Bolton

For someone who has always been a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of guy, controversy seems to follow John Bolton. His 2005 nomination to be US ambassador to the UN drew opposition not only from Democrats but Republican Senators George Voinovich and Richard Lugar. Bush wound up having to make a recess appointment. And then there was the recent stint as national security advisor to Trump. It seemed to start our well enough. Trump praised Bolton and during that period when there was so much shuffling of personnel in the foreign policy area of the administration, said that he wanted to find a place for Bolton in it.

But things went south and reached a nadir with the Ukraine affair. Bolton likened it to a drug deal and summoned his team to his office to express his displeasure at what was going down.

Of course, the Ukraine situation led to Trump's impeachment. There was much hue and cry within the conservative-but-opposed-to-Trump camp - "never Trumpers," if you will (disclosure: that would be my bunch) - that he didn't testify before the House. He did state that he was willing to testify before the Senate, but that body never called any witnesses. The accusation was that he'd refrained from testifying to maximize sales of his upcoming book. Just today, I saw a tweet from a writer I otherwise pretty much agree on everything with that called Bolton a mercenary and a coward.

I think that kind of swift dismissal of a long-time public servant is symptomatic of the current tendency to write people off on the basis of recent moves that may still be explained satisfactorily, to render people one-dimensional figures whose score cards don't pass muster. Such a view doesn't take in the full measure of the person.

I'm more inclined to see Bolton as John Podhoretz does in a September 2019 Commentary piece entitled "Bolton's Integrity":

John Bolton has never trimmed his sails in pursuit of power or authority. He is who he is and always has been. He believes in the efficacy of American power and the need to project it to make America safer and improve its position in the world.

 He was steeped in conservatism from an early age. He ran his high school's Students for Goldwater campaign in 1964. He was law-school friends with Clarence Thomas. The reason for the dustup surrounding the Bush appointment was that Bolton clearly had his head on straight concerning what the United Nations was really all about.

Well, now the book is printed and bound. Copies are stacked in warehouses, awaiting a June 23 release.  Given that it was written so shortly after Bolton's tenure, and that the administration it discusses is still in office, it had to undergo a prepublication review. Bolton's lawyer, Charles Cooper, explains how exhaustive that was in a Wall Street Journal column:

Round one began on Jan. 23, as the impeachment trial was under way. Ms. Knight wrote to me that Mr. Bolton’s manuscript contained “significant amounts of classified information” and that she would provide “detailed guidance regarding next steps that should enable you to revise the manuscript and move forward as expeditiously as possible.”

A few days later Vanity Fair reported that “the president is out for revenge against his adversaries.” The article stated that the president “has an enemies list,” that “Bolton is at the top of the list,” and that the “campaign against Bolton” included Ms. Knight’s Jan. 23 letter. It also reported that the president “wants Bolton to be criminally investigated.”

On Feb. 7, two days after Mr. Trump’s acquittal, Ms. Knight suggested that “to further the iterative process, it would be most efficient for me to meet with [Mr. Bolton] to review each instance of classified information in detail.” Meantime, the White House had acknowledged that NSC staff briefed White House counsel Pat Cipollone about the book while Mr. Cipollone was leading the impeachment defense.

Mr. Bolton and Ms. Knight met on Feb. 21. That same day the Washington Post reported that Mr. Trump had “directly weighed in” on the prepublication review, “telling his staff that he views John Bolton as ‘a traitor,’ that everything he uttered to the departed aide about national security is classified and that he will seek to block the book’s publication.” The Post also reported that Mr. Trump vowed to a group of television news anchors: “We’re going to try and block publication of the book.” The president added, “After I leave office, he can do this.”

Mr. Bolton’s meeting with Ms. Knight lasted four hours. She later wrote that they “reviewed the preliminary results of three chapters in the draft manuscript in detail.” Mr. Bolton took five pages of handwritten notes as they discussed her specific concerns. Three days later, Ms. Knight wrote that the meeting had been “most productive,” and that “it would be most helpful to the process if we hold one or more following meetings . . . to discuss the remaining portions of the draft manuscript.” 

They met three more times in the first week of March for more than 10 additional hours. They meticulously reviewed each of Ms. Knight’s concerns in the remaining 11 chapters, producing 34 more pages of handwritten notes. Following her guidance and his own notes, Mr. Bolton revised his manuscript. By March 9 he had resubmitted all 14 chapters to begin the second round of the iterative review.

Mr. Bolton didn’t hear from Ms. Knight again until Friday, March 27, when she wrote, “I appreciate your efforts to address the classification concerns in the latest draft version you submitted. Many of the changes are satisfactory. However, additional edits are required to ensure the protection of national security information. To assist in making the additional required changes, I will provide a list of required edits and language substitutions to guide you in this next stage of revising the draft.” 

Her list amounted to 17 single-spaced pages of typed comments, questions, suggestions of specific alternative language, and citations to publicly available source material. Mr. Bolton worked through the weekend and responded in full on March 30, accepting the vast majority of Ms. Knight’s suggestions and proposing alternative solutions to others.

The third round of the review occurred in an April 13 phone conversation when Ms. Knight provided a much shorter list of remaining concerns after reviewing Mr. Bolton’s March 30 revisions. They agreed on these language changes, which were delivered to Ms. Knight on April 14.

During the April 13 call, Ms. Knight said she would review the full manuscript one more time, to recheck resolved issues and ensure she hadn’t overlooked anything. That final review resulted in two further phone calls, on April 21 and 24, in which she conveyed her final round of edits. Mr. Bolton promptly responded with the revisions by April 24. On April 27, after clarifying one previously discussed edit, Ms. Knight confirmed “that’s the last edit I really have to provide for you.” The lengthy, laborious process was over.
Yet when Mr. Bolton asked when he would receive the letter confirming the book was cleared, Ms. Knight cryptically replied that her “interaction” with unnamed others in the White House about the book had “been very delicate” and that there were “some internal process considerations to work through.” She thought the letter might be ready that afternoon but would “know more by the end of the day.” Six weeks later, Mr. Bolton has yet to receive a clearance letter. He hasn’t heard from Ms. Knight since May 7.
We did hear from the White House on June 8. John A. Eisenberg, the president’s deputy counsel for national security, asserted in a letter that Mr. Bolton’s manuscript contains classified information and that publishing the book would violate his nondisclosure agreements. 

Feeling that all the "i's had been dotted and "t"s crossed, Simon & Schuster let the presses roll.

The Very Stable Genius and his attorney general William Barr - who also had distinguished himself earlier in his career but is now indeed looking like he's had a big gulp of the sycophancy Kool-Aid - are fit to be tied:

Mr. Trump said he considers any conversation he has with another official “highly classified.” Presidents have claimed the authority to classify national security information and direct subordinates to do the same, but no president has claimed the total authority to prevent former employees from speaking about non-national security matters—and typically the First Amendment would protect such speech, experts say.

“Maybe he’s not telling the truth,” Mr. Trump said of his former national security adviser. “He’s been known not to tell the truth a lot.” He didn’t detail what he was referring to.

Attorney General William Barr, speaking alongside the president on Monday, said Mr. Bolton “hasn’t completed the process” of clearing the book. He didn’t respond to questions about why Mr. Bolton’s lawyer said the NSC had told him the process had been completed.

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer and a spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

At this late date and with no real grounds for stopping it, I'd say that the book will be in stores next week.

It will be interesting to see how Trump responds once the ship has sailed. His Twitter feed will be lively, no doubt.

His nervousness about book releases is surely compounded by the upcoming publication of a book by his niece, which is not going to be flattering.