The Bolton Factor: Pressure Builds For Witnesses In The Senate Trial

My column today in the Washington Post explores the possibility of witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial and specifically what the Senate might do if the White House demanded a clearly relevant defense witness named Hunter Biden. As the column was coming out, former national security adviser John Bolton announced that, if subpoenaed, he is “prepared to testify” before a Senate trial. Some of us have been saying for months that Bolton was signaling to the point of screaming that he was eager to testify. Nevertheless, the House refused to subpoena him, let alone seek to compel his testimony. It was the same counterintuitive position that led to the House to withdraw its subpoena for top Bolton aide, Charles Kupperman. Bolton’s announcement only highlights the baffling blunder of the House in rushing this impeachment before creating a complete and compelling record for removal. Instead, it effectively handed over control of the case — and completion of its case — to the Senate and the opposing party.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has demanded testimony from Bolton, current White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and two other White House officials, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey. However, he opposes the appearance of Republicans witnesses like Biden.

Ultimately, Bolton could appear in the Senate only to face an executive privilege objection from the White House. That question would go to Chief Justice John Roberts but ultimately all such on witnesses and evidence are left to the Senate by majority vote.

In his statement on Monday, Bolton took the same position as Kupperman that, in the absence of judicial guidance, “I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study.” The House resolved those questions previously by bizarrely withdrawing the subpoena before a court could rule.

In the meantime, two Senators are discussing changing the rules to force a trial or vote in light of the refusal to submit the matter to the Senate by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The two options discussed by Graham and Hawley — removing the requirement of the submission or holding a summary dismissal vote — were discussed in my column a couple weeks ago.

The option of changing the Senate rules is becoming increasingly possible due to the inappropriate gaming of the system by Speaker Pelosi. Under the Senate rules, the waiting for the list of House managers is a bicameral courtesy that can be withdrawn. However, the complication could be the vote itself. They may have to use a “nuclear option” to allow a majority vote on the question. That would be unfortunate for a myriad of reasons and would ultimately hurt the House. The House should submit the list and articles without further delay in my view.

99 thoughts on “The Bolton Factor: Pressure Builds For Witnesses In The Senate Trial”

  1. From The Hill:

    Edward Purcell Jr. is a distinguished professor with New York Law School and is the author of “Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism: The Historical Significance of a Judicial Icon” set to be published this winter.

    “The Constitution defines impeachment as a civil proceeding before the Senate. Its noncriminal nature means the principles of evidence that will govern federal civil trials offer a number of wise and appropriate guides for evaluating evidentiary issues……

    Those principles reflect two such basic understandings. First, innocent people accused of wrongdoing generally make every effort to produce evidence to refute the charges against them. Second, guilty people who possess evidence of their guilt generally make every effort, whether legal or illegal, to withhold that evidence. To deal with the latter behavior, the law has developed a series of fair and founded evidentiary presumptions.

    One deals with refusal to testify. In civil trials, unlike criminal trials, the law allows juries to infer that a person refusing to testify means his testimony would undercut or contradict his own position. The Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has decided, “does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” …..

    Three other principles mean that if Trump did choose to testify, the law would allow his repeated lies to be used against him..First ….

    Three more principles allow inferences against parties that block access to the evidence, as Trump has repeatedly done. First….

    Another principle addresses the interpretation of documents and holds that the meaning of an incomplete or ambiguous document needs to be construed strictly against its drafter. Instead of releasing the full transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president, Trump produced an incomplete summary…….

    The law has remedies for the methodical efforts of the president to hide the truth, and it lies in long honored principles designed to protect the integrity of the civil processes of the law. Those very rules seek to ensure either that the truth comes out or that, if a party attempts to prevent it, the jury is allowed to draw the logical inference. All point to the same conclusion and can support a verdict that Trump is guilty as charged.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/477186-why-law-of-evidence-supports-the-verdict-that-the-president-is-guilty

  2. But Pelosi doesn’t want Trump convicted in the Senate. For then the even more insane Pence becomes Prez.

  3. 5th Amendment

    No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
    __________________________________________________________________

    6th Amendment

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy…the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    If the accused does not enjoy privilege with his counsel, the client does not enjoy the Assistance of Counsel.

