Bolton says he is willing to testify in Trump impeachment trial

[webfact]

Bolton says he is willing to testify in Trump impeachment trial

By Mark Hosenball and Susan Cornwell

 

FILE PHOTO: White House former National Security Advisor John Bolton delivers remarks on North Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank in Washington, U.S. September 30, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton, said on Monday he is willing to testify in the expected Senate impeachment trial of the president, a surprise development that could potentially strengthen the case that Trump should be removed from office.

 

As a top White House aide who witnessed many of the events that prompted the House of Representatives to impeach Trump in December, Bolton could provide new evidence about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

 

Other witnesses during the House impeachment investigation testified that Bolton strongly objected to an effort by Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to pressure Kiev outside of regular diplomatic channels, with one saying he referred to the arrangement as a "drug deal."

 

Congressional investigators believe Bolton objected to Trump's decision to delay $390 million in military aid to Ukraine and could shed light on the reasons why he did so, a Senate aide told Reuters.

 

Bolton's lawyer said in November that he could shed new light on White House discussions, but he refused to participate in the House impeachment inquiry while the Trump administration and Congress battled in court for access to witnesses and documentary evidence.

 

He said he is now willing to cooperate after a judge dismissed the case last week.

 

"If the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify," Bolton said in a prepared statement. He declined further comment.

 

Democrats seized on Bolton's announcement, saying it bolstered their argument that he and three current administration officials should testify when the Senate begins its impeachment trial.

 

"If any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover up," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said.

 

Trump's fellow Republicans have resisted that idea, instead seeking a quick trial based on the evidence collected in the House that could lead to the president's expected acquittal before the 2020 presidential election campaign heats up.

 

The two sides have not come close to an agreement on how the trial should proceed, aides say.

 

In remarks on the Senate floor, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell repeated his proposal that the chamber postpone a decision on whether to call witnesses until after the trial begins. That could allow Republicans, who control the chamber by a margin of 53-47, to wrap up the trial without hearing from Bolton or other witnesses.

 

Democrats hope to persuade at least four Republicans to side with them to get the majority vote they would need to call witnesses.

 

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in Congress, has yet to send the House-approved articles of impeachment to the Senate, putting a hold on any schedule for a trial. The earliest the House could take any action would be on Tuesday when it reconvenes.

 

The Democratic-led House has charged Trump with abusing his power for personal gain by asking Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in November's presidential election.

 

It also charged the president with obstructing Congress by directing administration officials and agencies not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.

 

Trump says he did nothing wrong and has dismissed his impeachment as a partisan bid to undo his 2016 election win.

 

"I think they've lost their minds," Trump said on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, referring to Democrats.

 

The White House could potentially try to block Bolton from testifying. That dispute would probably be resolved by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who will preside over the Senate trial, or senators themselves, rather than in court, said Ross Garber, a Washington lawyer who has represented Republican governors in impeachment proceedings.

 

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Richard Cowan, Jan Wolfe and David Morgan; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Bill Berkrot)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-07

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[Somtamnication]

LOL. That house  of cards is falling fast. Get Mulveney and McGowan and voila!  Fete acompli.

[metisdead]

An irrelevant troll post has been removed. 

[Samui Bodoh]

It is speculation on my part, but I think that this is the reason that Pelosi decided to hold off sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The case of Bolton's deputy was always going to be decided, one way or another, around this time so I think she decided to wait for a resolution. The courts were never going to say that he had full immunity from testifying (the verdict was going to be 'to what extent he had to'), so this was always going to bring pressure and it has.

 

While I am sure that the White House would object to Bolton testifying, I don't see how he could avoid it, both personally and professionally.

 

I don't care for Bolton's political views, but by all accounts he is an extremely smart, competent lawyer and thus he will know that Trump's blanket claim of Presidential immunity/privilege from testimony is nonsense and that even the attempt to claim it is damaging to the US. There is such a thing as Presidential Immunity/privilege from scrutiny and it is a good thing; Presidents do need people around them to give unfettered advice free from later second-guessing by Monday Morning Quarterbacks. However, blanket immunity/privilege for people who are paid by the US government is not a good thing, and more importantly, immunity/privilege cannot be used as cover-up for illegal acts; this is ALREADY an established legal principle.

 

On a more personal level, Bolton has already received a very large advance to write a book. How could he write a tell-all book to make a profit, but not tell Congress the same stuff? It would be immoral and unpatriotic at minimum, and those are accusations that don't fit the man (he is just wrong about stuff. Very, very wrong.).

