Donald Trump’s defense team hit at John Bolton’s upcoming book, claiming it is ‘unsourced’ and said the manuscript of the memoir would not be admissible.
‘What we are involved in here, as we conclude, is perhaps the most solemn of duties under our constitutional framework. The trial of the leader of the free world, and the duly elected president of the United States. It is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts,’ attorney Alan Dershowitz said during the final day of the defense’s opening arguments against the president’s removal.
Trump’s lawyers are concluding their opening defense arguing against the articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Dershowitz, along with the other all-star team of lawyers, including Ken Starr, Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone, are asserting that the articles being levied against the president are not actually impeachable offenses according to the Constitution.
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton is writing a book, and in a leaked manuscript it was revealed that he detailed a conversation where he said Trump directly linked the freeze in millions of military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.
Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is part of Donald Trump’s defense team, said John Bolton’s forthcoming book where he described a first-hand account of a conversation with the president where he linked Ukraine military aide to a probe into the Biden is ‘unsourced’
He also claims that the unpublished manuscript would be ‘inadmissible’ in the Senate impeachment trial
Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton is writing a book, set for release in mid-March – and senators cited revelations from the upcoming book as reasons they want to hear from him
Dershowitz claimed the information detailed in the book would not be admissible, attempting to deter Democrats for subpoenaing a copy of the unpublished manuscript.
‘The vice president’s chief of staff issued a statement,’ Dershowitz said, then quoted: ‘In every conversation with the president and the vice president, in preparation for our trip to Poland,’ – remember that was the trip that was being planned for the meeting with President Zelensky – ‘the president consistently expresses frustration that the United States was bearing the lion’s share of responsibility for aid to Ukraine and that European nations weren’t doing their part. The president also expressed concerns about corruption in Ukraine, and at no time did I hear him tie Ukraine aid to investigations into the Biden family or Burisma.’
‘That was the response,’ Dershowitz continued. ‘Responding to an unpublished manuscript that may be, some reporters have an idea of what it maybe says. That is what the evidence – if you want to call that evidence, I don’t know what you would call it. I would call it inadmissible, but that’s what it is.’
‘To argue that the president is not acting in our national interest and is violating his oath of office which the managers have put forward is wrong based on the facts in the way the Constitution designed,’ he continued.
Trump’s impeachment defense team on Tuesday will end its opening arguments on the seventh day of the Senate trial.
After the team concludes their arguments Tuesday night, the Senate will spend the next few days casting votes on what to do next, including a resolution on whether to allow the defense and prosecution to call new witnesses to testify in the trial.
The president’s defense is arguing that the articles – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – are not actually impeachable offenses, according to the Constitution.
Trump’s legal team opened up an all-out attack on Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, on the second day of its defense Monday, unleashing White House advisor Pam Bondi to accuse him of cashing in on his powerful father.
‘We would prefer not to be talking about this,’ Bondi said of the Bidens in the trial where primarily the Democrats and prosecution brought up the father-son duo to make the case that Trump held up millions in security aide to Ukraine to get an investigation of his political rival.
‘We would prefer not to be discussing this,’ the former Florida attorney general continued in her argument on the Senate floor Monday. ‘But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it.’
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi defended Donald Trump during the sixth day of impeachment proceedings Monday, tearing into Hunter and Joe Biden. ‘We would prefer not to be discussing this,’ Bondi said of the Bidens. ‘But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it’
The defense wants to call Joe (left) and Hunter Biden (right) to testify if witnesses are permitted in the Senate impeachment trial – claiming their ‘corruption’ in Ukraine is at the center of the proceedings
She then opened up an attack on Hunter, whose personal struggles have drawn headlines amid disclosures about his work for the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
Another one of Trump’s attorneys, Eric Herschmann, suggested that then-President Barack Obama should have been impeached for saying he would have more ‘flexibility’ to deal with Russia after the 2012 election.
