end, you have to find in favor of accountability for a president who does wrong. And Peter, what happens when the president's lawyers have their chance to make a case? The president was worried that the senators wouldn't react well to lawyers. And so he wanted to have somebody on his team who could relate to the senators as a peer. And so he reached out and they got Dale Bumpers, who had just stepped down as a senator from Arkansas, Bill Clinton's home state, to join the defense team, basically be his representative on the floor.

The chair recognizes Mr. Counsel Bumpers to continue the presentation of the case for the president. And, you know, it was an inspired idea to try to get past the legalisms and to really connect with the jury, if you will, if you want to call them that. Mr. Chief Justice, I distinguished House managers. I have seen the look of disappointment on many faces because I know a lot of people thought you were rid of me once and for all. So Dale Bumpers gets up and he is a folksy, very compelling, old school Southern Paul. Colleagues, I come here with some sense of reluctance. The president and I have been

close friends for 25 years. Bumpers knows Bill Clinton in a way that nobody else or very few other people do. We fought so many battles back home together in our beloved Arkansas. And it's his way of saying, this is somebody I know, and I understand his flaws, and I understand his strengths, and you can trust me as a validator for him. But the question is, how did we come to be here? And he then begins to talk about the case, and he says... We're here because of a five-year, relentless, unending investigation of the president. Look, you know, this investigation has been a witch hunt. It has been excessive. It has gone too far. Fifty billion dollars, hundreds of FBI agents spanning across the nation,

examining in detail the microscopic lives of people. Maybe the most intense investigation, not only of a president, but of anybody ever. He says, when they tell you it's not about sex. And when you hear somebody say, this is not about sex, it's about sex. It's about sex. And it's the most memorable line, I think, maybe of that trial, right? He's trying to get at the nub of it. And what he's saying the nub of it is, is forget the legalisms. What it really is, is they're going after a guy who couldn't keep his pants on. And yes, that's reprehensible. And yes, he should be condemned for it. But does it

rise to the level of an impeachable offense? And he says, look, I feel angry at Bill Clinton. You pick your own adjective to describe the president's conduct. Indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, shameless. I promise you the president would not contest any of those or any others. But the danger... But, and it's the big but, right? This is the pivot. But... As I say, is to the political process. And dangerous for reasons feared by the framers

about legislative control of the executive. So don't leave a precedent from which we may never recover and almost surely will regret. None of this offends the integrity of the republic in the way that Framers really meant it. And Senator Bumpers

makes the point that the American people agree with him. 76% of us think he's doing a fine job. 65 to 70% of us don't want him removed from office. The polls show that two-thirds of the public did not want him impeached and removed from office. They didn't think he was a particularly moral guy, but they thought he was doing a good

job in office. They thought the economy was doing well, and they thought that this was not worthy of impeachment. And that's what Bumpers is trying to say. He's saying to these 100 jurors, look, you're politicians. Let's face it, the public doesn't want you to remove him from office. If you vote to acquit, you go immediately to the people's agenda. But if you vote to convict, you can't be sure what's going to happen. And this is a political process. It's not strictly a judicial process. And the public view, of course, plays a role in influencing public servants as they make that judgment. They're calling on you to do your solemn duty.

And I pray you will. So, Peter, after the managers make their case, after the president's lawyers make their case, how does that question of the witnesses ever get resolved in the Clinton Senate trial? Well, in the end, they came to a compromise. And the compromise was they would have three witnesses, no more, and they would not be interviewed on the floor. They did not, again, want Monica Lewinsky talking about sex on the floor of the United States Senate. Instead, they would be interviewed in depositions by the two

sides with two senators in each deposition serving as kind of judges. And those depositions would be videotaped. Sometime back in the December of 1997, in the morning, December the 17th, did you receive a call from the president? Yes. And each side could then use excerpts from those videotapes on the floor to show to the senators. And so in the end, the three witnesses they interviewed, Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, who was the president's good friend

and helped get a job for Monica, which was seen as an obstruction act, and Sidney Blumenthal, who had spread malicious rumors about Monica Lewinsky. Those were the three witnesses. They didn't change the outcome, but they were heard, and there was at least some witness testimony.

Right. Ultimately, as we know, the president's legal team and the president's argument carries the day. Right. Forty-five senators having pronounced William Jefferson Clinton president of the United States guilty as charged. Fifty-five senators having pronounced him not guilty. When it comes down to the final vote, the Article I alleging perjury fails on a 45 to 55 vote.

Two-thirds of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty. The Senate adjudges that the respondent, William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the first article of impeachment. Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the first article of impeachment. Meaning that 10 Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in voting not guilty. On the second article they considered, which is on obstruction, they voted 50 to 50. So five Republicans joined the Democrats to acquit the president.

And remember, of course, you need 67 votes to convict, so they were nowhere close. It is therefore ordered in a judge that the said William Jefferson Clinton be and he hereby is acquitted of the charges and the said articles. What do you make of that many Republicans crossing the aisle and agreeing with the Democrats not to convict a Democratic president? I think it says something about where the public was. As Dale Bumpers had told them, the public didn't want the president removed from office.

