Just heard on MSNBC that there me be a deal in the works with 1 witness for 1 witness...

[Demsrule86]

Democrats hate it...Cruz is handling the negotiations...but who knows.

[a kennedy]

1. Yup....Bolton for Hunter Biden......just heard that as well.

[dflprincess]

3. And if Roberts was truly impartial

He'd let Boulton in and declare anything Biden might testify to as irrelevant to the issues at hand.

[Jose Garcia]

43. Roberts is just the referee

He is letting the Senators decide what the rules are.

[lapfog_1]

20. It's a trap

Bolton will show up and testify to nothing... all privledged conversations. Hunter Biden will show up and be inviserated for taking a large sum of money from Burisma and his dad will be smeared.

[FBaggins]

28. But probably not in that order

No point in giving the scam away in advance

[CrispyQ]

51. Didn't Bolton meet with McConnell before agreeing to testify before the senate?

But he won't testify before the House. Doesn't that raise any red flags?

[skip fox]

57. But didn't the impeachment process "preempt" executive privilege with Nixon?

As concerns the tapes.

And Roberts could make that decision on the spot.

[Hortensis]

38. Hunter should be a trap for the REPUBLICANS. He'd draw

a bunch of viewers, and what'd McConnell get? It'd excite his base, but not expand Trump's following. Would those it showcased Republican corruption for be outnumbered by those who as usual grabbed any excuse to say a pox on both their houses? (Research says those who don't vote avoid it mostly because they don't care enough, their flaws ascribed to "the system." )

But a question is, would it even be legal? Maybe that doesn't matter in this corrupt proceeding, but can just anyone really be compelled to take an oath and be asked irrelevant questions for the purpose of smearing their reputation, even if they are not involved in the case being tried?

[DeminPennswoods]

2. No Dem should be scared of any witness the GOP wants to call

Joe Biden can defend himself.
Hunter Biden will come off as a sympathetic figure.
The whistleblower will be ruled irrelevent.

[herding cats]

5. The problem is, Hunter has literally nothing to defend here.

This plays into exactly what Trump was trying to do there by adding legitimacy to a false narrative.

It's complete bullshit.

[DeminPennswoods]

8. Hunter Biden will also get to put the truth out

nt

[herding cats]

14. Under their narrative?

It makes him appear guilty of Trump's fabricated accusations if he has to defend himself when he's never been accused by anyone other than Trump of anything inappropriate.

[DeminPennswoods]

18. Hunter Biden already tried to get out in front of

this and other stories by granting a long interview with The New Yorker around last summer. That obviously didn't work. This is another chance to clear the record and put the CTs to rest once and for all.

[herding cats]

19. Yea, I saw that and it didn't resonate. This, too, will backfire.

They're using him to gain legitimacy for Trump, and we'll get nothing.

It's a foolish idea.

[Demsrule86]

25. No, we can't legitimize what Trump did.

[PRETZEL]

39. There would be one big difference however,

yes, if the Trump team is allowed to call Hunter Biden, yes, they will set the narrative initially.

But the biggest difference than in the past (and for that matter, the same situation would have played out in the House) is that the House will have the opportunity to cross exam Hunter Biden and will be able to ferret out what is actually relevant to the Articles of Impeachment (which is zero) as opposed to pure political posturing (which is absolute).

The reality is that in the Senate, Hunter Biden is exposed (and possibly Joe Biden but I don't see that happening really) but the exposure, at least in my opinion, puts the Republicans in a really precarious position of having to try and defend a purely political position.

[karynnj]

54. Consider what his image is now - in the mainstream media and worse in the Fox News area

If they call him, the Democrats can ask questions too. The narrative now is that he is an unaccomplished deeply troubled person. How many Yale educated lawyers have been defined that way?

As to Joe Biden, I don't think the long hours on Benghazi harmed HRC. Consider that all but the most junior Senators know Biden personally. Many of the oldest might even have seen the Biden boys growing up.

[Demsrule86]

15. It is a bad idea...there is no 'truth' to get out.

[lark]

37. Yes, but it allows repugs to obscure the facts.

Hunter should not go unless repugs attorneys promise in writing to not present Executive Privilege claims for anything except actual real classified information.

