The Washington Post - 12.11.2019

tuesday, november 12 , 2019. the washington post eZ re a25

TUESDAY Opinion

J

ohn Bolton witnessed a “drug deal.”
Why won’t he tell the cops?
President Trump’s former national
security adviser wanted nothing to do
with the “drug deal” Trump advisers
were “cooking up” on Ukraine, according to
an aide’s impeachment testimony. Bolton’s
lawyer, Charles Cooper, teased House investi-
gators Friday with a letter saying his client
has first-hand knowledge of “many relevant
meetings and conversations that have not yet
been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”
And yet Bolton so far chooses to cover for
the drug dealers. He’s letting Cooper pursue
a legal maneuver that — whatever its intent
— would result in delaying Bolton’s testimo-
ny so long that he would likely avoid testify-
ing at all. That the maneuver serves primar-
ily as a delay mechanism became obvious
Friday when Trump chief of staff Mick Mul-
vaney, a Trump loyalist and key figure in the
“drug deal,” t ried to join the lawsuit Cooper
filed; Mulvaney withdrew his request Mon-
day after Cooper protested.
Bolton’s seeming complicity in the
coverup is puzzling. The legendary hawk
has pushed for confrontations with Afghan-
istan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Venezuela and elsewhere. Sud-
denly he’s conflict-avoidant?
For better or worse, Bolton has been a
man of principle. He is an ideologue with
unwavering beliefs about America’s role in
the world. Last year, for example, he argued
to the Federalist Society that U.S. participa-
tion in the International Criminal Court is
“superfluous” because:
“Domestic U.S. judicial systems already
hold American citizens to the highest legal
and ethical standards.... When violations
of law do occur, the United States takes ap-
propriate and swift action to hold perpetra-
tors accountable. We are a democratic na-
tion, with the most robust system of investi-
gation, accountability, and transparency in
the world. We believe in the rule of law, and
we uphold it.”
And now Bolton is helping to thwart the
rule of law in the United States by helping a
secretive administration avoid accountabili-
ty. How could Bolton not agree with George
Kent, the senior diplomat who told im-
peachment investigators that the adminis-
tration’s attempt to force Ukraine to investi-
gate Trump’s political opponents was “inju-
rious to the rule of law”?
Bolton is instead behaving like Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, angling for a Senate
run in Kansas, who didn’t defend Ambassa-
dor Marie Yovanovitch when Trump wrong-
ly maligned her. Now Pompeo blames his
failure on subordinates. Politically ambi-
tious former U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley, in a new book, boasts
that she rebuffed efforts by then-Chief of
Staff John Kelly and then-Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson to temper Trump’s more reck-
less moves. This, like her claim that she
wanted to quash “rumors” that she would
replace Vice President Pence on the ticket, is
a conveniently self-promotional way of pro-
fessing allegiance to Trump.
But Bolton isn’t a politician. He’s a for-
eign policy warrior, think-tank denizen and
bureaucratic infighter. When President
George W. Bush nominated him to be am-
bassador to the United Nations, even some
Republicans described Bolton as a “bully”
and “arrogant.” His reputation for extensive
note-taking reportedly has Trump advisers
in a dither about what damage he could do
in the impeachment probe.
Bolton should itch for the chance to tell
the world that what happened in Ukraine —
the self-interested use of U.S. military aid to
target domestic political rivals — squanders
U.S. strength and betrays his conservative
foreign policy. Instead, he sits quietly while
Trump pressures Republicans to declare
such corruption “perfect.”
Bolton and his former deputy, Charles
Kupperman, were reportedly “flabbergast-
ed” t hat Mulvaney wanted to join the law-
suit their lawyer filed seeking a ruling on
whether officials must comply with con-
gressional subpoenas. They shouldn’t have
been surprised. The judge set arguments for
Dec. 10 — guaranteeing the ruling will come
after the investigation is essentially over.
Waiting isn’t an option: Republicans are al-
ready demanding Democrats “wrap it up”
and protesting that impeachment shouldn’t
be undertaken before an election.
This explains why White House counsel
Pat Cipollone blessed Mulvaney’s maneuver
— and why House Democratic leaders are
trying to get the lawsuit dismissed by with-
drawing and withholding subpoenas. Coo-
per, representing Bolton and Kupperman,
claims he can’t rely on a related court ruling
because his clients would be testifying on
the “sensitive areas” of national security
and foreign affairs.
That might be persuasive if no fewer than
six national security advisers, and various
deputies, hadn’t testified to Congress on
matters of alleged misconduct — including
on national security.
Bolton isn’t being tight-lipped on princi-
ple. The Associated Press reported over the
weekend that he just signed a $2 million
book deal.
If he’s true to his professed beliefs — in
transparency, accountability and the rule of
law — he’ll find a way to give his eyewitness
account of the “drug deal” before the inves-
tigation closes. Alternatively, Bolton can
swallow his principles as he cashes out.
With luck, he might land a spot on “Dancing
With the Stars.”
Twitter: @Milbank