    If the executive branch does not enjoy privilege, the executive branch does not enjoy the Assistance of Counsel or the advise of

    department officers and the legislative branch will effectively become the executive.

    The choice is privilege or chaos.

  4. If the House desperately wanted witnesses, and thought they could prove their case, they would have gotten them.

    Instead, they knew they had a case disproven by the evidence. The fact is that the whistleblower misrepresented a call that he never heard first hand. We have an ambassador admitting he made the whole thing up because he just assumed. Their case collapsed, along with all the other false allegations.

    So, what do they do? They can’t call more witnesses in that will disprove their theory. No. Don’t call them. And when the Senate dismisses this as nonsense, they will claim the Senate didn’t run a fair trial.

    Got this? The House had the means to get the witnesses they wanted, go through the process. But they didn’t. So, in the future, when Democrats can be relied upon to claim that the Senate conducted an unfair trial, whose job was it to get those witnesses? Who had the power to do so? Who was warned by Professor Turley to do so? The House.

    This is a political game. They didn’t want the witnesses so they could claim it was unfair later.

  5. Add it all up and it is crystal clear the Socialist Extremists are using the same techfques as their counter parts in North Korea, Cuba, and the Middle East. The goal is not an impeachment but to confuse, delay and ‘resist.’ That makes them not supporters of Our Constitutional Republic but just the opposite and watching the violations of their ha ha oaths of office or refusal to take the required oath is just one form of actual proof.

    Now the question of the day for Citizens is this: If the President can pull off this socialist sponsored and supported war with one death. what makes Pelosi think he can’t invoke the Patriot Acts terrorist provision against which she, Pelosi, has no defense?

    The list is not that short but it is something the military has been prepared to accomplish ever since I was in the service and is not that hard to carry out over a weekend with no tanks in the street needed. With the support of the retired and former members. And all thanks to the rules put ii place by the Socialists themselves.

    As for the media and the campus snowflakes What about them. Cut campus funding and find for intentional lying is not a function of the free press.

    Watcha imitators of Marx, Lenin, Adolf and Benito gonna do now? Send out the Squat?

    they are not legally seated and will, after Pelosi be the first ones rejected and ejected.

  6. You will have plenty to write about whether or not there is an expedient Senate trial. The Democrats are still investigating this President and will impeach again and again. It will only stop if we take back the majority in the House and gain Senate seats.

  7. The House is certainly led by baffling, bumbling idiots whose schoolyard antics have harmed all of us. We all know the case they want to forward is absolute mess.

    That said, if the Senate decides to call witnesses, I’m eager to hear from the quite a few people: leaker who wasn’t there for the call, Adam Schiff and his staff who coordinated with the leaker and lied about it, Jerry Nadler and all of the Dems who actually said they had to impeach the President 3 days after he was elected, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and lots of others involved in the Steele dossier and Ukrainian misinformation campaign. I think calling witnesses in the Senate hearing, while unnecessary given the House’s sloppy job, could be lots of fun!

  8. Besides, let’s call Bolton’s seeming willingness to testify exactly what it is: having to clear up some pre-book release PR deemed necessary by his publisher, knowing the Senate will find a way to skate on a subpoena after he hid behind the Kupperman lawsuit in the House inquiry. That would be part 1. Part 2 is Bolton is building leverage against the inevitable Trump flip around his Iranian/Iraqi assassination tour. Trump will say he got the idea from Bolton (and maybe he did). But Bolton wants to hold some leverage to insure Trump doesn’t go too tar down that BS channel.

  9. Didnt see this n the news did ya?

    Democrats in the US Senate voted against this gay Trump nominee to the US Court of Appeals. Republicans supported him overwhelmingly

    Where is the news media outrage about Dems blocking a gay married man with children?

    🖕🏾

    https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/cnsnewscom-staff/trumps-appeals-court-nominee-introduces-his-same-sex-husband

    Trump’s Appeals Court Nominee Introduces His Same-Sex Husband and Twin Baby Daughters

    (CNSNews.com) – Then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Bumatay, whom President Donald Trump had nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Night Circuit, introduced his same-sex husband and their twin baby daughters when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing on Oct. 30, 2019.

    “I finally want to introduce my husband, Alex,” Bumatay told the committee at that hearing.

    “He’s an outstanding father and a trained phlebotomist,” Bumatay said.

