Dem House managers to discuss Bolton report, impeachment

Channel: Fox News
Published: 01/27/2020

House impeachment manager speak to press as the second week of the Senate trial begins. Trump's defense team is expected to continue arguments at 1 p.m. ET. FOX News operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Radio, FOX News Headlines 24/7, and the direct

Good afternoon, i just want to make a couple of comments about the bolton revelations and then answer one of two questions we're running a little late, so we'll have to keep it to that. The news of the last 24 hours that john bolton not only is prepared to testify, but that, based on his manuscript, that testimony would include a direct conversation with the president states, where the president h ...
ve made it clear that he was conditioning military aid on political investigations Or material that he wanted from ukraine makes it all the more clear why you can't have a trial, a meaningful trial without witnesses, and you certainly can't have one without john bolton. I am you know, pleased that the senators are reconsidering some that had. I think questions about the utility witness testimony. They appear to be reconsidering and i think that's very positive, because this witness obviously has such relevant information to shed on the most egregious of all of the charges in the articles of impeachment. And that is that the president of united states withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from an ally at war to help secure that nations help to cheat in the next election. Now, let me make one other point, though very clear. We already have testimony on this key pernicious charge against the president and that testimony has been consistent and uniform and uncontested when the president's counsel says, as they did on the senate floor, that there's no direct evidence. The president ever told someone he was conditioning the aide on these investigations. That'S just not correct. He told mick, mick, mulvaney and mcmalley knee admitted it publicly saying that he had discussed this dnc server issued the president, and that was part of the reason they held up. The money, so the president's own chief of staff has already admitted to discussing this with the president.

What'S more ambassador sandlin spoke to the president on september 7th and while the president denied a quid pro quo, he then went on to explain to solomon. There was, in fact, a quid pro quo over the a that is solinsky had to go to the mic to answer these announced these investigations and, of course, all of the other circumstantial evidence. The fact that there was no legitimate reason for holding the aide the fact that all of the national security staff, all his advisers and the other secretaries were urging that it be released. The uncontradicted evidence is as simple as two plus two equals four. Nevertheless, the president's lawyers sought to contest this charge and now that they have, they cannot dispute the relevance and the importance of john bolton's testimony. So you ought to come in testify under oath senators should not wait until march 17. When the book comes out, they should demand this information, while it would still be pertinent to their decision argue that if he was so relevant, john bolton's testimony was so important. Then you should have pushed harder for it over on the house side. Knowing what you know now and seeing what you've seen in this reporting about the book, you were right not doing that. Did you it? No, because what that argument amounts to and bear in mind, we did use that approach with other witnesses like don mcgann. It is now more than nine months since we subpoenaed on mcgann and we're nowhere near a court decision. So when people say why didn't you go to court to insist and fight and go through the district court in the court of appeals in the supreme court, we would still have that question unresolved a year from now.

So it's really an argument to say that the president should be able to unilaterally decide whether and when he can be impeached, given that he was attempting and has been attempting and continues to attempt to cheat in the next election. We did not feel we could wait. Now it isn't a question for john bolton why he was unwilling to testify when we invited him to testify in the house. Why? Well, i don't know, but i think he should answer that question, but he is for whatever reason he was unwilling to come before the house. He is willing to come before the senate and the senators should not turn away from this very relevant evidence any other mano. I had a question we yesterday want to give others a chance. I'M sorry, you know it's not a question of whether i trust john bolton or the republican senators, sean bolton or the democratic centers. He should be placed under oath, and this is why we think the testimony should be public. It should be live. Let the american people, along with the senators, evaluate john bolton's, credible credibility when he testifies and make their own judgment, but to say that we're gon na blind ourselves from a witness who has so clearly relevant testimony to one of the central most serious allegations against the President, i don't see how you can have a fair trial without testimony like that. Thank you. I got in the back.

Watch Next