Dana Milbank
impeachment Diary

Why won’t

Bolton talk

to the cops? BY MITCH DANIELS

T

he candidates and issues in presidential campaigns vary wildly from cycle to cycle, but one con- stant for decades has been the general-election televised debates. Ever since the two major parties asserted control over the process in 1987 by creating the Commission on Presidential Debates, the number, timing and format of these events have been almost un- changed. One other feature hasn’t changed, but maybe it should. That’s t he cast of partici- pants, restricted with only one exception to the Republican and Democratic nominees. Only in 1992, when the two parties’ campaigns suggested H. Ross Perot’s inclusion — a masterstroke by one side and a fatal miscalculation by the other — was the stage widened to permit a third player. The 2020 general election campaign should be the next time. A commission that has stiff-armed pleas to admit a third candidate and fought off lawsuits challenging its refusals o ught to take the idea seriously this time around. Circumstanc- es have changed; the two-only policy should reflect that and change with them. I was a member of the Commission on Presidential Debates during the 2016 cycle. Critics’ suspicions that the CPD is motivated solely by bipartisan protec- tionism were not supported by my expe- rience. I observed only civic-minded people trying to serve the public interest as they understood it. The core of the commission’s commit- ment to its major-party restriction is the conviction that the debates should be limited to those with a chance to win. That view was convincing, or at least arguable, for the presidential elections of the commission’s first three decades, but it is ripe for reevaluation today. Since its emergence in the republic’s earliest years, the two-party system has served the nation well. A look at the travails of Italy, Israel or even Britain today should be enough to deter those tempted by a fragmented, multiparty alternative. The principal contribution of two- p arty domination has been the incentive each has felt to reach for the center. In their policies, their selection of candidates and in those candidates’ presenta- tions in broad forums such as the presidential debates, success generally de- pended on persuading — or at least not driving away — voters in a wide middle. But, as we all know, that was then. In 1988, the first CPD election, nearly one-third of Congress voted at least 20 percent of the time with the other party. Now, t he degree of overlap is in the single digits. A nomination process that no one designed, or would have, tends to produce nominees who cater to the fring- es. Researchers find an “exhausted ma- jority” leery of the extremism and weary of the harshness of the two parties as they exist today. A n unprecedented 4 in 10 voters decline to identify with one of the two parties. For years, another civic-spirited Amer- ican has been appealing for greater access to the commission stage. Peter Ack- erman has invested millions of his own funds appealing to and ultimately suing the commission, without success. As far as one can tell, his cause is as selfless as one sees in public life: He seeks no office, supports no candidate or third party, is currying no access or favor from anyone. He simply believes that the national dialogue needs improvement. The commission employs a complex qualification test utilizing selected public opinion polls, which so far no third candidate has passed, and Perot would not have met if it had been in effect in

Ackerman’s prescription, involving
a national petition process, is awkward;
quite possibly a better means could be
devised. This time around, the CPD
should attempt one.
However valid in the past, the “only
someone who can win” argument is less
than ideal in a time of radical polariza-
tion, with the pandering to extremes and
the cheapened discourse it brings. A
third voice on the stage, even one with no
realistic chance of capturing 270 elector-
al votes, could in this troubled era raise
issues the Big Two are ducking (the
pending collapse of the social safety net,
the national debt tsunami, etc.). He o r she
might model a bit of the civility and
respect for the nation’s h ighest office that
earlier aspirants, whatever their differ-
ences, once took for granted.
In his quest, Ackerman attacks the
“Catch-22” nature of the commission’s
position: Only a potential winner will be
allowed to debate, but only a debate
participant has a chance to win. A candi-
date who made it to the debate stage and
performed very well could, especially in
today’s instant-communications world,
vault to genuine contender status.
Stranger things have happened. Recent-
ly.
In virtually every economic and social
realm, we are a world away from 1987.
That’s obviously true of national politics,
too. While there is plenty of time to
fashion a better way, it would behoove
the good people of the commission to
reexamine their rigid attitude that three’s
a crowd.