    “Being married to a prosecutor is not always easy, but I want to thank him for all the support he has given me over the years,” said Bumatay.

    “This year, we received the greatest blessings of our lives. In April, our twin daughters, Ellie and Irena, were born,” said this Trump appellate court nominee.

    “As you can imagine, they are a handful, but we are still thankful for them,” said Bumatay. “They have changed our lives for the better in infinite ways.”

    The committee reported Bumatay’s nomination to the full Senate, and the Senate voted to confirm him 53-40 on Dec. 10. All 53 Republicans voted for Bumatay, but no Democrat voted for him. (Seven Democrats did not vote on the nomination.)

    The White House announcement, stating that President Trump had nominated Bumatay to the appeals court also said Bumatay “is a member of…the Tom Homann LGBT Law Association.”

    The website of the Tom Homann LGBT Law Association includes a page headlined, “Who Was Tom Homann?”

    “In his relatively short legal career, Tom made an enormous impact on the local community. The San Diego newspapers from the 1980s are filled with reports on his constitutional battles with the establishment,” it says.

    “He fought with the city to prevent it from shutting down the F Street adult bookstores or limiting the materials they sold; he fought city efforts to license and restrict the operations of topless bars,” it says.

    “The Tom Homann LGBT Law Association is dedicated to the advancement of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues throughout California and the nation,” the website says. “We are also the place for San Diego’s LGBTQ lawyers to network, build friendships and develop their careers.”

    “Mr. Bumatay earned his B.A., cum laude, from Yale University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School,” said the White House announcement of his nomination.

    Here is a transcript of Bumatay introducing his family, including his husband and twin baby daughters, at this confirmation hearing:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.): “Mr. Bumatay.”

    Patrick Bumatay: “Thank you Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein for holding this hearing. It is an absolute privilege to be appearing before this committee. First and foremost, I would like to thank President Trump for nominating me to the 9th Circuit. It is the highest honor.

    I’d also like to thank Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Harris for considering my nomination.

    I’d also like to thank the friends, colleagues and mentors who have supported me throughout my career. Without them, I would not be here. I would especially like to spotlight the two judges for whom I clerked. Chief Judge Tymkovich of the 10th Circuit and the late Sandra Townes of the Eastern District of New York. From these judges I learned of the utmost importance of following the rule of law and keeping an open mind. Moreover, they are great examples of humility and civility. I will always take their example with me.

    Before introducing my guest, I would like to tell you a little about my family’s story. I believe it’s the quintessential American Dream story. My grandfather came to the United States from the Philippines in the 1920s. He landed in California and worked as a farm laborer, picking fruits and vegetables in the fields of California. Through hard work and resilience, he scraped by and eventually earned a college degree and a PhD in psychology. He then returned to the Philippines to start his family. My parents came to the United States in the 1970s. With not much more than their education, work ethic, family and faith, they earned a beautiful life for my sister and me. So my family was once again blessed with the American Dream.

    My family’s story has instilled in me a love of this country, and that’s why I have dedicated my career to public service. Serving as a federal prosecutor since 2012 has been the honor of a lifetime.

    So, I am proud to introduce my parents, Dr. Joseph Bumatay, a retired ear, nose and throat surgeon, and Dr. Christine Bumatay, a retired pediatrician.

    I owe them so much and am thankful for everything they have given me.

    I also want to introduce my sister, Dr. Christine [inaudible], a pediatric nephrologist in New York. As you can see, I’m the black sheep of the family.

    My brother-in-law is also here. He is a biotech consultant and I am glad to show my nephews, Julian, age 12, and Jonah, age 10. They are great students, budding lacrosse stars, and, so, I’m a proud uncle.

    I finally want to introduce my husband, Alex. He’s an outstanding father and a trained phlebotomist. Being married to a prosecutor is not always easy, but I want to thank him for all the support he has given me over the years.

    This year, we received the greatest blessings of our lives. In April, our twin daughters, Ellie and Irena, were born.

    As you can imagine, they are a handful, but we are still thankful for them. They have changed our lives for the better in infinite ways. Once again, thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering your questions.

