Should Bolton be allowed to testify, and why?

[BULLDOG]

Simple poll. Obviously Bolton has direct information that is relevant to the trial, but the Trump party is making great efforts to prevent that from happening. Depending on his testimony he could almost single-handedly exonerate the president. I'm particularly interested in why you think he should or shouldn't be allowed to testify.

 

[Nostra]

No. Schifferbrains should have called him in the House. Why didn't he? No do-overs in the Senate.

And the "Trump party' has not prevented anything since he hasn't even been under subpoena yet.

Your poll is based on lies. Shocker.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I would like to see all relevant individuals testify, starting with the influence peddlers around which the whole thing is based.

Bolton? Sure. Giuliani? Sure. Biden and Biden. Definitely. Schiff? For sure. Whistleblower? Definitely. Heck, I'm all for putting Obama and Hillary up there if their dirty hands are on this.

Stupid partisans only want SOME people to testify. I want all of them to testify.

 

[Muhammed]

The thing is, John Bolton resigned, apparently to spend more time with his family, trying to lobby them, on behalf of the MIC, in an effort to convince them to invade Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, China, Nova Scotia, Cleveland, Easter Island and Lichtenstein simultaneously.

However, none of that is relevant. The entire impeachment thingy is a non-starter. It is a nearly 100% partisan effort to nullify the 2016 presidential election, as evidenced by the vote in the House.

With the very notable exception of Tulsi (Gabbard D-Hawaii 2nd Directorate aka secret KGB agent ), who is the only house dem with even an iota of credibility, integrity, sanity or honesty, voting present, it was a totally partisan effort.

And the moonbat TDS support group coalition of Democrats and former 2016 failed Republican butthurt presidential candidates (Mittens, Little Marco) does not have enough votes in the Senate.

 

[Lesh]

Bolton resigned over this scandal. Of course he should testify

 

[B. Kidd]

Dimms could've taken this to Court if they hadn't been in such a damn hurry in the House shampeachment.

So no, nada, nyet, and too F'n bad!

 

[colfax_m]

Dimms could've taken this to Court if they hadn't been in such a damn hurry in the House shampeachment.

So no, nada, nyet, and too F'n bad!

They took it to trial. Now it’s time to hear from the witnesses! Don’t be a sore loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dimms could've taken this to Court if they hadn't been in such a damn hurry in the House shampeachment.

So no, nada, nyet, and too F'n bad!

Yeah, sure. Mcgahn's case started in April of last year and is still not resolved. The next president is sworn in a year from now.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Simple poll. Obviously Bolton has direct information that is relevant to the trial, but the Trump party is making great efforts to prevent that from happening. Depending on his testimony he could almost single-handedly exonerate the president. I'm particularly interested in why you think he should or shouldn't be allowed to testify.

Yes...

Why?

Like you wrote he can either save Trump or in my personal opinion sink Trump...

Bolton is a wildcard and if called this could cause Trump to go into attack mode...

 

[Nostra]

Dimms could've taken this to Court if they hadn't been in such a damn hurry in the House shampeachment.

So no, nada, nyet, and too F'n bad!

They took it to trial. Now it’s time to hear from the witnesses! Don’t be a sore loser.

Dimwingers have to work with the evidence they have.

We are following the Clinton impeachment rules. The House already had all their evidence. It isn't the job of the Senate to make a case, that's on the House.

 

[Mac-7]

No. Schifferbrains should have called him in the House. Why didn't he? No do-overs in the Senate.

And the "Trump party' has not prevented anything since he hasn't even been under subpoena yet.

Your poll is based on lies. Shocker.

Agreed

dems missed their chance to call him as a witness before voting for impeachment

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Simple poll. Obviously Bolton has direct information that is relevant to the trial, but the Trump party is making great efforts to prevent that from happening. Depending on his testimony he could almost single-handedly exonerate the president. I'm particularly interested in why you ed think he should or shouldn't be allowed to testify.

Bolton wasn't on the call and offered no evidence to the House. You keep telling us you have soooooooooooo much evidence of Trump's "crimes" why would you even need Bolton??

