Schumer on implications of Bolton report for impeachment trial

Channel: Fox News
Published: 3 hours ago

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats speak to press before the Senate impeachment trial continues into its second week. Trump's defense team is set to begin its second day of arguments. FOX News operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Ra

The senators from maryland and wisconsin okay good morning, everybody now over a month ago, we said that hearing from witnesses and reviewing documents is the bare minimum for a fair trial. Since then, redacted emails were released. That said, there was clear direction from the president to hold the military assistance. The gao concluded that the president broke the law in doing so, and new inform ...
tion from mr. parnas revealed a plot to remove a us ambassador and now, according to the new york times, ambassador bolton wrote in his book that he was ordered by the president to continue Freezing assistance until ukraine announced the political investigations the president was seeking, including the investigation into the biden's. This is stunning. It goes right to the heart of the charges against the president. Ambassador bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offenses charged in the first article of impeachment. It boils down to one thing: we have a witness with first-hand evidence of the president's actions for which he is on trial. He is ready and willing to testify. How can senate republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents? Anyone anyone who says the house case lacks eyewitnesses and then votes to prevent eyewitnesses from testifying is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Also, according to the report, several sections of mr.

bolton's book further implicate mr. mulvaney, previously mr. mulvaney denied ever being on the phone when the president spoke to rudy giuliani. Mr. bolton writes that mr. mulvaney was on the phone with rudy' and the president was discussing the removal of ambassador jovanovic. Mr. bolton's book is further evidence that a large number of people were quote in the loop on this scheme. As ambassador sandlin said, and now they are all covering up, so it seems like not only is there more evidence that the president held the aide off to get a political gain and investigation, but there seems to be a giant cover-up among so many of the leading People in the white house who knew about it and said nothing about it. Let alone tried to stop it if there was ever even a shred of logic left to not hear witnesses and review the documents. Mr. bolton's book just erased it ambassador, bolton's manuscript, was sent to the white house over a month ago.

The president ordered everyone with first-hand knowledge of his actions not to testify in the impeachment inquiry we're all staring a white house cover-up in the face. It is so clear what's going on here, i don't need to spell it out for you, if senate republicans are not going to vote to call mr. bolton and mr. mulvaney and the other witnesses now, if they're not going to ask for notes and emails, they're going To be part of the cover-up too, because we have this out in the open, it's up to four senate republicans, just for senate republicans to ensure that john bolton, mick mulvaney mr. blair and mr. duffy testify in the senate trial. It'S up to four republicans to get the documents that surrounded their actions in those days. One final point: of course, the president denied ambassador of bolton's account in a series of late-night tweets already republicans already. Some republicans are saying: oh, this is just a he-said he-said affair. Just a matter of conflicting accounts, i would remind everyone between president trump, an ambassador bolton. Only one of them is willing to testify in the senate under oath. Only mr.

bolton is willing to swear that he is telling the truth, senator course. Well, let me thank senator schumer for outlining the absolute necessity for this impeachment trial be able to hear directly from the witnesses that have the direct knowledge. I want to just go back to saturday with the president's counsel, telling us the importance to the president to be able to confront witnesses and to be able to cross-examine what they said was then cross-examination. We can find out the truth. Well, we have a different view by ambassador bolton in regards to what the president is saying. The only way we can discover the truth is to have ambassador bolton testify under oath subject to cross-examination in order to find out the truth same things, true with the other witnesses that were not permitted to testify in the house. Mr. mulvaney has direct knowledge of the president's participation. He has made some statements in the public that seemed to corroborate the house managers case, but let's hear him under oath subject to cross-examination to find out the truth. Under the constitution, the senate is the body that conducts the trial. We have some guidance from the supreme court in the nixon case as to what we need to do in order to carry out that constitutional responsibility, but to have a trial. You need to hear from witnesses you need to see the documents under senate precedent.

