What happened
The publication of damaging details in
former national security adviser John
Bolton’s new book upended the Senate
impeachment trial of President Trump
this week, creating a bitterly partisan
showdown over whether Bolton and
other witnesses would be called to
testify. Shortly before The Week went
to press, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) told the Repub-
lican caucus he no longer had the 50
votes necessary to block witnesses, but
was reportedly confident he would
get them. He and other Republicans
warned colleagues that calling Bolton
as a witness might open the door to
weeks of testimony Democrats could use as political ammunition,
while not affecting Trump’s inevitable acquittal. House impeach-
ment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that the truth was
“a subpoena away,” while Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) warned
that Republican senators who broke ranks would face “political
repercussions.”
The impeachment trial had seemed to be heading to a speedy reso-
lution before The New York Times described explosive claims in a
draft of Bolton’s as-yet-unpublished memoir, The Room Where It
Happened, which was sent to the White House on Dec. 30 for a re-
view of classified information. Bolton said he approached Trump in
August about his concerns over $391 million in frozen military aid
to Ukraine, and Trump told him the aid would remain frozen until
Ukrainian officials turned over “materials” related to Democratic
presidential candidate Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign,
and “the Russian investigation.”
Trump defense attorney Jay Sekulow said Bolton’s book was not
part of the evidence gathered by House Democrats and was there-
fore “inadmissible.” Sekulow argued that removing Trump from
office in an election year over disputed evidence and a vague charge
of “abuse of power” would open future presidents to unjustified,
partisan impeachments. “Danger, dan-
ger, danger,” Sekulow said.
What the editorials said
Bolton’s revelations go to “the heart” of
Trump’s defense, said the Los Angeles
Times. Trump’s lawyers claim he froze
the aid because of general concerns
about Ukrainian corruption and his
dislike of foreign aid, and insist there’s
no direct evidence that he demanded an
investigation into his political rivals. But
now Bolton is providing a firsthand ac-
count of Trump’s own words—that until
Ukraine announced an investigation of
the Bidens, it would get no aid. How
can “a full and fair trial” be conducted
without Bolton’s testimony?
This is hardly a bombshell, said
The Wall Street Journal. The rough
transcript of Trump’s July 25 call to
Ukraine’s president makes it clear
he was asking for “an investigation
of Hunter and Joe Biden.” Bolton
is merely providing evidence that
Trump “made a direct connection”
between the aid and the investigations
he wanted, which, frankly, “everyone
already assumed.” That said, Bolton
has certainly put Republicans in a
“tough political spot.” They either
have to allow new witnesses, or hear
Democrats “shout cover-up from here
to November.”What the columnists said
Will Mitch McConnell actually “bet
the Senate on Trump?” asked Charles
Sykes in TheBulwark.com. The latest poll from Quinnipiac Univer-
sity showed 75 percent of registered voters, including 49 percent of
Republicans, believe the Senate should call witnesses. If McConnell
helps Trump by denying Bolton’s testimony, he will endanger the
seats of “vulnerable GOP senators” who are up for re-election in
purple states in November, such as Susan Collins of Maine, Cory
Gardner of Colorado, and Martha McSally of Arizona.Let’s not pretend that Bolton is “neutral or free of bias” in this
affair, said Brad Polumbo in WashingtonExaminer.com. This is a
man who spent 17 months as national security adviser promoting
“a hawkish, pro-interventionist stance” at direct odds with Presi-
dent Trump’s vision of “America First.” His claims should be taken
with “a grain of salt.” How ironic that Democrats are now lion-
izing their former “stock villain” as “a hero to the resistance,” said
Daniel McCarthy in Spectator.us. And let’s not forget Bolton has
a $2 million advance to recoup from a book that became available
for pre-order on Amazon on the same day as the Times report.The Bolton revelations have forced congressional Republicans to
pivot hard to a “new talking point,” said Rachael Bade in The
Washington Post. No longer able to argue that there was no quid
pro quo, Republican senators retreated to an argument from
Trump’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz—that
Trump’s “actions don’t rise to the level
of impeachment, even if the allegation
is true.”Bolton’s revelations, said Peter Baker
in The New York Times, sound like
“an echo of the so-called smoking-gun
tape that proved President Richard
M. Nixon really had orchestrated the
Watergate cover-up.” But in the Trump
era, the “old rules” no longer always
apply. With “unwavering support”
among a GOP base willing to dismiss
any scandal as a smear by Democrats,
the media, or the Deep State, Trump
has survived scandals that would have
destroyed any “ordinary politician.”
So will Bolton’s bombshell prove to be
just another brief-lived scandal, or the
moment that “changed the trajectory
of the presidency”? APA dangerous enemy: Bolton leaving his home this weekTHE WEEK February 7, 2020
4 NEWS The main stories...
Bolton’s book roils impeachment trial
Illustration by Howard McWilliam.
Cover photos from Newscom, Getty, APWhat next?
“Republicans who feign offense whenever
Democrats intimate they are Trump toadies now
are in a real bind,” said Jennifer Rubin in The
Washington Post. Voting down a chance to hear
from Bolton will make the Senate acquittal look
like “a sham trial.” A refusal to hear relevant
evidence would also “deny Trump the exonera-
tion” he so badly wants. The White House won’t
be content to block Bolton’s testimony, said Jake
Tapper in CNN.com. It wants to stop the publica-
tion of Bolton’s book itself. In a letter to Bolton’s
lawyer, a National Security Council lawyer said
the memoir, due in March, contains “top secret”
information and “couldn’t be published as
written.” Trump, for his part, attacked the book
as “nasty and untrue,” and an attempt to make
money. The president also said that if he had
listened to the hawkish Bolton, “we would be in
World War Six by now.”