LOL, that’s the latest spin. The first was:
“It’s not true.”
When pointed out it was, the story became:
“It’s a draft, and not an official document.”
When pointed out it was a “draft” released by the Iraqi Prime Minister, the story is now:
“It’s about moving troops within Iraq. Our Brigadier General can’t write for shit.”
Riiiight. I’m picturing a Brigadier General sitting at a typewriter, hunting-and-pecking as he writes his own memorandum. Just rips it out of the typewriter, stuffs it in an envelope, and drops it in the mailbox.
I can’t rule that out, but how does he sell that to Republican senators? Trump, at least as far as we know, is still popular with his base, and it doesn’t matter what Bolton wants; it’s what the base wants. Besides, once a hot war begins, everything will move so fast that it’ll be the military, not Trump, that wages war against Iran.
If Bolton is seriously using testimony as leverage, I suspect it’s because he’s afraid Trump will chicken out like he did a few months ago. Bolton knows that Trump doesn’t have a real desire for war, and that he’s afraid of getting blamed for dead service members. If Bolton is really thinking that he can use testimony as a tool against Trump, it’s to make sure that he doesn’t chicken out this time and that he goes full throttle against the Iranian regime.
John Bolton is not honorable; he’s a war monger who will make up his own reality to get his war on.
Neither Bolton nor McConnell have any control over whether the stories of the subpoenad witnesses are compatible or contradictory. But use common sense. John and Rudy have already had a blowup. Prosecutors exploit these situations for evidentiary gains. ***This is the basic job of the person who will be representing us in the senate. ***
So it’s all about whether mitch will do this, or bolty will do that? Why is everyone so willing to frame this case, and describe this situation, an upcoming impeachment trial, without giving that one person who is sticking up for democracy any part of the damned story?
You know it’s easy to imagine going under oath and being cocky and out for yourself, if you don’t have to actually do it. In the actual event it’s different.
When you are prosecuting a criminal conspiracy the whole point is to make it so that someone will have to testify in some way he doesn’t want to, to save his own ass, and usually it will be about the culpability of someone else. Do we remember that at all?
We can have any fantasy about the rebupkis that we want to but it doesn’t make them omniscient and omnipotent.
You mean that he saw the extortion? We saw it too. That he can verify? He needs to do it in court.
drad dog, I appreciate your frustration with all this. However, I’ll wager I have far more experience with this reality than you do, given it was my job, day in and day out, for 20 years to sit in trials and be the person administering those oaths. You are absolutely right, in a normal trial setting, some folks are extremely nervous at the idea of committing perjury. But not all of them, not by a long stretch.
An impeachment trial is not a regular court trial, I’m afraid. Not by a long shot. Many of the people who will testify in an impeachment trial are quite practiced at lying, under oath and otherwise. Nor are they concerned about a DOJ they know will not pursue any criminal charges against them for any reason. Big difference.
Here’s another big difference: Without the opportunity for the House to conduct a deposition of Bolton behind closed doors and also under oath, those House managers will have no way to impeach Bolton if he is lying. The beauty of a deposition is, when a witness says something contrary in open court to what they testified to in their deposition, the trier of fact can call their attention to the discrepancy and force them to answer the question, “Sir, are you lying now? Or were you lying then?” If the House managers are unable to prepare for the impeachment trial in this way, Bolton is free to say whatever he likes and it can’t be challenged.
You’ll notice Bolton carefully worded his statement to say he would comply with a Senate subpoena – not a House subpoena. I’m quite sure that is a deliberate distinction.
I think you’re probably right about this. Bolton thinks he can escape actually testifying. But things are getting hot for him; there has been a lot of anti-Bolton sentiment expressed all over. His silence is increasingly being seen as self-serving. There’s no doubt that he’s worried about his book sales.
If he can pretend to be willing to testify (but not actually have to testify) then he can have the best of both worlds: be seen as a patriot by those opposing Trump, and be seen as a GOP loyalist by those who have the power to offer him lucrative jobs in the right-wing economy of think tanks, lobbying firms, etc. And, of course, sell a lot of books.
There’s the rub for poor John. He will lose all his ‘play both sides’ tactical advantages if the House actually does subpoena him.
And what’s to stop them?
The tricky thing for all the President’s (alleged) Men is that Bolton’s declaration–along with his public speculation that the courts might come down on the ‘honor subpoenas’ side–makes their own determined silence stand out in stark contrast. Upcoming court decisions may destroy the ‘stay silent and wait this out’ strategy. The loyalists’ resolve to cover for their demented boss is, very possibly, going to start to be highlighted for Americans in a way that will dirty their names more than they ever bargained for.
Some of them might blink.
I have no doubt that you’re correct about this. But what would be Bolton’s rationale for refusing a House subpoena, now that he’s said he’d testify in public (albeit in the Senate)?
He has none. House should call his bluff.
I think the House will call him. He may even agree to attend a deposition, though he’ll work hard not to.
Then comes testify, testify, testify. Maybe at deposition, maybe only in an impeachment hearing. (I’ll bet it will be only at the Senate hearing, and only if McConnell can find no way to avoid it.)
