we didn t know what kind of witness that he would be, but ambassador bolton made clear that he was willing to testify and that he had relevant, firsthand knowledge that hadn t yet been heard. we argue that we all deserve to hear that evidence, but the president opposed him. now we know why. because john bolton could corroborate the rest of our evidence and confirm the president s guilt. so today, today, senators, we come before you and we urge we argue again that you let this witness and the other key witnesses we have identified come forward so you have all of the information available to you when you make this consequential
outset. you have heard arguments from both sides. you have seen evidence that the house was able to collect. you have heard about the documents and witnesses president trump blocked from the house s impeachment inquiry. we have vigorously questioned both sides. the president s counsel has urged you to decide this case and render your verdict upon the record assembled by the house. the evidence in the record is sufficient. it is sufficient to convict the president on both articles of impeachment, more than sufficient. but that s simply not how trials work. as any prosecutor or defense lawyer would tell you, when a case goes to trial, both sides call witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury. that happens every day in courtrooms all across america.
american people. and if the president is telling the truth and he did nothing wrong, and the evidence would prove that, then we all know that he would be an enthusiastic supporter of subpoenas. he would be here probably himself if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information that would prove he was not totally in the wrong. if he s innocent, they should be asking to subpoena mick mulvaney and john bolton for their testimony. the president would be eager for them to testify about his innocence. he would be eager to show them the documents to ensure there was no corruption and burden sharing. but the fact that he trusts tope
of the things that has really frustrated democrats, and privately some republicans, that if bolton does want to say something, he probably can at this point even as the white house is protesting some of the information in his manuscript is classified. indeed, he could call in just the way you did. great reporting, maggie. i m just trying to show how easy it is. maggie, thank you for doing excellent reporting. the second paragraph in your article, maggie, says the president gave the instruction to bolton, according to bolton s manuscript, in an oval office meeting in early may that included this is interesting who was in that meeting according to bolton. mick mulvaney, the president s personal lawyer rudy giuliani, and the white house lawyer pat cipollone. mulvaney said whenever giuliani was there, he would walk away because he didn t want to get involved in attorney/client privilege. he s leading the legal defense
having another debate about what is an impeachable offense or what rises to the level of impeachable offense. the government of accountability office has said what the president did was illegal. as they did toward president obama on things he did. but no one impeached president obama for doing that. we re talking about this. we re talking about the fact that the new york times is writing about a pressure campaign from the president to his national security adviser, telling his national security adviser, you ve got to be in on this scheme with me and call zelensky, and he did not do it. we should note president trump issued a statement about this allegation by bolton in his manuscript that was just reported by the new york times. president trump saying, quote, i never instructed john bolton to set up a meeting with president zelensky with rudy giuliani, the