Trump’s Counsel Calls Bolton Testimony ‘Inadmissible’

 

Jay Sekulow, legal counsel for President Trump, has dismissed John Bolton’s possible appearance as a witness as “inadmissible.” Sekulow said, “To have a removal of a president based on a policy dispute? That’s not what the framers intended,” Sekulow continued.

Whether prohibited by Executive Privilege or by the fact that the House already failed in being aware of this potential testimony and choosing not to fight to obtain it before finalizing their articles of impeachment sent to the Senate, the counsel for the President is correct that this 11th-hour, Hail-Mary, Blasey-Ford fiasco is not admissible for any number of reasons.

This has prompted many GOP Senators, and former Fox News colleagues, to plead with Big John to put an end to this speculation and this delay to the Senate’s work in ending this impeachment madness.

“John, you’ve kind of thrown the country into a ditch here.” Sen. Lindsey Graham

“Now that what has unfolded with the manuscript [of Bolton’s book] being leaked — by the way, exquisite timing, maybe suspicious timing — the Wall Street Journal has called for John to just come forward…. I think that would actually be a smart thing. I’d encourage John to do that.” Sen. Ron Johnson

“You have something to say, John? Come here!” Sean Hannity

It is way past time to end this charade. This Kabuki theater impeachment play should have its last showing this week. Sayonara.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stad (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):
    I’m admittedly behind on this story but has Mr. Bolton done anything overt and malicious toward the President with respect to the impeachment yet?

    No, and that’s a good point. Some folks believe he’s going to be another Oliver North and back Trump’s side, much to the shock and dismay of the Democrats. I’d like to believe this, but Bolton’s silence and the chip on his shoulder say otherwise . . .

    He is a disloyal man. All this “higher loyalty” stuff is BS. It is like the therapist who cries “ethics” when in fact, they just don’t like a policy.

    No, 99% of the time, no one is laying it all on the line for the good fight. If they were, they would not write a book and sell it. 

    • #31
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stad (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):
    I’m admittedly behind on this story but has Mr. Bolton done anything overt and malicious toward the President with respect to the impeachment yet?

    In all fairness to Bolton, all we really have so far is unverified gossip from the NY Times.

    I agree. I’m not going to dump on him until I hear from him first . . .

    Oh please, seen it all before. His silence tells us all we need to know

    • #32
  3. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Oh please, seen it all before. His silence tells us all we need to know

    The reality, unfortunately, is that he’s facing the temptation of making a lot of money with this book if he stays quiet amid all the rumors. At the age of 71 his future $$ opportunities are limited

    • #33
  4. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):
    I’m admittedly behind on this story but has Mr. Bolton done anything overt and malicious toward the President with respect to the impeachment yet?

    In all fairness to Bolton, all we really have so far is unverified gossip from the NY Times.

    It is significant that the Vindman twins were Bolton appointees.

    https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/30/the-vindman-twins-are-creatures-of-john-bolton/?fbclid=IwAR1OMOlwxc94HYtVPPrKXaxIoZBMJyorKn6qrtYYdyYdZBPJSLEfTkBrTiE

     

    • #34
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Oh please, seen it all before. His silence tells us all we need to know

    The reality, unfortunately, is that he’s facing the temptation of making a lot of money with this book if he stays quiet amid all the rumors. At the age of 71 his future $$ opportunities are limited

    Sell out. 

    • #35
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    philo (View Comment):
    No real arguments here but his announced “willingness to testify” just doesn’t mean much to me.

    Did he announce this “willingness” during the House proceedings?  If no, why not?

    • #36
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stad (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):
    No real arguments here but his announced “willingness to testify” just doesn’t mean much to me.

    Did he announce this “willingness” during the House proceedings? If no, why not?

    Because he is a sell out

    • #37
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.