To Testify or To Publish
There’s been a lot of talk this week on many of our national programs about a forthcoming book by former National Security Advisor John Bolton. I do have great concerns about someone who is privvy to the most sensitive conversations and details being able to cash in while the president, any president, is still in office.
Recall a similar issue when former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote his memoir while Barack Obama was still in office. Democrats cried foul. They’re strangely silent this time. Perhaps it’s because Bolton is coming out strong against Trump in an election year; that does make it far different than the Gates situation, since his book came out after Obama had already won his second term.
Many…on both sides, actually…say if Bolton thought Trump was such a threat to the stability of the nation, as he claims in a book for which he was reportedly advanced $2 million, then he should have been clear earlier, including testifying as part of the impeachment proceedings not even a year ago. (For what it’s worth, it’s amazing to recall that it’s only been six months since the trial in the Senate was held.)
Some suggest that Bolton was really a sell out, not wanting to testify for free when he could get paid to tell the story in a book. I’d respectively suggest a possible alternative.
In a book, you write what you want, you claim it’s all truthful, and the public decides.
In a hearing before Congress…whether impeachment or otherwise…you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
So…no sworn testimony before Congress, but plenty of words that are not held to the “under oath” standard.
We’ve already seen plenty of differences between public statements and sworn testimony in the past few years during all manner of anti-Trump investigations. Is it hard to believe something quite similar is at work again here?
