It isn’t complicated. Public interest demands John Bolton testimony at the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.
That’s the necessary response to the New York Times report on Sunday — namely, its reporting that Bolton’s upcoming book will allege that Trump tied the release of military aid to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelesnky opening investigations into the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. If accurately reported — and that does appear to be the case — Bolton’s claims undercut the president’s defense of his conduct. Trump’s legal team says he did not withhold aid in order to extract a politically damaging investigation of his primary rival’s family. Bolton apparently says the opposite.
Bolton is thus a critical component of this impeachment trial. As Trump’s national security adviser during the withholding of U.S. aid during the spring and summer of 2019, Bolton is exceptionally well placed to know what Trump said and why that aid was withheld. We should recognize as much. And as the Washington Examiner‘s Susan Ferrechio reports, Republicans are increasingly predisposed to hear Bolton’s testimony.
Do not misunderstand me. Bolton is just one individual in an executive branch full of individuals who worked on the Ukraine issue. And by saving his testimony for publication in a multimillion-dollar book deal rather than presenting it early and openly, Bolton has opened himself to challenges that his motive is shaped by profit.
Still, Bolton is a long-serving public official with intimate experience of executive policy.
The views of this former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations are obviously debatable, but his patriotism and intellect are not. Again, Bolton was Trump’s No. 1 national security official during the relevant period of the military aid suspension. Bolton is thus well placed to be judged as a credible and first-hand witness to the president’s conduct.
Senators can draw their own conclusions from what Bolton may or may not say and weigh that testimony against what others more favorable to the president have said. But to not call Bolton as a witness would be at best an act of political cowardice. At worse, it would be a betrayal of senators’ solemn oaths of office.
Compel Bolton to speak before the people, then let senators weigh his words alongside all the other evidence.