The senate is not bound by the record established in the house. To the contrary, the senate has its own responsibility to develop its record, its own record and not what the house has presented to it. So, under all those circumstances, in order to be able to have a fair trial to reach a justice conclusion, it's absolutely essential that we allow the witnesses to testify in the senate, subject to cross-examination so that we can in fact know the truth. It'S gut-check time for members of the united states senate every senator took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states, and every senator needs to ask themselves whether they're going to live up to that oath in this senate impeachment trial. Since the beginning, we have called for a full, fair and honest trial, and since the beginning, we have called for critical documents and relevant witnesses with first-hand knowledge about president trump's conduct. Every senate impeachment trial in our nation's history has included witnesses, and this senate trial should be no different. The media reports about what former national security advisor john bolton would testify to go to the heart of this impeachment trial, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Let us not complicate this simple fact: it is obstruction of congress for the white house to prevent john bolton from testifying about a direct conversation he had with the president in august of 2019 that implicates the president in an abuse of power. If ambassador bolton provided the white house with evidence about president trump withholding congressionally authorized and mandated us security assistance to help ukraine fight russian aggression in an exchange for political investing from ukraine to benefit president trump personally, then that would constitute direct evidence of abuse of power. If ambassador bolton testifies to these facts about his august conversation with president trump that it supports what ambassador sandlin told senator johnson in an august 30th 2019 phone call, if that, if that are in that conversation, ambassador sandlin said the release of withheld u. s. security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on an investigation by ukraine that would benefit president trump politically.

It would also directly contradict what the president told senator johnson on the phone on august 31st 2019, where, according to senator johnson, the president said i would never do that. Who told you that it is my hope that my republican friends in the senate would want to have john bolton testify so that he is under oath and so that we have all the facts? It is my hope that my republican friends would want to know if there is evidence that president trump did not tell one of my colleagues the truth. The people of wisconsin certainly want to know if the president did not tell senator johnson the truth. The american people simply want all the facts. They want the truth in order to provide them that the senate must support testimony from relevant witnesses with first-hand knowledge about president trump's conduct. John bolton has that, and the senate must have him testify as a witness in this impeachment trial. The truth is the truth. This is serious stuff. A charge of impeachment is one of the most serious things a congress can do and we need all the facts out and the facts whatever, however, they come out, we accept them. We want the truth so to the american people over eight is it's getting up to. Eighty percent of americans want witnesses and documents it's getting higher than sixty percent of republicans want witnesses and documents. We want the truth, no matter what the white house says, they can't get in the way of that everyone wants the truth, maybe except a group of people in the white house and some republican senators vote against well, the rules of the senate are that the chief Justice can make a ruling and then be overruled by the senate by majority vote.

That'S the rules of the impeachment trial. Now we had a van hollen chris van hollen, ben's colleague, had an amendment to mr. mcconnell's resolution. That would require him to make a ruling not undoing the senate's ability. Right now he can defer chief justice rehnquist's deferred on almost every ruling didn't make a ruling, and let the senate do it. We had hoped that the chief justice would make a ruling on these things. That was what our amendment said. Republicans don't seem to want to have any independent arbiter here. Yes, setting aside the witness argument, just for the moment, is there a way that you could get it this only for a moment. Well, there's gon na be all kinds of different questions, but nothing substitutes for direct testimony and cross-examination of eyewitnesses who saw the gravamen of the charges against the president. So certainly there going to be a whole lot of questions asked, but they're not a substitute for witnesses. On that question, if republicans choose to call a non relevant witness like hunter biden, would that be acceptable to you if it means that the country then gets to hear from john bolton? Okay, look first step first step for republicans have to vote to allow witnesses and documents broadly defined without any specific names.

That'S what we're fighting for now. Once that happens, let's hope it will we'll see. Who knows? We think that the four witnesses we've asked for and the four sets of contemporaneous documents we've asked for are essential and where, for all of those, we're not bargaining with that? If republicans want to call witnesses, we think that witnesses who are not eyewitness to what happened. Documents that are not relevant to what happened shouldn't be part of this plain and simple, and if someone tries to make it part of this, i don't think the american people will like it very much yes. Well, first, i'd say this: we we think it's not just john bolton, in my view, mick mulvaney, zarm or even more important witness than john bolton, because he was right there at all of this. He was chief cook and bottle washer in terms of implementing this whole scheme, at least, if you listen to the house, managers and sundlun, and some of the other people who testified before us. So that's number one and what was the second party, of course, yeah. Look. I believe i believe there would not be a protracted argument. The house had legitimate concerns. They saw what had happened with the president's previous lawyer mcgann, but this is different. This is the senate trial, where the senate has the power to determine what's happening.

