My instinct is not to trust John Bolton. Yet, I also figure he’s probably not eager to perjure himself, even if telling the truth to Congress might help the Democrats and ruin his future influence and prospects on the right. Of course, we’ve been here before with untrustworthy characters like James Comey, Rick Gates and Michael Cohen. I think we can put Lev Parnas in this category too. I knew that if Bolton were to testify, there was a good chance that he’d spill the beans on Trump.
It has never been clear precisely why Bolton left the administration. We still don’t know if he was fired or he resigned, and we’re not sure if the decision was based on something very specific or was of a more cumulative nature. There were reports that it was related to Iran, but the timing makes it seem like it could have been centered around Ukraine. Either way, by Trump’s own account, we know that he did not leave on good terms.
It has also been reported that Bolton is publishing a book about his time serving as Trump’s national security adviser, and that the book would not be flattering to the president. On the other hand, his refusal to testify before the House impeachment inquiry suggested that he wasn’t eager to lend a hand in ousting Trump from office. Some said this was because no one would buy his book if they already knew the worst of what it contained.
Despite all these unanswered questions, the Democrats have been eager to secure Bolton’s testimony at the Senate trial. This became more realistic when Bolton declared his willingness to participate. But, with the prospect of him being called narrowing as the Republican senators coalesce around a sham trial strategy, suddenly we can read about what is in Bolton’s book in the pages of the New York Times:
President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.
Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates.
This puts the Republicans in a bind. The American people can consider this evidence even if it isn’t admitted at the trial. They know the senators have seen it, so they will expect the senators to weigh it when they decide whether to acquit or convict. If it is to be rebutted in some way, it won’t be convincing if Bolton’s testimony is blocked.
Yet, if they allow Bolton to testify, it will blow up their schedule and open a potential Pandora’s box. It will also infuriate the president.
Republicans could argue that even if everything Bolton is reported to have said in his book is true, it doesn’t matter because the alleged behavior doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense. That might become less tenable as a strategy if Bolton actually sits in a witness chair and gives his version of events.
They could argue that Bolton’s testimony isn’t allowed because it’s covered under some kind of presidential privilege, but they can’t be sure that Chief Justice John Roberts would go along with that interpretation of the law, and voting to overrule him would look bad even if it could be accomplished.
These senators are in the unenviable position of trying to protect a guilty person whose crimes are not well-hidden. As long as they think they have the votes to acquit, this gives them a powerful incentive to just get things over with as fast as possible before even more damaging information comes to light.
Allowing Bolton to testify would probably make an eventual acquittal harder to justify, so denying him as a witness must still look like the best option.
But that seems like a truly stupid strategy to me. Trump makes a habit of getting away with his crimes while his associates go to jail. The Republican senators may not wind up in prison, but they could discover that the cost of saving Trump’s presidency is the end of their own political careers. He survives and they die.
This pattern is well enough established at this point that you’d think more Republicans would understand it.
5
It would merely require Roberts to rule on the issue at the trial. The Constitution makes no provision for any “appeal” to the courts of a ruling by the presiding officer in the impeachment, so this “weeks and months” argument is Bullshit. The only “appeal” would be to the entire senate to overrule Roberts if they disagree with a ruling.
I wish the managers would try to force Roberts out of his potted plant act.
I doubt they are as worried about the end of their political careers as they are of ending their lucrative speaking/lobbying careers (which is more likely to happen if they abandon the President then support him and lose in a general election). Leaving the Senate is easier than being expelled from the herd.
I’m thinking the chances of Bolton testifying are in the 3-5% range. These Senators are much more afraid of incurring the wrath of Trump, which will result in the commensurate eternal vilification from the base, than they are worrying about being placed “in the unenviable position of trying to protect a guilty person whose crimes are not well-hidden”. After all, nothing up to this point related to the not well-hidden crimes has caused them to so much as furrow their brow. Their primary concern seems to be staying out of the Presidential Twitter stream. Everything else is being kicked down the road, and they will deal with those things when the time actually comes. In the back of their minds they are certainly pondering what could happen at election time, but when you’re standing in the middle of a raging inferno in your own home, you are not overly concerned with how the fire is going to impact your homeowners insurance rates in the next few years. They’re not going to borrow trouble before its time.
