• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wow, Bolton wants to testify!

I wouldn't have predicted this exactly, but it's clear that Trump doesn't have much use for the old-school Cold Warrior POV that's been Bolton's stock in trade.

I expect he looks at what Trump is doing and sees a novice wrecking a delicate balance that Bolton spent a career trying to manage.

It's sign of how messed up things are, when a vampire like Bolton is the hero we need right now.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
In the senate, which does not want to call any witnesses.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that goes against precedent, so I'm hopeful they will budge on that. We'll see.

Besides, there's nothing I know of preventing him from testifying to the House. I guess it would be separate from the impeachment process, though if his information is explosive enough, that could also change.
 

In the end it doesn't matter You could have video of Trump raping a seven year old boy and the senate Republicans would not convict.
 
He should be subpoenaed by the House immediately. He can't very well pretend there are legal hang-ups.
 
He can testify in the crapper. We don't need to hear his BS

-VySky
 
VySky said:
He can testify in the crapper. We don't need to hear his BS

-VySky
Click to expand...

Yes we must only hear from trump ass kissers.
 
redrover said:
In the end it doesn't matter You could have video of Trump raping a seven year old boy and the senate Republicans would not convict.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't really a fan of the impeachment at all but I'm warming up to it. It seems to me the GOP is in a difficult spot, because they have two choices:

If they ignore precedent and spike the impeachment without something approximating a fair trail, it's pretty obvious they are just protecting Trump and to hell with the truth, which maybe hurts them in 2020. Americans have a fairly solid grasp on fairness.

If they have an evenhanded trail, very likely additional damning information is revealed and then they have even more to explain to the electorate.
 
VySky said:
He can testify in the crapper. We don't need to hear his BS

-VySky
Click to expand...

GOPutin republicans support a lawless and treasonous president.
 
It's John's golden parachute; he has a book coming out. Why not testify? The House has no idea what he will say. Blowing Soleimani up on Route Irish was a Bolton wet dream. You think he'd be a hostile witness to the president despite his displeasure with Trump?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
My suspicion is that McConnel is better-off taking the immediate political hit for scuttling the trial, than to let the witnesses do even worse political damage. If Trump gets damaged, he won't have coat-tails, coat-tails those swing-state Senators need.
 

Um, I'd agree with the "even-handed trial" part if there were in fact actual high crimes and misdemeanors in dispute.

Not seeing any in the current set of Articles. In an actual criminal trial, a judge would throw them out. Trials are not designed to be "fishing expeditions." The purpose is for the Prosecution to PRESENT evidence, not try to find some by putting people on the stand hoping they might be able to provide it.

Meanwhile, as other people have argued, this is not an "actual" trial. This is true. The "Investigators" were the House, and before they voted they had a chance to try to get evidence. They had complete control of the process, which they then used to demonstrate absolute political bias.

The trial according to the Constitution, is conducted by the Senate. As per the same Article of the Constitution, they have complete control over the process. They want the process to mirror precedent under the Clinton example, but if the House keeps making demands, the Senate can change the rules.

Meanwhile, it's a bit late to be crying for evenhanded, when based on the lack of any real evidence, IMO no "trial" has to occur. The Senate can listen to the non-evidence provided by the House Managers, Trump (if he is wisely advised) can just sit it out, and he'd be acquitted fair and square.
 
Praxas said:
Because he knows McConnell won’t let him testify.
Click to expand...

Then he is playing with fire, because there's been indications that the Dems are considering a third article of impeachment. Pelosi could restart the inquiry and subpoena him to testify in the House.
 
Can't he just testify without a subpoena if he wants to, wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Supposing he wants to get the truth out about the 'drug deal' and Trump's corruption.
 
Praxas said:
Because he knows McConnell won’t let him testify.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to prevent the House from hearing Bolton's testimony instead. A subpoena is a subpoena.

Bolton's testimony in the House would just increase the pressure on McConnell. It will be even more clear to Americans what McConnell is doing -- preventing witnesses from testifying because he knows Trump is guilty. The longer this drags on, the worse it's going to be for Trump in the court of public opinion. Trump loses whether there is an impeachment trial or not.
 

I understand that you, like me, want Trump gone. But unlike you, I won't engage in wishful thinking. Even if the Pope testifies against Trump, even if Melania testifies against Trump, even if a hidden video is recorded of Trump laughing out loud and saying "It is amazing how easy it is to fool those stupid GOP senators, of course I wanted this quid pro quo for my own campaign; what, do those idiots think that I care about corruption?" Trump would STILL survive the impeachment trial.

The GOP senators won't convict Trump, regardless of the evidence. The odds of it happening are not zero: they are minus ten.
 

It's not wishful thinking. There is no more Republican Party if they allow Trump to get away with this. In fact, there is no more legislative branch of government if they allow Trump to get away with this. Republican Senators in statewide elections cannot be as partisan as those Repug House idiots, not if most of these Senators ever want to be re-elected.

The longer this battle over witnesses drags out, the worse it's going to be for Trump. Eventually, 60% - 70% of Americans will want Trump removed and these Republican Senators will turn.

If there is a trial, you will be surprised by the outcome, just like you were surprised that Bolton came forward today.
 
It won't be that easy. If he follows the Clinton model, then the rules for that would allow for the House managers to have a hearing on the floor to argue for their witnesses, which will be televised and shown all around the county on the evening news.

McSally, Gardner, and Collins won't be able to hide whatever their vote ends up being.
 
We have a bingo: there is no Republican party.
 
At this point, Trump could rape a dog on the WH lawn, and his followers would insist he was trying to disable a bomb in its ass.
 
By "scuttle", I meant deep-six the thing quickly using whatever methods possible. It's becoming clear to me that Pelosi is letting this thing simmer in at least part, believing there's so much "there" there that things will continue to leak out in some manner or politics will evolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…