I suspect they don’t have the votes right now. But these are Republicans we’re talking about. I’d be super surprised if they get more than two votes to allow Bolton to testify.
Super late edit, but as others have already observed, this is setting up for BK, part deux:
The one thing that might move the needle with (some) low information voters who think impeachment is nothing more than partisan-as-usual politics (wonder where they got that idea from) is hearing evidence from a Republican.
JoshL
6237
I really hope I’m misunderstanding you here, because since Democrats only have the power to prevent one of those people from holding office, you’re basically saying Trump’s plan 100% worked. Biden is too damaged now to be the nominee, despite the fact that he did nothing wrong, because Trump, who is not going to be convicted, slimed him.
Biden’s not my first (or second, or third) choice, but to hand his head on a platter to Trump because of Trump’s illegal plan to undermine him seems like a bad idea.
Timex
6238
It’s a joke, because Biden doesn’t hold office.
Wasn’t Sondland a Republican? Wasn’t Mueller?
Sure, but not high profile ones like Bolton. He was on Fox after all (I don’t know for how long.) NB, his testimony won’t sway Republican voters, once you’ve left the tribe you’re as good as dead (or at least a “liberal tool.”) But this is about the mushy middle who seem to vote on impulse more than anything else.
If you’re Hunter Biden, you can’t get a job that doesn’t involve someone trying to gain favor with your father. That’s not a statement about Joe Biden. It’s not even a statement about Hunter Biden — he can’t reasonably be expected to never have a job.
So the argument “vulnerable senators are worried that voters will think badly of them if the vote to block witnesses” might have it all backwards - they just want the trial to be over as quickly as possible.
Whether this is true of the 4 most vulnerable is another matter.
I have been pretty flabbergasted that there are any grounds at all for a debate on whether to call witnesses in a fucking trial, but I didn’t want to say anything because I know nothing about Senatorial procedure and all that sort of thing.
KevinC
6246
Seriously. Saying “We don’t want witnesses because it will drag the trial on” as an actual excuse. Like… I still can’t believe people are actually saying this shit and it’s not an Onion article. Five years ago that would be an Onion article I’m laughing at.
I just don’t even know how we came here. I mean, I do, but I don’t understand how it was possible to get here. Whether you think Trump is guilty or innocent, you should want witnesses. Trump could bring in witnesses to testify to his innocence. Of course the problem is that everyone involved is saying he’s guilty because he is, but I don’t understand how voters can support this type of crap. If this was President Obama, Clinton, or Warren I’d want to hear the witnesses and see the evidence. And if they’re guilty, I want them OUT of the White House.
This sports team thing, I just don’t get it. Even in sports I don’t get it.
Even more amazing is this argument: We know the accused will try to prevent these witnesses from testifying at all, so we might as well go ahead and acquit him.
Prosecutor: I call Capone’s bookkeeper.
Judge: Now, sir, you know Capone is just going to kill the guy if you call him. How will that help?
MikeJ
6248
Looking at the wikipedia article on Clinton’s impeachment trial, it looks like all or almost all D senators voted not to call witnesses.
On January 25, Senator Robert Byrd moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment for lack of merit. On the following day, Representative Bryant moved to call witnesses to the trial, a question the Senate had scrupulously avoided to that point. In both cases, the Senate voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public, televised procedure. On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin. A day later, the Senate voted down motions to move directly to a vote on the articles of impeachment and to suppress videotaped depositions of the witnesses from public release, Senator Russ Feingold again voting with the Republicans.
I think the Democratic argument was that the impeachment lacked merit entirely, so no need to call witnesses. I think Trump’s impeachment has a lot more merit than Clinton’s, but the idea of being opposed to calling witnesses at least has precedent.
Consolations of this timeline are few and far between, but a slapfight between John Bolton and the White House is one I’ll take.
I think the Democratic argument was that there were no witnesses to call who had not already testified in the Starr inquiry, and whose testimony was not already part of the record. This was so because the Clinton White House didn’t have a blanket policy of ignoring every subpoena.
As it was, the Senate called and deposed three witnesses — Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal — all of whom had already testified before Starr’s grand jury. None of them testified differently than they had before.
vyshka
6252
I wish he would just let everything out now instead of the constant drip.
KevinC
6253
In the 24-hour news cycle, it’s probably better to drip. Americans have the attention spans of goldfish.
Why do people keep insulting goldfish by comparing them to humans?
JoshL
6255
Listening to a bit of the questioning. It is really bad. Everyone is just asking questions that were already clearly answered in the opening arguments, so it’s just repeating things we’ve already heard.