And I think at least a handful of Republicans found that a compelling argument. These are senators from states probably that were more moderate or middle of the road than maybe some other states. But in the end, they knew he wasn't going to be convicted. And I think that they decided that they didn't like the precedent of a removal from office on the grounds that had been presented to them. So, Peter, how should we think about the way that the Senate conducted itself during that Clinton trial? Well, in the end, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. They had a process that went forward in a semi, at least as dignified a way as possible. The Senate did not break down into ugliness the way

that they had feared. And in fact, the two of them, Daschle and Lott, shook hands at the end of the day after the vote on the floor. And Daschle said, we did it. And Lott said, we sure did. And it was really a striking mood. There was this sort of momentary comedy among senators of both sides that they had executed their duty in as faithful a way as possible. And I remember there were a couple of Democratic staffers afterwards on the floor watching all this. And they were kind of actually distraught about it. One of them says, how long do you think this era of good feeling will last? And the other one

responds, well, not long, I hope. And sure enough, it didn't. Right. It didn't last very long at all. And it certainly didn't last until this moment. No. I mean, when you think about that trial and the trial that's now getting underway in the Trump impeachment, what are the most striking differences to you? I mean, just listening to you talk, I counted so many differences, but I wonder which ones stick out the most to you. parallels or echoes, but the things that are really different are this desire, I think, to stand together as Republicans and Democrats and get through this moment without breaking apart. You don't see that today. Mitch McConnell is not sitting down with Chuck Schumer. The two of them are not co-piloting this trial to any kind of consensus conclusion. Nobody's even making the

pretense in a lot of ways of going into this as impartial jurors. They're more than vocal about, you know, saying which side they're on before the arguments even get started. Not that they didn't 20 years ago, too, but they believe that there was at least a duty to give voice to the idea that they were going to go into it and listen to the evidence before making up their minds. Right. I mean, I'm struck that Mitch McConnell, who is the Trent Lott of this era, literally said out loud that the outcome was predetermined and that he was coordinating the Republican Senate trial strategy with the president, would be taking cues from the person at the center of the trial.

That's right. Yeah. Trent Lott called Tom Daschle. Mitch McConnell called Donald Trump, right? In other words, the Senate Republican leader wanted to coordinate with the Senate Democratic leader 20 years ago. Today, the Senate Republican leader wants to coordinate with the White House. And that's a big difference, obviously.

Not that Daschle was not, you know, at odds with the Clinton White House. He wasn't. But he did believe that he had to maintain a certain degree of independence, that there was an arms distance that he should maintain as a member of a co-equal body of government

and that his role as a senator was not to be an agent of the White House, even if in the end he was their ally. Peter, what do the differences that you have just identified, what do they tell you about our politics right now and precisely how they work? Well, Bill Clinton did not command the party the way Donald Trump commands his party. And so we're so used to the way things are today.

But in that era, a president had to maintain support within his own party, and it wasn't guaranteed that he would have it. And the parties have become more homogenous than they once were. There are very few conservative Democrats anymore, very few liberal Republicans, very few moderates in the middle who might, you know, work together or see things the same way. You are very strongly on one side or the other. And anybody who drifts from that finds himself or herself punished or ostracized or left out. And so I think we're going to find out now, in effect, what the Senate is to be in this current era. If it's meant to be the place that cools the partisan edges, that brings people together in a way that the House doesn't, will that be the case over these next three, four, five weeks? Or will

it, in fact, just be another version of the House? Will it just be one more partisan outcome, one more partisan fracas that leads to no consensus and no sense of finality or judgment? And I think that, in a way, people are saying these days, well, the Senate is on trial. In some ways, it is. In some ways, the Senate is going to be judged itself in how it handles these serious charges and decides what to do about them. And if, Peter, you're right, that the Senate is on trial just as much as Donald Trump, it feels at this point, given everything you have just said, that we kind of know the verdict on the Senate these days.

Well, yeah, we probably do. I don't want to be cynical about it, but it's not starting off in a way that makes you feel like you're going to end the process with a feeling that the Senate had transcended the moment, right? I think that forgetting the outcome, just how we get to the outcome matters. And they're starting off in a way that looks very different than we saw 20 years ago,

in a way that seems like the outcome is the only thing that matters and not how we get there. Thank you, Peter. Thank you. Appreciate it. Over the weekend, Senate Republicans and Democrats publicly clashed over the shape, scope, and length of the impeachment trial that will reconvene this afternoon, highlighting the depth of their divisions. During a news conference on Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lashed out at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, complaining that McConnell had yet to disclose the proposed rules for the trial

and accusing him of planning a rushed and unfair trial. Whether it's because McConnell knows the trial is a cover-up and wants to whip through it as quickly as possible, or because he's afraid even more evidence will come out, he's trying to rush it through. That is wrong. And it is so wrong that no one even knows what his plan is a day and a half before one of the most momentous decisions

any senator will ever make. On Monday night, McConnell released his proposed rules for the trial, giving Democrats little time to review them before they are voted on this afternoon. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. President Trump has hired several new lawyers to defend him in the impeachment trial, including Ken Starr, whose investigation led to the impeachment of President Clinton, and the celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who defended O.J. Simpson against murder charges.

On Monday, those lawyers submitted a brief to the Senate, urging the body to swiftly dismiss the impeachment charges against the president and offering their first legal argument since the trial began. In the brief, the lawyers rejected both articles of impeachment adopted by the House because they do not state any specific violation of the law. But the Times described that argument as a narrow and widely rejected interpretation of Congress's power to impeach a president. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Bavaro.

See you tomorrow.