It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[femurphy77]

I'm saying a little prayer for all those who just can't pull themselves away from the TV coverage of this circus.

Oh, is it still on? I was over the "Impeach Trump" hysteria about a month after it started, you know on election night '16!?

 

[Doug]

The Democrats presented their iron-clad case.
Now, they drip out new information every day in an attempt to justify dragging out the trial as long as possible in an attempt to do what this impeachment was designed to do: adversely affect the Republicans in the 2020 election.

This is not about Ukraine, abuse of power, or obstruction; this is about the Democrats gaining power by any means necessary.

 

[Ingomike]

We certainly have plenty of Beale wannabes already:
From the Left: Moron Joe, Donny the Lemon, Fredo Cuomo, Retching MadCow . . .
From the Right: El Rushbo, The Hannitizer (who has begun to repeat himself nearly as much as Schiff does) . . .

ps: I must spread some reputation around before giving it to Leadeye again

One of these is not like the others from my perspective. Rush Limbaugh definitely uses the entertainment angle, but he has singlehandedly galvanized conservatives into a cohesive group that was just disparate factions before he began, and along the way he became the most influential broadcaster, likely in broadcast history.

No one on that list is even close to that...

 

[Ingomike]

Bolton doesn’t want to testify. He was just CYA-ing, hoping the WH or Senate Republicans will block his offer to testify; that way when he releases a book that spills the beans he can say “I offered to testify, but was blocked.”

This is very likely true. Also Bolton is a creature of the executive branch, he believes in executive privilege, I doubt he would ever testify without the approval of the administration he was working for or a court order, probably from SCOTUS just because of that belief...

 

[Ingomike]

So let's move on to the next logical question, can Bolton be required to testify? Does the Presidents conversation with him qualify for executive privilege? Being about foreign affairs has in past court decisions been a reason to deny the testimony to seeking parties.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[jamil]

So let's move on to the next logical question, can Bolton be required to testify? Does the Presidents conversation with him qualify for executive privilege? Being about foreign affairs has in past court decisions been a reason to deny the testimony to seeking parties.

They can subpoena him. And then when Trump claims executive privilege, the Senate could take it to court and let the judges decide. And ultimately, he would be able to testify if the court rules it. I presume they would, for crying out loud, if Bolton can put it in his book, it’s obviously not privileged. And if it is privileged, it seems Bolton would probably be in some trouble for making it public.

But. I doubt the Republican led Senate is all that eager to have Bolton testify, to pursue a subpoena.

 

[Doug]

Meh.
They will close the session because of national security concerns.
The Democrats will claim he said Trump was absolutely guilty; the Republicans will say he said no such thing.
The media will side with the Democrats like they always do.

 

[mmpsteve]

And because of NYT's quoting yet another 'anonymous' leaking source prior to the release of Bolton's book, ******* Romney thinks he would really like to hear Bolton's testimony. Freakin' dirtbag. I wouldn't **** on Romney if he was right in front of me, burning.

.

 

[Leadeye]

Always follow the book money

 

[Kutnupe14]

And because of NYT's quoting yet another 'anonymous' leaking source prior to the release of Bolton's book, ******* Romney thinks he would really like to hear Bolton's testimony. Freakin' dirtbag. I wouldn't **** on Romney if he was right in front of me, burning.

.

Bolton would be giving a FIRST hand account of an allegation. A juror wanting to be informed with as much information they can possibly obtain before voting on something, seems like correct way to do things.

 

[d.kaufman]

Bolton would be giving a FIRST hand account of an allegation. A juror wanting to be informed with as much information they can possibly obtain before voting on something, seems like correct way to do things.

Guess we shall see if it even comes to that. Sources close to Bolton tend to think the Democrats aren't gonna get the testimony they're hoping for.

https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/report-john-bolton-testimony.htm

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Bolton would be giving a FIRST hand account of an allegation. A juror wanting to be informed with as much information they can possibly obtain before voting on something, seems like correct way to do things.

Seems like the House would have subpoenaed him when they had the chance, before submitting the articles to the Senate. If they had been doing their job, that is. Now they want to change the rules. Color me unsurprised.

 

[churchmouse]

Seems like the House would have subpoenaed him when they had the chance, before submitting the articles to the Senate. If they had been doing their job, that is. Now they want to change the rules. Color me unsurprised.

Exactly unless he was told to clam up until right now to boost sales and fill the evidence (Alleged) bag at shiff crap and company.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Exactly unless he was told to clam up until right now to boost sales and fill the evidence (Alleged) bag at shiff crap and company.

I suspect this is exactly right. The timing is just a little too convenient.

 

[Vigilant]

Bolton would be giving a FIRST hand account of an allegation. A juror wanting to be informed with as much information they can possibly obtain before voting on something, seems like correct way to do things.

Then the House should have done their job and called him into their secret witness chamber? Other than that, the Senate has a mandate to vote on the Articles, NOTHING ELSE.

 

[cbhausen]

Does anyone else think Bolton’s book title could’ve been stolen from the Monica Lewinsky affair? The Room Where it Happened. LOL. Or was it a hallway?

 

[Alpo]

Seems like the House would have subpoenaed him when they had the chance, before submitting the articles to the Senate. If they had been doing their job, that is. Now they want to change the rules. Color me unsurprised.

It would have pushed the impeachment hearing out for an extended period of time, according to Pelosi. To some extent, that makes sense.

Will subpoenas be needed in the Senate trial? There is a Supreme Court justice in situ. I would hazard a guess that he can rule on the witness issue without delay.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Seems like the House would have subpoenaed him when they had the chance, before submitting the articles to the Senate. If they had been doing their job, that is. Now they want to change the rules. Color me unsurprised.

Change what rules? I was under assumption that the Senate can subpoena witnesses. Is that incorrect? That was a rhetorical question. Obviously no rules would be changed in the Senate doing so. Now I agree, the House should’ve subpoenaed Bolton themselves, but in their rush to push impeachment through, combined with the fact the WH blocked ever other person from testifying, they just decided to move forward. Still, the didn’t do their job the correct way, and should be criticized for it. Nevertheless, the House not doing its job, doesn’t justify (if one is actually seeking the truth) the Senate not doing theirs.

 

[nonobaddog]

It would have pushed the impeachment hearing out for an extended period of time, according to Pelosi. To some extent, that makes sense.

That seems kind of silly considering how she sat on the whole thing for so long. The time to question one more witness would be short in comparison.

Will subpoenas be needed in the Senate trial? There is a Supreme Court justice in situ. I would hazard a guess that he can rule on the witness issue without delay.

I don't think it is up to the Chief Justice but rather the Senate will vote on the question of having witnesses.