july 25th call. once again the evidence suggests that ambassador bolton would testify the opposite was true. ambassador bolton expressed concerns even before the call that it would be quote, a disaster, because he thought there would be, quote, talk of investigations or worse. now, if the president would have you believe that the call was perfect as he s repeatedly stated, why don t we find out? because all of the evidence before you suggests otherwise. and ukraine knows this is not the case. the call was not perfect, danylyuk is clear on this point, he says, quote, one thing i can tell you that was clear from this july 25th call is that the issues of investigations is an issue of concern for trump, end quote. or it was clear. but if there s still any uncertainty, we must ask ambassador bolton. if there was no scheme, how did you know president trump would raise investigations on the
including secretary pompeo and mr. mulvaney s knowledge of the scheme. second, ambassador bolton has direct knowledge of key events outside of the july 25th call that confirm the president s scheme. remember, this is exactly the type of direct evidence the president s counsel say doesn t exist. that s partly because they would like you to believe that the july 25th call makes up all of the evidence of our case. the call, of course, is just a part of the large body of evidence that you ve heard about the past week, but it is a key part. but ambassador bolton has critical insight into the president s misconduct outside of this call, and you should hear it. take, for example, the july 10th meeting with u.s. and ukrainian officials at the white house, dr. hill testified during the meeting that ambassador sond sand said that he had a deal with mr. mulvaney to schedule a white house meeting if the ukrainians did the
through why ambassador bolton s testimony is essential to ensuring a fair trial. also addressing some of the questions that you ve asked in the past two days. first, turning back to ambassador bolton s manuscript, the president s counsel has said no scheme existed, and the president s counsel has cited repeated denial, public denials of president trump s inner circle about bolton s allegations. none of them, of course, under oath. as we know from the testimony of ambassador bolton how important being sworn in really is. but ambassador bolton is the top national security aid has direct insight into the president s inner circle, and he s willing to testify under oat whethh whe quote, everyone was in the loop as he testified before. ambassador bolton reportedly knows, quote new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement, end quote,
investigations. according to dr. hill, when ambassador bolton learned this, he told her to go back to the nsc s legal adviser, john eisenberg and tell him, quote, i am not a part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this, end quote. we already have corroboration of dr. hill s testimony from other witnesses like lieutenant colonel vindman, and we have new corroboration from ukraine, too. alexander dan a oleksandr danylyuk confirmed in an interview that the road map for u.s., ukraine relations should have been the subjects but the investigations were raised, end quote. danylyuk also explained why this was so problematic. he raised concerns that being, quote, dragged into this internal process would be really bad for the country, and also, if there s something that violates u.s. law, that s up to the u.s. to handle, end quote. danylyuk elaborated that there were serious things to discuss at the meeting, but if instead
we didn t know what kind of witness that he would be, but ambassador bolton made clear that he was willing to testify and that he had relevant, firsthand knowledge that hadn t yet been heard. we argue that we all deserve to hear that evidence, but the president opposed him. now we know why. because john bolton could corroborate the rest of our evidence and confirm the president s guilt. so today, today, senators, we come before you and we urge we argue again that you let this witness and the other key witnesses we have identified come forward so you have all of the information available to you when you make this consequential