'I sleep at night': ...John Bolton says his testimony would not have changed impeachment

Because his counsel said he would go to court like his employee Kupperman and they felt there was a reasonable chance Bolton would appear if Kupperman did (he sure as **** should)...

Mistake?? Perhaps in hindsight, but the bottom line is the House had no expectation to get Bolton under oath in any reasonable timeframe, so they moved on...

Moving on was not a mistake... since as we have now learned, his testimony wouldn't have changed a single mind..

EDIT - When I said "the House" above, I of course mean the side of the House that cares about America...

 

and that's all we need to know. Obviously, if it was important the House would have gone after it, my guess is Shifty got word, as Bolton just admitted, his testimony would have hurt their false narrative.

 

Wow! Where did you learn all of that? Perhaps, you could name a few sources? The legislative branches represent the sovereignty of the people, upon which our political system is based. The President is elected by an electoral college, whose representatives are selected in accordance with State law, and to one degree or another must reflect a vote conducted, according to State law, every four years for the President and Vice President. The number of electors apportioned to each state is determined by the state's representation in Congress. Two from each State from their Senate representation and a varying number, based on a required census counting the total number of people in each State. And, what are your sources on impeachment?

 

"Crimes against the political system itself" AKA, Maladministration. If we want Britain's parliamentary system we can write an amendment for it. But as of now, we don't have that nor should we have that because if you think politics is a circus now, if you think lobbyists control DC now, just wait until Congress has the power to remove the President at will and whim.

 

Why the rush? Could it be this farce was a political circus designed to influence the election, given your party's dearth of candidates and ideas?

That part voted against shampeachment.

 

They have that now. Impeachment is based on articles passed by a simple majority of the House. If they don't like the way the President dresses, he may be impeached for it. Why? Because there is no appeal to a higher authority. The House has the "sole power of impeachment." Likewise in the Senate. If 2/3rds of the Senate agree with a House impeachment resolution based on the way the President dresses, he's removed from office on that basis. Why? Again...because there is no appeal. The Senate holds the "sole power to try impeachments."
What you think about the impact of the use of impeachment is irrelevant...unless you have the votes to change the Constitution.

 

Not sure what your point is...the States run elections for Senators and Congressmen as well.

They are separate and co-equal branches of Govt. The entire Executive branch vest in the President.

He is right about the "obstuction of Congress" charge...just silly to suggest a President, or that matter anyone is obstructing Congress by exercising their Constitutional rights to raise privledges and challenge their authority to order something in Court. What the House did was not only abuse their power, but attempt to coup the third branch fo Govt as well....

 

The "rush" was (and is) a President cheating in the next election...

There's a large gap between rush and the US Court System.... If there was a timely process available to get Congress the support it needs via the court, they would have used it...

There isn't... which means the system is broken....

 

Sounds like a rationalization for his poor behavior. Convenient. John, just say you were more interested in trying to cash-in on your position.

 

So since what I think is irrelevant, why do I have a forum account here then?

 

No...the President and Vice President are the only representatives elected by the electoral college. In fact, there is a case at the moment working its way through the courts that questions the constitutionality of a state to require that the electors vote according to the vote of that state. Failure for the electors to vote consistent to the popular vote is generally prohibited, but the penalty varies from state to state. In some cases, there is only a symbolic fine amount.
Co-equal? Yes...insomuch as each branch has its own powers. Co-equal in powers? Doubtful. Congress has far more oversight authority over the Executive Branch than the Executive Branch has over either the Congress or the Judiciary. Also, Congress is the sole branch with impeachment and removal powers...given the appropriate majorities. And, they may act alone. The only exception would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over the Senate trial...but even then, his decisions may be overturned by a simple Senate majority. And, even Presidential pardon powers cannot be used in impeachment cases - i.e. you cannot be pardoned from impeachment and conviction.
The power of impeachment extends to ANY federal official. On the other hand, the President requires the cooperation of the Judicial Branch to bring those in the other branches to justice...per the civil and criminal codes...which are simply laws passed by Congress. And, the Judicial system requires the Executive Branch to enforce the law.
The idea of a "Unitary Presidency" grew out of the "Imperial Presidency." Unitary sounds much better than Imperial. But the idea really seems to have grown out of the era of early to mid twentieth century...roughly from Theodore to Franklin Roosevelt, with a big Wilsonian boost in between and was probably an outgrowth of the global expansion of American power and influence. In fact, it might be possible to construct an argument that growing the power of the Presidency, while simultaneously retreating from globalism is an oxymoron.

 

Depends upon your perspective, I guess. What is relevant to someone is irrelevant to others. I wasn't attacking your right to free speech...just pointing out that unless you have the votes to change the Constitution and remove the House's "sole power of impeachment" it's probably useless to try and define "impeachable offenses," other than just to express a personal opinion.
P.S. Whether or not you have an account here does not depend upon my approval.

 

There was/is no cheating, other than the Deep State coup attempt.

There have always been disputes between branches of government, the courts are the way to settle them, not shampeachments.

Or at least your party is.

 

My basic civics classes and American History. The President is elected by the STATES. And spare me the lessons from you, debate the issue.

 

The "rush" and then Pelosi held the impeachment for more than a month, ROFL. And there was no time to be saved by not calling Bolton to testify in the impeachment, had there been a subpoena from the Senate if would have faced the same challenge in court. That's simple a leftwing canard.

 

Hillary and the DNC cheated in the last election and the DNC will cheat again in 2020 just like have been since they were stuffing ballot boxes for JFK.

The system would be better if Democrats would stop cheating and trying overturn election results. It would be better if they stood by Americans instead of subjugating them and abusing the system.

 

Not unless I know where you are coming from. My understanding of American politics and history is "mainstream." I'd be happy to name the books and authors. But, there are many perspectives on both to the left and right of the mainstream.

 

Will Bolton's own words stop the dems from spinning his words? Of course not. Dems do not let facts get in the way of their propaganda.

 

Bolton sleeps good at night because Trump is our President.

 

And another one bites the dust..............

 

I prefer to refrain from pissing matches over books and authors............just discuss the issue based on YOUR opinions.

 

No thanks. Have a nice day.

 

He's right, because no amount of evidence would cause the likes of Mitch to turn on Trump. Mitch doesn't care about the facts or integrity, only the party.

But, it would have been nice for the American people to have a clearer picture of what happened.

 

I agree with Bolton. When you have the accused controlling his own Trial, the outcome is always going to be obvious. However, Bolton's 'evidence' may well impact in the Court of Public Opinion.

 

So gladly you would likewise turn the 'microscope' 180 degrees upon yourself, - upon HRC's $ financed Steele dossier, fusion GPS --> Russia --> Obama Admin (& a number of the alphabet "intelligence" agencies) --> FISA Court felonious omissions in 2016 & x 3 FISA 're-ups' thereafter... Obviously, since you & your 'ilk' are so interested in equitable 'transparency'... ROTFL We wouldn't want to ever repeat the likes of that illicit charade... right?