[ad_1]
Revelations in Bolton book rock Senate impeachment trial amid 2nd day of Trump legal team arguments
GOP’s Romney wants to hear from Bolton, Collins says reports strengthen case for witnesses
Trump calls Bolton allegations ‘false,’ says he hasn’t seen manuscript
As White House lawyers spend their second day defending President Donald Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday, questions raised by a reported draft manuscript of a forthcoming book by former National Security Adviser John Bolton have given Democrats new hope in their call for new witnesses to testify.
In an unpublished version of Bolton’s book “The Room Where It Happened” reported by the New York Times on Sunday, Bolton said Trump told him he wanted to continue withholding nearly $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials in Ukraine helped investigate Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden.
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, one of four GOP moderates Democrats have targeted in hopes of getting their support for witnesses, said Monday it’s “important” senators hear Bolton’s account to make an “impartial judgment.”
“It’s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice,” Romney said. GOP Sen. Susan Collins said the reports about Bolton’s book “strengthen the case for witnesses.”
President Trump denied Bolton’s allegation in tweets early Monday morning.
“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination.
“If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,” Trump tweeted.
The Bolton revelations raised questions about what Trump’s lawyers knew about Bolton’s claims in the manuscript when they began arguing his case on Saturday.
“There was simply no evidence anywhere that President Trump ever linked security assistance to any investigations,” White House deputy counsel Mike Purpura argued Saturday. “Most of the Democrats’ witnesses have never spoken to the president at all. Let alone about Ukraine security assistance.”
The ABC News team of correspondents and producers is covering every aspect of this story.
Here is how the day is unfolding. Please refresh for updates.
3:30 p.m. Raskin: Democrats using Giuliani as ‘a colorful distraction’
“Rudy Giuliani is the House managers’ colorful distraction,” another member of the president’s legal team, Jane Raskin, tells senators, in her first turn speaking during the Senate arguments.
“The House managers would have you believe that Mr. Giuliani is at the center of this controversy. They’ve anointed him the proxy villain of the tail the leader of a rogue operation their presentations were filled with ad hominem attacks and name-calling: ‘cold-blooded political operative,’ ‘political bagman.’ But I suggest to you that he’s front and center in their narrative for one reason and one reason alone: to distract from the fact that the evidence does not support their claims,” she says.
Raskin argues the Democrats’ case is based on assumptions around Giuliani’s role, including that his motivation was to benefit the president politically, and that the case for impeachment doesn’t put his role in context as the president’s personal attorney.
She says Giuliani has said multiple times that his interest in Ukraine is not related to the 2020 presidential election and predated the announcement of former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign, a big talking point in the Democrats’ argument about the timeline of events.
Raskin argues Giuliani was a “minor player” and a “shiny object” designed to distract senators and that his work related to Ukraine would be used to defend Trump against allegations that were the focus of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation — that his campaign colluded with Russian operatives to interfere in the 2016 election.
Giuliani, like Trump, has pushed a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, and not Russia, sought to interfere in the election, even though U.S. officials have said there is no information to support that claim.
“As he has stated repeatedly and publicly, he was doing what good defense attorneys do,” Raskin says. “Following a lead from a well-known private investigator, he was gathering evidence regarding Ukrainian election interference to defend his client against the false allegations being investigated by special counsel Mueller.”
Mueller’s report found that while there was insufficient evidence to charge members of the Trump campaign with engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election — it did not find there was no evidence of contacts and cooperation or “no collusion” as Trump has claimed. It also found that Russian operatives sought to manipulate the election through misinformation and other types of interference.
“If Rudy Giuliani is everything they say he is, don’t you think they would have subpoenaed and pursued his testimony? Ask yourselves, why didn’t they?” Raskin says. “In fact it appears the House Committee wasn’t particularly interested in presenting you with any direct evidence of what Mayor Giuliani did or why he did it. Instead, they ask you to rely on hearsay, speculation and assumption evidence that would be inadmissible in any court.”
2:42 p.m. Purpura: White House was working to set up Ukraine meeting even without an investigation announcement
White House deputy counsel Michael Purpura rails against the Democrats’ assertion that a meeting with President Trump was linked to the opening of an investigation, arguing that he was genuinely interested in combating corruption in Ukraine when he asked President Zelenskiy to announce investigations and withheld military aid.
He argues that, despite arguments the White House made the announcement of investigations into the Bidens a requirement before Trump would meet with Zelenskiy, the White House was working to schedule a meeting for weeks without any announcement.
