General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust heard on MSNBC that there me be a deal in the works with 1 witness for 1 witness...
Democrats hate it...Cruz is handling the negotiations...but who knows.
a kennedy
(29,661 posts)dflprincess
(28,078 posts)He'd let Boulton in and declare anything Biden might testify to as irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Jose Garcia
(2,598 posts)He is letting the Senators decide what the rules are.
lapfog_1
(29,204 posts)Bolton will show up and testify to nothing... all privledged conversations. Hunter Biden will show up and be inviserated for taking a large sum of money from Burisma and his dad will be smeared.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)No point in giving the scam away in advance
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)But he won't testify before the House. Doesn't that raise any red flags?
skip fox
(19,359 posts)As concerns the tapes.
And Roberts could make that decision on the spot.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)a bunch of viewers, and what'd McConnell get? It'd excite his base, but not expand Trump's following. Would those it showcased Republican corruption for be outnumbered by those who as usual grabbed any excuse to say a pox on both their houses? (Research says those who don't vote avoid it mostly because they don't care enough, their flaws ascribed to "the system." )
But a question is, would it even be legal? Maybe that doesn't matter in this corrupt proceeding, but can just anyone really be compelled to take an oath and be asked irrelevant questions for the purpose of smearing their reputation, even if they are not involved in the case being tried?
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)Joe Biden can defend himself.
Hunter Biden will come off as a sympathetic figure.
The whistleblower will be ruled irrelevent.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)This plays into exactly what Trump was trying to do there by adding legitimacy to a false narrative.
It's complete bullshit.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)nt
herding cats
(19,564 posts)It makes him appear guilty of Trump's fabricated accusations if he has to defend himself when he's never been accused by anyone other than Trump of anything inappropriate.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)this and other stories by granting a long interview with The New Yorker around last summer. That obviously didn't work. This is another chance to clear the record and put the CTs to rest once and for all.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)They're using him to gain legitimacy for Trump, and we'll get nothing.
It's a foolish idea.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)yes, if the Trump team is allowed to call Hunter Biden, yes, they will set the narrative initially.
But the biggest difference than in the past (and for that matter, the same situation would have played out in the House) is that the House will have the opportunity to cross exam Hunter Biden and will be able to ferret out what is actually relevant to the Articles of Impeachment (which is zero) as opposed to pure political posturing (which is absolute).
The reality is that in the Senate, Hunter Biden is exposed (and possibly Joe Biden but I don't see that happening really) but the exposure, at least in my opinion, puts the Republicans in a really precarious position of having to try and defend a purely political position.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)If they call him, the Democrats can ask questions too. The narrative now is that he is an unaccomplished deeply troubled person. How many Yale educated lawyers have been defined that way?
As to Joe Biden, I don't think the long hours on Benghazi harmed HRC. Consider that all but the most junior Senators know Biden personally. Many of the oldest might even have seen the Biden boys growing up.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)lark
(23,099 posts)Hunter should not go unless repugs attorneys promise in writing to not present Executive Privilege claims for anything except actual real classified information.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)and that is why it is a bad idea...It would be like having a victim forced into court for a harsh cross examination as if they were guilty of something...
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Watch and see if I'm not correct.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Bettie
(16,109 posts)Bolton is being paid a large amount of money for his upcoming book.
If it is just about how much he adores Trump, it isn't worth that.
But, I have heard (not sure where it was, and I may be wrong) he also has to get approval from the White House unless that information becomes public before that.
So, is his love for Trump greater than his love of money?
Could go either way.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)Teasing his 'anger' to make him seem a fitting witness to call, only he was actually just waiting to legitimize Trump's false narrative the entire time.
It's ultimately all about who holds the power to these people. Democracy, the Constitution, none of that matters to most in the GOP at this point.
MontanaMama
(23,314 posts)of 1 witness for 1 witness...a crack in their amor has been revealed. Keep on keeping on Dem Managers. There would be no deal making if there werent a weak link somewhere.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)kentuck
(111,095 posts)There is a much better chance to get the truth from Mulvaney than John Bolton. Just a thought.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)FBaggins
(26,737 posts)The deal is only offered as a way to mute calls for real witnesses. If 51 senators want Biden to be a witness... then hes either a witness or hes taking the 5th.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)would be an attempt criminalize the Biden's while exonerating himself...we can't do it.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)Your post gives a reason why we would want to say no... it doesnt explain how we would accomplish that.