[Demsrule86]

12. It is not a matter of being scared...the Bidens will be fine. It gives the President legitimacy...

and that is why it is a bad idea...It would be like having a victim forced into court for a harsh cross examination as if they were guilty of something...

[herding cats]

16. Also, I'm deeply suspicious this is a trap and Bolton is in on this.

Watch and see if I'm not correct.

[Demsrule86]

33. I think it is a trap too.

[Bettie]

46. My one tiny ray of hope is that

Bolton is being paid a large amount of money for his upcoming book.

If it is just about how much he adores Trump, it isn't worth that.

But, I have heard (not sure where it was, and I may be wrong) he also has to get approval from the White House unless that information becomes public before that.

So, is his love for Trump greater than his love of money?

Could go either way.

[Demsrule86]

22. That is what Trump wants so no.

[Iliyah]

4. Bolton I do not trust . . .

[herding cats]

9. I won't be surprised to find out he was scheming the entire time.

Teasing his 'anger' to make him seem a fitting witness to call, only he was actually just waiting to legitimize Trump's false narrative the entire time.

It's ultimately all about who holds the power to these people. Democracy, the Constitution, none of that matters to most in the GOP at this point.

[MontanaMama]

6. If the Pukes are willing to negotiate a deal

of 1 witness for 1 witness...a crack in their amor has been revealed. Keep on keeping on Dem Managers. There would be no deal making if there weren’t a weak link somewhere.

[Demsrule86]

24. I am thinking we will get a better deal.

[kentuck]

7. I believe Biden for Mulvaney would be better.

There is a much better chance to get the truth from Mulvaney than John Bolton. Just a thought.

[Iliyah]

10. yes

[Demsrule86]

23. No to Biden...we are not going to give Trump want he wants period.

[FBaggins]

29. We don't have much of a choice

The “deal” is only offered as a way to mute calls for real witnesses. If 51 senators want Biden to be a witness... then he’s either a witness or he’s taking the 5th.

[Demsrule86]

32. Yes we do. And we can call all the witnesses we want ...Trump isn't going to be convicted...this

would be an attempt criminalize the Biden's while exonerating himself...we can't do it.

[FBaggins]

34. How?

Your post gives a reason why we would want to say “no”... it doesn’t explain how we would accomplish that.

If 51 senators want to hear from Biden then the Senate will subpoena him. Democrats don’t have the option of blocking it. Biden could try to refuse to testify... but that would make Trump’s case for him.

[bluestarone]

40. 100% agree! Senate makes the rules. My question to you is

Do YOU think Bolton will tell the truth? ( I DO NOT) The fix is in. (my thoughts here) They say that negotiations are going on, when in fact, Do WE have any say? They could just vote to call Biden jr.. I really do not see any options for us. You know lots more than i do about this whole procedure. I far as i can see our hands are FULLY tied, so do we even have a choice as far as witness's? To add here IF Bolton does lie can the House go after him later for perjury?

[PRETZEL]

41. I don't see under any circumstances where Bolton

would perjure himself to save Trump.

Now, Bolton may very well try and claim Executive Privilege and that will end up being a totally different argument within the Senate and one which Roberts may have to rule on, but Bolton can't claim that privilege, on Trump can. That should be interesting in and of itself.

[bluestarone]

42. Yea BUT

Bolton DID state that he WOULD testify if subpoenaed. So i guess we will see!

[PRETZEL]

48. Agree we need to see

right now, his subpoena request is tabled.

If we do get the 51 Senators in order to issue the subpoena, then let him and the White House put their money where their mouth is.

My guess is that if a subpoena is ultimately issued, there will be claims of Executive Privilege being made within 5 minutes of it's execution.

[FBaggins]

49. He also said that right after talking with McConnell nt

[bluestarone]

50. SMELLS BAD!!

For sure!!!

[FBaggins]

44. I have no faith in Bolton... but our hands aren't fully "tied"

Bolton seems to be no fan of Trumps... but I doubt that he wants to be the one to hurt Republican chances in the election (and he's probably much happier with Trump's foreign policy moves of late - see Iran).

