jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:55 am
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:21 am
Very possible that Bolton could be compelled to testify in the Senate under the Senate rules.
NSC-ers Vindman, Morrison and Hill have already testified. Since you have so much public testimony from so many about Bolton already, it would be very hard to make a reasonable claim about remaining privelege. Bolton is no longer a govt employee. Plus, recall that Bolton's lawyer made that strange voluntary statement about how much relevant info Bolton has.
So I think CJ Roberts would make him testify. And if Bolton continues to try to preserve his secrets for his book and paid speeches, you could even see Bolton get jailed for contempt. Not clear, however, how much the Dems would want Bolton to testify in the Senate.
Hard to tell how unreliable or hostile Bolton might be. Unclear if the Dems would be able to vet Bolton in advance of public testimony. A key part of the House process was being able to depose each witness for 8-10 hours to figure out what they had. Having Bolton show up cold in the Senate would risk asking him questions you don't know the answer to.
Keep eyes open on Monday for the judge's ruling in the McGahn case. If, as expected, the judge rules for the House my play would be to subpoena Bolton immediately citing McGahn as precedent. That subpoena would be for a House confidential vetting depo -- either before House Intelligence or House Judiciary (who might have this matter in hand by then). Bolton would then be set up for a public House hearing or for a dramatic appearance at the Senate trial.
Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry (current cabinet level officials) and Giuliani (atty client privelege) would be tougher to compell and might be shifty/risky as witnesses.
Thought about this. Think it is risky. If you do a closed door interview, whatever the D's hear the R's hear. If he for instance says he never heard the drug deal from Trump, only from Mulvaney, Sondland, Pompeo, etc -- that bolsters the R's case, even though there are witnesses to hearing / overhearing it from Trump. If he says he hears it from Trump it is game set match, but you still don't get 67 votes. Bolton is playing a game and I just don't see any advantage, real world advantage in his testimony. You are rolling the dice and the odds are against you for winning - getting the 67. If I understood Red's post correctly, Roberts is not going to just call Bolton, either the defense or the prosecutor have to request it. Correct me if I am wrong.
I agree Bolton is too risky unless you have a
very good idea what he is going to say and are confident he would say it on TV before the American public.
Bolton is looking out for himself only. He is a very smart and savvy guy. Yes, I think he would like to write a book, be a TV commentator, etc., but I think what he wants more than anything else is to get back in power. He LOVES Power. To do that, he can’t burn bridges with the Republican Party. Obviously no Democratic administration is going to hire him. As much as he would like to stick it to Trump, I actually don’t think he wants to testify. If he stays silent, he preserves his options and doesn’t burn any bridges.
He was not part of the drug deal. Trump knows Bolton never would have gone for the Biden gambit and, thus, would not have brought him into those discussions. Trump limited those discussions to his fellow crooks, like Rudy, Mulvaney, Sondland. Bolton may not add all that much to what Fiona Hill had to say. Sure, it would be a lot sexier coming from Bolton, but the substance might not be that much different. And, for all the talk about executive privilege, conversations between Trump and Bolton might well be privileged. At least he could claim privilege and the House wouldn’t be able to get a judicial ruling compelling him to testify in time.
The other side of the coin is that Bolton might testify to some things that hurt the Democrats’ case. You saw that a little bit here and there with some of the witnesses who have been called so far. I suspect Bolton is clever enough to sprinkle in some good stuff for the Republicans. Sort of what Sondland tried to do, although Bolton would be much more sophisticated and convincing about it.
In sum, I doubt the Democrats would have an opportunity to find out ahead of time on the QT what Bolton would say. In the absence of that, it is simply too risky to call him, I think.
