My suggestion for @AmbJohnBolton: A public proffer, at a high level of altitude, as to what he could testify to if called. This could be done orally, or—probably better—in writing and at a sufficient level of altitude that it would not implicate whatever classification....
...issues the NSC purports to have with his book manuscript. He could say, for example, that if called, he would offer new evidence regarding:
(1) what the president said regarding the reason for the hold on military aid,
(2) whether the president was really concerned...
(1) what the president said regarding the reason for the hold on military aid,
(2) whether the president was really concerned...
...about corruption in Ukraine or whether he was acting in a self-interested political fashion.
Etc
The key thing, in my view, is that he should lay out the stakes *before* the Senate votes in whether to hear from him and to make clear where the evidence he has...
Etc
The key thing, in my view, is that he should lay out the stakes *before* the Senate votes in whether to hear from him and to make clear where the evidence he has...
...is not merely cumulative but new.
#justanidea
#justanidea
