The Impeachment of President Trump

The biggly question:
Will Trump block Bolton from giving evidence in the Senate if the Senate requests his testimony?

If Trump does block it what does that say about the power of Congress?
 
Quantum Quack said:
The biggly question:
Will Trump block Bolton from giving evidence in the Senate if the Senate requests his testimony?

If Trump does block it what does that say about the power of Congress?
Click to expand...
There are people who want to testify and there are people who don't. There are also people who testified who didnt particularly want to be there. Trump can't block Bolton from testifying. US policy and a certain amount of honor code prevents him from revealing any weakness in the state of the union. That said I doubt anything Bolton would or could say will result in him himself incurring legal penalties even if it was "technically illegal to discuss legal policies", because it is his life and he is free to write about it.
 
Quantum Quack said:
The biggly question:
Will Trump block Bolton from giving evidence in the Senate if the Senate requests his testimony?

If Trump does block it what does that say about the power of Congress?
Click to expand...
How do you propose that Trump blocks Bolton from testifying, if he is subpoenaed? Executive privilege? That is a defense the President can invoke, not a weapon to stop other willing people. e.g. if the subpoenaed witness doesn’t want to testify, the president can probably use privilege to protect him/her from doing so, depending upon the nature of the intended testimony (which would possibly be a muddy area, and a dispute unto itself). But privilege can not stop a willing witness from testifying.

He could go to court and ask for a restraining order to prevent Bolton from testifying, but on what grounds? Has it ever been done before? And would a court grant such, knowing that it would be a significant upset of the checks and balances in place?

What else would you propose he do?
The most likely scenario I see would be for his legal team to simply threaten to do everything they can, raise every legal challenge they can, to prevent Bolton from testifying, and effectively threatening to drag the impeachment trial out for as long as possible (years) in the courts, in the hope that the Republicans in the Senate, not wanting this scenario, decide to reject the request for Bolton as a witness, as being the least bad case.

Time will tell. :)
 
Sarkus said:
How do you propose that Trump blocks Bolton from testifying, if he is subpoenaed? Executive privilege? That is a defense the President can invoke, not a weapon to stop other willing people. e.g. if the subpoenaed witness doesn’t want to testify, the president can probably use privilege to protect him/her from doing so, depending upon the nature of the intended testimony (which would possibly be a muddy area, and a dispute unto itself). But privilege can not stop a willing witness from testifying.

He could go to court and ask for a restraining order to prevent Bolton from testifying, but on what grounds? Has it ever been done before? And would a court grant such, knowing that it would be a significant upset of the checks and balances in place?

What else would you propose he do?
The most likely scenario I see would be for his legal team to simply threaten to do everything they can, raise every legal challenge they can, to prevent Bolton from testifying, and effectively threatening to drag the impeachment trial out for as long as possible (years) in the courts, in the hope that the Republicans in the Senate, not wanting this scenario, decide to reject the request for Bolton as a witness, as being the least bad case.

Time will tell. :)
Click to expand...
I was probably talking out of turn... so to speak... but I believed most likely incorrectly that Bolton may still be able to be restrained from testifying on the grounds that he has an ongoing security obligation to the president due to his service under his command.
Possibly being bound by some "post-employment" NDA? perhaps... ( non-disclosure agreement)
but really I am guessing...
 
Quantum Quack said:
I was probably talking out of turn... so to speak... but I believed most likely incorrectly that Bolton may still be able to be restrained from testifying on the grounds that he has an ongoing security obligation to the president due to his service under his command.
Possibly being bound by some "post-employment" NDA? perhaps... ( non-disclosure agreement)
but really I am guessing...
Click to expand...
That's basically what they said here later in the day. He is bound by an NSA NDA to not publicize any of his experience. Yet someone in the White house connected to the NSA has oversight into what he can disclose to the public.
 
Beaconator said:
That's basically what they said here later in the day. He is bound by an NSA NDA to not publicize any of his experience. Yet someone in the White house connected to the NSA has oversight into what he can disclose to the public.
Click to expand...
And?
IOW Trump can and probably will attempt to block or heavilly restrict his testimony in some manner
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
There are people who want to testify and there are people who don't. There are also people who testified who didnt particularly want to be there. Trump can't block Bolton from testifying.
Click to expand...
Odd, since he seems to be on the verge of blocking his testimony.
 
The American president is the Son of God, Dunning-Kruger. The American people worship him like Jesus.