    1. Anonymous, your post here illustrates how rightwing media fails to inform readers of vital facts. This shamelessly stupid story you posted from CNS only tells us that this appointee is a gay Filipino. The article then emphasizes his gay lifestyle with the assumption that Democrats should embrace him simply because he’s gay. Therefore ‘Democrats are hypocrites for voting against this appointee’. And ‘mainstream media should have scandalized the Democrats for their no votes’!

      Only in the rightwing bubble would this CNS story make any sense. To anyone outside the bubble, the text of this story reads like mindless propaganda. The fact is this appointee has very light credentials for a Federal judgeship. Yet he is a member of The Federalist Society which is the ‘only’ reason Trump appointed him. And it’s a totally cynical appointment: ‘a gay Filipino who’s going to vote in lock-step with the court’s most conservative judges’. Oh and he’s very young, so he’ll be on the court for decades!

        1. I don’t see it as any special qualification that he’s gay that’s for sure. I won’t hold it against him that he’s a Pinoy.

          Sounds like he has a lot of immigration enforcement experience. This will probably be a good fit for that circuit, which needs a lot of help if you ask me, assuming he can pump out opinions as a judge.

          His “lack of experience” is relative. He has more than most lawyers do that’s for sure

          “In a written questionnaire, he acknowledged arguing twice in the 9th Circuit and filing about a dozen motions or legal briefings in appellate court. Bumatay, 41, also clerked for an appellate judge in the 10th Circuit.”

          CLERKING FOR AN APPEALS JUDGE IS ONE OF THE BASIC THINGS WE LOOK FOR AS A QUALIFICATION.
          HE DID THAT.

          SO IS ARGUING. HE HASNT DONE IT A LOT BUT HE’S DONE IT.

          GOOD NUFF! OJT FOR THE REST. lol

          1. Kurtz, your comment reflects information that was in The San Diego Union Tribune story. You didn’t get any of that from the CNS story posted by Anonymous. And that was the point I intended to make: ‘The CNS story is devoid of any pertinent information’. The CNS story is only meant to fuel Culture Wars’.

            This illustrates why I’m always referring to ‘the rightwing media bubble’. Rightwing media is only concerned with fueling Culture Wars.

            1. i guess i missed the CNS story. I dont know what CNS is.

              Not sure what you consider the right wing media bubble. You might identify precisely what this is if you want to discuss it.

              For my part, I read whatever i like and draw my own inferences. I could restrict myself to NYT and WSJ and probably it wouldn’t change my opinions much at all. But why would I? So i read a lot of financial press that does deep dive stories on things that matter, which generally fly under the radar of NYT or they just dont like where the information leads perhaps.

              Now that also reminds me, the bubble thing. Today i did see a funny video recently about poop and needles on the streets of SF and for some reason it reminded me of you. This was on a website called “Daily Caller” that i gather is disliked by you guys.

              Well, enjoy California while it lasts, and steer clear of the Hepatitis hazards!

              1. Not sure what you consider the right wing media bubble.

                He favors the Bezos and Sulzberger Birdcage Liners. Jill favors crank websites run by very strange people.

  10. I think this would read better to refer to the “inappropriate gaming of the rules by Pelosi” to be be taken in context as a response to the ‘wildly obstructive behavior’ of the Trump administration. Just saying. Every single thing you snipe at about how the House went about their inquiry/hearing can be explained by the fact that not only did the White House obstruct everything at every turn, but the White House counsel sent out a letter admitting to doing just that. To leave that part out is a wee bit lacking, me thinks.

    1. to be be taken in context as a response to the ‘wildly obstructive behavior’ of the Trump administration.

      Except that has no reality outside your imagination. He provided reams of documentation to Andrew Weissman’s crew. He balked at his confidential staff being compelled to testify in front of Adam Schiff’s sham inquiry, and contested their subpoenas. Democrats are spoiled children.

      1. And he attempted to block every witness. The fact that some refused to adhere (and essentially ruined their careers) by appearing doesn’t make it any less obstructive. Hard to get around the White House Counsel sending out a letter detailing the obstruction.

        1. Contesting a subpoena is not ‘obstruction’ and the inquiry is a sham, something partisan Democrats refuse to acknowledge because they are dishonest.

          Marie Yovanovitch is 61 years old and had already been shunted off to an institutional holding pen awaiting her pension.

          1. Actually the inquiry, in reality, was an inquiry. In your mind it was a sham. And again, White House Counsel sent a letter detailing obstructive practice. Also, add Taylor and Vindeman to the “oh nothing going on here” list.

