Republican Susan Collins has stated her case FOR witnesses in the ongoing Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. She uses John Bolton's apparent upcoming book to state her case. She claims that his book is grounds for making the case stronger for witnesses.
Collins also says that she called for witnesses back in 1999 when Bill Clinton faced impeachment.
What is in Bolton's book that has Collins so worked up?
A report on USA Today says:
In his upcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that President Donald Trump told him he did not wish to release military aid to Ukraine until that country helped with investigations that could be damaging to Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, according to media reports.
Since the allegations surfaced in September that Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to pressure Ukraine into conducting the probes, the president has insisted the aid was not held up for political purposes. On Monday he sharply denied Bolton's claims reported by The New York Times, Washington Post and the Associated Press.
The Times report has ramped up Democrats' call for additional witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial. The House impeachment managers and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Bolton's reported claims directly contradict key elements of Trump's defense and that a fair trial requires his testimony.
What did Collins say about it?
From the beginning, I’ve said that in fairness to both parties the decision on whether or not to call witnesses should be made after both the House managers and the President’s attorneys have had the opportunity to present their cases.
I’ve always said that I was likely to vote to call witnesses, just as I did in the 1999 Clinton trial.
The reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.
Is Bolton spouting off in his book just to boost sales? Maybe. A lot of people use political points and nonsense to sell their lousy books that they probably didn't even write.
Either way, it's not 1999 anymore and we're watching a circus sham impeachment because Democrats are mad that Trump pointed out a simple fact, that talentless Hunter Biden was being paid $83,333 per month under his daddy's watch and that right there might not be illegal, but it sure was shady and corrupt.
Come on, why does Hunter Biden, who clearly has no skills, deserve to be paid more than a teacher's annual salary in just a few weeks?
What did other people say about Collins? A whole lot, that's for sure. In fact, it seems like even the Democrats don't like her and she's the one calling for witnesses.