Purpura says the two presidents met as early as their schedules allowed at the United Nations meeting in September, but that Democrats insist that was significantly different than a meeting at the White House.
“They claim the meeting couldn’t be just an in-person meeting with President Trump. What it had to be was a meeting at the Oval Office and in the White House. That’s nonsense,” he says.
“Putting to one side the absurdity of the House managers trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States from office because he met a world leader in one location versus another, this theory has no basis in fact.”
1:57 p.m. Starr calls this ‘age of impeachment’
Ken Starr, the independent counsel who pushed for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, says “the Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently. Indeed we’re living in what I think can be aptly described as the age of impeachment.”
“Like war, impeachment is hell. Or at least presidential impeachment is hell,” he says. “Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment including members of this body, full well understand that a presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic war but thankfully protected by our beloved first amendment a war of words and a war of ideas. But it’s filled with acrimony and it divides the country like nothing else,” he says.
He then argues that the Constitution and a the “common law” of impeachment requires a ‘violation of law” to be alleged.
“And so, the appropriate question, were crimes alleged in the articles in the common law of presidential impeachment in Nixon? Yes. In Clinton? Yes. Here? No. A factor to be considered as the judges in the high court. Come as you will individually to your judgment. Even in the political cauldron of the Andrew Johnson impeachment, article 11 charged a violation of the controversial tenure of office act, you’re familiar with it, and that act warned expressly the Oval Office that its violation would constitute a high misdemeanor, employing the very language of cognizable crimes. This history represents and I believe may please the court, it embodies the common law of presidential impeachment, Starr says.
Her repeats Republican arguments against the obstruction of justice charge against the president, saying House Democrats should have gone to court to compel documents and testimony blocked by the White House. He counters comments from Adam Schiff and other Democrats that the court process would have taken too long, adding to the risk the president’s actions would influence the 2020 election.
Starr says there is a precedent for expedited proceedings in a case like impeachment.
“The House of Representatives could have sought that well-trodden path, it could have sought expedition, it could have sought expedition, the courthouse six blocks down the judges are there, they’re all very able, they’re hardworking people of integrity. Follow the path, follow the path of the law. Go to court,” he says, adding that he believes all House subpoenas issued before the House voted to authorize the impeachment inquiry would be ruled invalid.
He argues that Congress should use its oversight powers to hold the president and administration accountable, despite the administration’s refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations, release documents, or comply with subpoenas.
The lack of cooperation from the White House has been a main argument in Democrats’ charge that the president has obstructed justice in the impeachment inquiry.
“Again, sitting as a court, this body should signal to the nation the return to our traditions. Bipartisan impeachments. What’s the alternative? Will the president be king? Do oversight. The tradition of oversight. An enormous check on presidential power throughout our history and it continues available today.
“In Iran-contra, no impeachment was undertaken,” Starr says, referring to the scandal under President Reagan in which Reagan agreed to send arms to Iran to use money from that sale to fund Nicaraguan rebels or “contras.”
1:19 p.m. McConnell tells GOP colleagues to ‘stay the course’
Sen. Mitch McConnell tells his GOP colleagues “stay the course” during their pre-trial lunch, Republican Sens. Mike Rounds and Kevin Cramer tell ABC News’s Devin Dwyer.
Both men said McConnell offered repeated assurances that their game plan is sound and a vote on witnesses will happen at the appropriate time.
Cramer said it was a “keep your powder dry” pep talk.
“It’s more of a wrinkle” he added of the Bolton news.
“The whole message is still we made the right choice in the first place. We said we finished through phase one we’ve heard the attacks and now let’s hear the defense and then we’ll ask our questions and then we make a decision on material witnesses,” said Sen. Rounds.
Asked if he wants to hear Bolton, Sen. Lamar Alexander said: “I worked with my colleagues to make sure we have a chance after we’ve heard the arguments. After we’ve asked our questions to decide if we need additional evidence and I’ll decide that at that time.”
Meanwhile, President Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow begins by previewing the arguments the president’s defense will make today.
While he doesn’t make a direct mention of the Bolton claim, he appears to refer to it. noting that his team will deal only with “publicly available information.”
“What we have done on Saturday is the pattern that we’re going to continue today as far as how we’re going to deal with the case. We deal with transcript evidence,” Jay Sekulow said. “We deal with publicly available information. We don’t deal with speculation, allegations. That are not based on evidentiary standards at all”.
