To the editor: Former White House national security advisor John Bolton has announced he would testify in the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Trump if subpoenaed. This had further complicated the debate about if, and how, he could appear before the Senate.
However, it seems perfectly logical for Bolton to testify first before the House, especially since it has not formally sent its articles of impeachment to the Senate. Even a grand jury can seek additional evidence before a trial has begun, and the House has more leeway than a grand jury.
Action by the House to compel Bolton’s testimony can force a few senators out of their foxholes later on and ultimately bring down the shaky house of cards that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the White House are gambling on.
Ed Shalom, Venice
To the editor: Breaking news! Bolton announces that he will testify before the Senate if subpoenaed.
Of course, he would have to testify if subpoenaed. If I or any Los Angeles Times readers are subpoenaed and we don’t show up, we’re in serious trouble.
The Trump administration has severely undermined our rule of law by treating subpoenas as optional just for its people. I wonder how many Americans are confused by this and have lost their understanding of what “subpoena” means.
Ryan Snyder, Los Angeles
To the editor: Only in a time of corruption and madness could we look to Bolton for a semblance of reason or hope.
Robin Doyno, Los Angeles