This debate

system

is obsolete

BY CHRISTINA KOCH

AND JESSICA MEIR

LOW-EARTH ORBIT

I

t’s tough being smaller in a big-suit world. Aerospace is a n industry that innovates with every leap, but what makes it so worth pursuing also makes it an endeavor with long development times. So when NASA designed new spacesuits in the 197 0s after the Apollo missions, there were trade-offs. Very few astronauts required a small suit, so given limited resources, the result was a spacesuit fleet that best fit larger bodies — typically male bodies. But six years ago, before our astronaut c lass — the first class ever to be half women — stepped into our first spacewalk lesson, NASA made one thing very clear: Failure was not an option. We would be spacewalkers, and that meant all of us. Last month, that mantra rang true as the two of us embarked on the first spacewalk to be conducted with only women. Nothing could have fully pre- pared us for what it would be like to float outside the space station. And even on one’s 2 3rd — or 217th — day orbiting the Earth, as was the case for us, the vast expanse of the cosmos is still a wonder. The close quarters of the space- walking suit are another story. The current suit is challenging to oper- ate even when it fits perfectly. Its pressure resists movement, its bulkiness precludes dexterity, and its inertia demands significant up- per-body strength. When it is too big, these woes amplify. Not sur- prisingly, this drove persistent un- derrepresentation of women in sp acewalking. Although the first spacewalk by a man happened in 1965, it took until 1984 for a woman to step out into

the vacuum of space. Since then, a total of 15 women have ventured into it. Of the 221 spacewalks at the International Space Station, 37 have included a woman — and now, just one has included two. Those women who did break through before us became our hero- ines. As the sentiment and demo- graphics of the astronaut corps moved toward gender equality, the range of suit sizes remained an anachronism tethered to the era of its birth by technical constraints and long redevelopment timelines. In this instance, the ramifications of a different epoch of space exploration diminished slowly because of technology, not intention. We received nothing but support in our training at NASA. Mentors of all sizes lent their expertise. Class- mates guarded against biases that any one set of physical characteris- tics was inherently better for space- walking than any other. We knew that together, we could break down the faulty stereotypes built up by decades of limited-size spacesuits. Everybody was on board, from technicians who suited us up for practice runs to the leaders who prioritized our training. It was, in their eyes, their work, their high- fives. Ye t we found that echoes of a bygone era could still stack the deck against smaller astronauts. Last spring, though two fully certified female spacewalkers were ready to go out the hatch to make history, suits that would a llow t hem to do so were not. The sign of progress, however, was that this hitch result- ed from a delayed cargo launch followed by an aborted crew launch — not from any lack of will. In the same spirit that greeted our astronaut class at the door, NASA set to work reconfiguring the onboard s uit fleet. When it w as time for our spacewalks, two medium

suits awaited us in the airlock. One could say that the first all-female spacewalk was worth celebrating simply because it over- came history. It was the story of two girls who gazed at the stars with an improbable dream — and who as women were given the “go” to egress the airlock. But there’s more than that. The real achievement is the col- lective acknowledgment that it is no longer okay to move forward without everyone moving together. NASA’s mission is to answer humanity’s call to explore. If there is any part of humanity that’s not on that journey, we are not achieving our mission. The efforts to equalize exploration are what really ought t o be celebrated. NASA is in the habit of small steps and giant leaps. Our spacewalk was one; another will play out when the first woman and the next man set foot on the moon as part of the Artemis program in the 2020s. They will be wearing spacesuits designed with enhanced mobility and a size range that’s more extensive than ever before. With these suits, astronauts’ achievements will at last rely only on their own hard work and dedication. We are entering a new era where we must commit to go boldly only if that means we all go, an era in which any person who dares to dream will have the opportunity to contribute. Our successes will be greater because not a single innova- tive idea will be turned away — that is what diversity and inclusion mean. And that is why a long-over- due all-female spacewalk so capti- vated the world it served.

christina Koch and Jessica meir are naSa astronauts living aboard the international Space Station. they were the 14th and 15th women, respectively, to conduct a spacewalk.