              1. Might’ve been an inquiry that had some issues. Some self imposed. Many imposed by an obstructive administration. But it was, indeed, an inquiry. And an impeachment. Clearly, it doesn’t sit well with you but that doesn’t make it a sham.

      2. He provided reams of documentation to Andrew Weissman’s crew.
        ______________________________________

        Weissman worked for the executive branch. He was part of an investigation where the executive branch investigated itself. And yes the White cooperated fully. Giving full access to everything the investigators might want to look at, including lengthy testimony from all the Trump subordinates who testified without ever once asserting immunity or privilege.

        When Congress asked for access to some of the same evidence and testimony, the White House has been completely uncooperative. You have to ask yourself what the heck that is all about…

  11. It would be one thing for Trump to inquire about a former vice president who was corrupt. It does not matter though that the ex vp might run for president in the future. So. It is the only thing. If Biden was corrupt then we needed to know. And, he is and was corrupt. Now we know. So Dems. Bring your charges to trial in the Senate and we will call Hunter and Joe.
    Hunter and Joe… sitting in a tree. Stealing money meant for me. Lock em up and throw away the key.

  12. HA HA HA You guys think Trump is guilty and is going to be caught. That’s too funny….

    There is no chance of that happening.
    If Bolton testifies he will either clear Trump or he will open a can of worms and we will be swimming in that can-of-worms soap opera for months to come.

    But you can be sure of one thing: Trump will emerge from this smelling like a rose, because that has been the plan from the day the whistle blower filed the complaint.

    Since this is Trump manufactured scandal just as the Mueller investigation was, you can be 100% confident that the evidence will not incriminate Trump.
    You have to be stupid to believe the story that Trump wanted the Ukraine (or China) to investigate the Bidens.
    WTF good would that do? Nobody believes Ukrainians (or Chinese) to be credible.

    Trump wanted US media and Congress to investigate Biden. And he may well get what he wanted.

    1. Clearly Trump can be manipulative as that, and stupid as that all at the same time. Because reality. He proves it every single day.

  13. If they allow close witnesses to come in and tell the truth the ability to vote for the President becomes much harder! Bottom line

    1. If they allow close witnesses to come in and tell the truth the ability to vote for the President becomes much harder!
      _____________________________________________

      You are yet another one that believes the missing testimony, if presented, will incriminate Trump. It will do the opposite and that will convince many voters that Trump was right when he said he was the subject of a witch hunt and a coup attempt.

  14. Biden is not a witness to any events relevant to the impeachment charges.. JTs identity as a RNC shill is now fully unmasked as he continues to throw up lame excuses for keeping real witnesses to those charges – most of whom work or did work for Trump – from testifying in the Senate.

    1. Biden is a KEY witness. If the Bidens were in fact corrupt then the calls to investigate their corruption by the President, were fully justifiable.
      Using the logic of the Jacobin Left, if Biden is “squeaky clean” he should be eager to come and demonstrate his innocence..

      1. It is never appropriate for the President to seek damaging public pronouncements against political rivals from foreign leaders using the leverage of his office.. If the President seriously thought his primary rival was guilty of a charge, he should refer it to our justice department which is charged with maintaining objective and non partisan standards in its investigations. Joe Biden has no information relevant to whether Trump abused his office as charged.

        1. If the President seriously thought his primary rival was guilty of a charge, he should refer it to our justice department
          _________________________________________
          Yeah but that would be exactly what Trump’s echo chamber has been saying Obama and Hillary did.

    2. Biden is not a witness to any events relevant to the impeachment charges..
      ______________________________________________
      A majority of the Senate gets to decide what is relevant

  15. “Some of us have been saying for months that Bolton was signaling to the point of screaming that he was eager to testify. ”

    That is why McConnell’s response to Schumer should be the house refused to subpoena Bolton and the Senate is not under any obligation to do what the house refused to do.

    1. That is why McConnell’s response to Schumer should be the house refused to subpoena Bolton and the Senate is not under any obligation to do what the house refused to do.

