Trump lawyer calls Bolton book 'inadmissible,' as defense team wraps impeachment arguments

President Trump’s legal team argued John Bolton’s book manuscript should be “inadmissible” in the impeachment trial and urged an immediate acquittal as they wrapped up arguments before senators on Tuesday.

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said senators should not pry the trial wide open to new evidence in light of the New York Times’ reporting on Bolton’s book manuscript that says Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.

“You cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation,” Sekulow said, of reporting on the manuscript.

BOLTON FOR BIDEN? WITNESS SWAP TALK REVIVED IN WAKE OF BOMBSHELL BOOK MANUSCRIPT

Sekulow dismissed those referring to the Bolton manuscript as new “evidence.”

"I'd call it inadmissible," Sekulow said.

And even if Bolton’s allegations – which Trump denies – are true, Trump’s legal team said that the president still can’t be impeached because there is no underlying crime. Sekulow warned such a standard on impeachment would paralyze future presidents.

“The bar for impeachment cannot be set this low,” Sekulow said.

Trump's lawyers wrapped up their arguments by mid-afternoon, making for a relatively short day and teeing up two full days later in the week for questioning.

SENATORS PLAY WITH FIDGET SPINNERS, STRESS BALLS TO PASS TIME DURING IMPEACHMENT

The Bolton book has thrown a wrench in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plans for a speedy trial with no new witnesses since the revelations provide a first-hand account of an alleged quid pro quo. The book has made it harder for GOP senators to ignore Bolton and have amped up calls from Democrats to demand witnesses.

A vote is expected by Friday on whether to open the trial to new witnesses and evidence. Republicans open to Bolton say that others such as Hunter and Joe Biden should also be called in a reciprocal agreement.

Tuesday's closing arguments by Trump's legal team marks the end of the first phase of the trial where House Democrats and Trump defense each had three days to sway the Senate.

House impeachment managers used their three days to outline their case against Trump for obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.

Democrats charge that Trump put his own self-interests before that of national security by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and withholding nearly $400 million in security assistance to a country at war with Russia.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump's legal team poked holes in the case, saying there was no quid pro quo and Trump had legitimate reasons for asking Ukraine for investigations into the Bidens.

Sekulow appears flabbergasted by the idea that the trial could be extended because of the Bolton manuscript.

“Are you going to allow proceedings on impeachment to go from a New York Times report about someone who says what they hear is in a manuscript -- is that where we are? I don't think so," Sekulow said. "I hope not."

Now, senators will have 16 hours starting on Wednesday to ask written questions of the two sides.  Then they'll take a vote on whether to extend the trial with new witnesses and documents.

Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...team-wraps-arguments

Original Post

Democrats and Nancy announced after their vote that they had overwhelming evidence. Well, we now know that they had Nothing, Zero, Nada. Just peoples best guess and opinions.

This is over folks.

Democrats lied to the American People and made a failed attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President who won with 63 Million votes.

Impeach this !!!

boy...stop having orgasms over this

he will not to be impeached in the Senate...just like Clinton wasn't...the votes not there

Dems know this...they just want to inflict some hurt before the election season...once it stays in the news, it benefits the Dems

 

Sean posted:

If democrats insist on Bolton then this becomes full blown.

Bidens and the Whistle Blower will have to testify.

No, no, no ... about the Bidens and the Whistleblower.

Perhaps one needs to understand the protection issue of Whistleblowers under the United States Whistleblower Protection Act, established in 1989.

While Democrats and Republicans may insist on individuals to be present at the hearings, it will be decided by a vote of the senators on the matter.

Sean posted:

Democrats lied to the American People and made a failed attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President who won with 63 Million votes.

Total votes in the 2016 elections ---

65, 844, 954 - 48.2% - Democrats - Hillary Clinton

62, 979, 879 - 46.1% - Republicans - Donald Trump

Sean posted:

“Are you going to allow proceedings on impeachment to go from a New York Times report about someone who says what they hear is in a manuscript -- is that where we are? I don't think so," Sekulow said. "I hope not."

Easy solution - let Bolton testify

antabanta posted:
Sean posted:

“Are you going to allow proceedings on impeachment to go from a New York Times report about someone who says what they hear is in a manuscript -- is that where we are? I don't think so," Sekulow said. "I hope not."

Easy solution - let Bolton testify

Why would the Republicans do this, they don't want to hear the truth?

cain posted:
antabanta posted:
Sean posted:

“Are you going to allow proceedings on impeachment to go from a New York Times report about someone who says what they hear is in a manuscript -- is that where we are? I don't think so," Sekulow said. "I hope not."

Easy solution - let Bolton testify

Why would the Republicans do this, they don't want to hear the truth?

Neither does Trump supporters, y'know... those people who can't think for themselves

Ray posted:

One thing that surprised me was Bolton...I thought he was a big supporter of the Prez

A lot of people were supporters of the Trump. Until they got close enough to him to realize his stench.

Bolton is no saint either. He is obviously throwing nuggets from his book out to generate consumer interest in it.