You’d think this “revelation” (which is cumulative to the evidence already submitted) could also be used to (once again) demand that Der Trumper release all the subpoenaed documents he has boasted he’s sitting on.
I wish the managers would make motions to Roberts for issuance of subpoenas for the documents being knowingly withheld, as well as the witnesses they want. Force him to rule that he can’t do anything under the cover-up rules that the Gravedigger forced through by party line vote (which is itself strong evidence that NONE of the Repub senators had any intention of complying with their “oath” to do impartial justice.)
5
“Allowing Bolton to testify would probably make an eventual acquittal harder to justify”
This is the key point. It would be politically idiotic for any R senator to vote for conviction. Doing so would piss of their base, thus depressing their vote and (critically) campaign contributions. Given that they are going to vote to acquit, the most logical thing is to vote for a process that gets there as quickly and painlessly as possible. And it’s easier to explain away something that didn’t happen (no witnesses) than it is to explain away something that did happen (damning testimony from Bolton).
That said, it is not entirely clear that this logic is enough to hold ALL of the R senators together. Romney is now saying he wants witnesses. Previously, Collins strongly implied that she did too, though she now sounds kind of scared that this might actually happen. Will they get to 4? I don’t think so, but you never know.
You need to trust the process. Between Moscow Mitch and potted plant Roberts and the threat from Trump to put their heads on a pike, no chance………. and Collins? Com’on.
Collins is trying to look good but like the other moderates voting to acquit after witnesses hurts her more. The safe red staters dont care. The moderates care about getting this over quickly.
And their heads will be on a pike if they are not careful, even Roberts. Do you really think a matter at law will allow Bolton to testify? My bet is Roberts got Orange Cheetos back. After all let’s get on with it. There’s a speech coming in the house in a few days and what then?
So nobody here actually thinks Bolton is a game changer, eh? I think he is, because he just destroyed what was left of Trump’s pathetically flimsy defense. Public opinion is very highly in favor of calling witnesses, and with Bolton in the picture it will only be more so. Therefore, the Defense is damned if they do call witnesses and damned if they don’t. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m buying a big sack of popcorn this week. It doesn’t matter if the Senate doesn’t convict Trump, the evidence will continue to drip from here on and Trump will be convicted in the court of public opinion. This is not changing. The only people that believe the Defense are the totally committed Trump cultists.
Because he had to submit his manuscript for a security review, it seems that the White House has known about what’s in Bolton’s book for some time. I know that they all have sold their souls to dear leader by now, but you would have to guess that McConnell and the less insane members of the criminal conspiracy caucus have got to be furious about not knowing this was coming. It certainly makes most of them look like total fools in front of the T.V. cameras. How many are on tape for eternity now saying “no quid pro quo”? You might wonder how many of them are seriously thinking about switching to the “yes, it was wrong to tie aid to bogus investigations, but it all worked out fine in the end and so I don’t think it warrants removal” argument that would obviously tick the hell out of dear leader, but might preserve a thread of what’s left of their dignity.
Rand Paul apparently thought that there were 45 Republicans that were willing to dismiss right off the bat (including him, of course). I’m guessing that they are team Trump until the bitter end, regardless of whatever happens. So we are talking of around 7 Republicans that potentially might vote with Democrats for witnesses or who think they at least need to pretend that they care about having a trial. We will see, as they say- Shit got real.
Bolton was just the coffee boy. Otherwise, never heard of him. Move along. Nothing to see here.
https://media.giphy.com/media/13d2jHlSlxklVe/giphy.gif
The short answer is no. The long answer is nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
There’s a combination of extreme cowardice and sunk-cost fallacy in the Republican party. If taking action means certain doom and the future is uncertain, why not bet on the uncertain future? Maybe UFOs come from the sky and take Trump away. Maybe Trump suddenly resigns. Who knows? But a declining chance is still a chance, no matter how small it happens to be.
If there was a way for the Republicans to do the right thing and be rewarded at the ballot box for it, they would most certainly do the right thing. The unfortunate part is that the calculus is so bad they are counting on UFO levels of random salvation.