This will be a subpoena that will have bipartisan support by definition, because you're going to need 51, and this will be signed by the chief justice. I think the courts will not give much attention to an argument of executive privilege in this situation, because it's the impeachment trial, where the senate has the right to conduct to the trial. Yes, sir know what i'm calling on is for every senator, including ron johnson, to vote to call john bolton as a witness. We need witnesses, we mean we need documents, we need witnesses with first-hand knowledge. I quoted what johnson reported that the president said to him in their phone call on august 31st 2019, and it is inconsistent with the reporting last night of what john bolton had set and said that he heard from the president. One of them is not telling the truth, and i think that means that we should all have an interest in hearing from john bolton, the former national security adviser to the president, as a witness sure look my view, is we don't want senators to testify they? You know, that's not the point here. We want the eyewitnesses to what the president did to testify. Okay over there try to call on a few different people here and there i could well i'm not gon na. I never get into any specific names, but there's increased pressure. On the whole, i mean that the eyes of america are upon the republicans in the senate. They have been before, and now what mr. bolten evidently wrote in his book puts, puts even more increases the desire of the american people to have a fair trial with witnesses and documents, and if there's pressure from what the american people want a fair trial, that's how It is plain and simple: it's not us putting on the pressure it's boulton and the desire, common-sense plain plain speaking desire for the truth, which has always been a hallmark of the american people.

One thing we thought the right way to proceed was to have the witnesses and documents before we started the trial itself and we presented an opportunity for the senate to deal with that. In response, our republican colleagues said no we'll take that up later. Let'S see whether we have a need for those witnesses and documents, we think we should have had them in the beginning, so that we could have the proper presentation of a trial. But now that we have gone this route, it's clear that we need the witnesses. Look at what mr. bolton is saying: look what came out with harness we. We now have additional information. That'S come forward. There'S conflict between what the president is saying today in the house managers case, and there are people who have direct knowledge about that who have not testified under oath subject to cross-examination. So our colleagues said we'll take this up later, there's now a very strong reason why they should vote to allow the witnesses. Yes, gentlemen, with the beard, it's a it's a report of direct evidence and should and bolton and the contemporaneous documents and all the others all the more reason it should come before us we'll see we're hoping look. We know the pressure they're under president trump does not brook criticism dissent, kindly among republicans, but we're hoping in this kind of solemn, serious, historic and constitutional.

Proceeding that the weight of what doing what's right, the weight of truth, the weight of getting all the facts, will weigh heavily on the shoulders of enough republicans. So we can get a fair trial and, as we've said before, we don't know, exists iams publication. But that's not under oath, we don't know what they'll say. Well, four of them. We don't know what the documents will say. These are hardly democratic flunkies, nor are they never trump errs they're employees of the president, some of the closest employees he's had and what they say may be exculpatory to the president. What they say may be further condemning of the president. We don't know we want the truth, yes in the back. Well, no, the next phase is two more days of arguments by the president's lawyers. No, no, the only thing we might try to do is make sure that the questions if ten people want the same question that we asked at once, okay, in the name of the ten yes, they can ask questions at both sides. Yes, i don't have any of i. I have no idea what who leaked it and why, but it sure, is damning and we ought to find out from the person who made the comments, wrote the book under oath plain and simple.

Yes, blue jack, teal, your blue! Your teal, i feel good, that i know what teal is and more. I know more of now and no, i think it's all. I think i've always said it's an uphill fight because of the pressure from the white house and the pressure from leader mcconnell, who don't want to hear the truth, but every day more evidence or every few days. Something else happens that makes it clearer and clearer that we need the truth that these are. This is very serious stuff. This isn't just nothing. Thank you. Everybody.

Watch Next