In a state of law, a defendant has the right to challenge specific moves of the prosecutor in court. It is an administration's constiutional right to invoke executive privilege. The House Democrats deliberately did not go through the courts to clarify whether executive privilege covers Bolton in this situation, although they should have - and the reason is that a lenghty court battle would have been detrimental to the political goals of their impeachment process. The fact that they prioritized their political upside over doing everything in their power to uncover as much of the truth as possible shows what a deeply political and dishonest process this impeachment truly is.

Of course, you side with Democrats who farcically considered Trump's use of his constitutional rights to be "obstruction of Congress" (which btw isnt even a legally defined crime).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 28 2020 01:04am

To expand on the point above about how dishonest the Democrats are in their motives:

Let us imagine for a second that Trump was polling at 35% approval, with all Democrats and independents firmly against him, but still 75% approval among registered Republicans; and trailing all major Democratic candidates by double digits in the battleground states. In this scenario, the GOP couldnt just ditch him without risking a revolt by their base, but he would clearly stand no chance at reelection and be a drag for down-ballot Republicans.

Does anyone genuinely believe that the Democrats would, in this scenario, try to get Trump removed from office via impeachment 9 months before the election?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 28 2020 01:11am

Bolton is an old enough boy to make clear statement he will testify to Senate.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/480040-trump-falsely-claims-house-democrats-never-asked-bolton-to-testify
This is not an opinion or an onion article...

I'm noting down here "It is up to them, not up to the Senate!" Which is at the direction of the uneducated ones who voted for him and can't understand a shit about what's happening.



If they quick him they are also dismantling themselves... Imagine this mess.... Mitt vs Zodiac vs Ex Red Caps... It's a lose-lose-lose:
1/ they keep trump is a loss
2/ quicking him is a loss (above)
3/ delaying is a loss (suprem court etc) ... LOL "One Thousand and One Nights Mitch"

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jan 28 2020 01:36am

My point wasnt about House Democrats asking Bolton to testify, or Bolton's willingness to testify. It was about the administration's constitutional right to invoke executive privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying, and how the Democrats could and should have fought this in court. But they didnt because it would have been politically disadvantageous. Now, a few weeks later, after their political calculus has flipped around, they call wolf.

notice how you moved the goal post from "the dems didn't feel the need for him to testify" to "trump had the right to INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO TESTIFY" - despite also claiming he'd "LOVE to see john bolton testify" (another LIE ofc), and claiming it was a "perfect call" (in which case testimony from the people in the know could only HURT the dems)...

you are so committed to the very thing i predicted from the beginning of this whole impeachment trial (completely ignoring the substance, and exclusively focusing on the process), it's like you're trying to prove me right...

Oh yeah, one more thing:





Note how this doesnt contradict what I was saying! Of course the House Dems would have liked Bolton's testimony. But when they realized that the administration would delay things via the courts (irrespective of Bolton's willingness to testify), they chose to avoid this fight out of political reasons. That they impeached Trump without Bolton's testimony is an undeniable fact, and it proves that they considered his testimony non-essential at the time they impeached Trump.

Now, a few weeks later, when it has become politically convenient for them, they try to sell the public on how essential Bolton's testimony is. If his testimony was really that indispensable, they should have fought for it since the beginning.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 28 2020 01:28am

Are you saying democrats could have "forced" Bolton to testify with a court fight ? Such an hazardous (and potentially boring) way. You know delays are a big part of the equation in politics ?

Why doing this while they could simply go forward and wait Bolton to finish his draft/book, then "I am ready to testify in front of Senate." Good boy !

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jan 28 2020 01:34am

Absolutely, why wouldn't they? Temporal risk is the largest political risk there is.



The court process is too slow AND we already have SCOTUS rulings that support the House. What Trump did is akin to having separate but equal schools for black children.

This post was edited by thundercock on Jan 28 2020 01:49am

it's outright hilarious how you spin the realisation that the administration would have delayed bolton's testimony for weeks, maybe months, because they absolutely did NOT want him to testify under oath about trump's "perfect call" and his withholding of congressionally sanctioned aid to an ally, into 'considering his testimony non-essential', and therefore reasonable to block during the senate trial. that's not at all a reasonable or logic conclusion, that's just a cheap political talking point.
do you genuinely not realise how bad this looks, even if you successfully deluded yourself into believing trump did nothing wrong?

also, nice dodge on trump's LIE about wanting john bolton to testify.

Yeah, no, I dont buy that. If polls consistently showed Trump to be a liability for the GOP and to stand no chance at reelection, they would never have impeached him. Btw, temporal risk goes both ways, in this scenario, Trump's approval could just as well erode even further and hand Democrats a supermajority à la what happened in 2006->2008.




So?! I always thought you were a principled institutionalist and would always defend the way institutions work over short-term political considerations.




Lol!

-----



Sure, Trump lied when he said he wants Bolton to testify, and that his phone call was perfect.

And yes, of course it is a very bad look for Trump and his administration to block a key witness who wants to testify. I never disagreed that it is politically savvy for Democrats to now call for his testimony. My point is that this is dishonest flipflopping by the Democrats: they considered the evidence sufficient to impeach Trump even without Bolton's testimony, but now, his testimony has all of a sudden become oh-so important and indispensable.

----



Sure. But that's not how Democrats are framing this process for the public. They arent honest and say "we impeach him because he gave us an opening to do so and we expect to gain political profit out of this process". Instead they talk about morals, norms, an innocent ally which was pressured, about "protecting the country and the integrity of the upcoming election".