President Donald Trump's impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz on Wednesday rolled out a novel and very Trumpian legal argument in his client's defense: The President's personal interest is the national interest when he's up for reelection.The logic here is that Trump believes his reelection is what's best for the country, so therefore whatever he does to secure a second term is, by definition, in the national interest.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/impeachment-watch-january-29/index.html
 
I hear 51 to 49... no witnesses to Trumps dishonoring his oath of office will be allowed
Is that correct?
Have the Repubs have set a precedent?
 
The Republican party has betrayed the Constitution and the American people. It's a sad day for democracy and justice.
 
(Q) said:
The Republican party has betrayed the Constitution and the American people. It's a sad day for democracy and justice.
Click to expand...
Now that the Senate (law makers) can hold a trial that blocks witnesses being called, how does that effect the entire justice system in the USA long term?
 
I don't think the Republicans realize what they've done and how this will affect their party in the future. This will be on record forever and those who voted to block will be remembered for what they did, their names forever blemished as corrupt and treasonous politicians. If and when the Democrats get back to controlling the Senate, they'll hopefully put an end to this kind of chicanery so it never happens again. I can't imagine this being long term for the justice system, because if that comes to pass, the US will be little more than a dictatorship.
 
(Q) said:
I don't think the Republicans realize what they've done and how this will affect their party in the future. This will be on record forever and those who voted to block will be remembered for what they did, their names forever blemished as corrupt and treasonous politicians. If and when the Democrats get back to controlling the Senate, they'll hopefully put an end to this kind of chicanery so it never happens again. I can't imagine this being long term for the justice system, because if that comes to pass, the US will be little more than a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
I would like to know how much money Trump has paid Mitch Mc Connell and how diligent the FBI is in the future to tracking it all down...
The result is so absurd that it can only be because significant money or threat is involved...IMO
 
The Democrats refused to let the Republicans call witnesses in the House.
The Republicans retaliate by not calling witnesses at all in the Senate.
It is the usual political poker that polarizes the nation.
It is going to be a mean campaign season.
 
candy said:
The Democrats refused to let the Republicans call witnesses in the House.
The Republicans retaliate by not calling witnesses at all in the Senate.
It is the usual political poker that polarizes the nation.
It is going to be a mean campaign season.
Click to expand...

Yes, and even worse, the reason the Democrats refused to let the Republicans call witnesses in the House, is because they knew the Republicans would shift the blame away from Trump, to the Bidens. So they should have known it would be a "repeat" in the Senate. But they did reinforce that this administration is corrupt.
 
So the world now has an unimpeachable POTUS. What can we expect and what do we do now?
Pray? Pray that Trump doesn't get itchy drone fingers again or worse?
 
(Q) said:
We can easily put up your claim which you conveniently forgot...

"Yet the economy took off, with the longest period of economic growth in all of US history, record low unemployment, and historically low minority unemployment, just by Republicans taking over."

You were responding to the era of Bush/Clinton/Obama, so I put up the data for that period of time which clearly showed the economic growth falling and unemployment rising, "just by Republicans taking over." So yes, the data does refute your claim.
Click to expand...
No, you're still just talking right past my point.

Yes, as a result of Democrats in power, not Republicans. Sorry you feel the need to lie through your teeth and ignore the facts, but that's what Trump and his supporters do.
Click to expand...
Your own cited source does not show that. Try again.
 
Neddy Bate said:
Yes, and even worse, the reason the Democrats refused to let the Republicans call witnesses in the House, is because they knew the Republicans would shift the blame away from Trump, to the Bidens
Click to expand...
Blame for what?

No Biden has been involved in the various treasons and betrayals of this Republican President. Nobody has even suggested any Biden was informed about what Trump and his minions were up to. All the Bidens were out of the loop, according to everybody in it.

Meanwhile it was the Republican President who refused to allow witnesses to testify before the House. The only "witnesses" the Democratic impeachers objected to were people who had not witnessed anything Trump or his minions did or said.
Beaconator said:
US policy and a certain amount of honor code prevents him from revealing any weakness in the state of the union.
Click to expand...
There has been no "honor code" in any Republican Congress or administration since Reagan.
Bolton, in particular, was a key player in W&Co's betrayal of both the US as a country and one of the CIA's key agents running undercover operations and monitoring nuclear weapons development in Iran: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/plamegate-the-john-bolton_b_7648
in the end, Plamegate isn’t about the outing of Valerie Plame or the sliming of Joe Wilson. It’s about Iraq and the White House’s attempt to slam the door on questions about the corrupted intelligence that was used to lead us into a disastrous war. Intel that Fleitz and Bolton played a key role in shaping.
Click to expand...
Bolton is also implicated in the public identification of the whistleblower whose first hand info pinned the Ukrainian "drug deal" on Trump and his personal reps.

There is no "honor" with these guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top