Democrats called U.S Senate to testify John Bolton in Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Listen to this article

A new report indicates the U.S President told then national security adviser John Bolton in August 2019 about withholding military aid to Ukraine until it begins an investigation against Joe Biden and his son Hunter. It raised concerns as congressional Democrats called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Trump directly tied the withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid in exchange to the investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in a conversation with Bolton during last summer. It is an unpublished manuscript of Bolton’s forthcoming book. The book (The Room Where It Happened) is scheduled for publication on 17 March.

The report also said that a White House review could attempt to delay its publication or block some of its contents. 2 people familiar with the book confirmed that it explains Trump tying aid to the desire for the Biden probes and describes a number of conversations regarding Ukraine. There were also conversations between Trump and key advisers, including the secretary of state Mike Pompeo. They said Bolton is ready to testify in the Senate impeachment trial. The seven Democrat House impeachment managers issued a joint statement and called the report as explosive and urged the U.S Senate to agree to call Bolton as a witness in Trump’s impeachment trial.

Bolton also said he would testify before the U.S Senate if subpoenaed. Trump is on trial, facing two charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The managers said in a statement following the report, “The Senate trial must seek the full truth and Bolton has vital information to provide. 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 offences”. It would obviously undermine one key defense that there was no explicit quid pro quo involved when the administration withheld the military assistance.