 

Once Bolton is testifying, the arguments against the others testifying crumble; buckle up, boys and girls, it's gonna get interesting!

 

Finally, I will come back to something I have posted before; the 'Trump Test'. Bolton has to be concerned about his reputation and place in history, and too close association with Trump will ruin that. The test; can anyone name a person who has seen their reputation improve based on their association with Trump? Anyone? A single name? Bolton needs to place himself outside of Trump's splash zone, and testifying is a good way to do it.

 

I have said it before and sadly need to say it again;

 

Donald Trump is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

 

Get rid of him now!

 

Oh, on behalf of the rest of humanity. please re-join the Paris Accords. TIA.

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[TopDeadSenter]

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

[sirineou]

Republicans complained that they did not have first hand witnesses , 

Well here is one.

I wonder how they will justify not wanting to hear what he has to say.

Assuming that all Democrats vote to subpoena Bolton, they will need four Republicans to vote with the democrats, Romney,  Murkowski, and Collins are possibilities so far.

But even if Bolton testifies who is to know what he will say , if anything. 

[URMySunshine]

57 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is speculation on my part, but I think that this is the reason that Pelosi decided to hold off sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The case of Bolton's deputy was always going to be decided, one way or another, around this time so I think she decided to wait for a resolution. The courts were never going to say that he had full immunity from testifying (the verdict was going to be 'to what extent he had to'), so this was always going to bring pressure and it has.

 

While I am sure that the White House would object to Bolton testifying, I don't see how he could avoid it, both personally and professionally.

 

I don't care for Bolton's political views, but by all accounts he is an extremely smart, competent lawyer and thus he will know that Trump's blanket claim of Presidential immunity/privilege from testimony is nonsense and that even the attempt to claim it is damaging to the US. There is such a thing as Presidential Immunity/privilege from scrutiny and it is a good thing; Presidents do need people around them to give unfettered advice free from later second-guessing by Monday Morning Quarterbacks. However, blanket immunity/privilege for people who are paid by the US government is not a good thing, and more importantly, immunity/privilege cannot be used as cover-up for illegal acts; this is ALREADY an established legal principle.

 

On a more personal level, Bolton has already received a very large advance to write a book. How could he write a tell-all book to make a profit, but not tell Congress the same stuff? It would be immoral and unpatriotic at minimum, and those are accusations that don't fit the man (he is just wrong about stuff. Very, very wrong.).

 

Once Bolton is testifying, the arguments against the others testifying crumble; buckle up, boys and girls, it's gonna get interesting!

 

Finally, I will come back to something I have posted before; the 'Trump Test'. Bolton has to be concerned about his reputation and place in history, and too close association with Trump will ruin that. The test; can anyone name a person who has seen their reputation improve based on their association with Trump? Anyone? A single name? Bolton needs to place himself outside of Trump's splash zone, and testifying is a good way to do it.

 

I have said it before and sadly need to say it again;

 

Donald Trump is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

 

Get rid of him now!

 

Oh, on behalf of the rest of humanity. please re-join the Paris Accords. TIA.

 

 

 

Nice stuff - particularly the "Trump Test". Trump is the most authoritarian, corrupt, and incompetent president in U.S. history.

Edited January 6, 2020 by URMySunshine

[Nyezhov]

23 minutes ago, URMySunshine said:

Trump is the most authoritarian, corrupt, and incompetent president in U.S. history.

Perfect example of why thinking folks dont take these endless screeches against Trump seriously.

 

Most Authortiarian: How soon we forget Lincoln (Habeus suspension), Wilson (Speech), Roosevelt (internments), Obama (I have a pen and the IRS). So if I ask the question: tell me what specific "authoritarian"  measures Trump has taken that make him the "most" authoritarian? Whats the answer?

 

Most Corrupt: Harding (Teapot Dome), Grant, Truman (the KC Political Machine!), Roosevelt (Sidney Hillman and the Schtarkers), Clinton (lets PERJURE ourself about fat chick hummers, thats the dumbest), Kennedy (Daddy bought my election from the Mob), Nixon (of course)......So what "corrupt" things has Trump done to compare to those luminarie?

 

Most Incompetant: My accountant says life is fabulous. Give us more incompentcy!

