by John Bolton;
My substantive views on the impeachment process were decidedly mixed. Most important, from the very outset of proceedings in the House of Representatives, advocates for impeaching Trump on the Ukraine issue were committing impeachment malpractice. They seemed governed more by their own political imperatives to move swiftly to vote on articles of impeachment in order to avoid interfering with the Democratic presidential nomination schedule than in completing a comprehensive investigation. Such an approach was not serious constitutionally. If Trump deserved impeachment and conviction, the American public deserved a serious and thorough effort to justify the extraordinary punishment of removing an elected president from office. That did not happen. The Democrats’ perceived imperatives posed by the electoral calendar may have raised hard political questions and difficult logistical problems for impeachment advocates, but that was their own fault. Their self-imposed scheduling limitations hardly rose to a constitutional level at all, let alone one equivalent to impeaching a President, one of Congress’s gravest Constitutional responsibilities. Neither did scheduling issues justify the subsequent tactical decisions by the impeachment proponents, such as not pursuing subpoena enforcement actions in court, or otherwise building not just an “adequate” evidentiary record, but a compelling one. Indeed, in some senses it was a mirror image of what impeachment advocates were accusing Trump of doing: torquing legitimate governmental powers around an illegitimate nongovernmental objective.
The consequences of this partisan approach by the House were twofold. First, it narrowed the scope of the impeachment inquiry dramatically and provided no opportunity to explore Trump’s ham-handed involvement in other matters—criminal and civil, international and domestic—that should not properly be subject to manipulation by a President for personal reasons (political, economic, or any other). This is not to say that I have any doubts about a President’s Article II authority over the Department of Justice. But it does mean that a President’s Constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” means that the laws must be applied evenhandedly. A President may not misuse the national government’s legitimate powers by defining his own personal interest as synonymous with the national interest, or by inventing pretexts to mask the pursuit of personal interest under the guise of national interest. Had the House not focused solely on the Ukraine aspects of Trump’s confusion of his personal interests (whether political or economic), but on the broader pattern of his behavior—including his pressure campaigns involving Halkbank, ZTE, and Huawei among others—there might have been a greater chance to persuade others that “high crimes and misdemeanors” had been perpetrated. In fact, I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations.
Second, rushed proceedings, combined with the hysterical mood of many impeachment advocates, which brooked no dissent from the proposition that Trump had to be removed from office by any means available, meant that developing a truly accurate record—at a minimum, a full record—was not an option House Democrats wanted to pursue. In turn, this resulted, quite literally, in driving away House Republicans who might have been inclined at least to consider articles of impeachment involving broader aspects of Trump’s conduct. From the very earliest days of the House proceedings, that meant that the entire affair would be bitterly partisan, which is exactly what it turned out to be. This was particularly true of the second article of impeachment (“obstruction of Congress”), which was frivolous on its face. And what was true of the House was equally true in the Senate, meaning that lines were drawn on party grounds, making Trump’s acquittal in the Senate a certainty even before the final House votes to impeach. This scenario was not inevitable ab initio, but it was made so by the conscious decisions of the House impeachment advocates.
That is malpractice pure and simple. And that’s how I saw it almost from the outset. Of course, it wasn’t long before former Deputy National Security Advisor Charlie Kupperman and I received inquiries from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about whether we would testify. As did the attorneys for other witnesses who testified before the committee. Cooper asked for subpoenas, and one was duly issued for Kupperman. Immediately, the White House informed Kupperman that the President had ordered that he invoke “testimonial immunity,” a more stringent instruction than other witnesses subpoenaed by the intelligence committee had theretofore received, and that he not even appear at the noticed deposition. On Kupperman’s behalf, Cooper promptly filed a lawsuit seeking judicial guidance on which of the two contradictory commands to follow, exactly what I would have done had I been in Kupperman’s place. The various pleadings Cooper filed on Kupperman’s behalf made it plain he was not advocating the substantive merits of either the Executive or the Legislative Branches on what his course of conduct should be, but merely seeking the Judiciary’s guidance.
Many of the ensuing developments were misreported in more ways than might seem possible, but the statement that I issued on January 6, 2020, still represents the best summary of these events and my thinking:
“During the present impeachment controversy, I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former National Security Advisor. My colleague, Dr. Charles Kupperman, faced with a House committee subpoena on the one hand, and a Presidential directive not to testify on the other, sought final resolution of this Constitutional conflict from the Federal judiciary. After my counsel informed the House committee that I too would seek judicial resolution of these Constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. Nevertheless, I publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of Dr. Kupperman’s case.
