众议院正在为周三晚上的投票做准备，这场投票无疑将导致唐纳德·特朗普成为历史上第三位被弹劾的美国总统，国会上院领导人之间就如何审判他展开了一场斗争。
参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔。到目前为止，民主党少数派领袖查克·舒默(Chuck Schumer)要求传唤文件和证人，暗示他将主持一场对白宫友好的审判，最终迅速宣告无罪。
但舒默表示，他将通过投票迫使四名证人出庭，包括代理白宫幕僚长米克·马尔瓦尼和前国家安全顾问约翰·博尔顿。此举将导致所有的目光转向犹他州的共和党参议员米特·罗姆尼、缅因州的苏珊·科林斯和阿拉斯加州的莉萨·穆尔科斯基——众议院最有可能的共和党议员指责总统。他们被认为对是否支持特朗普下台举棋不定。
然而，这三人是否会与麦康奈尔决裂，批准舒默的要求仍有待观察，因为他们关系密切。肯塔基州共和党人只能让他的两名成员屈从于纽约民主党人的意愿。
罗姆尼告诉记者:“在与其他成员和我的法律团队进行讨论后，我会考虑这个问题。”新闻周刊。他说，麦康奈尔的立场——在众议院弹劾管理人员进行公开辩论后考虑让证人出庭——是“合理的立场”....我将不得不看看有人提议什么。”
米特·罗姆尼参议员在12月2日投票后离开。
穆尔科斯基重申了她对舒默和麦康奈尔达成协议的渴望。截至周三下午，舒默的一名助手表示，两位领导人之间的会晤尚未举行或计划举行。随着参议院准备在周末开始圣诞假期，他们今年见面的机会正在减少。在弹劾比尔·克林顿总统期间，麦康奈尔和舒默在证人出庭问题上的立场发生了逆转。
穆尔科斯基说:“我是那群说我希望麦康奈尔和舒默领导人走到一起，弄清楚未来的行动规则，我们将弄清楚如何对待证人的人。”。
本周早些时候，柯林斯称之为“不幸的”舒默选择向媒体抨击麦康奈尔把他的案子交给公众见证。
“在我看来，舒默参议员应该和麦康奈尔参议员坐下来讨论如何像参议员们在弹劾克林顿期间那样推进[进程”，而不是向新闻界发布一封信，”她说。
总的来说，参议院共和党人对舒默要求听取马尔瓦尼、博尔顿和其他人的意见反应冷淡。与此同时，民主党人辩称，听取证人关于特朗普与乌克兰交易的关键证据，将更好地履行他们作为公正陪审员的使命，并决定他是否应该被免职。
“我不知道你怎么会在没有证人的情况下进行审判，”参议员乔·曼钦(弗吉尼亚州民主党)说，他是一名被认为对弹劾举棋不定的温和派新闻周刊。“我不知道没有证人和有第一手知识并参与其中的人，你是如何获得证据的。”
共和党人反驳了这些说法，称众议院民主党人错过了在弹劾调查中听取更多证人证词的机会。白宫阻止马尔瓦尼和博尔顿作证，就像他们阻止马尔瓦尼的高级顾问罗伯特·布莱尔和管理与预算办公室官员迈克尔·杜菲作证一样。舒默也想听布莱尔和杜菲的意见。
但是共和党人说，如果他们是如此重要的证人，众议院民主党人应该把白宫告上法庭，迫使他们服从，这是民主党人不愿做的事，因为法庭程序冗长。
参议员罗伊·布朗特说:“众议院不能决定不上法庭，给我们送一个半生不熟的案子，然后说，‘现在你可以从中获得一些东西了’”。)，参议院领导层的一名成员，周一表示。“我不认为你可以根据众议院应该做的事情来处理这件事。”
保守派爱荷华州共和党参议员乔尼·恩斯特也表达了类似的观点，他说“我们无权传唤更多证人”
“如果众议院想做得更多，他们应该做得更多。我们不需要清理他们草率的工作，”她周一表示。“这从一开始就是一项政治活动。”
舒默暗示，他相信会有共和党人支持他争取证人。罗姆尼、穆尔科斯基和柯林斯可能很快就会接受考验。
舒默周二表示:“我们将投票决定这些人是否应该作证，这些文件是否应该公开，是否应该成为审判的一部分。”。“美国人民将拭目以待。他们会看着的。谁赞成公开和公平的审判？”
THESE ARE THE GOP SENATORS WHO COULD FORCE MITCH MCCONNELL TO HAVE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITNESSES
As the House prepared for a Wednesday evening vote that would undoubtedly result in Donald Trump becoming the third U.S. president in history to be impeached, a battle waged between leaders of Congress' upper chamber over how his trial will play out.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has so far batted down demands by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to subpoena documents and witnesses, signaling he will instead ram through a White House–friendly trial that leads to a speedy acquittal.