A small step and a giant leap:

Spacesuits that fit all of us

naSa Via aSSOciateD preSS Astronauts Christina Koch and Jessica Meir exit the International Space Station on Oct. 18.

showed Evo Morales the door amid a wave of protests stemming from an artless attempt to steal the presidential election held on Oct. 20. T hat Morales — the last of the original “Pink Tide” leaders still in power — constituted a clear and present danger to Bolivian democracy isn’t really in doubt; he had shown that he would not submit to the dictates of popular sovereignty. The choice facing Bolivia’s military was stark: acquiesce to election fraud or overthrow the president. Of course, no historical parallel is ever quite exact. But Venezuelans know the risks of failing to get rid of a left-wing autocrat can be far higher than the risks of overthrowing him. That said, the absolute worst option is leaving the job unfinished: an abortive coup, felled by indecision and squab- bling among opponents of the old re- gime, leading to a newly radicalized episode of heightened authoritarian- ism. Back in 2002, I was reporting on the streets of Caracas, leading a camera crew on the street where the bulk of the massacre took place. My crew was lucky to escape with their lives. I remember the elation of seeing a budding autocrat felled, followed less than two days later by the dread of grasping that the opposi- tion had screwed up and that whatever brakes we’d had on the headlong rush toward leftist dictatorship were gone. To day, with more than 4 million Venezuelans having fled the country and almost 90 percent of those who remain facing chronic hunger, the collapse of the 2002 coup must be counted as one of the tragedies of the Venezuelan

T

ension had been building up over a long time, as the leftist president’s authoritarian streak became more and more obvious. Finally, faced with orders it just couldn’t countenance, the military re- volted, pushing the president out of power. Down but not out, the president refused to accept his ouster as constitu- tional, urging resistance against the “coup.” As his opponents struggle to come up with a viable way forward, it becomes clear now that they have lost the one thing that united them — disgust with the old president. Hard- right leaders with little in terms of popular support see a once-in-a-lifetime chance and stand ready to pounce. Sounds like the dramatic events that have unfolded in Bolivia in the past 48 hours, but it could also be Venezuela in April 2002. Sadly, the scenario is far from unique. To Venezuelans, the paral- lels are unmistakable. After Hugo Chávez gave the order to use the military to put down a huge civilian protest on April 11, 2002, the army’s chain of command buckled. By the early morning hours the next day, Chávez had resigned. But a series of blunders over the following 36 hours saw the coup crumble, and Chávez was returned triumphant to the presidential palace in Caracas. Emboldened by the failure of the coup, he and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, went on a two-decade campaign to dismantle Venezuelan democracy and provoke the most precipitous collapse in living standards any country has experienced outside of wartime. In Bolivia, on Sunday night, the army

story. Bolivians must not repeat our mistakes. Morales’s ambition to install himself as president for life was clear. Millions of Bolivians — 4 5 percent of the country — support his ambition. What happens next is key. The transition to democracy could collapse if personal agendas impose themselves over the pursuit of the common good, and if Morales’s supporters continue to feel threatened and targeted. The millions of everyday Bolivians who continue to support Morales must be reassured that there’s a future for them in a new, pluralistic Bolivia. Mo- rales and his cronies must be offered alternatives that lessen the stakes for them: Better to allow them exile with some of their loot than to have them become a permanent destabilizing force. Efforts to round up lawmakers and other Morales allies, while perhaps legally justified, are politically foolish and dangerous. Allowing some of these people to flee will be distasteful. It w ill infuriate some, and for good reason. But almost half of Bolivians today are scared, horrified by the collapse of a government that, for all its faults, they felt as their own. Unless there’s a clear plan to incorporate them in a political solution that includes clean elections and guarantees their social and political rights, the transition to democracy could collapse before it gets going. Ta ke it from a Venezuelan: This nightmare scenario is entirely real.

Fr ancisco toro is a Venezuelan political commentator and contributing columnist for Global Opinions. he is chief content officer of the Group of 50.

Francisco Toro

Bolivia needs a political solution

The Washington Post - 12.11.2019

BY CHRISTINA KOCH

AND JESSICA MEIR

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources