To the Editor:

Re “Bolton, in Twist, Offers to Testify at Trump’s Trial” (front page, Jan. 7):

Is it a coincidence that John Bolton, immediately after the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, agreed to testify in the impeachment trial? It is reported that such testimony would be damning to the president, but is that necessarily so?

As we all know, Mr. Bolton has long advocated military action against Iran. Now that President Trump has initiated a direct attack, isn’t it more likely that Mr. Bolton would make every effort to defend him against removal?

Lawrence Kaplan

Ardsley, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Now that John Bolton, the former national security adviser, has announced that he will testify if subpoenaed by the Senate in its impeachment proceedings, it is up to Mitch McConnell to subpoena him. If Mr. McConnell decides he does not wish to hear what Mr. Bolton has to say, perhaps Mr. Bolton would agree to appear before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee in a “Phase 2” of its impeachment inquiry?