A Bolton out of the blue

The New York Times reports that former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton's upcoming book claims that President Trump specifically told him that military aid to Ukraine was not to be released until that nation agreed to help him get dirt on his probable opponent this November, former Vice-President Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.

Bolton has said that he would comply with a subpoena to testify at the president's impeachment trial. Naturally, Mr. Trump- who never admits wrongdoing- denies it.

The Senate's Republican majority- cooperating with this administration's long-standing policy of stonewalling and secrecy concerning charges against the president of any kind- is expected to vote not to allow the calling of witnesses in the trial, thus shielding the president from the implications of Bolton's potential testimony. But in light of this revelation, a question arises as to whether that will be politically possible. For the Senate's Republicans to be too blatant about suppressing evidence would not play well with a public more than half of which already supports the president's conviction and removal from office, and which will be voting on whether or not to give him a second term this November.

According to a CNN-SSRS poll released last week, 51% favor the president's conviction, with 46% opposed and four percent undecided. 58% said that they believe that the president abused his power to pressure Ukraine into helping him politically. 57% say that he obstructed Congress by forbidding members of his administration to cooperate with the House investigation.

The president's defense claims that the constitutional standard for impeachment requires that the president actually breaks the law. The language of the Constitution itself and the writings of the Founders, as well as precedent,  seem to call that claim into serious question (Federal judges have been removed for public drunkenness and favoritism, for example) and in any case, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is answerable to Congress, has found that Mr. Trump did, in fact, violate the law by withholding the aid from Ukraine.

Leading Republican senators plainly stated before taking an oath to "do impartial justice" at the outset of the trial that they had already made up their minds that the president was innocent. Doubtless, many Democratic senators have already made up their minds that the president is guilty as well. But public statements amounting to pledges to violate their oaths as jurors seem to put those Republicans who made them in a particularly awkward position.

So will the president's likely acquittal in a blatantly "rigged" trial, especially if the Senate refuses to allow Bolton and other new witnesses with potentially significant evidence to testify. And that will be helpful this November neither to the president nor to Republican senators who vote to silence those witnesses.

Four Republican senators would have to defy the president for the witnesses to be called. So far Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine seem likely to do so, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee appear to be considering it.

But the closer one looks at the process and the evidence, the worse voting against the calling of the witnesses is going to look, and the harder it will look to justify the president's inevitable acquittal. But of course, Mr. Trump's supporters are used to defending the indefensible by now.

We will see this November how that plays with the real jury, the American people.