      ____________________________________________
      That’s another vote for Trump is guilty

    1. The Articles of Impeachment may just be dismissed due to lack of prosecution
      _________________________________________
      That’s another vote for Trump is guilty

          1. “Ya think? How about the people I’m replying to?”
            ______________________________________________
            Jinn does not reply to people. Jinn cuts and pastes a qoute from someone else’s comment, then gives Jinn’s version of what that person said.

              1. And you?
                ———————————————-
                I rarely cut and paste.
                I had never put what someone else wrote above horizontal lines(s), then put my version of what they said below that.
                Never before today, that is. It’s just soooh clever that I’ll try it for a while.

                1. I had never put what someone else wrote above horizontal lines(s), then put my version of what they said below that.
                  Never before today, that is.
                  ________________________________
                  Today is almost over you better get started.

                2. As Jinn has indicated, it’s a perfectly fine way to post a response. The text to which one is responding is placed above the lines and the response, below.

            1. Jinn cuts and pastes a qoute from someone else’s comment, then gives Jinn’s version of what that person said.
              __________________________________

              I don’t always do that (e.g. this response) but when someone argues against hearing testimony that pretty conclusively indicates they think that testimony will incriminate Trump.

              If one believes the testimony would exonerate Trump then anyone who supports Trump would welcome the testimony because it will help Trump get reelected. If no testimony comes forth then many independent voters will assume Trump blocked the testimony because it made him look guilty.

              1. jinn – McConnell wants a speedy trial w/o witnesses. Trump wants to call witnesses because he wants to take scalps. Schumer wants witnesses because the Democrats do not have a case and he is hoping to shore up the case for them.

                Several Democratic Senators who have already declared him guilty are going to be tied up during the Iowa caucuses. A long trial makes it worse for them. And they will not be able to talk about it while the trial is going on. Trump, on the other hand, can continue to campaign and talk about the trial.

                  1. jinn – I think the reasons for having Democratic witnesses is hypocritical. The Senate plays by its rules, they do not care what I think.
                    Just for the record, I do not think Trump is guilty.

                    1. jinn – I think the reasons for having Democratic witnesses is hypocritical.
                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                      You still seem to be arguing against hearing witnesses.

                      And that still means you can’t believe the witnesses will help Trump

                      Is Bolton a Democratic witness? he might be surprised to hear that.
                      __________________________-
                      The Senate plays by its rules, they do not care what I think.
                      ____________________________
                      The Senate rules allow witnesses to testify.

                    2. jinn – Schumer was in the Senate today hoping the Republicans would not allow witnesses, so he is playing silly buggers.

                    3. Schumer was in the Senate today hoping the Republicans would not allow witnesses, so he is playing silly buggers.
                      __________________________
                      Schumer has got good reason to not want hear the testimony. He is beginning to believe the testimony will clear Trump.

                      But your resistance to further testimony still makes it clear you think Trump is guilty.

                    4. jinn – you make an illogical jump. If Schumer wants Bolton, I want the whistleblower, Schiff, Hunter and Joe Biden. I am willing to have witnesses.

                    5. I f Schumer wants Bolton, I want the whistleblower, Schiff, Hunter and Joe Biden. I am willing to have witnesses.
                      _________________________

                      You are thinking that if you can prove the WB and Schiff and Biden are all guilty then its OK that Trump is guilty too.
                      You still have Trump pegged as guilty…
                      But Trump is not guilty and that won’t be convincingly proved until the witnesses that know the facts testify.

                    6. jinn – Bolton is waaaaay too eager. I really don’t care. Whatever you think, I don’t think Trump is guilty. However, I do think the Bidens need to be investigated, as does Schiff and the whistleblower.

        1. Jinn is desperately trying to bait commenters with the reverse psychology prepubescent approach, complete with embarrassing all caps HAHAHAHA

          The Left is acting worse than anyone could have imagined. With any luck they will come across a group of those fun loving Iranian Islamists

          1. Jinn is desperately trying to bait commenters with the reverse psychology prepubescent approach,
            ______________________________________

            Yet another commenter who thinks Trump is guilty.
            You think you are being tricked into supporting witness testimony that will incriminate Trump.

            That is not going to happen. The testimony (if it happens) will exonerate Trump and you will look like a fool for believing otherwise.

          2. Frank,
            Jinn is too clever (by half) to waste his/her doublespeak here. If Jinn is not selling aluminum siding or swampland parcels, Jinn’s talents are being wasted.

