- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
Giuliani partner brings new evidence to Ukrainian plot 3:01
Washington (CNN) - There is no place left for Republican senators to hide.
On Tuesday, and when the political trial of President Donald Trump officially begins, it will be clear how unpleasant the political price that the Republican Party must pay to absolve its president of "crimes and misdemeanors."
The 53 Republican senators must remain silent while prosecutors in the House of Representatives reveal an incriminating record of documents and testimony from witnesses alleging that Trump abused the power to investigate his political opponents in Ukraine, including former vice president Joe Biden.
- The political trial has officially started in the Senate
So far, many Republican senators have tried to circumvent questions about the president's behavior, declared that they were not actually watching dramas of political judgment or warned that, as jurors, it would be inappropriate to speak about a case they had not yet heard.
The president's strongest advocates adopted his "perfect" behavior statements and reflected his judgment, made again on Thursday that the whole thing is just a "hoax" despite the mountains of contrary evidence.
But a daily drip of new revelations and bombings related to the political trial in recent days have made life even less pleasant for Republican senators, for example, when Rudy Giuliani's associate associate, Lev Parnas, implicated the president in blackmail to the Kiev government in a couple of television interviews.
- Watch: Lev Parnas delivers more text and audio messages from the plot of Ukraine to the Democrats
And the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan body, ruled Thursday that the White House violated the law by withholding millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine, for what appear to be political reasons.
The possibility of new and damning evidence arising during the trial is a wild card that could further stoke the heat of Trump's allies and increase Democratic hopes of framing the trial as a Republican cover-up.
This environmental music does not fundamentally change the polarized national political dynamics that will probably ensure that Trump is not at all threatened by a two-thirds majority of the Senate needed to expel him from office. But it does take into account an intense Democratic campaign to ward off some Republicans to build a majority of senators willing to support the admission of new witnesses and evidence that could be detrimental to the president.
Things would be easier for Republicans if they could admit that Trump's conduct in Ukraine, apparently using his executive power for personal political gain, was inappropriate but does not deserve the expulsion of the charge.
Some Democrats made that decision during the Bill Clinton political trial in the late 1990s. But this president, who is allergic to admitting irregularities, has already warned the Republican Party that he will not accept such reprimand.
The pressure is particularly intense for Republicans who face tough campaigns in November in undecided states that are forced to keep faith in Trump's fervent base and avoid alienating more moderate voters.
One of those senators, Martha McSally of Arizona, exploded Thursday with Manu Raju of CNN when asked if the Senate should vote to admit witnesses during the trial.
- Trump demonstrates that political judgment will not force him to moderate
The accusation becomes real
While the senators stood on Thursday next to their desks with their hands up to swear they would administer “impartial” justice, the historical seriousness of the experience that is about to unfold suddenly became evident.
Only twice before, in almost 250 years of United States history, two presidents went to trial in the Senate. The bad luck of the current team of legislators is that their destinies coincide with this moment of national anguish.
The appearance of the president of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who will preside over the trial, underlined the solemn reality of a presidency on trial. The dignity of the proceedings contracted with the wild scenes that sometimes took place in the House when Republican lawmakers tried to turn the audience into a circus.
Outside the Senate, Democratic leaders undertook a public relations campaign arguing that a flood of new evidence made it even more imperative for the Senate to listen to new witnesses and examine new documents.
“In all the Senate political trial hearings in our history, the 15 that were completed presented witnesses. All and each one. The McConnell leader has cited precedents, ”said Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. “Having no witnesses would be a dramatic break with the precedent. It would mean the first political trial of a president in history without witnesses. ”
In the House of Representatives, President Nancy Pelosi is now exempt from the responsibility of conducting political trial hearings, but criticized Republicans for the latest revelations.
"They are afraid of the truth," Pelosi told reporters.
“They don't want to see documents. They don't want to hear from eyewitnesses. They want to ignore anything new that comes up. ”
- Look: Nancy Pelosi sends political judgment to the Senate
Republicans defend themselves
But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham dismissed Parnas, who was indicted last year on campaign finance charges, and said he is an unbelievable witness.
"All the evidence I've seen is a lot of notes that have nothing to do with the facts as far as I'm concerned," said the Republican from South Carolina. “And the people in question are suspects at best. So, I'm ready to move on. ”
Senator David Perdue, a Republican from Georgia, a strong Trump advocate, said "absolutely not" when asked if there should be no witness testimony, arguing that it was the task of the House to build a case and for the Senate to listen to it.
Vice President Mike Pence intervened in a campaign rally in Florida, accusing Democrats of rushing a "partisan dismissal."
Republicans have the point that Democrats decided not to pursue legal challenges to try to force the testimony of witnesses who ignored requests for evidence from the House of Representatives. But the leaders of the Democratic party say that such an action could have lasted months and make it impossible for Trump to ask for accounts before an election in which he is accused of interfering.
And the reason why witnesses like the White House interim chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, did not testify before the House’s investigation of the president’s alleged abuse of power is that Trump prevented them from appearing, which led to the second charge. of political judgment to obstruct Congress.
Nor is there a constitutional barrier on the new evidence admitted in a Senate trial and there are no prohibitions on such material in the rules of procedure and practice of the chamber on trials of political trial.
The question of round-trip evidence raises the question of whether the prosecutors of the House's political trial can incorporate the latest developments in their prosecution arguments, even if they cannot call the interested witnesses.
One of the first acts of the Senate trial when it starts on Tuesday will be a debate on the terms of the procedure. The majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, will have the power to largely shape the judgment given mostly in the chamber.
But from now on, every movement of the Senate Republicans will be at the center of public attention and could have a political cost.
- Manu Raju, Ali Zaslev and Clare Foran of CNN contributed to this report
Political judgment