witnesses? third, the president should want a fair trial. he has repeatedly said that publicly, that he wants a trial on the merits. he specifically said it. you saw a clip that he wanted a fair trial in the senate. that would have to be with witnesses that testify, including john bolton and mick mulvaney. he said that he wants a complete and total exoneration. well, whatever you say about this trial, there cannot be a total on exoneration without hearing from those witnesses. because an acquittal on an incomplete record after a trial lacking witnesses and evidence will be no exoneration. it will be no vindication. not for the president, not for this chamber and not for the
be heard, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, an opportunity to bring evidence. and that s what i want to talk to you about today. because in terms of fundamental fairness, subpoenas in this trial would mitigate the damage the president caused by the wholesale obstruction of the house inquiry. the president claims there is no direct evidence of his wrongdoing, despite direct evidence to the contrary in ambassador bolton s offer to testify to even more evidence in a trial. but let s not forget that the president is arguing there is no direct evidence while blocking all of us from getting that direct evidence. it s a remarkable position that they have taken. quite frankly, never as a lawyer or a former judge have i ever
oval office might be catastrophic to our republic and our democracy. but regardless of where you are, or regardless of where you land on this spectrum, you should want a full and complete record before you make a final decision and to understand the full story. it should not be about party affiliation. it should be about seeing all the evidence and voting your conscience based on all the relevant facts. it should be about doing impartial justice. consider the harm done to our constitutions, our constitutional order, and the public faith in our democracy. if the senate chooses to close its eyes to learning the full truth about the president s misconduct, how can the american people have confidence in the result of a trial without
florida police as well as all these agents trying to determine what happened. the big question here, of course, is whether or not that vehicle was headed toward mar-a-lago intentionally. were they on a chase for any reason? why exactly were they following this car in the first place and was it headed toward mar-a-lago? this is a developing situation. we re keeping our ear to the ground to find out exactly what happened. kristin holmes, thank you very much. president trump is now responding to that new breaking times report that john bolton said the president instructed him in may to ask ukraine s president to investigate the bidens. let s go to dana bash. dana, what is president trump saying in response? the president just gave a statement to the new york times denying that this conversation ever happened. he said, i never instructed john bolton to set up a meeting with
uncertain terms, no aid until investigations, including the bidens. for a week and a half, the president has said no such evidence exists. they re wrong. but if you have any doubt about the evidence, if you have any doubt about the evidence, the evidence is at your fingertips. the question is, will you let all of us, including the american people, simply hear the evidence and make up their own minds and you can make up your own minds, but will we let the american people hear all of the evidence? you recall that ambassador bolton, the president s former national security adviser, is one of the witnesses we asked for last tuesday. we did not know at the time what he d say.