He recalled Obama’s hot-mic conversation with then Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, who promised to transmit information to ‘Vladimir’ during a conversation about a missile defense treaty.
Obama told Medvedev in South Korea in 2012 – who despite his title was actually junior partner to Putin – that ‘this is my last election,’ and said: ‘After my election I have more flexibility.’
Medvedev replied: ‘I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.’
The hot mic moment was to become a favorite Republican talking point against Obama.
Herschmann suggested that it could have been used to impeach Obama then read his version of the first article of impeachment – abuse of power – changing Trump’s name for Obama’s and the Ukraine aid allegations for what Obama said.
Bondi described how Hunter Biden joined the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings as a board member even after warning signs about it, and chose not to relinquish his role amid cautions from his business partners.
‘Remember, this is just one month after the United Kingdom serious fraud office opened a money laundering case into Burisma, Hunter Biden joins their board,’ said Bondi.
Democrats argued during their opening last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday that Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani had a key role in the events that led to the impeachment inquiry.
But the defense pushed back on this claim Monday, insisting that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was only a ‘minor player’ and a ‘distraction’ from the real issues at hand – the Bidens potential corruption.
Jane Raskin, one of Trump’s defense lawyers, downplayed Giuliani’s role as an unofficial presidential envoy to the Ukraine government, and lauded him as a ‘national hero’ for his leadership of New York City after 9/11.
‘In this trial, in this moment, Mr. Giuliani is just a minor player, that shiny object designed to distract you,’ Raskin said on the Senate floor. ‘Senators, I urge you most respectfully, do not be distracted.’
Giuliani, Democrats charge, engaged in shadow diplomacy in Ukraine, including corresponding with President Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into Hunter’s role at Burisma.
The defense also found itself having to address Monday a bombshell report that emerged over the weekend revealing Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton details in a new book his first-hand account of the president linking Ukraine military aid to a probe into the Bidens.
Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat lawyer brought on to engage in opening arguments against Trump’s removal, told senators in a prime-time law lecture Monday that Bolton’s revelations about a quid pro quo – ‘even if true’ – must not be used to remove Trump from office.
Despite the defense’s dismissal of the revelations that emerged from the leaked Bolton manuscript, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested the upcoming book just helps the prosecution’s case in demanding new witnesses.
‘The New York Times reported on several stunning chapters from Ambassador Bolton’s book,’ Schumer said during a press conference Tuesday morning.
‘The same New York Times story places Mick Mulvaney at the center of this plot. He’s more important, probably, than Bolton. And the emails from Duffey and Blair – the two other witnesses we seek – are even more relevant as this information comes out,’ Schumer continued.
‘So I understand why Leader McConnell and President Trump wanted a very short, incredibly rushed trial: because they longer it goes on, the more likely that new evidence, and more new evidence will comes out that further implicates the president,’ he told reporters at the Capitol.
Democrats in the Senate want to hear from witnesses they say are relevant: Bolton, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, his senior advisor Robert Blair and associate director of the Office of Management and Budget’s National Security Program, Michael Duffey.
Blair was in the room when Trump held the infamous July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart and Duffey was given authority by the White House to freeze millions in military aid to the Eastern European nation.
Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and former O.J. Simpson attorney, made the impassioned plea as the headliner at Monday’s impeachment trial, appearing after numerous other Trump lawyers at the end of the second-day of Trump’s defense.
He revisited his controversial argument that ‘Abuse of Power’ does not constitute an impeachable offense, telling senators that the Founders specifically rejected such vague terms when hashing out the Constitution in Philadelphia.
Dershowitz said Monday that even if the allegations in the book were true, they could not be used to remove the president
He counted it among the ‘vague, open-ended, and subjective terms that the framers feared and rejected.’
‘Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,’ said Dershowitz, who has been a strong defender of the president’s on Fox news and in other venues.
‘If a president, any president, were to have done what the [New York] Times reported about the contact of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute and impeachable offense,’ Dershowitz intoned.