“But both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. Judge Richard Leon, in a carefully reasoned opinion on December 30, held Dr. Kupperman’s case to be moot, and therefore did not reach the separation-of-powers issues.
“The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.
“Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”
The Senate, of course, declined to hear any witnesses, and went on to acquit Trump on the two articles of impeachment the House had adopted. Had a Senate majority agreed to call witnesses and had I testified, I am convinced, given the environment then existing because of the House’s impeachment malpractice, that it would have made no significant difference in the Senate outcome.
One incident during the Senate proceedings that generated substantial attention was the leak of what purported to be information from the manuscript of this book to the New York Times. In response to this disturbing and unwelcome development, Cooper issued a statement on Saturday, January 26, 2020, attaching the transmittal letter (dated December 30, 2019) of the manuscript to the NSC for pre-publication review. That review is intended to ensure that no classified information is publicly released. Although we did not believe we were required to submit the manuscript, we did so out of an abundance of caution, and because it was always my firm intention not to include anything legitimately deemed classifiable. We had, until then, kept even the fact of submitting the manuscript out of the public eye, but the leak clearly required a public response. Cooper’s statement said, in part:
“It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been cor
rupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript. We submitted the manuscript… on the assurance that the ‘process of reviewing submitted materials is restricted to those career government officials and employees regularly charged with responsibility for such reviews’ and that the ‘contents of Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript will not be reviewed or otherwise disclosed to any persons not regularly involved in that process.’ ”
Cooper also said to the Washington Post, “I can tell you unequivocally that we had nothing to do with the leak of any information concerning John’s manuscript.”1 The next day, January 27, we also issued this statement: “Ambassador John Bolton, Simon & Schuster, and Javelin Literary categorically state that there was absolutely no coordination with the New York Times or anyone else regarding the appearance of information about his book, THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED, at online booksellers. Any assertion to the contrary is unfounded speculation.” Whoever did undertake these leaks, a question that remains unfortunately unanswered, is certainly no friend of mine.
Trump’s subsequent acquittal demonstrated yet another consequence of the impeachment malpractice committed by the House of Representatives. Democrats argued that impeachment itself would forever taint the Trump presidency, thus justifying their actions in the House. Inexplicably, they ignored the palpable reality that the inevitable consequence of a failed impeachment effort meant that Trump could claim vindication, and act accordingly, which is precisely what he did. This is the exact opposite of what House impeachment advocates purportedly intended, and yet they marched in lockstep off the cliff, thereby eliminating yet another “guardrail,” the term commonly used, limiting Trump’s misuse of governmental power. As Yogi Berra once asked about the hapless New York Mets: “Don’t nobody here know how to play this game?”
Impeachment, of course, is, for the most part, only a theoretical guardrail constitutionally. The real guardrail is elections, which Trump faces in November 2020. Should he win, the Twenty-Second Amendment precludes (and should continue to preclude) any further electoral constraint on Trump. While liberals and Democrats focus on impeachment, conservatives and Republicans should worry about the removal of the political guardrail of Trump having to face reelection. As this memoir demonstrates, many of Trump’s national security decisions hinged more on political than on philosophy, strategy or foreign policy and defense rationales. More widely, faced with the coronavirus crisis, Trump said, “When somebody is the President of the United States, the authority is total, and that’s the way it’s got to be.”2 He threatened to adjourn Congress, wrongly citing a constitutional provision that has never been used.3 No conservative who has read the Constitution could be anything but astonished at these assertions.
Of course, politics is ever present in government, but a second-term Trump will be far less constrained by politics than he was in his first term. The irony could well be that Democrats will find themselves far more pleased substantively with a “legacy”-seeking Trump in his second term than conservatives and Republicans. Something to think about.
* * *
As if impeachment were not enough, I also found myself confronting the daunting challenge of fighting against an incumbent President determined to prevent publication of a book about my White House experiences. Trump behaved typically, directing the seizure and withholding of my advisors’ personal and other unclassified documents, despite numerous requests for their return; obstructing my Twitter account; and outright threats of censorship.4 His reaction thus ranged from the mean-spirited to the constitutionally impermissible. My reaction… my response? Game on.
One ostensibly “legitimate” avenue of Trump’s attack was the US government’s grinding, bureaucratic, pre-publication review process, which I reluctantly agreed to undergo so this book could be published. In order to receive access to classified information while serving as National Security Advisor, and like many other government officials, I signed numerous nondisclosure agreements before and during my tenure.5 Without question, anyone who receives classified information is under a permanent obligation not to disclose it to unauthorized persons, something I never intended to do in writing the manuscript of this book. There was plenty to say without needing to reveal such material.