 

Far as I am concerned, start the trial tomorrow and call them all. Everyone. Bolton, Kushner, the Ukrainian President, the so called Whistleblower, Schiff, Pelosi, Pence, Biden, Comey, McCabe, Obama...call them all...or just dismiss it and lets move on.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Nyezhov

[Tug]

52 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

Oh the horrors lol one of the principals testifying lol just like a normal trial lol great get him up there ASAP please !

[stevenl]

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Republicans complained that they did not have first hand witnesses , 

Well here is one.

I wonder how they will justify not wanting to hear what he has to say.

Assuming that all Democrats vote to subpoena Bolton, they will need four Republicans to vote with the democrats, Romney,  Murkowski, and Collins are possibilities so far.

But even if Bolton testifies who is to know what he will say , if anything. 

See the post above yours.

They don't care about truth and facts, that ship has sailed. It is all about protecting themselves, and the whole party had aligned itself with Trump. Only when leaving Trump benefits them more will they suddenly be interested in the truth.

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

 

Everybody assumes that Bolton is going to testify against Trump. We have to keep in mind that Bolton hates everything the dems represent. Anyway they had better submit the articles or the senate will change the rules and it will be dismissed out of hand. tick tock.

[kamahele]

He will testify if the Republican controlled Senate issues a subpoena which they won't do.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

Doesnt trump only hire the best?

 

yes such a witness is acceptable. But if you dont like it then just call mulvaney and pompeo to tell the truth. What do you fear from the truth?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Everybody assumes that Bolton is going to testify against Trump. We have to keep in mind that Bolton hates everything the dems represent. Anyway they had better submit the articles or the senate will change the rules and it will be dismissed out of hand. tick tock.

Or maybe he just tells the truth instead of perjury.

 

why dont you want to know the truth?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Perfect example of why thinking folks dont take these endless screeches against Trump seriously.

 

Most Authortiarian: How soon we forget Lincoln (Habeus suspension), Wilson (Speech), Roosevelt (internments), Obama (I have a pen and the IRS). So if I ask the question: tell me what specific "authoritarian"  measures Trump has taken that make him the "most" authoritarian? Whats the answer?

 

Most Corrupt: Harding (Teapot Dome), Grant, Truman (the KC Political Machine!), Roosevelt (Sidney Hillman and the Schtarkers), Clinton (lets PERJURE ourself about fat chick hummers, thats the dumbest), Kennedy (Daddy bought my election from the Mob), Nixon (of course)......So what "corrupt" things has Trump done to compare to those luminarie?

 

Most Incompetant: My accountant says life is fabulous. Give us more incompentcy!

 

Far as I am concerned, start the trial tomorrow and call them all. Everyone. Bolton, Kushner, the Ukrainian President, the so called Whistleblower, Schiff, Pelosi, Pence, Biden, Comey, McCabe, Obama...call them all...or just dismiss it and lets move on.

Well as long as your accountant is happy then all is good.

[Nyezhov]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well as long as your accountant is happy then all is good.

Well I do find Donne's aphorism to be trite in the modern world because of his Judeo Christian assumptions, that not withstanding, since my weltanshaaung is essentially based on the philosophy of personal autonomy under a the rule of a universal diety, then yes, the happiness of my accountant does in fact equate to good in a personal, philosophical and moral sense.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   Continue with the TDS remarks and face a suspension.

 

[mamypoko]

You went after Iran without me? I'll show you

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is speculation on my part, but I think that this is the reason that Pelosi decided to hold off sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The case of Bolton's deputy was always going to be decided, one way or another, around this time so I think she decided to wait for a resolution. The courts were never going to say that he had full immunity from testifying (the verdict was going to be 'to what extent he had to'), so this was always going to bring pressure and it has.

 

While I am sure that the White House would object to Bolton testifying, I don't see how he could avoid it, both personally and professionally.

 

I don't care for Bolton's political views, but by all accounts he is an extremely smart, competent lawyer and thus he will know that Trump's blanket claim of Presidential immunity/privilege from testimony is nonsense and that even the attempt to claim it is damaging to the US. There is such a thing as Presidential Immunity/privilege from scrutiny and it is a good thing; Presidents do need people around them to give unfettered advice free from later second-guessing by Monday Morning Quarterbacks. However, blanket immunity/privilege for people who are paid by the US government is not a good thing, and more importantly, immunity/privilege cannot be used as cover-up for illegal acts; this is ALREADY an established legal principle.