‘It is inconceivable that the framers would have intended so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as abuse of power to be weaponized as a tool of impeachment,’ he said.
At one point he turned to opposing Democratic lawyers, and said: ‘I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for with you we supervise future presidents.’
After dissing the language they chose for the name of the articles, he acknowledged that they were not ‘saved’ by the inclusion of ‘somewhat more specific but still non criminal-type conduct.’
Dershowitz spoke about himself at several junctures, noting he didn’t vote for Trump and casting himself as an independent voice. He said the founders sought to wall off impeachment for the most severe crimes – treason and bribery – but not conduct that was ‘sinful’ or ‘dishonest.’
Among the disclosures reported about from the Bolton manuscript is that Trump told him in August 2019 that he wouldn’t release millions in frozen military aid to Ukraine unless it publicly announced it was investigating the Bidens.
Democratic impeachment members have repeatedly alleged the episode as part of their case for abuse of power, and demanded the Senate hear from Bolton as a witness under oath.
Even as he acknowledged his view that only crime-like offenses could be subject to impeachment was a minority view in academia, Dershowitz placed the blame on the academy for that – and deftly delivered his points in a time slot that was a lead-in to Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Dershowitz addressed the bombshell report about John Bolton’s book after its disclosure shook up the debate over allowing witnesses in the impeachment – with key senators acknowledging Bolton information had an impact and even batting around proposals of a one-for-one trade for allowing witnesses.
Bondi brought up in her arguments attacking Hunter Biden that his business partner Chris Heinz, who backed away after disclosures.
‘He thought that working for Burisma was unacceptable,’ she said.
Bondi quoted liberally from ‘public reporting’ – even calling up slides of publications the president regularly derides, including ABC News, which reported on potential conflicts of interest at the time Hunter landed the lucrative gig, and the Washington Post.
‘It said the appointment of the vice president’s son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst,’ Bondi said.
‘We would prefer not to be talking about this,’ said Bondi as she brought up Hunter Biden
Bondi also included video of Hunter Biden acknowledging that he ‘probably’ wouldn’t have gotten the gig if he weren’t Biden’s son.
Hunter Biden has not been accused of any criminal behavior connected to the deal, although company head Mykola Zlochevsky had accounts frozen during Ukrainian investigation that later got halted.
‘Did Hunter Biden stop working for Burisma? No. Did Vice President Biden stop leading the Obama administration’s foreign policy efforts in Ukraine? No,’ said Bondi.
Biden’s role raised concerns by State Department official George Kent, who brought the potential of a conflict of interest to higher-ups.
Inside the Senate chamber, majority of Senators from both sides of the aisle sat stony faced, listening in silence as required. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker stood leaning on his desk chair, face grim, during part of Bondi’s presentation.
Trump’s team resumed its efforts to blast the case against him and defend the president’s interactions with Ukraine – with Independent Counsel Ken Starr taking making the case that impeachment is invoked ‘all too frequently.’
Starr, who led the impeachment case in the same chamber in 1999, bemoaned the arrival of an ‘age of impeachment’ without sufficient justification.
‘Like war, impeachment is hell. Or at least, presidential impeachment is hell,’ said Starr.
Starr began his remarks hours after bombshell revelations in a new book manuscript claimed the president personally tied millions in military aide to Biden investigations.
He took to the well of the Senate to attack ‘a series of deficiencies’ in the impeachment articles that passed the House, according to fellow Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow.
‘Judge Starr is very familiar with this process,’ said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow, alluding to Starr’s role leading the charge to remove President Bill Clinton from office during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Starr began his remarks not by pointing to fights over Trump’s July 25 call with the president of Ukraine or the murky way a whistleblower came to light – but with a history lesson that referenced the Nixon impeachment, Iran Contra, and other partisan clashes – then went back to the British parliament of the 19th Century.
‘Instead of a once in a century phenomenon, which it had been, presidential impeachment has become a weapon,’ he said.
