Dan Abrams Sets Fire to the Prospect of Bolton Testifying in Trump Senate Trial: ‘Not. Happening.’

There’s been a great deal of debate about whether or not former National Security Advisor John Bolton will testify during the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. But in the opinion of Dan Abrams, all of the breathless speculation is a complete waste of time.

Appearing on ABC’s special coverage following the swearing-in of senators, Abrams — the chief legal analyst for ABC News and founder of Mediaite — shoveled dirt on the idea that Bolton would ever take the stand.

“John Bolton’s not testifying,” Abrams said tersely. “It’s not happening. It is not. Happening.”

Abrams believes that Bolton knew exactly what he was saying when he remarked that he would testify during the trial if he were to receive a subpoena.

“He’s a very smart guy,” Bolton said. “He knows how the process works. He didn’t say ‘I’ll volunteer.’ He said ‘if subpoenaed.’ So when people say he’s offered to testify? What do you mean? He’s agreed to abide by a subpoena.”

As Abrams sees it, there are just too many hoops that would need to be jumped through — even if four Republican senators somehow crossed party lines and joined 47 Democrats in wanting to hear from Bolton.

“Let’s assume that they get the 51 votes and they say, ‘We want John Bolton to testify,'” Abrams said. “He shows up, and then there’s going to be an argument on immunity. And there’s going to be an argument on executive privilege. And the president is going to say, ‘It is my executive privilege here. It is not his decision.’ And it’s going to work its way through the courts. And they’re going to say, ‘We don’t have the time.’ And John Bolton’s not testifying.”

Anchor George Stephanopoulos sought a second opinion from Kate Shaw — a law professor and ABC News contributor. Stephanopoulos asked if Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts might eventually rule on the matter.

“I think Bolton could still testify,” Shaw said, disagreeing with Abrams. “I think there could be assertions of privilege. And then I think the Chief would be in a very difficult position to just say, ‘Senators, you work it out. Or let’s let the court process run its course.’ I think there would be a strong argument that the comparative advantage of ruling on this important Constitutional question about the privilege. The way the president’s communications with his advisors are subject to disclosure, and where, and how, that’s a legal and Constitutional question that the Chief Justice is better situated to answer than the members of the Senate.”

Abrams argued that Roberts could — and would — choose not to weigh in.

“But the Chief Justice doesn’t want to answer that question,” Abrams said. “And as a result, he won’t!”

“I think he may feel that it looks too political to try to avoid answering the question,” Shaw countered.

Watch above, via ABC.