At the very end, no matter what else he’s said, Bolton concludes with, “But I don’t think any of this rises to an impeachable offense.”
Senate Republicans smack their lips and say, “Okie-dokie! We agree!”
The End.
Well, except now the precedent will have been established that it’s perfectly ok for a candidate to call on a foreign power to help him get elected. Unless it’s a Democrat, of course.
Is an impeachment different enough from a trial that the prosecutors of that impeachment are not in the business of finding testimonial discrepancies for evidentiary gain?
If not then I don’t see your point. If people choose to behave badly we can deal with it when it happens. It’s not compelling to me that he may not be punished for some act. We need to be recognizing “fact finding” as the main legitimate activity of the prosecutor and not letting the process be gaslighted.
How will they find “testimonial discrepancies” if Bolton does not submit to a deposition? That’s the whole reason I explained that bit.
I am not following. You need to get as many people as possible under oath as much as is possible, right? He is one of them.
What exactly does it mean when you say he “does not submit…”? He said he will obey senate calls. What’s your scenario?
When he won’t do something you want him to do, you try to make him do it, and don’t lie down and play dead? That’s what I got.
What is your theory of deposition? You need it to prevent perjury?
Good catch – I think you’re right. He’s tossing out the idea that he’ll comply with a Senate subpoena when it’s really really the House that wants him to sing like a canary.
I read someone today saying that if he believes there are no grounds on which to refuse a senate subpoena, he’s implicitly saying there are no grounds on which to refuse a house subpoena. The two are legally almost indistinguishable, and “But I don’t WANNA” isn’t a valid grounds on which to refuse either.
For the record, I will happily accept an invitation to the Cardinals’ training camp, should I receive one. I’m anxious to show off my curveball.
And may be the only one. Republican Senators are sure to limit the number of witnesses as much as they possibly can. Who will refute Bolton’s testimony if he lies? Maybe no one.
There are quite a number of scenarios, few of them favorable to Dems.
He may appear at the behest of the Senate and yet still refuse to appear before the House committees for a deposition. As LHD mentions below, there is little difference between a Senate or a House subpoena. But as I point out, that’s never stopped the Trump goons from ignoring the rules before.
No one is lying down and playing dead. The Dems just don’t have that many cards to play. Sure, they’ll subpoena Bolton. And he may comply.
But more likely, Trump will make a new garbage claim of “executive privilege,” and Bolton will pretend it doesn’t mean what he knows it means and force the House to go to court again. Too late for the House to get testimony before the Senate trial.
Suppose Bolton testifies at the Senate trial, “I never characterized the Ukraine withholding of aid as a drug deal.”
Well, we know Fiona Hill could come testify that this is a lie – but what if Senate Republicans refuse to allow the Dem House managers to call her to challenge Bolton’s lie? Then the testimony on the record in the Senate trial is that Bolton never said this. How do you refute this “testimonial discrepancy?” Yes, they can read Hill’s prior testimony into the record, but what do you think the big headline will be on the evening news?
This is one of the main differences between an impeachment trial and a regular court/jury trial: The jurors are the American people as much as the Senate Republicans, and how the headlines read each day will matter. A lot.
It’s not a “theory.” It’s what prudent triers of fact do in advance of their trials – especially with a witness who may have legal exposure and/or be hostile with reasons to lie. Haven’t you ever heard the expression that lawyers sometimes use, you should never ask a question in a trial to which you don’t already have the answer? How will the House managers get the answer before the trial if they don’t depose Bolton?
Oh, I agree, there is no real difference between a Senate or a House subpoena. Except in Trumpworld.
There’s also no such thing as “absolute immunity,” yet Bolton and others hid and continue to hide behind this bullshit privilege.
There’s never been a failure to notify all the members of the Gang of Eight of impending military action. But there was this time.
There’s never been a reason to not turn over tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee, but Steve Mnuchin simply ignores that subpoena. No problem.
There has never been a person occupying the Oval Office who is willing to commit war crimes by destroying cultural sites and say so out loud. But there is now.
Need I go on? 
I don’t think you are accounting for what happens during impeachments outside the room though, when you project and anticipate events, under the trumpworld conditions of 3 years now, (not to mention prior bad acts by mcconnell.) IOW dems have to push the politics of this until they hurt. That means pushing for stuff that the wisest of asses think are ridiculous, sometimes.
If I am an advocate of bolton testifying then I am already an advocate of others doing that too, under force if needed. If Bolton is the only person on the docket to testify, I would raise holy fucking hell.
Mcconnel loves dems talking about dem weaknesses, and the generalized hopelessness, just like putin loves it when donnie polishes his apple. “Nothing you can do” If you say it enough it becomes reasonable. Then people start saying it in message boards. It becomes the cw.
If the dems are weak here, what are the repubs? The dems are only weak under the conditions of an immoral oppostion party. It’s assymetrical. Maybe time to dig in and play for real. No witnesses, mcconnell?? How is that a strong position for him to be in? I mean if the dems are weak, the Rs must be strong, it’s zero sum. So whats the great strength we are up against. it’;s the biggest case of “mass consciousness of guilt” in history right there to see for history. I see vulnerability there.