As other Trump lawyers had noted, the trial occurs with an election around the corner. Adam Schiff countered this in his own arguments by arguing Trump was trying to invite interference in the election – which could call its fairness into doubt.
‘There is a huge prudential factor that this trial is occurring in an election year when we the people in a matter of months will go to the polls,’ Starr said.
‘Like war, impeachment is hell,’ former Independent Counsel Ken Starr told senators as a member of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense
Rather than the impeachment remedy, Starr invoked the ‘tradition of oversight,’ which he called ‘an enormous check on presidential power.’
If there is a dispute over documents and witnesses, ‘Then go to court. It really is as simple as that,’ said Starr.
Democrats included an ‘Obstruction of Congress’ article after the administration refused to provide documents or make witnesses available for the impeachment inquiry in the House.
Republicans senators are saying it’s increasingly likely there will be witnesses called in Donald Trump ‘s impeachment trial in the wake of revelations from John Bolton’s forth coming book.
Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins – two crucial votes in the Democrats’ quest to bring more witnesses in the trial – said it’s important to hear from the former national security adviser.
They also both said they have spoken with their colleagues about the topic, which could be seen as a warning to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that support is there for such a move.
LEGAL SHOWDOWN AT THE CAPITOL: Trump impeachment attorney Kenneth Starr arrives at the U.S. Capitol on the sixth day of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, in Washington, DC, Monday, January 27, 2020
Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr stands before a crowd of reporters and photographers outside the Justice Department and answers questions about his investigation into President Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky, Washington DC, January 22, 1998. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate. Starr on Monday warned against partisan impeachments
Ken Starr, an attorney for President Donald Trump, speaks during the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, Jan. 27, 2020
Mitt Romney and Susan Collins said it’s increasingly likely witnesses will be called in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial
Democrats need four Republican senators to cross to their side and vote to subpoena witnesses.
‘It’s increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton,’ Romney told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday.
‘I of course will make a final decision on witnesses after we hear not only from the prosecution but from the defense,’ he said. ‘I think at this stage it’s fair to say John Bolton has a relevant testimony.’
A senior Democratic congressional staffer working on impeachment told DailyMail.com Monday that, ‘We had no communication with Mr. Bolton or Mr. Bolton’s lawyers.’
Bolton has said he will testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.
Collins also said she was leaning toward voting for witnesses.
‘From the beginning, I’ve said that in fairness to both parties the decision on whether or not to call witnesses should 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 I did in the 1999 Clinton trial,’ she said in a statement Monday.
‘The reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues,’ she added.
Some of the president’s defenders, however, have charged Bolton with trying to sell a book. Bolton was fired from the White House in September of last year.
‘Truly there’s nothing new here. It does seem to be an effort to sell books. I think there’s going to be a new revelation every day. Today’s just one more day,’ said Republican Sen. John Barrasso.
‘I don’t think it changes any fundamental information of the basic case, that the House has to put the case together,’ said Sen. Roy Blunt.
McConnell has said the Senate will vote on calling witnesses after opening arguments are made. That would set up a vote sometime this week.
President Trump denied the charges in Bolton’s book
The impeachment trial was upended Sunday night when The New York Times reported on a leaked copy of an unpublished manuscript for the new book Bolton is writing.
‘The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,’ is scheduled to be published March 17.
In it, Bolton wrote that the president told him he wanted to freeze military aid to Ukraine until the Eastern European nation helped with political investigations into his political rivals.
Trump has denied the charge.
‘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,’ he tweeted in response.
The president also told reporters at the White House on Monday that he has not seen Bolton’s manuscript.
Bolton had sent it to the White House for pre-publishing clear, which is required by federal law when former government employees with security clearances are writing about their time in government service in order to assure classified information is not compromised.
Sarah Tinsley, an advisor to Bolton, said in a statement: ‘The ambassador’s manuscript was transmitted to the White House in hard copy several weeks ago for pre-publication review by the NSC. The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period.’