On the recordJanuary 30, 2020
Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. Senator Murkowski asks counsel for the President: You explain that Ambassador Sondland and Senator Johnson both said the President explicitly denied that he was looking for a quid pro quo with Ukraine. The reporting on Ambassador Bolton's book suggests the President told Bolton directly that the aid would not be released until Ukraine announced the investigations the President desired. This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge. Why should this body not call Ambassador Bolton? Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, thank you for the question. I think the primary consideration here is to understand that the House could have pursued Ambassador Bolton. The House considered whether or not they would try to have him come testify. They chose not to subpoena him. This all goes back to the most important consideration, I think, that this Chamber has before it in some ways, especially on this threshold issue of whether there should be witnesses or not. It has to do with the precedent that is established here for what kind of impeachment proceeding this body will accept from now going forward, because whatever is accepted in this case becomes the new normal for every impeachment proceeding in the future. And it will do grave damage to this body as an institution to say that the proceedings in the House don't have to really be complete.…
Source
govinfo.gov




