John Bolton's statement should scare Trump

Article Image

Former White House national security adviser John Bolton says he is willing to testify in the Senate's impeachment trial of President Donald Trump if Bolton is subpoenaed.

Posted: Jan 6, 2020 4:50 PM
Updated: Jan 6, 2020 4:50 PM

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton announced Monday that "if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify" at the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. This is what Trump should fear most, and it is why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is so determined to hold a witness-free, substance-less trial. More than any other person, Bolton can blow apart Trump's defenses and change the trajectory of the case for the impeachment.

Bolton's testimony is potentially explosive because he has direct, firsthand knowledge of Trump's reasons for withholding foreign aid to Ukraine. According to prior testimony from former White House adviser Timothy Morrison, Bolton met one-on-one with Trump in August 2019 to try to convince Trump to release nearly $400 million in aid for Ukraine. Morrison said he does not know precisely what happened during that meeting but he testified that, after the meeting ended, Bolton said Trump "was not yet ready to approve the release of the assistance."

And the New York Times reported recently that Bolton -- along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper -- met with Trump in the Oval Office in late August 2019. The purpose of the meeting, according to the Times: to convince Trump that releasing the held-back foreign aid to Ukraine was "in interests of the United States." Bolton, Pompeo, and Esper reportedly "tried but failed" in their mission.

Bolton can testify about both of these crucial meetings. And that testimony could be game-changing. Perhaps Trump gave legitimate reasons for not releasing the aid, or perhaps Trump confirmed that his intent was to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. Either way, we need to know -- whoever it may help or hurt. Only two people on the planet know what happened in one of those meetings: Trump and Bolton, and there's no way we'll hear about it (under oath) from Trump.

It remains unclear why Bolton made his remarks on Monday, yet is staying otherwise silent about his meeting with Trump. He has his book deal, he is back on Twitter, yet he has not spoken publicly about what he knows. While a subpoena would legally compel Bolton to testify, there is nothing at all stopping him from disclosing publicly what he knows.

And it must be asked: If Bolton is so willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, would he be similarly willing to testify in the House? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is dug in against Democratic efforts to call witnesses to testify at trial, but Democrats control the House. House Democrats curiously refrained from subpoenaing Bolton before, but there is no legal reason why House Democrats could not subpoena him now; although the House has voted on articles of impeachment, it retains the ability to investigate and, if necessary, amend or vote on new Articles. If Bolton is willing to honor a command from the Senate to testify, he should be just as willing to talk in the House.

Bolton's statement ups the pressure on McConnell. Either the impeachment trial will be a real, substantive fact-finding process that will move us towards the truth, or it will be a meaningless, illegitimate political whitewash. McConnell and the Senate are running out of excuses, fast.

And now, your questions:

Jim (Florida): Even though the House has passed articles of impeachment, can they still gather more evidence and use that new evidence at the trial?

Legally, there is nothing to prevent House or Senate Democrats from using evidence discovered after the passage of the articles of impeachment.

Several important new pieces of evidence have emerged recently, primarily through intrepid journalism and reporting. A cache of internal administration emails released by Just Security established that the hold on Ukrainian foreign aid was based on "clear direction from POTUS." Then, there's the August 2019 Oval Office meeting between Trump, Pompeo, Bolton and Esper.

Mechanically, House Democrats could approach the new evidence in any of three ways. First, they could amend the current articles of impeachment, if necessary, to adjust the charges to fit the new evidence. Second, the House could pass new articles of impeachment. Both of those options would, however, require full House votes, and the new evidence does not seem to necessitate amended or new articles. Third, and most likely, Democrats can use the newly-discovered evidence to bolster their case on the articles of impeachment that already have been passed.

This new evidence strengthens the hand of Congressional Democrats who are pushing for a substantive Senate trial including witnesses and other evidence. The argument, in essence, is: we have enough evidence to impeach, but there still is much more that we do not know -- in large part because the administration has fought to keep it hidden. Thus, it is essential that the Senate trial have a genuine fact-finding function, and not be a mere political rubber stamp.

Ram (Georgia): How quickly can the Supreme Court rule on the Trump tax returns case -- or on any important case relating to impeachment?

The Supreme Court can rule essentially as quickly as it wants, or as the situation demands. The court controls its own docket; it alone decides which cases to take (based on a vote of at least four of the nine justices) and how to prioritize those cases. As an extreme example, in the aftermath of the contested November 2000 presidential election, the court took less than a week to take up and rule on Bush v. Gore. That decision stopped ballot recounts in Florida, effectively ending the election in favor of George W. Bush.

The court already has granted certiorari -- meaning, agreed to take and decide on -- the Trump tax returns cases. So the tax returns ruling could come at any time between now and the end of the court's current term in June 2020. The court has not given any particular indication that it will expedite that ruling because of Trump's impeachment or any other factor.

If an urgent case should arise relating to the impeachment trial -- for example, a dispute over a subpoena -- then the court first will decide if it wants to take the case at all. Given that courts generally steer clear of what they deem "political questions," it likely will try to stay out of impeachment if possible. But if the court does decide that it must or should take an impeachment-related case, it can do so essentially as quickly as it determines the situation demands.