But Schumer has indicated he will force a vote to compel the appearances of four witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton. The move would cause all eyes to shift to Republican Senators Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—the chamber's most likely GOP members to rebuke the president. They are considered toss-ups on whether they'll back Trump's removal.
However, it remains to be seen if any of those three will break with McConnell to approve Schumer's demands, as they hold their cards close. The Kentucky Republican can afford to have only two of his members succumb to the New York Democrat's wishes.
"That's something I'll give consideration to after I've had discussions with other members and my legal team," Romney told Newsweek. He said McConnell's position—to consider having witnesses after House impeachment managers make opening arguments—is "a reasonable position.... I would have to look at what gets proposed."Senator Mitt Romney leaves after a vote on December 2.
Murkowski reiterated her desire for Schumer and McConnell to hash out a deal among themselves. As of Wednesday afternoon, a Schumer aide said a meeting between the two leaders had yet to occur or be scheduled. The opportunities for them to meet in person this year are dwindling as the Senate prepares to start Christmas recess at week's end. During the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, McConnell's and Schumer's positions on the appearance of witnesses were reversed.
"I am in that group that's saying I want Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer to come together, figure out what the rules of operation are going forward, and we'll figure out how we deal with witnesses," Murkowski said.
Earlier this week, Collins labeled it "unfortunate" that Schumer chose to blast McConnell to the press and take his case for witnesses to the public.
"It seems to me that Senator Schumer should have sat down with Senator McConnell to discuss how to proceed [as senators did during Clinton's impeachment], rather than releasing a letter to the press," she said.
As a whole, Senate Republicans responded unenthusiastically to Schumer's demand to hear from Mulvaney, Bolton and others. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that hearing crucial evidence from witnesses regarding Trump's dealings with Ukraine would better fulfill their quest to act as impartial jurors and determine whether he should be removed.
"I don't know how you have a trial without witnesses," Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a moderate considered a toss-up on impeachment, told Newsweek. "I don't know how you get evidence without witnesses and people who have firsthand knowledge and were involved."
Republicans rebutted those claims by saying Democrats in the House missed their opportunity to hear from more witnesses during its impeachment inquiry. The White House blocked Mulvaney and Bolton from testifying, just as they did for Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney, and Michael Duffey, an official at the Office of Management and Budget. Schumer also wants to hear from Blair and Duffey.
But Republicans have said if they were such crucial witnesses, House Democrats should have taken the White House to court to force their compliance, something Democrats were unwilling to do because of lengthy court proceedings.
"The House can't decide not to go to court, send us a half-baked case and then say, 'now you make something out of it,'" Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of Senate leadership, argued Monday. "I don't think you can approach this based on what the House should have done."
Senator Joni Ernst, a conservative Iowa Republican, offered a similar sentiment, saying it's not "up to us to call additional witnesses."
"If the House wanted to do more, they should have done more. We don't need to clean up their sloppy job," she said Monday. "It's been a political exercise from the start."
Schumer has suggested there are Republicans whom he believes would cross the aisle to support his bid for witnesses. And Romney, Murkowski and Collins may soon be put to that test.
"We will have votes on whether these people should testify and whether these documents should be made public and part of the trial," Schumer said Tuesday. "And the American people will be watching. They will be watching. Who is for an open and fair trial?"
