No impeachment witnesses, no John Bolton. What now?

[mystery-ak]

No impeachment witnesses, no John Bolton. What now?
by Kaylee McGhee
 | January 31, 2020 05:44 PM



The Senate has voted to move forward with the impeachment trial of President Trump without hearing from additional witnesses. Next, the Republican-controlled chamber will move to acquit, leaving many unanswered questions in its wake.

Many conservatives, my colleagues included, argued the Senate should have invited former national security adviser John Bolton to testify. The choice seemed obvious: Bolton was willing to appear before the Senate, and reports about his unreleased memoir suggested he could provide valuable information that we do not already have. The majority of the public agreed that Bolton’s testimony would be worthwhile, and, in any event, whatever information Bolton has is likely to come out.

The Republican Party disagreed.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hold-for-witness-vote-no-impeachment-witnesses-no-john-bolton-what-now

[PeteS in CA]

If Schifftyroo sees Miss Nancy's shadow, another 9 months of shampeachment investigations? The USC doesn't forbid double-jeopardy shampeachments, so Schifftyroo could subpoena Bolton and his unedited manuscript and reissue all those subpoenas he refused to fight for in the courts. You know, triple and quadruple down on their stupidity.

[Cyber Liberty]

If Schifftyroo sees Miss Nancy's shadow, another 9 months of shampeachment investigations? The USC doesn't forbid double-jeopardy shampeachments, so Schifftyroo could subpoena Bolton and his unedited manuscript and reissue all those subpoenas he refused to fight for in the courts. You know, triple and quadruple down on their stupidity.

That is my expectation if Nancy Pelosi doesn't rein these fools in.