Skip to comments.Democrats shoot down talk of John Bolton, Hunter Biden witness swap
Posted on 01/22/2020 1:15:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Senate Democrats are dismissing chatter about attempts at an agreement that would guarantee former national security adviser John Bolton testifies in President Trump's impeachment trial in exchange for former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden also testifying.
The idea has been floated by conservatives, who argue there should be "witness reciprocity." But Democrats shot down such talk, saying Trump allies are demanding an irrelevant witness in exchange for one with firsthand knowledge of Trump's actions.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), asked about a potential swap, argued that "witnesses should have something to do with and direct knowledge of the charges against the president."
"You know, we dont need to have witnesses that have nothing to do with this that are trying to distract Americans from the truth," Schumer said.
Pressed again if he would cut a deal on witnesses, Schumer added, right now we havent heard them wanting any witnesses at all.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, called the former vice president's son "irrelevant and immaterial."
"This isn't like some fantasy football trade. ... This isn't we'll offer you this, if you give us that," he told reporters.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), asked about a potential deal during an interview with MSNBC, indicated he would not support a Biden-for-Bolton swap, calling Hunter Biden a "total sideshow."
"Focusing on Hunter Biden just furthers the entire scheme ... Trump put forward," Van Hollen said.
The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, said there was a discussion among some Democrats about supporting such a deal but senators quickly distanced themselves from the story.
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) said such a deal "would mean trading a relevant witness who should be testifying for a witness who has nothing to do with the charges against the president."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
um... sorry the Senate doesn’t take orders from the house or “negotiate”.
The Senate will call whatever witnesses they wish. PERIOD.
Democrats shoot down talk of John Bolton, Hunter Biden witness swap
Knock me over with a feather.
Whatsa matter Col. Sanders? Chicken
Well, that rules out all the witnesses that the Democrats had during the impeachment hearings in the House.
there's no electricity left in this group
The Turtle should be demanding Pencil Neck produce and Introduce the Transcripts of Michael Atkinson immediately to the Senate or face Contempt of Congress charges.
The Trump team should include dozens of people on its witness list, but the only one they need to testify right now is Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community IG who processed the "whistleblower" complaint last summer. Any other witnesses should be called AFTER he testifies about his dealings with the alleged "whisteblower" and Schiff and/or his staff.
If this is True they are worried what Bolton will say
Thus the talk of Hunter Biden and his corruption that Trump waned investigated, and thus, why the Dems do not want the truth to come out, hmmm look who wants a coverup now.
“Buk buk buk!”
I don’t have a high opinion of any Leftist, but I do know that some of them do still have two brain cells to rub together, and the ones with two brain cells are saying “What, are you stupid? Anything that gets a Biden on the stand is a form of self immolation!”
It is all Kabuki, they have no power to dictate, none. They can only pose, and the MSM is all too happy and willing to assist them.
I’d like to see the Barr / Durham report drop on top of all this impeachment nonsense. Talk about throwing a bucket of cold water on the whole process...but where is it?
If this all began illegally, if Trump associates were illegally spied on, wouldn’t this kill the whole democrat effort?
Where is it?
I think so too.
He could have been sand-bagging them. I just didn’t want to take a chance on him tossing a bucket of mud on Trump.
IMO < it’s best to take a pass on anything that isn’t a sure thing when the stakes are this high.
And what Hunter will reveal, the Dems are pickled.
For me, NO MORE NEW WITNESSES.
That ship has sailed.
This trial is about the impeachment articles brought forth by the lower house. They had all the witnesses they needed and THOSE are what the trial should focus on.
There’s no reason to drag this thing on and on any longer.
What the Dems want is to hunt for more information to possibly damage Trump. The GOP controlled Senate should not fall into this trap being laid out.
They had their chance to do it during the impeachment inquiry phase. Adam Schiff already said that they had sufficient evidence to remove Trump. If so, let’s look at those so called “sufficient” evidence to see if it fits his adjective. If they are really sufficient, why do we need more ?
So, We should be making a judgment on what they presented in the articles of impeachment. NO MORE.
I think the Left is worried, and rightfully so, that Bolton will get on the stand at their urging, then when asked pointed questions he can answer truthfully in ways that, even if he doesn’t want to answer them, won’t be able to provide the damaging information the Leftists want to get out of him.
He will be a big, fat zero for them, even if he does hold a grudge against President Trump.
I guess that rules out Eric Ciaramella for the same reason!
Ahh yes, welcome to the little totalitarians new justice system.
You must prove you are innocent of whatever crime they accuse you of. Can you prove you didn’t do it?
You are allowed to assert your innocence and assert your defenses. Then, of course, they can forget what they charged you with and instead charge you with obstruction. In effect, you are now obstructing your guilt.
Witnesses aplenty!!! So long as none of them exculpate you and you don’t get a chance to have any meaningful cross examination.
Your attorney!?!? You consulted with and attorney who advised you to plead not guilty and to assert defenses like privilege?!?!? Not anymore chief, that attorney is clearly a material witness to your obstruction of you guilt.
Heresay, why its better than any of that lame direct evidence. Some heard something from someone who may have heard something.
Opinion, why its great when its form a liberal law professor.
The hits just keep on coming from these Soviet thugs, don’t they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.