I could see that - it allows him more control over the public narrative about his testimony. On the other hand I could see him refusing to appear at all simply because the subpoena is from a Dem led committee.
Democrats need to issue these subpoenas and declare them in contempt if they refuse to appear! Even if they cannot enforce them now because of corrupt DOJ and no in-House jail, in the future, when they regain control (if they ever do), they need to prosecute all these criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Thatās a critical step to taking our country back: Rule of LAW!
I donāt want to seem rude, but your understanding of how evidence works ā and the FREās donāt even apply to an impeachment proceeding ā is pretty badly off-base.
Lets not forget that Bolton lives off of wingnut welfare, and that appearing too eager to testify against Trump would severely impact his lifestyleā¦
Reminded me of Gibsonās description of the Finn: āThe man who stood blinking now in the doorway
behind them, the blanket draping one shoulder like a cape, seemed to have been designed in a wind
tunnel. His ears were very small, plastered flat against his narrow skull, and his large front teeth,
revealed in something that wasnāt quite a smile, were canted sharply backward.ā
Wait, I thought it was the blood of children that sustained him?
Will there be an allowance for the attachment of extra weight to increase the mass and ability to overcome wind drift (enhancement of B)? Otherwise I just donāt see the empty shells of the pisstainās offspring making it far downrange.
Boy, John-o, that briefcase looks heavy. Got all our national secrets in there, or the rough draft of your book?
tiowally, you are truly my hero. I literally seek out your comments on these threads!
Someone help me out.
Didnāt Boltonās Mustache say he would testify if he was issued a subpoena? Why then didnāt Democrat follow up?
Way too many games being played:A week ago, Bolton attorney says he will testify if given a subpoena. Democrats failed. Today he doesnāt show upā¦ and now just reported, Democrats wonāt bother to subpoena. NOW WSJ says Bolton wants to wait for the court ruling to determine if he (and his underling) can testify?
Someone dropped the ball here. Who was it. Why didnāt Democrats call his bluff after he said he would testify if given a subpoena? Anyone got answers?
I guess you missed the hundreds of millions of dollars that theKoch brothers have contributed to hospitalsā¦ with that kind of loot, no one really complains when vials of blood drawn from children for ātestsā winds up getting divertedā¦ 
yeah. This theory fits everything that has been happening/
This whole āimpeachmentā thing is just for show ā Pelosi never wanted impeachment, and was forced to support the inquiry, and she now wants to be able to say to the party base āI tried, now its time to move onā, and do so as quickly as possible. Her top priority is retaining control of the House (and her Speakership), and the one surefire way to achieve that end is to make sure Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket in 2020.
Boltonās lawyer said his client would not testify voluntarily, but that he (the lawyer) was authorized to accept a subpoena. He never said Bolton would actually comply with a subpoena, which was a pretty obvious omission.
I wonder if his publisher had any say in his attendance?
How does it work, then? Not a lawyer and donāt pretend to have anything more than a TV-level understanding of the law. Can a prosecutor make any sort of legal advantage out of a subpoenaed witness refusing to testify?
I think the guy should get his deposit back, since the washer and dryer never worked. Plus he was promised a parking space and that was a lie, the āparking spaceā was on the street in front of the duplex.
Circumstances vary. You might be able to get an adverse inference instruction in some cases, i.e., an instruction to the jury that they can (but are not required) to find that the testimony would have been bad. But there is no circumstance in which a witnessās refusal to testify would result in the defendant being declared guilty. Nor is the jury obligated in any way to accept the testimony of those witnesses who do testify, whether or not that testimony is or even could be contradicted by other evidence.
If Iām understanding you correctly, the judge might instruct or allow the jury to make some inference but thereās not much more that could be done from a ārulesā standpoint. Given that, could a prosecutor still work this type of situation to their advantage by planting the seed that a refusal to testify equals an admission of guilt and/or willingness to let the other witnessesā testimony stand unrebutted? Or have I just watched too much Law & Order?