Interesting that John Bolton issues his pronouncement the Monday after Trump acts in violent aggression against Iran. Something Bolton’s obsessively promoted for decades.
But there’s a lot of “strange” here. Bolton had previously said he wouldn’t testify until courts ruled on a related case about whether it was kosher for the White House to block him and others from testifying to Congress. At the same time, he was soliciting advances for a tell-all book about his time in Trump’s White House. And now Bolton, in a statement, refers specifically to his willingness to testify in front of the Republican-controlled Senate, not the House. But the House never subpoenaed him during their impeachment hearings because back then they knew he wouldn’t testify. And Senate leadership has made it very clear they don’t want any witnesses testifying in their required trial of Trump.
So does this signal that Bolton’s shoved open a window at least a crack to the possibility witnesses will be part of a Senate trial? And at least one who worked very closely with Trump? And help break a stalemate with Democratic leadership in the House on how and when that trial will proceed? Sure. Maybe.
The only thing that’s Bolton’s actually accomplished though, is once again getting Liberals’ hearts pumping fast and using words like “bombshell” and “huge” to describe Bolton’s prospective testimony. But it’s a dangerous assumption (as we pointed out earlier, in our piece “Be Careful What You Wish For Re: John Bolton“), that the “bombshell” will inevitability devastate Trump.
Could Bolton’s odd timing have anything to do with the fact that he made a big deal of cheering over the weekend about what Trump did in Iran, while not forgetting to imply all the “good” the President finally decided to do was actually Bolton’s idea all along?
Or could he be reacting to the fact that even though Bolton’s fingerprints were all over Trump’s Iran move, nobody cared, and nobody gave Bolton any attention or credit for it? (He was part of our story, but we realize that’s not the same as being a daily fixture in the Washington Post.)
Could it be he’s mad at Trump for not sharing that credit on Iran after just a short time ago being summarily tossed out of the White House by Trump?
Or… Could he be overjoyed that Trump’s following down a path Bolton urged him to walk repeatedly, and no other American President (he’s worked for several, for some reason), until now has listened to him?
Let’s completely over-analyze this for a sec, and dissect one of Bolton’s juicy Tweets from the weekend:
First of all, he doesn’t single out Trump for praise. Just “all involved”. In fact, doesn’t include the President’s name at all. Then Bolton gives himself a backhanded compliment by pointing out “eliminating Qassem Soleimani” was “long in the making”. Meaning going back to when he was in the White House? But then he does seem to credit Trump, at least indirectly, with striking a “decisive blow”. Unless you read it as Bolton taking credit for that “decisive blow”, given those words’ proximity to the words “long in the making” in the Tweet, which seems an equally valid inference.
Anyway could any of the things we outlined above color what he’s now suddenly willing to share with the public during his proposed Senate testimony?
Short answer: yes. Bolton lives to throw curve balls and kick up dust. And outwit and outplay. (And then let other people come around to straighten things up and clean up.) Bolton’s loyalty is to Bolton. If that means hewing to Trump and getting his gratification from leaving hopeful Democrats with their dreams destroyed, we could see him facilitating that. If that means smashing the Trump Presidency with a hammer because the President didn’t acknowledge he was the smartest guy in the room, we could maybe see that too. It all depends how he chooses to tell his story.
Sure, Bolton should testify. But we still have huge doubts that he’s got the special sauce that’ll make Trump melt away. Bolton is a person who plays games, not a person to be trusted.