Donald Trump

[SWP's back]

Summary:

If the Senate subpoenas him (which they’re now very unlikely to do), he will testify.

I think they’re gonna have to. He’s a first hand material witness. Surely even Graham will have to do this.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

He said 'testify to the Senate'. That is pretty specific, and given that McConnel has said he's going to be conspiring with the White House lawyers in the conducting of the trial, unless something pretty dramatic happens it is very unlikely Bolton will testify.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I think they’re gonna have to. He’s a first hand material witness. Surely even Graham will have to do this.

Don't bet on it. Graham is compromised.

 

[SWP's back]

Stable genius

 

[SWP's back]

He said 'testify to the Senate'. That is pretty specific, and given that McConnel has said he's going to be conspiring with the White House lawyers in the conducting of the trial, unless something pretty dramatic happens it is very unlikely Bolton will testify.

It’d be interesting to see what he does if the House subpoenas him, given they still have the power to do so. Even once it’s moved up to the senate.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It’d be interesting to see what he does if the House subpoenas him, given they still have the power to do so. Even once it’s moved up to the senate.

I guess we'll see. If I were Schiff, I'd be drafting the subpoena as we speak.

This is pretty monumental, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I think they’re gonna have to. He’s a first hand material witness. Surely even Graham will have to do this.

McConnell and Graham have said several times, in various ways, that they do not want material testimony at the trial. They may not even want any testimony of any kind, and they could make that happen, which is what many of us (you included, of course) have banged on about for some time: the actual democratic institutions within the US (and UK) government are folding before our eyes.

Not even during the Clinton impeachment was there this much sycophancy (not even close, if you actually compare the process to what we are currently seeing).

It’d be interesting to see what he does if the House subpoenas him, given they still have the power to do so. Even once it’s moved up to the senate.

Bolton’s statement specifically cites the court decision to throw out the Kupperman case and then specifically mentions “if the Senate”, so I am guessing he would say the House has forgone their right to subpoena (and it would have to be taken up again by the courts to force him to testify).

 

[MillionMilesAway]

McConnell and Graham have said several times, in various ways, that they do not want material testimony at the trial. They may not even want any testimony of any kind, and they could make that happen, which is what many of us (you included, of course) have banged on about for some time: the actual democratic institutions within US (and UK) government are folding before our eyes.

Not even during the Clinton impeachment was there this much sycophancy (not even close, if you actually compare the process to what we are currently seeing).


Bolton’s statement specifically cites the court decision to throw out the Kupperman case and then specifically mentions “if the Senate”, so I am guessing he would say the House has forgone their right to subpoena (and it would have to be taken up again by the courts to force him to testify).

I agree the Senate reference is specific.
As I understand it, it requires the Chief Justice Roberts to allow a motion to call witnesses, requiring 4 Republicans to vote for it to pass. Without that, there is no way to make it happen.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Stable genius

As many of his former business partners, employees, confidants, and “friends” have said, everything he touches turns to ****.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I agree the Senate reference is specific.
As I understand it, it requires the Chief Justice Roberts to allow a motion to call witnesses, requiring 4 Republicans to vote for it to pass. Without that, there is no way to make it happen.

And even in such cases, the witnesses can still refuse to honour the subpoenas, based entirely on the precedent now set by the White House, and such action would then have to be litigated, likely eventually going to the Supreme Court, where none other than the Chief Justice (among the rest of the court, of course) would have to pass judgement or — has been his and their conservative majority’s tactic as of late — find some infinitesimal technicality allowing them to send it back to a lower court or rule in such a way as to not set any sweeping precedent of any kind, meaning any future witness refusals would also have to be litigated.