If 51 senators want to hear from Biden then the Senate will subpoena him. Democrats dont have the option of blocking it. Biden could try to refuse to testify... but that would make Trumps case for him.
bluestarone
(16,940 posts)Do YOU think Bolton will tell the truth? ( I DO NOT) The fix is in. (my thoughts here) They say that negotiations are going on, when in fact, Do WE have any say? They could just vote to call Biden jr.. I really do not see any options for us. You know lots more than i do about this whole procedure. I far as i can see our hands are FULLY tied, so do we even have a choice as far as witness's? To add here IF Bolton does lie can the House go after him later for perjury?
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)would perjure himself to save Trump.
Now, Bolton may very well try and claim Executive Privilege and that will end up being a totally different argument within the Senate and one which Roberts may have to rule on, but Bolton can't claim that privilege, on Trump can. That should be interesting in and of itself.
bluestarone
(16,940 posts)Bolton DID state that he WOULD testify if subpoenaed. So i guess we will see!
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)right now, his subpoena request is tabled.
If we do get the 51 Senators in order to issue the subpoena, then let him and the White House put their money where their mouth is.
My guess is that if a subpoena is ultimately issued, there will be claims of Executive Privilege being made within 5 minutes of it's execution.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)bluestarone
(16,940 posts)For sure!!!
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)Bolton seems to be no fan of Trumps... but I doubt that he wants to be the one to hurt Republican chances in the election (and he's probably much happier with Trump's foreign policy moves of late - see Iran).
However... I wouldn't say that "our hands are FULLY tied". It's just that most here are misunderstanding what's happening. I doubt that there's a single House manager or party leader who thinks that Trump might be removed. Both sides are putting on a show for their intended audience (the 2020 electorate). Our side is probably just as happy to NOT get a witness so we can complain about the unfairness of not getting witnesses. I'm sure that we have an effective strategy to get as much out of this as possible whether Bolton's is called or not.
IF Bolton does lie can the House go after him later for perjury?
No. The body that he lies to (in this scenario, the Senate) could make a criminal referral for perjury... but the Senate is run by Republicans and the referral would go to Barr's DOJ. There would be a better chance if we win both the White House and the Senate... but at that point, we've already achieved what we wanted.
bluestarone
(16,940 posts)So really House managers can refuse their witness proposal Bolton for Biden JR.? ( i hope they do)
ancianita
(36,055 posts)on how quick they are to "cut deals" later.
They don't have to be perfect, but they have to be moral, so Americans know they're too smart to be baited and shafted by shysters.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)They are snakes, one and all. Do not expect good faith from any of them.
coti
(4,612 posts)1) It's the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists. Don't reward their intractable corruption by giving them what they want. Instead, PUNISH their dishonesty as it is by calling them out on what they've done here for years to come.
Hold them accountable. Don't play along.
2) Allowing a Biden to testify would severely confuse the case for the public and allow the Repubics an opportunity to control the narrative (that's at least one of the advantages of them sticking their fingers in their ears regarding the truth of Trump's conduct- they don't have shit to say for a while). Joe testifying is an absolutely terrible idea, given that he could be the Democratic presidential nominee. And allowing Hunter to be questioned- on issues that are completely irrelevant to Trump's criminal behavior, regardless of whether they're lies or not- will merely allow the GOP to distract from Trump's conduct. Additionally, we don't even know what someone like Bolton would say. Mulvaney, or Trump himself, I'd have to give more thought to, but Bolton wouldn't even be worth it.
This is just a really bad idea. Don't do it.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)between Hunter Bidens stint at Burisma and Trump and gangs corruption when there is none. Hunter and Joe Biden should not be put on trial.
C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)No, we don't need that deal.
napi21
(45,806 posts)a mistake to call a witness if you don't know what they will say! He COULD just as easily testify that DT is just using his presidential powers to protect the American people. He's ALWAYS been a big hawk and I don't trust him to speak against the pubs.
NiteOwl1
(87 posts)FBaggins
(26,737 posts)The depositions would be recorded and the majority can release anything they decide is helpful.
Somebody tell the Senate that their duty is to TRY the case as stipulated in the Constitution... not to bring irrelevant witnesses before the Senate.
Meowmee
(5,164 posts)But he is obviously bought and paid for as well. This whole thing is a bad joke, not funny at all. It was a mistake to send to senate. They should have kept articles in the house and kept having more hearings all the way up to the election. And witnesses who did not show up for a subpoena should have been jailed.
BigDemVoter
(4,150 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)They will NEVER convict.
So why give them a distraction they'll use to create more noise to dilute the Dems case?
Me.
(35,454 posts)skip fox
(19,359 posts)Scarborough cites Bolton going to the WH just before first announcing that he welcomed the opportunity to testify. He thinks Bolton and Trump's lawyers went over the executive privilege so that he couldn't testify if on the stand. Thus, trading Hunter for him would be a clear loss.
BUT
Executive privilege can be deferred since the impeachment process "preempts" it. And that could be decided by Roberts on the spot!!