Because Bolton indicated that he wanted the court to make the decision if he can testify, the House decided not to subpoena him to avoid waiting for a lengthy legal battle. So, this is a major change of direction from him.
Bolton was not subpoenaed. https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ne...-defy-White-House-and-testify-in-14817238.php
yes, I don't fully understand why they didn't... someone that understands this legal stuff might be able to explain why. My guess is they were concern a lower court rules against them and that in effect stop all other subpoenas where the witnesses were already willing to come forward.
Where are the white house, dod, and pentagon lawyers? Yale law professor and former special counsel to the Dept of Defense:
I still think it is NUTS that it can take this long to get a final ruling on whether people have to testify before CONGRESS in an IMPEACHMENT situation. The Supreme Court should have to take up these cases right away and rule on them.
Basically, the issue is this. If they issue a subpoena, regardless of the outcome in the lower courts, one side or the other would keep appealing it to the Supreme Court. For that, even if you accelerated everything, you're talking June before a ruling at best - no one wants that. And the ruling will come down to John Roberts - the other 8 opinions are pretty much a given. The much easier alternative is that John Roberts also will preside over the trial in the Senate, and his decisions are basically final. So either way, John Roberts would get to decide this, and this just skips the long drawn out court process. I don't know how the whole conflict over trial rules in the Senate affects Dems' ability to ask Roberts for a ruling, but that's what the thought process was a month ago. I do think it's ridiculous that in other court cases related to the impeachment, courts are ruling that they are not referees in a Congress/Executive branch conflict and are staying out it. I was under the impression that was exactly the role of the courts and the purpose of having 3 co-equal branches of government. I'm not sure how else they expect those conflicts to get resolved.
To me this should be addressed. It's plain stupid that it could take nearly a year for any court to have final authority to tell someone they have to testify to Congress. It's just stupid
Agreed. The whole court system process seems broken in a way that it doesn't feel it was in the past. I mean, they are talking about ruling in June again whether Obamacare is unconstitutional based on an argument and court process started many years ago. Why couldn't that have been combined with the other lawsuits about it so we get a ruling a move on? There needs to be a way to short-circuit the process of things we know are going to the Supreme Court, or the courts need to do a better job streamlining things.
You are correct in that I did not read it. However, I have started because I wanted to respond to some questions Dobro posed. I started Sat. before the Texans game and then haven't picked it back up. But I'm kinda trying to research as I go. That part is tedious because I look for both side's stories unless I can find something that feels unbiased. I've made it through Trump Tower and George Pappa.. I intend to continue.
I get that John Roberts will get to make decisions in the Senate trial but if he allowed Bolton to testify couldn't that also be struck down by a Senate majority vote?
I believe that might be - but from the analysis I read (it was an opinion piece, so take it FWIW), it's almost certain that the non-Trumpian Senators would be unwilling to overrule any of his decisions just from an optics perspective of trying to be impartial. And some may secretly want to see Trump go down in flames, and this provides them a way to help that while staying above the fray.
Then the House should subpeona him.......and have him testify.....see if it strengthens their case...... DD