  16. While at the gym this early morning, the gym TV wall monitors displayed both FOXNEWS and CNN morning shows muted with closed caption. CNN covered for 15 minutes with a chyron Bolton ready to testify while FOXNEWS displayed a chyron: Only Democrats mourn Soleimani death. The latter is a powerful message that American voters can ponder for the next several weeks regardless if it is true. It is a potent marketing jingle for Republicans.

    Democrats have hated Bolton for decades so it is instructive that they now are engaged in his endless promotion to be taken seriously. Where is Richard Painter when you need his “ethical analysis”?

    Democrats attack Trump’s choice John Bolton as ‘reckless partisan’

    “While the president may see in Mr Bolton a sympathetic sycophant, I would remind him that Mr Bolton has a reckless approach to advancing the safety and security of Americans – far outside any political party,” said Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee.

    Senator Ben Cardin, another Democrat on the committee, dubbed Bolton “an extremist and reckless partisan with little regard for US values or allies”.

    Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W Bush, decried Bolton as “by far the most dangerous man we had in the entire eight years of the Bush administration”.

    “Hiring him as the president’s top national security advisor is an invitation to war, perhaps nuclear war,” Painter tweeted. “This must be stopped at all costs.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/23/john-bolton-democrats-attack

    🙄

    1. Dick Painter is one of the people on Dr Bandy Lee’s panel of speakers who say Trump is nuts.

      Anybody with a name like Dick Painter has no business criticizing Jack Bolt Ons.

  17. It seems that Pelosi’s goal in her “strategy” was to get the impeachment business out of the way long before the upcoming election.

    I think that Bolton has boxed in the Senate Republicans, who now must issue a subpoena for him. Yes, Bolton is a wild card. But Fiona Hill’s testimony about Bolton’s reaction to Trump’s Ukraine machinations (Bolton calling it a “drug deal” and directing a staffer to “notify the lawyers”) means that Bolton’s testimony has got to hurt Trump. This all means that the impeachment will drag on and on.

    Also, as I have been saying, Prof Turley’s agitation about whether it can be said that Trump has or has not been impeached was a meaningless tempest in a teapot.

    1. I think that Bolton has boxed in the Senate Republicans, who now must issue a subpoena for him.

      They’re not required to do a blessed thing to please you. The last impeachment trial proceeded without any witnesses at all and that’s what you’re going to get. Your ilk have scrounged around for one excuse after another, and no amount of chicanery by McCabe, Weissman, and Schiff has given you what you want. Jig’s up, a**holes.

      1. Truly absurd: Duh – Thanks for reminding me that I have no influence over the Congress. And there are a lot of my “ilk” about. Finally, why do you think that your potty mouth has any influence with people who have a brain?

            1. Tony – I keep telling you, there are few basements in the Valley of the Sun. I do not have one. Someday you will have to listen.

      2. TIA, the Senate is required to fulfill their duty to hold a fair and impartial hearing. I and most Americans can live with whatever the results are if that constitutional obligation is met.

        The last impeachment hearing featured the President not disputing the facts and all witnesses already recorded, as well as subject matter deemed salacious and inappropriate for the floor of the Senate. That is not even close to being true this time. You should educate yourself on history before making embarrassing statements.

        1. bythebook – the House has sent an incomplete case (or would if they ever send it). It is not the job of the Senate to clean up their mess.

          1. Paul, The constitution does not specify what you wish it does, nor is there precedent for your position. The founders intended a Congress that was fair and thorough in their duties regarding impeachment – as with all their duties – not partisan tools doing battle for advantage while ignoring whatever the truth it. It is embarrassing for you to think that is their duty.

          2. It is not the job of the Senate to clean up their mess.
            ______________________________________

            That’s another vote for Trump is guilty

              1. You got to be kidding Paul When did the left ever offer cites when they can duck, bob, weave and stick to their real agenda?

                1. When did the left ever offer cites
                  ______________________________
                  I’m not “the left” and I quoted the pertinent statements that are evidence that my statement is correct.

                  The people who do not want to testify are obviously extremely concerned that the testimony will incriminate Trump.

                  The people who do want Bolton to testify are generally suffering from the same delusion that the testimony will incriminate Trump.

                  I’m am convinced the testimony will not incriminate Trump. It may not exonerate him either. It may just be yet another inconclusive chapter in this endless soap opera that leads to the next inconclusive chapter.