These nondisclosure agreements are, at best, obscurely worded on the circumstances under which such a manuscript is subject to the pre-publication review process, which is intended to ensure that no classified information is revealed. I did not, for example, submit Surrender Is Not an Option for pre-publication review in 2007, nor, as I recall, did Colin Powell submit his memoir, My American Journey,6 for review. By contrast, James Baker told me shortly after his book, The Politics of Diplomacy,7 was published during the Clinton Administration, that he wished he had not submitted it for review. He was rightly appalled at the number of objections made because his statements about, say, US policy toward China did not reflect the Clinton Administration’s policy. This resulted in significant delays in publication. All these experiences counseled against the risk of censorship inherent in the government review process, especially under a presidency like Trump’s.
On the other hand, it was clear from the outset, based on the circumstances of my departure from the Administration, and during the production of the book, that Trump would do everything he could to prevent its publication, at least until after the 2020 presidential election. In light of this unprecedented hostility, and Chuck Cooper’s prudent legal advice, I decided to submit to the pre-clearance review, notwithstanding our conviction that we were not required to do so because the manuscript contained no legitimately classifiable material. In the Trump era, normal rules simply did not apply.
The review process itself was conducted professionally, courteously, and meticulously, but certainly not as expeditiously as I would have liked (although concededly the COVID-19 crisis did have some effect on timing). I made numerous changes to the manuscript in order to obtain clearance to publish, the vast bulk of which, in my view, did not change the facts set forth. In some cases, I simply had to add a phrase like “in my view” (see the previous sentence), to make it clear I was expressing my opinion rather than relying on some highly sensitive information. In other cases, I was required to characterize the facts I was discussing at a slightly higher level of abstraction, such as, for example, describing potential military targets in Iran somewhat more generally than in my initial draft. Readers can, therefore, duly imagine for themselves what I and others, including Trump, actually had in mind.
Two categories of changes stand out. First, in almost every recounting of conversations between Trump and foreign leaders, and between me and my foreign counterparts and other senior foreign officials, I was directed to “take out the quotation marks.” In many cases, that is literally all I did: delete the quotation marks. In many other cases, some paraphrasing was necessary to reflect that I was no longer using direct quotations, so that personal pronouns and the like had to be modified to allow the substance to be conveyed clearly. In a very small number of cases, I was prevented from conveying information that I thought was not properly classifiable, since it revealed information that can only be described as embarrassing to Trump, or as indicative of possible impermissible behavior. I plan to continue to fight for either the declassification of these passages, or the right to use direct quotations in subsequent editions of this book or other writings.
Readers can be assured that, in this text, I have as faithfully as I could presented the substance of Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders, and mine as well. In some cases, just put your own quotation marks around the relevant passages; you won’t go far wrong. And interestingly, almost no changes were required in my discussion of conversations between Trump and his subordinates. This seeming anomaly is because the classification review was intended to shield foreign leaders from having to deny what Trump said to them. Instead of denying direct quotations, they will have to deny paraphrases. There may
well be an explanation for this disparate treatment, but I don’t see it. Trump may actually like it even less than I do.
The second major set of changes involved roughly tripling the number of endnotes in the book. The purpose of this exercise was to prove the negative that I was not relying on classified material for the information conveyed in the text. This endnoting was tedious, to be sure, but every time I provided a cite, I avoided having to delete substantive material, a tradeoff I was invariably happy to make.
Any number of commentators have observed that the government’s pre-clearance review process is riddled with constitutional deficiencies; the potential for obstruction, censorship, and abuse; and harmful to timely debate on critical public policy issues. You can add my name to the list of critics, especially when the process is in the hands of a President so averse to criticism that the idea of banning books comes to him naturally and serenely.
There is one other point worth addressing, not related to the clearance process but to the idea of writing a book like this immediately after leaving government service. A number of critics, having of course not read the book, denounced it as a tell-all that was unseemly at best, and, in the words of Trump himself, traitorous. I addressed precisely these issues in 2014, in writing a review of Robert Gates’s memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,8 addressing criticisms of Gates similar to those now directed at me:
“Gates’s critics have made two basic points, one political, one ethical. First, they say, it was inappropriate for him to write about an administration still in office, with the Afghanistan war (a major aspect of the book) still under way, and, more amusingly, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ramping up her expected 2016 presidential campaign.
“Second, they argue that Gates betrayed the trust of President Obama and other senior Defense and Administration colleagues by revealing their conversations, positions, and emotions.…
