"Democrats on House Impeachment Team VOTED AGAINST the Aid Package for Ukraine"
If R's had also voted against it, Trump wouldn't have been able to extort Ukraine, and he wouldn't be impeached.
Bolton account of Ukraine aid could revive call for impeachment witnesses
Politicoby Andrew Desiderio, Kyle Cheney and Meridith McGraw
A bombshell report on Sunday about President Donald Trump’s handling of military aid to Ukraine could jump-start Democrats’ efforts to call witnesses in the Senate’s impeachment trial, just days before a likely vote on whether to seek testimony from current and former Trump administration officials.
According to The New York Times, former national security adviser John Bolton wrote in an initial draft of his forthcoming book that Trump told him that critical military aid to Ukraine would remain suspended until the country’s government helped with Trump’s desired investigations targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats.
The revelation came just hours before Trump’s team was preparing to mount a defense of the president’s posture toward Ukraine — one that would be significantly undercut by the account as Bolton related it. The House impeached Trump last month for abuse of power, contending that he pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate Democrats on baseless allegations — and used a freeze on military aid to increase his leverage.
House Democrats had demanded Bolton’s testimony in their investigation, but he ignored their request, citing Trump’s order that he and other officials refuse to cooperate. That order led the House to charge Trump with obstruction of Congress, too, and to demand that the Senate subpoena key witnesses, including Bolton and the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. But so far, few Senate Republicans have signaled a willingness to break from the White House’s desire for a swift acquittal vote without seeking additional witness testimony.
Impeachment managers evoke witnesses, subpoenas and past presidents to prove their case for obstruction
Within minutes of the Times article, however, Democrats sensed momentum in their push to persuade at least four Senate Republicans to vote in favor of a motion to call witnesses — the minimum they need for such a vote to succeed. That vote is expected in the coming days, during the trial’s second week.
In a joint statement, the seven House impeachment managers said Bolton’s reported account “confirms what we already know” and “directly contradicts the heart” of the defense that Trump’s lawyers have mounted at the trial — that Trump’s decision to suspend the military aid reflected his desire for other countries to chip in.
“There is no defensible reason to wait until his book is published, when the information he has to offer is critical to the most important decision senators must now make — whether to convict the president of impeachable offenses,” the managers added.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose decision to delay the formal transmission of the impeachment articles angered Republicans, said a vote against calling witnesses was “even more indefensible” in light of Bolton’s reported account.
Democrats’ push for witnesses appeared to be sputtering in recent days, with even the small number of Senate Republicans open to calling for new evidence responding skeptically to the House’s case. Democrats contended that the White House’s defense, which began on Saturday, further underscored the need for the Senate to call witnesses; Trump’s team mocked the Democratic case for lacking first-hand witnesses, even though Trump blocked them from testifying.
Democrats have sought testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney and two senior White House budget officials believed to have first-hand knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine. Other witnesses testified that they came to believe that Trump withheld the aid and a White House meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in order to pressure the country to launch politically motivated investigations, but those witnesses pointed to others — like Bolton and Mulvaney — who would know better than they would.
Sarah Tinsley, a spokeswoman for Bolton, declined to comment on the substance of Bolton’s initial manuscript but didn’t dispute The Times’ account.
“The ambassador sent the draft manuscript to the White House for pre-publication review by the [National Security Council] several weeks ago,” Tinsley said. “The ambassador has not circulated the draft manuscript to anyone else for review. There was one hard copy that was sent to the NSC.”
In a statement, the White House legislative affairs chief, Eric Ueland, said only: “We fight on, we fight to win.”
The stunning report from The Times underscores the rapidly unfolding nature of the Ukraine investigation, which has seen several significant developments in the five weeks since the House impeached Trump — including new information turned over to investigators by Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Marianne LeVine contributed to this report. |
|