The WH defense did a good job to dismiss Bolton's leaked, unsourced manuscript. I believe it was willfully leaked for the purpose of book sales. It looks like dog eat dog in America when it comes to money and fame. Everybody wants to come in at the eleventh hour with something to add. 

ksazma posted:
Ray posted:

One thing that surprised me was Bolton...I thought he was a big supporter of the Prez

A lot of people were supporters of the Trump. Until they got close enough to him to realize his stench.

Bolton is no saint either. He is obviously throwing nuggets from his book out to generate consumer interest in it.

Bolton is a war hawk, something Trump is wary about.  It was a marriage of convenience which, sooner or later, will fall apart.  Trump wanted him for some tough stance he held however, not to go intervening in countries.

Leave it up to Bolton, we would have been at war with Iran a while ago.   He a dangerous guy. 

Prince posted:

The WH defense did a good job to dismiss Bolton's leaked, unsourced manuscript. I believe it was willfully leaked for the purpose of book sales. It looks like dog eat dog in America when it comes to money and fame. Everybody wants to come in at the eleventh hour with something to add. 

This happens even in rice eating Guyana.  Get over it.  Bolton want to use this impeachment to sell his book. 

He actually don’t want to testify, it’s just him creating interest for his book. If he testifies, interest in his story, as outlined in the book, will die.  Now it has mystique value.

Baseman posted:
ksazma posted:
Ray posted:

One thing that surprised me was Bolton...I thought he was a big supporter of the Prez

A lot of people were supporters of the Trump. Until they got close enough to him to realize his stench.

Bolton is no saint either. He is obviously throwing nuggets from his book out to generate consumer interest in it.

Bolton is a war hawk, something Trump is wary about.  It was a marriage of convenience which, sooner or later, will fall apart.  Trump wanted him for some tough stance he held however, not to go intervening in countries.

Leave it up to Bolton, we would have been at war with Iran a while ago.   He a dangerous guy. 

Bolton is indeed dangerous. 

Ray posted:

boy...stop having orgasms over this

he will not to be impeached in the Senate...just like Clinton wasn't...the votes not there

Dems know this...they just want to inflict some hurt before the election season...once it stays in the news, it benefits the Dems

 

Americans are going to the dogs. Perhaps, the end of their times.

Sean posted:

Democrats and Nancy announced after their vote that they had overwhelming evidence. Well, we now know that they had Nothing, Zero, Nada. Just peoples best guess and opinions.

This is over folks.

Democrats lied to the American People and made a failed attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President who won with 63 Million votes.

Impeach this !!!

Cow man, go back chasing the cows and pen them up to milk. Moscow Mitch said he doesn't have enough votes to block a vote against witnesses. Another concern he has is that some of these Republican senators who might vote for witnesses might vote for IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL. Trump battie currently can cut an eight-inch railroad track spike. Put your yellow highlighter away for now.

Sean posted:

Bai, you watching fake news again ? 

Everything is fake news for Republicans. If Trump thinks he did not commit a crime, quit the "executive privilege" nonsense and release the documents and let the subpoenaed individuals testify. A criminal would never say he or she committed a crime. He is a coward, a cheat and a bully.

All you rass were boasting that you had an overwhelming case at impeachment. Now all of a sudden, it was proven to be a hoax. 
Ress you rass and tek you dhall. 
Good thing Trump fought back. A difference of policy is NOT an impeachable offence.

It over for the crooked Schiff. Tek you dhall with mango achar. 

Stop spreading fake news. 

 

 

Sean posted:

All you rass were boasting that you had an overwhelming case at impeachment. Now all of a sudden, it was proven to be a hoax. 
Ress you rass and tek you dhall. 
Good thing Trump fought back. A difference of policy is NOT an impeachable offence.

It over for the crooked Schiff. Tek you dhall with mango achar. 

 

 

Only in the minds of airheads, it's a hoax. Is there anything that Trump doesn't agree with is real? I guess he has brainwashed the rednecks and the evangelicals believing he is the second coming. Bai, Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex. This man is holding Ukraine hostage for refusing to help him cheat again in the election. When is this crook, con, and cheater going to prove himself that he is not a real Christian but a farce?

Foolish man, why do you think the Republicans do not want to have someone, a Republican who actually worked with them, on the witness stand? The truth would bury those creeps, that's why. So you can take all dat mango achar an dhall and stuff it where the sun doan shine.

 Bai 63 million people who voted for him are not rednecks. Trump is like a king. 

Whatever happened to the overwhelming case for impeachment ? All of a sudden, leaks are required to save a bunch of hapless house managers ? 

It don’t work like dat. Tek more mango achar. 

Stop spreading fake news. Democrats are worse than PNC.

Hey hey hey

Look how all you keep shifting the goal post after all you “overwhelming case” for impeachment.

Mark my words, all you better not demand too hard for Bolton cause the Biden’s, Schiff and the whistleblower will be called to testify. Don’t wish for what all you can’t handle.

Its best for Democrats to walk away now rather than deal with further humiliation.

hey hey hey 

Sean posted:

Look how all you keep shifting the goal post after all you “overwhelming case” for impeachment.

Mark my words, all you better not demand too hard for Bolton cause the Biden’s, Schiff and the whistleblower will be called to testify. Don’t wish for what all you can’t handle.

