Response to Duckworth's Question in Impeachment Trial: "We Have No Evidence" Trump Engaged in Legitimate Process for Withholding Foreign Aid

Statement

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) today asked House impeachment managers whether there is any documentary evidence of President Trump gathering information to justify withholding aid to Ukraine. Specifically, Duckworth asked if there was evidence of Trump being briefed by the NSC, DOD or State Department on Ukraine corruption and European cost-sharing or that he requested information on anti-corruption reform measures in Ukraine. The non-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) appropriations law decision concluding that President Trump violated his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law when he unlawfully withheld Ukraine security assistance funds may be read here. A full video of Duckworth's question and the House managers' response is available here.

The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, read the following question from Senator Duckworth, "If the hold on aid to Ukraine was meant to be kept secret until the President could gather internal US government information on Ukraine corruption and European cost-sharing, then is there any documentary evidence of this? For example, is there any evidence the President was briefed on those issues by the NSC, DOD or State Department, during the period of the hold during in the summer of 2019, or any evidence that he requested specific information on anti-corruption reform measures in Ukraine? Prior to releasing the aid on September 11, 2019, did the President order any changes to Administration policy to address corruption or burden-sharing with our European Allies?"

After explaining what a legitimate process would look like, House Manager Jason Crow (D-CO-06) answered, "So yes, the answer is: if there was a legitimate policy process put in place there will be a lot of information about burden sharing, about corruption, about any of the other concerns to which we have no evidence. And if burden sharing, to the last point of the question, was a concern, then the person who should have been asked to discuss those concerns with the EU and with our European Partners would've been Ambassador Sondland because he is the United States Ambassador to the European Union.

"And not once did President Trump go to Ambassador Sondland and say "discuss these issues with the EU and the Europeans saying they need to provide more money' not once did that happen, and it didn't happen because it wasn't the real concern. All of the evidence shows the President withheld taxpayer money, foreign aid, to our partner at war, to coerce them to start a political investigation to benefit his 2020 election campaign. That is what the evidence shows, that's why we're still here, and there is one person that can provide additional information on that and that is Ambassador Bolton, and yes, it is still a good time to subpoena Ambassador Bolton."

Source