Bolton Says He Is Willing to Testify in Impeachment Trial
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, said on Monday that he was willing to testify at President Trumps impeachment trial if he was subpoenaed.
I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify, Mr. Bolton said in a statement on his website.
The development is a dramatic turn in the impeachment proceeding, which has been stalled over Democrats insistence on hearing from critical witnesses Mr. Trump blocked from testifying in the House inquiry into his pressure campaign on Ukraine. Mr. Bolton is a potential bombshell of a witness, with crucial knowledge of the presidents actions and conversations regarding Ukraine that could fill out key blanks in the narrative of the impeachment case.
His willingness to tell the Senate what he knows ratchets up pressure on Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has refused to commit to calling witnesses at the impeachment trial, to change his stance. But it is unclear how the White House will respond to Mr. Boltons declaration, or whether the former national security adviser would defy a direct order not to testify.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/politics/bolton-testify-impeachment-trial.html
CNN
Kylie Atwood
By Kylie Atwood, CNN
Updated 11:59 AM ET, Mon January 6, 2020
(CNN)Former White House national security adviser John Bolton said Monday he is willing to testify in the Senate's impeachment trial of President Donald Trump if Bolton is subpoenaed.
"Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study," Bolton said in a statement. "I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."
This story is breaking and will be updated.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/john-bolton-testify-impeachment-subpoena/index.html
Mr. Sparkle
(2,947 posts)Maybe because he is John Bolton, and a republican, i smell something fishy.
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)Not after this fiasco. I do not trust Bolton.
BumRushDaShow
(129,440 posts)because he "promised" to do the same if subpoenaed by the House but then when the threat came to subpoena him, he suddenly said he wanted to wait for the courts to decide whether he could testify or not if given one.
Fuck him.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)Killing the general may have been sop to Bolton.
PatSeg
(47,586 posts)but what are the odds that McConnell will subpoena him? Too little too late?
The_Counsel
(1,660 posts)...but if Bolton is the former National Security Advisor, how can the White House "order" him to do ANYTHING? Seems they shouldn't be able to tell him he CAN'T testify. What'll they do if he does? Fire him?
Sanity Claws
(21,852 posts)so this is just an empty statement.
Will he make himself available to House investigators who are looking at additional impeachment articles? He didn't say that.
Bayard
(22,149 posts)I suppose Bolton could thumb his nose at that, giving the manner in which he left.
RockRaven
(14,998 posts)in response to questions the House-appointed managers *think* they know the answers to. You can't risk it.
Plus, a McConnell-controlled Senate will allow him to perjure himself and make bogus privilege claims without consequence. They would never make a criminal referral to the DOJ, and even if they did Barr would shut it down.
AnotherMother4Peace
(4,251 posts)another self serving piece of shit. Note that Bolton issued his "statement" from his PAC indicating his intent is to remain a major play in the GOP.
AnotherMother4Peace
(4,251 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)If he is only willing to testify before the Senate, and not the House, that provides Speaker Pelsoi and the House leadership lots of room to hold the existing articles out of the same partisanship concerns.
I focus on the House more than the Senate because frankly Im concerned that any concessions made by McConnell will ultimately be ignored or ratfucked to splinters.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)For him to sell books with, but the House does need to serve him one now ASAP to tell them.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)has been having wet dreams about carpet bombing Iran.
now that trump has stepped on his own dick into a possible war, JOHN BOLTON now wants to testify against the orange asshole.
I think the first words out of JOHN BOLTONS mouth will be, "HE'S DOING IT WRONG!!!#$#%@!!!!)
BumRushDaShow
(129,440 posts)getagrip_already
(14,837 posts)Since the house will be prosecuting, they have the right to depose him in private ahead of his testimony.
Hey, the gop wants process. This is process.
Let's see him dance around that.
BumRushDaShow
(129,440 posts)and he would only comply based on what was happening with the McGahn court case, so the House moved on without him.
Apparently there were arguments that did happen at an Appeals Court (3-judge panel) last week so whatever happens there might make some difference (outside of either side probably appealing again either for an en banc review and/or to the SCOTUS) -
Bart Jansen and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY Published 9:04 a.m. CT Jan. 3, 2020 | Updated 2:56 p.m. CT Jan. 3, 2020
WASHINGTON House lawyers told a federal appeals court Friday that President Donald Trump faces the prospect of new articles of impeachment as they asked judges to give them access to secret testimony gathered during the Russia investigation and to force former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify before Congress. The Justice Department, which appealed rulings by two district courts, vehemently argued against both efforts. But their challenges were met with deep skepticism from some members of the two judicial panels.
Has there ever been an instance of such a broad scale of defiance of Congress? Judge Thomas Griffith asked Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan, referring to the Trump administration's refusal to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry. Has that ever happened? Mooppan acknowledged there may be no precedent, yet he pressed to block McGahns testimony by arguing the courts have no authority to intervene in a largely political dispute.
The blunt exchange was part of a morning-long clash in back-to-back hearings in which House lawyers said the impeachment inquiry against Trump remains open. New charges could be brought, they said, if McGahn testifies and if the House reviews grand jury testimony behind the conclusions of special counsel Robert Muellers investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 election.
Last month, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president. One article accuses Trump of abusing his power by withholding military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into a political rival. The other accuses him of obstructing Congress by stonewalling most of its subpoenas for documents and testimony.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/03/house-appeals-court-hearing-compel-don-mcgahn-testimony-trump-impeachment/2740779001/
Pathwalker
(6,598 posts)sending it to the courts, where it will sit for months. IOW, bullshit promise.
Southern Blueneck
(75 posts)Now that Putin's Agent Orange has given him the attack on Iran he's been lusting after since forever.
SKKY
(11,821 posts)It makes no sense and I fear were somehow being set up.
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)wet dream of "regime change" in Iran actually to succeed, he needs a President Pence along with SoS Pompeo in office. Therefore, his decision to testify if subpoenaed might be enough to cause "regime change" at home first.