However... I wouldn't say that "our hands are FULLY tied". It's just that most here are misunderstanding what's happening. I doubt that there's a single House manager or party leader who thinks that Trump might be removed. Both sides are putting on a show for their intended audience (the 2020 electorate). Our side is probably just as happy to NOT get a witness so we can complain about the unfairness of not getting witnesses. I'm sure that we have an effective strategy to get as much out of this as possible whether Bolton's is called or not.

IF Bolton does lie can the House go after him later for perjury?

No. The body that he lies to (in this scenario, the Senate) could make a criminal referral for perjury... but the Senate is run by Republicans and the referral would go to Barr's DOJ. There would be a better chance if we win both the White House and the Senate... but at that point, we've already achieved what we wanted.

[bluestarone]

47. I do see your point! TY

So really House managers can refuse their witness proposal Bolton for Biden JR.? ( i hope they do)

[ancianita]

11. This cannot happen. Whoever they swap will give nothing, and 45'll use the "both do it" attack

on how quick they are to "cut deals" later.

They don't have to be perfect, but they have to be moral, so Americans know they're too smart to be baited and shafted by shysters.

[Demsrule86]

13. I agree.

[herding cats]

17. This is what I'm expecting.

They are snakes, one and all. Do not expect good faith from any of them.

[coti]

21. That's an awful idea, for a couple of reasons.

1) It's the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists. Don't reward their intractable corruption by giving them what they want. Instead, PUNISH their dishonesty as it is by calling them out on what they've done here for years to come.

Hold them accountable. Don't play along.

2) Allowing a Biden to testify would severely confuse the case for the public and allow the Repubics an opportunity to control the narrative (that's at least one of the advantages of them sticking their fingers in their ears regarding the truth of Trump's conduct- they don't have shit to say for a while). Joe testifying is an absolutely terrible idea, given that he could be the Democratic presidential nominee. And allowing Hunter to be questioned- on issues that are completely irrelevant to Trump's criminal behavior, regardless of whether they're lies or not- will merely allow the GOP to distract from Trump's conduct. Additionally, we don't even know what someone like Bolton would say. Mulvaney, or Trump himself, I'd have to give more thought to, but Bolton wouldn't even be worth it.

This is just a really bad idea. Don't do it.

[emmaverybo]

55. Agree and for all the reasons you cited. Many Americans, out of the loop, would make an equivalency

between Hunter Biden’s stint at Burisma and Trump and gang’s corruption when there is none. Hunter and Joe Biden should not be put on trial.

[C_U_L8R]

26. Heads I win, tails you lose.

No, we don't need that deal.

[napi21]

27. I don't trust Bolten either. None of the Dems appear to know what he will testify to. It's always

a mistake to call a witness if you don't know what they will say! He COULD just as easily testify that DT is just using his presidential powers to protect the American people. He's ALWAYS been a big hawk and I don't trust him to speak against the pubs.

[NiteOwl1]

31. Should demand the right to depose first

[FBaggins]

35. That's already part of their rules... but it doesn't help

The depositions would be recorded and the majority can release anything they decide is helpful.

[NiteOwl1]

30. FTS

Somebody tell the Senate that their duty is to TRY the case as stipulated in the Constitution... not to bring irrelevant witnesses before the Senate.

[Meowmee]

36. The sc justice should be doing that

But he is obviously bought and paid for as well. This whole thing is a bad joke, not funny at all. It was a mistake to send to senate. They should have kept articles in the house and kept having more hearings all the way up to the election. And witnesses who did not show up for a subpoena should have been jailed.

[BigDemVoter]

45. This REALLY disgusts me.

[awesomerwb1]

52. Would be suicide to accept a "deal"

They will NEVER convict.

So why give them a distraction they'll use to create more noise to dilute the Dems case?

[Me.]

53. If There's To Be A Trade, I'd Make It Parnas Not Bolton

[skip fox]

56. Joe Scarborough thinks Bolton is a trap, BUT . . .

Scarborough cites Bolton going to the WH just before first announcing that he welcomed the opportunity to testify. He thinks Bolton and Trump's lawyers went over the executive privilege so that he couldn't testify if on the stand. Thus, trading Hunter for him would be a clear loss.

BUT

Executive privilege can be deferred since the impeachment process "preempts" it. And that could be decided by Roberts on the spot!!