The New York Times drew a parallel between former national security adviser John Bolton and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, after the former said he would testify in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial.

On Monday, Bolton indicated that he would be willing to testify in the trial if the Senate were to subpoena him. The move "echoes" Kavanaugh's contentious Senate confirmation, during which Ford testified about her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in high school, according to a Tuesday opinion article by the paper's chief Washington correspondent Carl Huse.

"With the former national security adviser John R. Bolton now volunteering to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, the circumstances of the toxic 2018 Kavanaugh showdown could provide a template for what to expect as senators extend their clash over the ground rules for opening the proceeding," he wrote.

With Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, so far, the only Republican in the chamber who has expressed interest in having Bolton testify, Huse argued Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unconcerned, "as [he was] in the Kavanaugh confirmation," with GOP members breaking from the party and voting to convict the president.

"Instead, Mr. McConnell’s concern in the Kavanaugh fight was the handful of Republicans who might break from the pack — Ms. Collins, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona — and sink the nomination," Huse wrote. "As a result, Mr. McConnell needed to pay heed to their wishes as they pushed for reconvening the hearings to allow Ms. Blasey Ford to testify, and later to reopen the background check of Judge Kavanaugh to pursue new material that surfaced about his conduct."

The correspondent went on to point out a "major difference" between the two instances: "that Republicans have a larger majority to work with in the impeachment trial."

"During the Kavanaugh battle, Republicans held a 51-to-49 advantage and could afford to lose only one vote, making every vote essential," he said. "Republicans now control the Senate 53 to 47 and have more room to maneuver since Democrats would need to win four votes from Republicans to call witnesses."

Even if enough Republicans defect and join Democrats in pushing for a Bolton subpoena, Huse isn't sure that hearing from the former national security adviser will make a difference.

"Even if Mr. Bolton testified, it was unclear what he would say and whether it could significantly change the course of the trial," he said. "As the Kavanaugh example showed, new testimony — however explosive it may seem to some — does not necessarily change enough minds in the Senate to change an outcome."

The House of Representatives impeached Trump last month on two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — following the scandal surrounding his July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine. During the call, the president asked the foreign leader to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner. He was later accused of withholding military aid to the nation in exchange for the investigation.

Since Trump's impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to pass the articles along to the Senate, where an impeachment trial is expected to begin this month, as she awaits "details" of McConnell's plan for the event. McConnell, however, so far does not have enough votes to proceed without the articles from Pelosi.

Huse, who was has been a Capitol Hill reporter for decades and wrote the 2019 book Confirmation Bias: Inside Washington's War Over the Supreme Court, from Scalia's Death to Justice Kavanaugh, was previously the Washington editor of the New York Times and the outlet's chief congressional correspondent.