At one point, Eric Herschmann, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, implored senators to consider the president’s record of accomplishments — launching into a long, campaign-style litany of trade pacts sealed, unemployment rates falling and miles of wall built on the southwestern border — effectively arguing that those factors should offset the charges against him.
“If all that is solely — solely, in their words — for his personal and political gain and not in the best interests of the American people, then I say God bless him — keep doing it,” Mr. Herschmann said. “Maybe if the House managers stop opposing him, and harassing him, and harassing everyone associated with him with the constant letters and the constant investigations, maybe we can even get more done.”
“Enough is enough,” he added. “Stop all of this.”
The vote on Friday, which will most likely take place sometime in the late afternoon, does not deal directly with individual witnesses or sets of documents. Rather, it will resolve whether the trial should even consider calling additional witnesses and evidence.
In a bid to reassure moderate Republicans concerned that voting for witnesses would prolong the trial indefinitely, Mr. Schiff proposed on Thursday that the Senate agree to a contained, one-week period in which it would conduct depositions of witnesses proposed by the prosecution and defense. Any dispute about the relevance of witnesses or executive privilege, he suggested, could be settled by the chief justice.
If a majority of senators vote no, Republican leaders could move the proceeding to final deliberations and a speedy up or down vote on each article of impeachment, possibly as early as Friday. If they vote yes, the trial would blow open and could become a free-for-all in which any group of 51 senators could band together to issue subpoenas for testimony and records of their choosing.
But senators in both parties were also bracing for the distinct possibility that the witness and documents vote could end in a 50-50 tie. Such an outcome would put Chief Justice Roberts in a difficult position. There is precedent, drawn from the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, of a chief justice casting a tiebreaking vote on a procedural motion. But despite Democratic hopes, Chief Justice Roberts is unlikely to want entangle himself in a dispute that has been so thoroughly politicized.