The news of the Bolton book leak has electrified Washington and, as intended, has rekindled calls for witnesses. I have long stated a preference for witnesses despite my criticism of the historic blunder of the House leadership in rushing this impeachment forward on an incomplete record. However, the media has now latched on to a column in the New York Times by Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards that Chief Justice Roberts can not only order a subpoena for Bolton solely on the request of the House managers but that his decision cannot be overturned by anything less than a two-thirds vote. I believe that the premise of the argument on the vote is highly flawed and should not be seriously entertained by either the House managers or the Chief Justice.
For the record, I have long disagreed with Katyal on these and other issues raised during the Trump Administration. For example, I strongly disagreed with Katyal that the challenge going to the Supreme Court over Trump travel orders would be successful. (It wasn’t). I also disagreed with his long support for impeachment on various grounds, including what he described as a strong if not unassailable case for a bribery charge. In my recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding President Trump’s impeachment, I opposed the position of my fellow witnesses that the definition of actual crimes is immaterial to their use as the basis for impeachment — and I specifically opposed impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles I felt could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. It clearly did not view bribery as a strong article of impeachment.
We disagree on this novel argument. The long-standing rule is that the Senate ultimately controls by majority vote question of evidence. The rules include an express statement that the Senate shall debate “whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.” Katyal (and his co-authors) however come up with the novel position that this is not really an evidentiary question even if it would be a subpoena for evidence. Instead, he argues that the Senate could not overturn the Chief Justice absent a two-third vote. The basis is something of a legal slight-of-hand.
The argument is that this falls under Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” Since this rule was not changed, they argue that it would take a two-thirds vote since this goes to the foundational authority of the presiding officer.
That is highly contestable. Rule V simply refers to the general authority of the Chief Justice to issue orders, mandates, writs, and other precepts. It includes a specific reference to carrying out the decision of the Senate majority on such questions. There is no change or challenge to that authority in a fight over a subpoena. The subpoena itself is an evidentiary ruling that is subject to the majority vote of such questions. Otherwise, according to their logic, any order could be viewed as a challenge to the authority of the presiding officer and subject to a two-thirds vote.
To put it simply, the argument tries too hard. I believe that the New York Times editorial is fundamentally in error on the controlling rules. However, this is admittedly a relatively uncharted territory. Frankly, it is an area that Roberts likely would loathe to enter. Yet, if forced to do so, he should reject this argument.
The underlying assumption that John Bolton’s testimony will somehow help the Democrats in their cause to remove the President is unfounded. Although we don’t know exactly what John Bolton said in his book, we do know that the so-called anonymous sources of the leak to the New York Times were likely the Vindman brothers, who are both Democrat Party activists and were in a position to learn the contents of Mr. Bolton’s book when it was submitted for governmental review. So, the likely sources themselves are biased and unreliable.
However, before assuming what testimony Mr. Bolton might have, we should take note that the New York Times is very careful in their wording about what Mr. Bolton wrote, saying, for example, that President Trump “preferred” that Ukraine release information or “wanted” the release of information about the Democrats and the Bidens’ corrupt activities before releasing aid. For example, the New York Times saysthe following: “In his [President Trump’s] August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he PREFERRED sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.” [Emphasis added.] See, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-inquiries-he-sought-bolton-book-says/ar-BBZlMfy
Those terms, “preferred” or “wanted,” to express what President Trump purportedly told Mr. Bolton, indicate that the information in Mr. Bolton’s book, even if true, does not advance the Democrat’s impeachment case forward in the slightest. The President is already on record as “preferring” or “wanting” Ukraine to provide information about the Democrats and the Bidens’ dealing in Ukraine. The transcript of the President’s own call with President Zelensky already established that fact.
But “wanting” or “preferring” things to happen is not the same thing as demanding a specific action or making it a condition of funding Ukraine. I’m sure that President Trump would “prefer” or “want” a lot of things to happen, but that says absolutely nothing about what he actually plans or not plans to do. If Mr. Bolton wrote that a quid pro quo occurred, the New York Times would have plainly said so. But the carefully worded New York Times article tells us that this John Bolton story is much ado about nothing when we look at what it actually says, despite the usual bombast and bluster from the mainstream media characterizing the New York Times article as “explosive” and a “bombshell,” which have become two of the most overused and misused words in the English language.
Furthermore, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-TX), who serves on the House Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees, Tweeted Sunday evening, responding as follows to the New York Times article: “I keep reading in the media about how there must have been some sort of political quid pro quo scheme…And yet, apparently the one group who didn’t know about it were the people supposedly being extorted—the Ukrainians.The facts haven’t changed.”
The Bolton Leak Was Inevitable
The stakes are too high in this impeachment for Republicans to rush an acquittal without witnesses. We cant allow an acquittal only to have Bolton’s book cast a giant question mark over Trump’s ‘innocence’. Theoretically even Trump deserves to have Bolton cross-examined by White House lawyers.
Obviously Trump defenders are outraged that the New York Times has impacted the impeachment like this. But again, Bolton has to be heard. We cant move forward, as a nation, until the country is certain that Trump truly cleared his name.
you guys hate bolton now he’s your buddy huh. sad. sycophants of the war machine thats the Hillary wing of the Dem party And Sniff is the current point man. wow what a weasel
Gee nothing suspicious about this leak, eh? Too bad we can’t lock down the entire NYT building and bring ’em to the Grand Jury one-by-one to see who is strategically leaking to manipulate the Senate. I’m betting Bolton is the ring leader but there are enough apparatchiks to go around at the Times, too. We’re past fun and games. Heads need to roll. We’ve got a country to run not a middle school.
Oh pompous one, there is no legal reason to convene GJ since no crime committed.
YN ON:
“Oh pompous one, there is no legal reason to convene GJ since no crime committed.”
********************
Obstructing Congress is a crime? Don’t you listen to that Solon of the Left, Adam Schiffhead!
convene the wetwork squads
What was the obstruction? Only a sycophant sees the truth as an attempt to sway the jury. Plus it is looking like the WH leaked it.
OMG the NYT making things up! Perish the thought.
That is why John Bolton was fired because he did not agree with anything the president wanted him to do Bolton wanted the president to do what he wanted that’s not the way it works he took his advice and made his own decision in Bolton did not like it and it’s too bad because the man had a great career he ruined it all on his own
It is time to thin the herd
Another drama, another hit of adrenaline, another freakout and another rage. Its so exhausting being in America
Predictably a suicidal young woman swept the Grammy Awards.
Our country is a really hot mess
You are abusing your power, Sir
I think Roberts would not go there and would reject the argument.
At what point in the proceedings would the request be entertained by the CJ?After both sides have concluded their presentations or after questioning has concluded?
Right after Hunter Biden shows in Arkansas to settle in Court with his mistress and child, then paratroops into Congress with Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi blocking the Senate doors
This after Joe Biden tearfully cried, “my son has done nothing wrong”
🙊🙉🙈
“Joe Biden’s son Hunter ordered to Arkansas court for contempt hearing in paternity case”
CNBC
I’d like to have a dollar for every time you boast “I have long stated” or phrases to that effect.
It seems he is blocking my comments now. Replying to yours is a test.
Thank you. Turley has become unbearable like an adolescent female going through puberty. Turley swings worse than a female going through PMS all the while letting us know his feelings about…..whatever is in his head
Someone disconnect his WiFi and force him to read a book in silence all alone for half a day. She would jump out of a window just to create another headline about ….her
The NY Times the bible of falsehoods.