Its best for Democrats to walk away now rather than deal with further humiliation.

hey hey hey 

No ... will not happen for the whistlrblower.

Whistleblowers are protected by by the Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1989 for the US_of_A.

Democrats have presented a "water tight" presentation.

Successful impeachment requires the support of two-thirds or more of the senators; as noted in the past two presidents impeachment proceeding trials in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and in 1998 for Bill Clinton.

In both cases for Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton the two-thirds support of the senators were not achieved.

DG, you are wrong. The Senate has the constitutional right to question the whistle blower. It might not be done in public, but the senators CAN question the whistle blower. 

Most likely, this will be wrapped up before witnesses are called. 

It is inconceivable to me that someone can argue that the case for conviction  is not made while concurrently fighting to stop credible and appropriate witnesses from testifying and documents examined.  obstructed some from giving evidence and not claim that there is no evidence. It all points to Trump being guilty and with the republicans in the Senate, they are stonewalling.

Stop right there.

The Democrats failed to subpoena Bolton to testify. They concluded that they had overwhelming evidence to vote for an impeachment trial. They voted and sent it to the senate for trial. End of story.

It is not for the senate to do the job of the house. The Democrats just cannot keep shifting the goal posts after leaks. 

The Democrats screwed this up royally. 

The defence lawyers laid out the case that even if Bolton were to testify, it would not impact the outcome of this trial. 

This hoax is over. 

Sean posted:

DG, you are wrong.

The Senate has the constitutional right to question the whistle blower. It might not be done in public, but the senators CAN question the whistle blower. 

Most likely, this will be wrapped up before witnesses are called. 

Sean there are the legislation on the whistleblower protection and related issues.

The following is a poignant outline of specific issues for the current situation with the/a whistleblower and Donald Trump's issues.

=====================

Whistleblower protection, explained

At the heart of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump is the whistleblower whose complaint ignited the probe. Here’s what you need to know about the U.S. laws meant to protect whistleblowers.

What is a whistleblower?

A federal whistleblower is an employee who reports gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or other illegal or unethical activity to management, authorities or — in the case of the executive branch — to Congress, which has oversight capacity.

What are whistleblower protections?

Federal Legal protections for whistleblowers were enacted through the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The law offers the whistleblower some protection from criminal prosecution and administrative retaliation, such as firing or demotion. Because of concerns about classified information, the protections initially did not include the intelligence community.

Congress established a process for intelligence workers to report misconduct through the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. It wasn’t until 2014 that lawmakers codified a directive from President Barack Obama also extending protections against retaliation to intelligence officials. Despite these legal efforts, the law isn’t perfect. While non-intelligence civil servants can take retaliation cases to court, the intelligence community does not have this privilege due to concerns about classified material. This means intelligence whistleblowers could face punishment at work even if it’s illegal, possibly with limited legal recourse.

Did Trump’s whistleblower follow protocol?

Short answer: Yes. In recent weeks Trump and his supporters have accused the author of the complaint of being a “deep-state operative.” However, both the inspector general for the intelligence community and the acting director of national intelligence have said the individual followed legal procedure. Contrary to Trump’s claims, the law does not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information, it only requires a reasonable belief of a violation, said David Colapinto, co-founder and general counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, an advocacy group.

The protocol is for an intelligence official to file a complaint with the inspector general who is expected to refer the matter to the director of national intelligence. In this case, the inspector general alerted the House Intelligence Committee, even though the acting DNI consulted the Department of Justice first.

Will the whistleblower’s identity be kept a secret?

The president told reporters he is “trying to find out” the identity of the whistleblower. Ultimately, there’s nothing that can block Trump from revealing who he or she is, said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who specializes in national security. However, the law explicitly tasks the president with enforcing protections against retaliation.

“It is patently offensive and insulting to whistleblowers to have the president talking about how he is going to out this person, how he is going to confront this person,” Moss said. “No matter who is in the Oval Office … the need for whistleblowers to be able to raise their concerns with confidentiality and anonymity is critical.”

What is unique about the Trump whistleblower complaint?

This is the first time a credible whistleblower case has involved the president. Now, the president is publicly criticizing a person he is mandated by law to protect. Questions also remain about the executive privilege and the president’s ability to stymie ongoing investigations against him.

Fact: The whistle blower (allegedly a Schiff staffer or aide) had political motivations. The Senate has The constitutional right to question her or him privately. 
This is no longer at the House. 
Wake up bai. Stop posting fake news. 
This hoax will most likely end on Friday. 

Fact: CNN was calling for a compromise last night. The antimen at CNN wanted Trump to admit "some wrongdoing" and for this to all end.

Impeach this !!!

Trump's team of heavyweight lawyers chewed up and spit up the Democrat Hoax Team. I wonder if Schiff will cry again today ?

This is fun to watch !!!!

 

The whistle blower could be Melania.

I do not see a reason to know who the whistle blower is, the fact is, Trump went out of his way to cheat and win an election, the whistle blower nor  Bolton has to testify to prove this. Perhaps the Democrats is using this as a ploy so people can see how the Republicans do not wish anyone to hear the truth.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post


×
×
×
×
×