Mary (Maryland): The DOJ opinion says a sitting president should not be indicted because he or she would be unable to complete executive duties. How is impeachment any less a demand on a president's time and attention?

The DOJ opinion counseling against indictment of a sitting president concludes that criminal prosecution is inappropriate because, among other things, it might "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."

While an impeachment proceeding also certainly commands a president's time and attention, there are important differences in degree. As the DOJ opinion notes, the "stigma" and burden imposed by indictment is more severe than impeachment. And, perhaps most importantly, indictment -- unlike impeachment -- could result in a prison sentence, "which would make it physically impossible for the President to carry out his duties." (Of course, in the event of impeachment, the President would be immediately replaced by the vice president, who would carry on the duties of the office).

Fundamentally, impeachment and indictment are different Constitutional creatures, with different consequences. Indictment is brought by the executive branch (through the Department of Justice) to punish people for criminal wrongdoing; impeachment is brought by the legislative branch to remove individuals from office who have abused or misused power. The argument that impeachment is too much of a distraction to the person being impeached would effectively undo the Constitutional remedy altogether and leave Congress without any recourse to remove corrupt officials from power.

Three questions to watch

1. Will more new evidence emerge, and will it bolster Democrats' call for witnesses at trial?

2. How long will Speaker Pelosi try to hold articles of impeachment without sending them to the Senate?

3. Will Senators McConnell and Schumer make any progress towards negotiating terms of the impeachment trial?

Mississippi Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 319704

Reported Deaths: 7369
CountyCasesDeaths
DeSoto22276267
Hinds20677421
Harrison18407317
Rankin13880282
Jackson13689248
Madison10249224
Lee10056176
Jones8464167
Forrest7827153
Lauderdale7260242
Lowndes6509150
Lamar634888
Lafayette6310121
Washington5420137
Bolivar4837133
Panola4669110
Oktibbeha466098
Pearl River4604147
Marshall4573105
Warren4440121
Pontotoc425373
Union415777
Monroe4155135
Neshoba4061179
Lincoln4008112
Hancock386687
Leflore3515125
Tate342486
Sunflower339491
Pike3369111
Alcorn325972
Scott320174
Yazoo314171
Adams307486
Itawamba305178
Copiah299966
Coahoma298784
Simpson298189
Tippah291968
Prentiss283861
Leake271974
Marion271280
Covington267283
Wayne264442
Grenada264087
George252051
Newton248663
Tishomingo231568
Winston229981
Jasper222148
Attala215073
Chickasaw210559
Holmes190374
Clay187854
Stone187833
Tallahatchie180041
Clarke178980
Calhoun174132
Yalobusha167840
Smith164034
Walthall135347
Greene131833
Lawrence131024
Montgomery128643
Noxubee128034
Perry127138
Amite126342
Carroll122330
Webster115032
Jefferson Davis108033
Tunica108027
Claiborne103130
Benton102325
Humphreys97533
Kemper96629
Franklin85023
Quitman82216
Choctaw79118
Wilkinson69532
Jefferson66228
Sharkey50917
Issaquena1696
Unassigned00

Alabama Coronavirus Cases

Cases: 548323

Reported Deaths: 11288
CountyCasesDeaths
Jefferson809531565
Mobile42066826
Madison35663525
Tuscaloosa26162458
Shelby25595254
Montgomery25081612
Baldwin21839313
Lee16265176
Calhoun14718325
Morgan14626285
Etowah14171363
Marshall12449230
Houston10764288
Elmore10295213
Limestone10182157
St. Clair10160251
Cullman9941201
Lauderdale9596249
DeKalb8967189
Talladega8458184
Walker7335280
Autauga7230113
Blount6944139
Jackson6922113
Colbert6414140
Coffee5627127
Dale4929114
Russell454941
Chilton4472116
Franklin431083
Covington4273122
Tallapoosa4136155
Escambia401780
Chambers3726124
Dallas3607156
Clarke352961
Marion3242106
Pike314078
Lawrence3129100
Winston283572
Bibb268464
Geneva257581
Marengo250665
Pickens236862
Barbour234659
Hale226878
Butler224071
Fayette218162
Henry193843
Cherokee187245
Randolph187044
Monroe179341
Washington170439
Macon162951
Clay160159
Crenshaw155657
Cleburne153244
Lamar146537
Lowndes142054
Wilcox127030
Bullock124242
Conecuh113430
Coosa111429
Perry108626
Sumter105732
Greene93534
Choctaw62025
Out of AL00
Unassigned00
Tupelo
Clear
80° wxIcon
Hi: 90° Lo: 68°
Feels Like: 83°
Columbus
Partly Cloudy
78° wxIcon
Hi: 91° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 81°
Oxford
Clear
75° wxIcon
Hi: 88° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 75°
Starkville
Clear
77° wxIcon
Hi: 90° Lo: 63°
Feels Like: 79°
We continue to monitor a tropical disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico. This will be in heavy rainfall two locations across the southeast over the course of the weekend, and flooding rainfall could be in tow as well. Things are looking better for Father’s Day itself, thankfully.
WTVA Radar
WTVA Temperatures
WTVA Severe Weather