He said the president always acted within his legal authority when he says Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelenskiy to investigate corruption in his country, even when that involved a U.S. citizen, and repeated Zelenskiy’s statements that he did not feel pressured in his July 25 conversation with Trump.
1:06 p.m. Prayer for Kobe Bryant as trial resumes
Senate Chaplain Barry Black, in his opening prayer, references the deaths of NBA legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna in a helicopter crash over the weekend, saying it serves as a reminder of our limited time on Earth.
“As this impeachment process unfolds, give our senators the desire to make the most of our time on Earth,” he says.
On a lighter note, the chaplain and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also recognize Chief Justice John Roberts’ 65th birthday as the proceedings get underway.
1:05 p.m. Sources: Trump legal team preparing legal fight to block witnesses
As the second day of opening arguments from Trump’s legal team gets underway in the Senate, senior level White House sources tell ABC News the president’s lawyers are preparing for the possibility of witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Sources say the legal team is preparing an aggressive, drawn out legal fight to block the testimony of potential witnesses.
— ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Katherine Faulders and John Santucci
11:58 a.m. Trump says he hasn’t seen Bolton manuscript, calls allegations ‘false’
President Trump says this morning that the allegations in the Bolton manuscript are “false,” and says he hasn’t seen the manuscript.
Asked in the Oval Office, “What about the allegations in the Bolton manuscript?” Trump replies, “False,” then scoffs and mouths “false” again.
He makes the comment before a meeting in the Oval Office with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Earlier, before entering the Oval Office for that meeting, Trump told reporters outside the West Wing that he had not seen the manuscript.
–ABC News’ Ben Gittleson
11:46 a.m. Republican Graham suggests he could now be open to witnesses
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham suggests he could now be open to witnesses provided it’s done in a “balanced way” — possibly to include votes on Hunter and Joe Biden.
“If we’re going to add to the record, then we’re going to go to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and all these people,” Graham tells ABC News’ Devin Dwyer Monday morning.
When asked whether this means he’s changed his position on calling the Bidens — he says he has not — that he still opposes calling them for the sake of calling them — but says it might be reasonable to include them in votes if the Senate moves to votes on witnesses.
As to whether he has any reason to doubt Bolton, Graham says he’s withholding judgment until he sees more. “I’m not going to make a commitment about something I don’t know about.”
He says he might be interested in subpoenaing the manuscript.
At the same time, other Republicans dismiss the Bolton allegations.
There is “nothing new here,” says Sen. John Barrasso, a member of the Senate GOP leadership from Wyoming.
“It really doesn’t change anything, in terms of the process. We knew that the discussion of witnesses would be here soon … What it’s done is taken an already hot topic and added some fuel to the fire,”
says GOP Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana.
11:15 a.m. Schumer calls Bolton report ‘stunning’
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calls the Bolton revelations “stunning,” saying they “go to the heart” of the case against the president.
“Ambassador Bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offense charged in the first article of impeachment.” Schumer tells reporters.
The Senate’s Democratic Leader repeats his accusation that the White House had engaged in a “cover-up” in order to subvert the impeachment investigation and Senate trial.
“Anyone who says the House case lacks eyewitnesses and then votes to prevent eye witnesses from testifying is talking out of both sides of their mouth,” Schumer adds.
He asks, given the Bolton developments: “How can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness?”
“This the test for the senators. They have taken an oath to be impartial. They have just learned there’s a key witness going to the heart of the allegations. The question they have to answer is do they want to hear the truth?” lead House manager Adam Schiff told CNN Monday.
10:54 a.m. GOP’s Collins says Bolton revelations ‘strengthen case for witnesses’
GOP Sen. Susan Collins, another key Republican moderate, issues a statement on Twitter shortly after Sen. Mitt Romney speaks, saying, “The reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a numbers of conversations among my colleagues.”
“From the beginning, I’ve said that in fairness to both parities the decision on whether or not to call witnesses be made after both the House managers and the President’s attorneys have had the opportunity to present their cases.
“I’ve always said that I was likely to vote to call witnesses, just as did in the 199 Clinton trial,” she says.
Earlier, Romney said he can’t speculate on what impact Bolton’s testimony would have on a final decision of whether to acquit the president but said that “it’s relevant and therefore, I’d like to hear it.”
— ABC News’ Devin Dwyer
ABC News’ John Santucci, Ben Gittleson and Chris Donovan contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link