The Democrats were up to their typical tricks, because they really do not have any sort of actual evidence
A marathon, 12-hour first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight Wednesday morning, as Trump’s legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. — in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.
Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day, which was proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., just as the clock struck midnight. The proposal would have amended the trial rules offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to immediately subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
McConnell’s rules, which were eventually adopted in a 53-47 party-line vote at 1:40 a.m. ET Wednesday and largely mirror those from the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, permit new witnesses and documents to be considered only later on in the proceedings, after opening arguments are made.
But Nadler, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a “treacherous vote” and a “cover-up” for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena amendment, claiming that “only guilty people try to hide evidence.” Bolton has reportedly described Trump’s conduct as akin to a “drug deal,” and he has indicated he would be willing to testify and provide relevant information.
I do believe that Excitable Jerry forgets how our system of Justice works. As for Bolton? There are reports that some Senate Democrats are privately mulling a Bolton for Hunter Biden testimony. No thanks. Let Joe and Hunter testify, or at least Joe, regarding his dealings with Ukraine. Anyhow, as Marc Theissen points out, if Democrats think Bolton will bring down Trump, good luck with that
Consider the irony: Senate Democrats are hoping that former national security adviser John Bolton — yes, John Bolton — will provide them with the bombshell testimony that brings down President Trump. In other words, they have pinned their hopes on a man they have vilified for years, and whose national security career they sought to destroy. Good luck with that.
It’s a long piece, worth the read, but, here’s something that really stands out
No doubt that is all true. Bolton is a foreign policy professional. But none of this means that Bolton believes Trump committed an impeachable offense. He may very well believe Trump’s decision to withhold lethal aide to Ukraine, and to raise Hunter Biden with Ukraine’s president, was wrong. (If so, he’d be correct). But not every bad decision a president makes is impeachable. I’ll bet Bolton considers President Barack Obama’s decision to release five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for U.S. Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl — an act that the Government Accountability Office found was illegal — worse than a “drug deal.†Yet no Democrats called for Obama’s impeachment over it.
You know there was no way the IRS was targeting Conservative groups without Obama’s say so. And Operation Fast and Furious. And so much more. Where were Dems on those? Republicans did not call for his impeachment, either.
Regardless of whether and how Bolton testifies, Trump is going to be acquitted. The fact that Democrats are counting on Bolton to be the hero who rescues the doomed efforts by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to end Trump’s presidency shows how weak their case really is.
So, no need for witnesses, right, Chuck?
Chuck Schumer in 1999:
"It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses. There is no need to continue forward because there are certainly not 2/3rds for impeachment"
RT if you agree with Schumer—the Senate should move to dismiss this HOAX https://t.co/cIBTxRCKUd
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 21, 2020