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I voted no. This sham circus need not be legitimized.

 

[task0778]

1. President Trump has already said that if Bolton, Mulvaney, and others are subpoenaed to testify that he will claim executive privilege, which is his right as declared by the SCOTUS. Congress can challenge that right in the courts under certain circumstances, and no doubt the decision would have to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Arguments are heard on both sides, and the justices issue a verdict, but all of that takes time. Meanwhile, the Senate is on hold, doing nothing else until the trial is over. How long does this travesty continue?

2. The democrats in the House should have subpoenaed everybody they wanted to hear from, and if Trump doesn't allow it then they should have gone to court and forced the issue then. But they declined to do that, Trump is an immediate threat to our national security and our free and fair elections, blah, blah, blah. Which we now know was a complete lie, because after they passed the Articles of Impeachment, they sat on them for a month, so much for the immediate threat. My point is, the democrats have indicated through their actions that the testimony and documents were not essential to their case against Trump, they believed that they had enough to impeach him with what they already had. So fine, roll with what you already have then. It's not like they can't have another Inquiry and impeach Trump a 2nd time if they want to.

3. It is not incumbent on the Senate to accumulate more evidence against Trump. Every American has a right to a speedy trial, including President Trump, and the fact that it isn't a criminal trial doesn't matter in that regard. Due process and his civil rights should not be discarded, and I very much doubt that Chief Justice Roberts would allow that. In this country, no one is presumed guilty if they take the 5th amendment, or in this case claim executive privilege. What the democrats have done is slap together an extremely weak case that wouldn't see the light of day in a criminal proceeding.

4. Having said all of that, it is possible that Trump may allow a recorded deposition of pre-approved questions that would not reveal the inner workings of his administration or the confidential conversations and documents that should remain private. He might do that and he might not, we'll see if it even gets that far. It could be that the president's team will call for a vote to judgment or a vote to dismiss after phase 1 of the trial is over, assuming the kill-switch option is given to them. So the question of more witnesses may be mute.

But, to answer the question in the thread title: No, I don't think Bolton or anyone else should be allowed to testify. The Dems impeached Trump, and the Senate trial should be limited to the same evidence they used to reach their decision. As a result, maybe future HoR will be more likely to take a little more time and do the impeachment process with the fairness and integrity it deserves.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only upside to this circus is seeing the clips of the leftist joURINALists crying endlessly

 

[Polishprince]

Simple poll. Obviously Bolton has direct information that is relevant to the trial, but the Trump party is making great efforts to prevent that from happening. Depending on his testimony he could almost single-handedly exonerate the president. I'm particularly interested in why you think he should or shouldn't be allowed to testify.

Why is it "obvious" to you that Ambassador Bolton is a witness to anything relevant in this case? He might not have even been on the Perfect Phone Call.

Further, even if he was on the call, how do the libs know what he will testify to?

First rule for a lawyer is to never ask a question you don't know what the answer will be.

 

[Brain357]

If he has important info of course.

 

[Jitss617]

Simple poll. Obviously Bolton has direct information that is relevant to the trial, but the Trump party is making great efforts to prevent that from happening. Depending on his testimony he could almost single-handedly exonerate the president. I'm particularly interested in why you think he should or shouldn't be allowed to testify.

To late you had a chance to gather evidence.. what’s wrong you don’t have anything? Lol

 

[Polishprince]

If he has important info of course.

Information is "important" only if its relevant to the specific charges that were filed.

 

[kiwiman127]

Why Are Trumpsters so afraid of witnesses testifying under oath and the complete array of documents tied to this case? Innocent people would welcome witnesses and documents that would exonerate them. The entire country would welcome a final conclusion to this. Who would want to be governed by a president, that a majority of the country ethically unfit to be their president. If the trial isn't complete and conclusive in it's findings, the US will become further apart than than it is now.
A fair and complete trial would erase any doubt and would maybe bring the American people a little closer together. This sharp division is not good for the country.
Why not look at the entire picture and what's best for the United States, instead of any particularly ideology?
If Republicans want to call the Bidens as it is an element to this care, fine.
All doubt should be erased.