I don't trust Bolton. If he wants to testify so badly, just step forward...

[brush]

Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2019, 07:32 PM - Edit history (2)

insead of having to be subpoenaed? His lawyer is hinting he has relevant, undisclosed info but what if he's trying to set the committee up and will try to exonerate trump with his testimony?

[mwooldri]

1. My thoughts exactly.

What has he got to hide? Is he looking for some kind of immunity deal? If it really is that important he should spit it out. Leak it via the media, then testify under oath.

[jberryhill]

2. It's not that simple

Apart from its over-use in the Trump administration, the doctrine of executive privilege does have a legitimate (although not nearly as expansive) purpose.

If someone is claiming a privilege in what you might testify about, then you open yourself up to legal jeopardy by voluntarily testifying, instead of being subpoenaed and providing the person claiming privilege the opportunity to quash that subpoena.

There is not an attorney who would advise Bolton to do what you are suggesting he do. Maybe Michael Avenatti, but I mean a real attorney who knows what he or she is doing.

[brush]

8. What about the several others STILL in the admin who have...

already testified?

[jberryhill]

14. Not direct advisors to the president

One thing you'll notice about the testimony so far, aside from the phone call itself, are people saying they were directed by the president to carry out the extortion. The circle is closing, and they will eventually run out of room to maneuver, but the WH is claiming privilege with respect to any of his advisors.

[brush]

15. The Lt. Colonel Vindman was in on the call and works in the WH.

He stepped forward, knowing his allegiance is to the Constitution, not trump.

[jberryhill]

16. Not a presidential advisor

The WH did not claim privilege in his testimony, and Vindman had no direct communications with Trump. So a privilege claim wouldn't fly.

In any event, I thought your OP contained a question. I provided an answer. You don't like the answer and want to argue about it. That's fine, but it saves time to simply state that you do not agree with the fact that the circumstances in which Bolton and Vindman find themselves are different.

[brush]

17. And I suppose the Colonel, Yovanovitch, Taylor and Hill...

none of them have lawyers?

Not likely.

[jberryhill]

18. Yes, they have lawyers

No, the WH did not claim privilege relative to their testimony.

Which of them were directed by the WH not to appear?

[brush]

20. Before trump Congressional subpoena's were not ignored and...

Bolton knows that. He can step forward voluntarily if he wants. And it's doubtful he'll suffer any legal consequences for obeying a Congressional subpoena instead of being intimidated by trump's bullying stonewalling.

The fact that he has been in negotiations, and indeed just signed a book deal is probably what's influencing his reluctance to testify. Why would he disclose what he knows in testimony and then expect people to buy his book?

IMO the whole thing of his lawyer announcing he has relevant info to tell amounts to little more than a teaser for his upcoming book.

[jberryhill]

21. I see

So, you are going with the Trump pre-emptive discrediting tactic of “he’s trying to sell a book”.

Again, it’s odd that you pose a question in the OP and then want to jump on answers with which you disagree. It would be more efficient just to state your opinion in the first place.

[brush]

22. That's all you've got? Thought we were having an on-going discussion.

[jberryhill]

23. Indeed we do

So, since I found the topic interesting enough to dig up the underlying court documents, I made it into an OP.

Please feel free to address the points raised by Bolton and Kupperman's lawyers in rejecting Mick Mulvaney's attempt to intervene in the lawsuit seeking to resolve the conflict between the WH and the House of Representatives concerning the subpoenas in question.

I've posted it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212675517

I look forward to your insightful commentary.

[stopdiggin]

11. yes. thanks.

we're living extraordinary times and circumstances. But that doesn't mean that things like privilege, classified and security no longer exist. (some parts of our government more than others, but .. still ..) Following the rules ought to be encouraged where applicable. Especially now. (despite some common sentiment hereabouts)

[brush]

13. All well and good but several patriots who have testified against...

the orange pretender seem to have felt that in this extraordinary time helping to save the republic from a despot is much more important than the despot's stonewalling.

After all, trump is the one defying Congressional oversight of the executive branch by stopping people from honoring subpoenas.

I'm with Hillary on this. She testified on Benghazi for 11 hours then brushed the dust off her shoulders and said "if you have nothing to hide, you step up and testify".

They didn't lay a glove on her.

trump seems to know that won't happen if he allows his henchmen to testify.

[dewsgirl]

3. Do you know what happened? Why didn't he testify

Thursday? The leaks about him wanting to testify, came out shortly after.

[OnDoutside]

4. Doesn't he plan to make a fortune from a tell all book ? If blurts

it out now, what's left ?

[stopdiggin]

5. I see this as Bolton trying to "game" the system

I don't imagine him a staunch defender of democratic process or rule of law (or really even national interest). His history precedes him .. and those expecting him to turn a new leaf for this occasion ...

I applaud your optimism.

[redstateblues]

6. He doesn't want to appear to be a disgruntled former employee

I think he wants to look like a reluctant witness

[Poiuyt]

7. Remember, Bolton's faults are not that he's a trump sycophant

It's that he's a foreign policy hawk. What trump did effectively weakened U.S. national security by helping Russia get the upper hand in Ukraine. I can see Bolton being shocked by that.

That said, I don't really trust him either. Are the committees able to vet his testimony first?

[FrankBooth]

12. Agree

No way can anyone trust that a-hole. Just look at his "the democrats are deranged" letter he released earlier this week. IMO, this all a big troll on Trump, but if he were to testify, he'd try his best to screw the Dems. Owning the libs is far more important than national security to these cretins.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Good intuition! He just signed book deal

Link to tweet

?s=20

[jberryhill]

24. You might want to have a look at this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212675517

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. Thanks for the link. It makes sense to be that

The courts will decide if the executive privilege is valid. That's why I didn't get why everyone was so excited that there were consequences in the newer rules for the Impeachment. And it wasn't the house who was going to decide if something was lawful.

Let's just say the court rules that X must testify. Then X doesn't show up because trump said no. Is that when the House imposes consequences?

[lunatica]

25. He's thinking politically, not criminally

Politically it means that no one can come back and use his decision against him. If he has to be subpoenaed it makes him pretty neutral politically.

[tableturner]

26. BINGO! Wants to testify...begging to be forced...cover w/far right he hopes to mine in future.