call? what made you so concerned a call would be a disaster? fifth, the president s main defense once again is that he withheld the military aid for a legitimate reason, but the evidence doesn t support that. we ve heard a lot. the evidence doesn t support that. witness testimony, e-mails and other documents confirm that ambassador bolton and his subordinates on many occasions, including through in-person meetings with the president himself, urged the president that there was no legitimate reason to withhold the aid. but if you re not sure, if you think this could in any way have been about a legitimate policy reason, let s ask the national security adviser who was in charge of that. if this was simply a policy dispute as the president argues, let s ask john bolton whether that s true. the president also argues that you cannot evaluate the president s subjective intent, that the president can use his power any way he feels is
separatists. yet, as mr. duffey reportedly told ms. mccuster at the department of defense on august 30th, there was a clear direction from potus to continue the hold. clear direction from the president of the united states to continue the hold. so how did mr. duffey understand the clear direction to continue the hold? why is the president claiming that this wasn t unlawful when dod, the department of defense, repeatedly warned his administration that it was? wouldn t beawe all like to ask duffey these questions? finally, here s another reason why we know this was not business as usual.
right now. the people in that meeting is pretty significant if bolton s account is true. if it s true, correct. that s an important if. this is why, you know, house i know the president has said that the house didn t call bolton. it is true that they didn t take him to court over it, and then bolton said he would comply with a subpoena from the senate. this is why people who want witnesses are arguing it would be important to get bolton under oath. we should also note that the white house has argued that bolton, who was often at odds with mick mulvaney and with secretary of state mike pompeo, that bolton himself, you know, was a disgruntled employee on bad terms and had an ax to grind, which is why the importance of being under oath matters. but there are all kinds of complications of bolton testifying. it s not just the question of
having witnesses. he s going to say, i don t need to hear more. it doesn t rise to the level. that s not going to fly with everybody. 80% thinks there should be witnesses. this is not sufficient enough to remove the president. i want to know if we ll hear from rick s former colleagues on article 2. i think you ll find democrats on board with this one, personally. against it. voting no on article 2. really. i do. i thought you would see republicans voting yes on article 2. absolutely not. i think the idea that the democrats are saying, you know, we don t have time to go through the normal process of checks and balances and going to the third branch of government and getting the third branch of government to adjudicate this dispute. to me it completely eliminates the ability to control their privilege under the constitution. and then maybe you ll start
if the senate denies our motions, it would be the only time in history it has rendered a judgment on articles of impeachment without hearing from a single witness or receiving a single relevant document from the president whose conduct is on trial. and why snl how can we justify this break from precedence? how would we justify? for what reason would we break precedence in these proceedings? there are many compelling reasons beyond precedent that demands subpoenas for witnesses and cases and documents in this case. and at this time i yield to manager garcia.