EXCLUSIVE: Jim Jordan Explains Why John Bolton Shouldn’t Testify

[mystery-ak]

Henry Rodgers and William Davis
Contributor
January 27, 2020 3:50 PM ET
Font Size:

Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told the Daily Caller Monday that he still does not believe former National Security Adviser John Bolton should testify in the Senate’s impeachment trial against President Donald Trump after a New York Times report detailed an explosive new chapter in Bolton’s upcoming book.

The Times reported Sunday night that Bolton’s upcoming book will claim that Trump tied Ukrainian aid to investigations related to former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“I don’t know. I hope not,” Jordan told the Caller when asked if Bolton will eventually testify. “My attitude is whatever, you know, someone told The New York Times what John Bolton’s draft manuscript supposedly says doesn’t change the fundamental facts of the case.”

more
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/27/exclusive-jim-jordan-john-bolton-testify/

[Cyber Liberty]

This goes to Rand Paul's observation from a week or so ago:  If McConnell permits votes on individual witnesses, then Romney and Collins will see to it only Democrats get witnesses, and Trump will get zero.  If Bolton is to be called, then Schitt and Ciaramella should be called as well.  It has to be a package deal.

[XenaLee]

This goes to Rand Paul's observation from a week or so ago:  If McConnell permits votes on individual witnesses, then Romney and Collins will see to it only Democrats get witnesses, and Trump will get zero.  If Bolton is to be called, then Schitt and Ciaramella should be called as well.  It has to be a package deal.

Uh, with traitors like Romney and the other "maverick" RINOs.... it doesn't "have to be" a package deal.   But it should be.   Question is... does Romney (and others) really want to put that target on their backs?   Imagine how many millions would forever be gunning for them (politically speaking).