Last year, in columns and testimonies, I punished the Democrats for the shortest, narrowest investigation with the thinnest record of a presidential impeachment in history. Insisting on impeachment until Christmas had nullified the likelihood of mandatory impeachment proceedings. It now appears that one person agrees with this assessment: former national security adviser John Bolton. I referred to Bolton and his upcoming book as one of the reasons why spending more time could significantly improve and expand the Fall House. Bolton said he simply wanted a court to pass on the privilege claim, which could easily have been achieved in the time wasted by the house (including the long delay in filing impeachment proceedings to the Senate). In response, the Democratic leadership has turned to Bolton because, despite his offer, he refused to report after a federal judge heard the privilege claim.
Bolton insists that the House Democratic leadership "made impeachment errors" by "focusing its case too closely on Ukraine when Trump's Ukrainian violations spanned the full spectrum of its foreign policy."
The excerpts from the book, if true, would demonstrate a bad president rather than an unassailable president. Favors offered to other countries and ruthless promises are unlikely to lead to high crimes and crimes. However, Bolton claims a pattern of disability that, with more evidence, could lead to serious accusations. He said: "If the house hadn't only focused on the Ukrainian aspects of Trump's confusion of personal interests, there might have been a greater chance of convincing others that" high crimes and crimes "were committed."
The point is that before the hearing on the House impeachment proceedings, Bolton stated that he would testify if the matter of his testimony were brought before a federal court. He did not say that he would wait for appeals. He wanted legal protection. As I noted in my testimony, even a court ruling against the government would strengthen the claims against the president and possibly ask Bolton to testify (like other government officials).
The house was not only oddly passive in trying to enforce such a testimony. It actually withdrew one of the few subpoenas pending before the court in the case of Charles Kupperman, Trump's former deputy national security advisor. Kupperman was ready to testify and just wanted a judicial review, but the house strangely withdrew his request to testify.
The failure to persecute such witnesses through the house was predictably exploited by the White House in the Senate process.
The fact is that the house could have waited and built a stronger case. I have spoken out against the position of my fellow witnesses that the definition of actual crimes for their use as the basis for impeachment is irrelevant – and I have specifically spoken out against impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign funding violations, or obstruction of the judiciary . The committee finally rejected these articles and adopted the only two articles that I believed could be lawfully put forward: abuse of power, disability to Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting my position on the abuse of power. Our only difference of opinion was that I rejected the impeachment in this protocol as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate.
Pelosi and Schiff mocked their defense over the hasty impeachment as they stopped and weeks passed before they sent the articles to the Senate. I previously discussed the contradictory position of the house. From the beginning, Pelosi's trick, which withheld the house's impeachment articles, was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment he loathed. More importantly, the leaders insisted only a few days earlier that some of us were wrongly encouraged to wait for an impeachment vote to produce a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like Bolton, as there was no time to postpone this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counted to send the articles to the Senate.
In response to Bolton, the House leadership doesn't accuse him of their catastrophic strategy. Chairman Adam Schiff insisted that Bolton "may be an author, but he is not a patriot". Maybe, but Bolton could say that the impeachment showed that Schiff was a politician but not a tactician.
Schiff said Bolton should have testified as his staff added, "When asked Bolton, he declined and said he would sue if he was summoned. Instead, he saved it for a book." However, the point is, that the ship did not try to go to court, and the house withdrew a related case just before the court could rule, and then the impeachment was speeded up just to stop a cent and wait for weeks of delays in submitting the impeachment items .
One cannot agree whether the allegations in the Bolton book constitute criminal offenses, but it is certainly the type of allegation that the Democrats based on impeachment. Of course, this is a form of misconduct that is impossible to process. Some forms of gross negligence are practically without punishment. Those who wanted to be impeached are often not even willing to consider whether they were fooled in this rash effort. Neither the media nor the democratic base are ready to objectively investigate the failure to prosecute a broader and more substantive case against Trump. For Trump to be illegitimate, the impeachment must be flawless.