- Democrats renewed calls for former National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial after new details from an unpublished draft of his upcoming book were reported by the New York Times.
- According to the Times, Bolton wrote that President Trump told him he wanted to continue a freeze on aid to Ukraine until officials announced investigations the Bidens.
- Trump denied the allegations and accused Bolton of just trying to sell his book, a claim echoed by other Republicans.
Calls for former National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify in the ongoing impeachment trial intensified Sunday, following a report from the New York Times detailing new information from an unpublished draft of Bolton’s upcoming book.
According to the Times, back in August, President Donald Trump told then-Security Adviser Bolton that “he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.”
The news hits at the heart of the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
Democrats allege that Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the country to announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
They also claim that Trump obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry, blocking subpoenaed witnesses from testifying, and not handing over key documents.
According to the Times, Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, “collectively pressed the president about releasing the aid nearly a dozen times” but Trump “effectively rebuffed them.”
Bolton’s book, which is called “The Room Where It Happened,” is set for publication on March 17. According to the Times, the allegations about Trump and the Ukraine aid were included in drafts of the manuscript that Bolton gave to associates.
In a statement, Bolton’s lawyer Charles Cooper said that he had given the White House a copy of the book on Dec. 30 as part of the is a standard review process for administration officials who write books.
Representatives for Bolton, however, have said that he did not give the manuscript to the Times.
“It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” Cooper said a statement.
Trump denied the allegations in a tweet late Sunday night.
“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” the president wrote. “In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
In another tweet on Monday morning, Trump falsely claimed that the House never asked Bolton to testify.
House Democrats did in fact summon Bolton to testify in October, but he declined. At the time, Bolton’s lawyer cited instructions from the White House for former and current White House officials to not testify, though he did say Bolton would testify if subpoenaed.
Democrats did not subpoena Bolton, because the legal process for trying to get testimony or documents from witnesses who had been blocked by the White House could take months if not years.
At the beginning of this month, Bolton said that he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed for the trial.
Renewed Calls for Testimony
Even before the House voted to impeach Trump, there was a debate raging over whether or not new witnesses would be called to testify in the Senate trial.
Democrats wanted to call four key witnesses that they say could have first-hand accounts, including Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Republicans, however, have repeatedly refused, saying new evidence should not be introduced in the Senate portion of the trial.
But Democrats in both chambers have argued that new witnesses should be allowed based on past precedent, pointing out that new witnesses were called during Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the Senate.
Democrats again called for new witnesses after the Times story broke. In a statement Sunday night, impeachment managers said that there was “no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump.”
“There is no defensible reason to wait until his book is published, when the information he has to offer is critical to the most important decision Senators must now make — whether to convict the President of impeachable offenses,” the statement continued.
Implications for Senate Trial
The new information could finally give Democrats the push they need to call witnesses.
A vote for new witnesses would only require a simple majority, and Democrats have focused on getting a group of four key Republicans to agree to allow witnesses. Now, some of those Republicans seem to be leaning towards voting in favor of the idea.
In a statement Monday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the key Republican Senators who had been open about possibly supporting a vote new witnesses, said that the new revelations from Bolton “strengthen the case for witnesses.”
“The reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues,” the statement continued.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), another Senator who considered calling witnesses, also made similar remarks to reporters on Capitol Hill Monday.
“I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton,” Sen. Romney said.
But other Republicans have pushed back on the idea.
“If we seek witnesses, then we’re going to throw the country into chaos,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-KY) said on Fox News Sunday night.
However, in a tweet Monday morning, Sen. Graham said that if the Senate voted to allow Democrats their witnesses, then Trump should be allowed witnesses he requested as well. Trump has in the past called for Joe Biden and his son Hunter to testify.
Whether or not witnesses are called, the new information could poke a hole in some of the key arguments put forward by Trump’s defense team.
Republican’s and Trump’s lawyers have continually asserted that there have been no first-hand eyewitnesses, a point made by Deputy White House Counsel Michael Purpura in the Senate trial on Saturday.
“Not a single witness testified that the President himself said there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a Presidential meeting, or anything else,” he said.
Now, Bolton and Democrats claim that the former National Security Adviser is a first-hand witness to Trump connecting the calls for an investigation into Biden to the withheld aid.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Politico) (Fox News)
Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event
The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.
Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.
The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.
The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.”
The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.
“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.
“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”
The Age Maximum Question
Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.
Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.
While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.
These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.
There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.
What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.
As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.
Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.
However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)
Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds
In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.
A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse
More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.
Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.
All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.
“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”
“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.
“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”
Abuses Go Unreported
Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.
Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.
Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.
In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.
In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.
The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”
See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)
Texas AG Ken Paxton Allegedly Flees Official Serving Subpoenas in Truck
Following the news, a judge granted the attorney general’s request to quash the subpoenas.
Paxton on the Run
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fled his own home in a truck Monday morning to evade an official trying to serve him a subpoena, according to an affidavit filed in federal court.
Last month, several nonprofits filed a lawsuit seeking to block Texas from charging individuals under the state’s abortion ban in cases that happened out of state or prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Two subpoenas were issued summoning Paxton to a Tuesday court hearing, one for his professional title and the other addressed to him personally.
Early on Monday Ernesto Martin Herrera, a process server, knocked on the front door of Paxton’s home in McKinney and was greeted by Texas state senator Angela Paxton, who is the Attorney General’s wife.
According to the affidavit, Herrera identified himself and informed her that he was delivering court documents to Mr. Paxton. She responded that her husband was on the phone and in a hurry to leave, so Herrera returned to his vehicle and waited for Ken to emerge.
Nearly an hour later, the affidavit states, a black Chevrolet Tahoe pulled into the driveway, and 20 minutes after that, the attorney general stepped out.
“I walked up the driveway approaching Mr. Paxton and called him by his name,” Herrera wrote in the affidavit. “As soon as he saw me and heard me call his name out, he turned around and RAN back inside the house through the same door in the garage.”
Shortly afterward, Angela exited the house and climbed into a truck in the driveway, leaving a rear driver-side door open.
“A few minutes later I saw Mr. Paxton RAN from the door inside the garage towards the rear door behind the driver side,” Herrera wrote. “I approached the truck, and loudly called him by his name and stated that I had court documents for him.”
“Mr. Paxton ignored me and kept heading for the truck,” he continued.
The affidavit adds that Herrera placed the documents on the ground by the vehicle and stated that he was serving a subpoena, but the Paxtons drove away.
Process Server or Lingering Stranger?
Following the publication of the affidavit in The Texas Tribune, Ken attacked the news outlet on Twitter and claimed to fear for his safety.
“This is a ridiculous waste of time and the media should be ashamed of themselves,” he wrote. “All across the country, conservatives have faced threats to their safety – many threats that received scant coverage or condemnation from the mainstream media.”
“It’s clear that the media wants to drum up another controversy involving my work as Attorney General, so they’re attacking me for having the audacity to avoid a stranger lingering outside my home and showing concern about the safety and well-being of my family,” he continued.
On Monday, the attorney general filed two requests: a motion to quash the subpoena and another to seal the certificates of service, which included the affidavit.
His lawyers argued that Herrera “loitered at the Attorney General’s home for over an hour, repeatedly shouted at him, and accosted” him and his wife.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted both requests on Tuesday.
In a statement, the attorney general said that Herrera is “lucky this situation did not escalate further or necessitate force.”