              2. citation please
                ______________________________

                The evidence that you believe Trump is guilty of impeachment Article I. Is that you don’t want to hear the testimony of the witnesses that have direct knowledge of the facts that can settle that question.

                You obviously believe Bolton and others will give testimony that is incriminating to Trump

                  1. Here is your citation that shows you do not want to hear the testimony which in turn shows that you believe the testimony will be incriminating against Trump

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/07/the-bolton-factor-pressure-builds-for-witnesses-in-the-senate-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-1910665

                    The testimony (if it happens) will exonerate Trump and that will give Trump a huge boost in convincing swing voters to vote for Trump. It will also make you look foolish for believing Trump was guilty and as a result of your belief opposing the testimony.

            1. As usual the sum and substance of the foreign ideology of the far left is presented as the Marxist Leninist style truth of the day.by the machine parts of The Collective as written by their Programmers at the behest of The Party. All of it the boringly same.

            2. It’s beyond Trump is guilty. What he’s done with Ukraine is what he’s done his whole “career.” Shakedown master. And even more so, a guy who turns off cash flow to renegotiate deals. Standard fare. What’s new here is a bunch of people freaked out when he tried it with the Ukrainians, knowing it was illegal.

              1. Paul cunningham, go read up on Ukraine, and geopolitics, before you come in here with trite and unsupportable assertions like that.

                Ukraine was meddled with in the first instance by America, and Trump’s tweaking of the aid in whatever respect, was well within the range of acceptable diplomatic choices and language. The Democrats are being totally disingenuous about the whole episode.

                Let’s get down to brass tacks. We interfered with Ukrainian politics which is why we have so much influence there now in the first place. Maidan. So this is all pot calls kettle black stuff from a to z. Fake news.

                1. Love this schlock about U.S. positioning in Ukraine, Mr. Kurtz. What Ukraine was able to muster in response to a Putin invasion was U.S. and European financial and weapon support. The Russian strategy in response has been to peel off that support through disinformation campaigns and the outright co-opting of an American president . And to try to break up NATO. They know NATO won’t intervene militarily because, frankly, Ukraine isn’t worth starting WW3 over. Look at what Trump has emphasized since in office. I’ll wait for you to research while I count up the number of lame cliches you used in your nonsernsical post.

        2. TIA, the Senate is required to fulfill their duty to hold a fair and impartial hearing

          They are required to try the impeachment. How they do it is their business. This one merits a summary dismissal.

          1. But the left doesn’t use The Constitutin they use the Communist Manifesto or one of it’s knock offs.

      3. They’re not required to do a blessed thing to please you. The last impeachment trial proceeded without any witnesses at all and that’s what you’re going to get.
        __________________________________________
        That’s another vote for Trump is guilty

      4. There is no ‘must’ except in the minds of the programmers of the machine parts of The Collective. Ad Machina.

  18. One of the things I don’t like about our legal system is its inability to distinguish farce from substance. The notion that every man must have his day in court is wrongly premised on presumptions of good faith in bringing charges. Sometimes it’s lawfare and should be summarily handled as the fraud on the tribunal it is. Trumped up, hearsay-based charges don’t need witnesses to save them, they need to go out the way they came in —- fast and furious. Lending credence to this mess of an impeachment with the obvious political and partisan motives really demeans the process and ought to have consequences for the enemies of the Republic who spawned them. It’s sedition pure and simple and should not be tolerated. Like Karl Popper said, in a tolerant society purveyors of intolerance should be suppressed and by force if necessary. The Dims are the purveyors of this intolerance of conflicting ideas.

    1. Sometimes it’s lawfare and should be summarily handled as the fraud on the tribunal it is. Trumped up, hearsay-based charges don’t need witnesses to save them
      ______________________________________________
      Another vote that Trump is guilty.

      You are wrong about Trump’s guilt, but you got one thing right, this whole thing has been a fraud (kayfabe type fraud) from the start.

      1. There you have it the proof that the machine parts are doing their part to support The Party under orders. No human presence just a made up name on a roster of made up names. No ad hominems since there is no human presence just Ad Machina.to the propaganda, poorly written and presented, by the Gobble-ists of the extreme non USA citizen left.

Leave a Reply