Now that key elements of John Bolton's book have leaked, in which he reportedly claims President Trump told him $391 million in military aid would be held hostage until Ukraine ratfucked Joe Biden, the path forward should be simple. Republican senators, to whom it appears the White House lied—and not for the first time—should call for Bolton to testify at the Senate trial under oath. That way, the former national security adviser will be firmly on the record when he says what he saw—under penalty of perjury. In theory, the president and his defenders would be on board with this: they say Bolton is lying, so why not expose him under oath?

That's been the case throughout, however. If Trump were actually innocent, and if his activities with respect to Ukraine were always concerned only with the American national interest, he would have allowed his aides to testify during the House inquiry. Bolton, Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "One of the Three Amigos" Rick Perry—all these guys could have gone and testified under oath that Donald Trump was just an international corruption crusader who saw a Bat Signal in Ukraine. Or that the aid and the meeting for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were not connected to coercing the Ukrainians into attacking the 2020 election. But they didn't testify, because if they had to speak under oath they would likely have to admit that Trump did exactly that of which he's accused.

The president is not interested in anyone testifying under oath about what he actually did. Drew Angerer Getty Images

(The president responded to the Bolton news with another giant lie, suggesting House Democrats did not call Bolton to testify when, in fact, they did. Bolton should have answered the call rather than holding out, presumably to boost his own book sales. The least he could do is show up to the Senate.)

The coverup has gotten so blatant, and become such an established fact of Trump's impeachment defense, that his allies in the rightwing infotainment sphere are just saying the quiet parts out loud. On the hallowed ground of political discourse known as the Fox & Friends couch this morning, host Brian Kilmeade appeared to outright declare that the Bolton revelations will make the coverup that much more difficult.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Brian Kilmeade says John Bolton's book manuscript being "leaked out" is "more evidence that people within the administration are against the administration." Kilmeade also says it's "devastating timing, because this thing was on the fast track to closing out without witnesses." pic.twitter.com/SytTnCQ53g — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) January 27, 2020

It feels almost silly at this point to ask why these American citizens, taxpayers the president nominally works for, are completely uninterested in whether he betrayed his oath of office. They don't want to know, just like the Republican senators don't want to know, because they already know enough about this president to know that knowing more might require they actually do something.

The idea that wanting witnesses at the trial is some kind of Democratic ploy, rather than a basic and necessary element of any fact-finding proceeding, is astounding. But not so astounding as Kilmeade's forthright admission that the president's best chance is for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, now firmly entrenched as one of the great villains of the modern era, to force this thing through the chamber without any direct witnesses to the scheme saying what they saw. The cowardice and complicity of his colleagues so far is yet another national disgrace, but there's still time for Republican senators to avoid having as the first line of their obituaries that they were accessories to a mad king who fundamentally corrupted his office. That's if there's any justice left around these parts. Maybe justice can only be done.

In some ways, the Ukraine episode is hardly the Trumpian ur-offense against his office and the Constitution. It is just one incident in a staggering pattern of pathological self-interest. And yet it is incredibly instructive. To watch the Ukraine caper unfold is to watch the president and his allies continually shift their excuses and explanations, often contradicting prior lines of rhetoric—and sometimes almost simultaneously—without a hitch. To defend Donald Trump is to continually venture further into the deep, excusing away more and more because you've already given up so much of yourself to excuse what came before. It's a sunk cost of integrity and self-respect.

Historian Kevin M. Kruse flagged another Fox & Friends segment from September which illustrates just how drastically the goalposts have shifted since.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Steve Doocy: "If the president said 'I will give you the money but you've got to investigate Joe Biden,' that is really off-the-rails wrong. But if it's something else, you know, it would be nice to know what it is." pic.twitter.com/wWpuLqeRUT — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) September 24, 2019

Well, Steve, some news: it was "really off the rails wrong," because El Jefe did exactly what you suggested would be "off the rails wrong." At least according to his national security adviser. And his chief-of-staff, who told everybody to "get over it." But this September moment will not feature in Doocy's thinking on the Ukraine issue at all. The fact that he said it on national television a few months ago will not matter to him in the slightest. We long ago entered the Age of Shamelessness, where what you said previously does not exist so long as you have the gall to deny it until your dying day, and your fans only get their information from sources—like, say, Fox News—that will not point out the discrepancy.

In that way, Trump's most excellent Ukrainian adventure will be a test for the durability of our siloed information ecosystems, where dissenting information cannot breach the bubble where Trump's support lives. That's the appeal of the witnesses: if Trump's key aides—who are both his allies and surely know exactly what happened—testify under oath, that surely has to ring differently, even in the Fox News precincts. Right? Hello? Is this thing on?

Jack Holmes Politics Editor Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io