On the recordJanuary 30, 2020
Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Alexander, Cruz, Portman, Toomey, Sullivan, and Murkowski to the counsel for the President. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. The question from Senator Graham and the other Senators is for the counsel for the President: Assuming for argument's sake that Bolton were to testify in the light most favorable to the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment, isn't it true that the allegations still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense and that, therefore, for this and other reasons, his testimony would add nothing to this case? Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, thank you for the question. Let me start by just making very clear that there was no quid pro quo. There was no--and there is no evidence to show that. There was not that sort of linkage that the House managers have suggested. But let me answer the question directly, which I understand to be assuming for the sake of argument that Ambassador Bolton would come and testify the way the New York Times article alleges, the way his book describes the conversation. Then it is correct that, even if that happened, even if he gave that testimony, the Articles of Impeachment still wouldn't rise to an impeachable offense. That is for at least two reasons. Let me explain that.…





