On the recordJanuary 29, 2020
Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Democratic leader asks of the House managers: John R. Bolton's forthcoming book states that the President wanted to continue withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine announced investigations into his top political rival and the debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, and the other key eyewitnesses or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence? Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. The short answer to that question is no. There is no way to have a fair trial without witnesses. And when you have a witness who is as plainly relevant as John Bolton, who goes to the heart of the most serious and egregious of the President's misconduct, who has volunteered to come and testify, to turn him away, to look the other way, I think, is deeply at odds with being an impartial juror. I would also add, in response to the last question, that if any part of the President's motivation was a corrupt motive, if it was a causal factor in the action to freeze the aid or withhold the meeting, that is enough to convict. It would be enough to convict under criminal law. But here there is no question about the President's motivation.…