 

On a more personal level, Bolton has already received a very large advance to write a book. How could he write a tell-all book to make a profit, but not tell Congress the same stuff? It would be immoral and unpatriotic at minimum, and those are accusations that don't fit the man (he is just wrong about stuff. Very, very wrong.).

 

Once Bolton is testifying, the arguments against the others testifying crumble; buckle up, boys and girls, it's gonna get interesting!

 

Finally, I will come back to something I have posted before; the 'Trump Test'. Bolton has to be concerned about his reputation and place in history, and too close association with Trump will ruin that. The test; can anyone name a person who has seen their reputation improve based on their association with Trump? Anyone? A single name? Bolton needs to place himself outside of Trump's splash zone, and testifying is a good way to do it.

 

I have said it before and sadly need to say it again;

 

Donald Trump is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

 

Get rid of him now!

 

Oh, on behalf of the rest of humanity. please re-join the Paris Accords. TIA.

 

 

 

Spot on, thanks for this post!

[earlinclaifornia]

https://www.msnbc.com/craig-melvin/watch/bolton-willing-to-testify-in-trump-impeachment-trial-if-subpoenaed-76111429738

[spiekerjozef]

Michael Bolton ?

[Sir Swagman]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

You funny funny man.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is speculation on my part, but I think that this is the reason that Pelosi decided to hold off sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The case of Bolton's deputy was always going to be decided, one way or another, around this time so I think she decided to wait for a resolution. The courts were never going to say that he had full immunity from testifying (the verdict was going to be 'to what extent he had to'), so this was always going to bring pressure and it has.

 

While I am sure that the White House would object to Bolton testifying, I don't see how he could avoid it, both personally and professionally.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but as the house already voted on the articles, more can not be added without re opening the investigation .

 

Anyway, once the senate has them they are not obliged to do more than have a vote, so will interesting to see if that happens.

 

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Oh, on behalf of the rest of humanity. please re-join the Paris Accords. TIA.

Paris accords are good as dead. Always were meaningless if China was excluded.

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

If testifying under oath it would be irrelevant if he were an impartial witness. Or is truth not important?

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

the 'Trump Test'. Bolton has to be concerned about his reputation and place in history, and too close association with Trump will ruin that. The test; can anyone name a person who has seen their reputation improve based on their association with Trump? Anyone? A single name?

I think of it as the Valdemort Syndrome: he demands fealty, but everyone who associates themselves with him comes out for the worst.  And the more dedicated they are to him the worst he treats them, like Sean Spicer.

 

It looks like a neocon may emerge as a hero of this travesty, who'da thunk?

 

 

[Estrada]

8 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

If testifying under oath it would be irrelevant if he were an impartial witness. Or is truth not important?

The truth is not important to anyone who supports Trump. nearly 16,000 lies since he became President and they lie to support him.

[Sujo]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but as the house already voted on the articles, more can not be added without re opening the investigation .

 

Anyway, once the senate has them they are not obliged to do more than have a vote, so will interesting to see if that happens.

 

Paris accords are good as dead. Always were meaningless if China was excluded.

The senate swears an oath bfore the hearing to be fair and impartial. I doubt just having a vote without hearing from witnesses would pass the oath test.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Everybody assumes that Bolton is going to testify against Trump. We have to keep in mind that Bolton hates everything the dems represent. Anyway they had better submit the articles or the senate will change the rules and it will be dismissed out of hand. tick tock.

Keep in mind much of this crime is known Bolton doesent have to testify for or against,he needs to tell the truth he could be in deep do do if he is caught Ina lie

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well I do find Donne's aphorism to be trite in the modern world because of his Judeo Christian assumptions, that not withstanding, since my weltanshaaung is essentially based on the philosophy of personal autonomy under a the rule of a universal diety, then yes, the happiness of my accountant does in fact equate to good in a personal, philosophical and moral sense.

And as such, is entirely irrelevant to issues of public concern. Maybe some will be impressed by your use of "weltanshaaung [sic]" when "world view" would do just as well.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

Republicans complained that they did not have first hand witnesses , 

Well here is one.

I wonder how they will justify not wanting to hear what he has to say.

Assuming that all Democrats vote to subpoena Bolton, they will need four Republicans to vote with the democrats, Romney,  Murkowski, and Collins are possibilities so far.

But even if Bolton testifies who is to know what he will say , if anything. 

 

Revenge is a dish best served cold! Someone sacked from a high profile role they were clearly relishing.

 

Would you believe him?

 

No doubt those who want to hear what they expect and hope he will say will.