Your Bolton Fix

The sordid saga of the Bolton nomination seems to have become a kind of "bottomless story." Every few days another wrinkle comes along and changes the narrative - and to think, back in March we just thought the guy didn't like the United Nations!

I'll get to the newest wrinkles momentarily, but first just a brief update on where things stand. When the Senate goes out of session for August (probably Friday afternoon), the president regains the option of sending Bolton to the UN via a recess appointment. This would be effective until the next Congress takes office, in January of 2007. Whether Bush will opt for a recess appointment (and when) is one of the "big questions" at the moment, and White House press secretary Scott McClellan has been taking inquiries from reporters regularly on this question.

At Monday's press briefing, a reporter asked "Congress is going home in a few days. How does the President approach the question of recess appointments? Does he see that as a sort of last resort, a back door, legitimate approach? How does he approach that question?" McClellan answered in a general way at first:

"Well, I don't want to get into speculating about anything that may or may not occur at this point. There is still this final week before they do recess. There are a number of nominees that I think the Senate is prepared to move forward on. We encourage them to act on those nominees.

In terms of recess appointments, there have been times when the President has used that authority that he has to get people in place that have waited far too long to get about doing their business. And I think that's the way that he approaches it, that there are important priorities we're working to advance, and it's important to have people in certain positions. And if the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the President has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees."

Asked a more specific question ("Would the U.N. pick fall into that category?") McClellan replied "There's nothing that's changed, in terms of what we said previously on that at this point" (i.e. "we believe John Bolton should get an up or down vote in the United States Senate).

In a story that I think (agreeing with Steve Clemons) made much more of McClellan's reponse to the first question than it deserved, AP's Terence Hunt filed a this Monday evening, which begins "Frustrated by Senate Democrats, the White House hinted Monday that President Bush may act soon to sidestep Congress and install embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on a temporary basis." He offers no support for that sentence other than McClellan's statement, which clearly was made in extremely general terms.

At Tuesday's press briefing, McClellan again took questions regarding Bolton:

"Q Last week you sort of indicated that there was no recess appointment for Bolton in the works. Now there seems to be a change in the atmosphere. Can you clear that up? Is he going to get a recess appointment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton.

Q That you want an up or down vote?

MR. McCLELLAN: We believe he ought to have an up or down vote. Nothing has changed in terms of that view.

Q So he's not going to get one?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed at this point."

Steve Clemons notes the difficulty in determining "when the White House is being straight with the American people and when it is hiding the ball." But, he notes (and I concur) "the 'hint' that a recess appointment was around the corner seems to have disappeared." Of course, "things" could change whenever the White House decides that it wants to make a recess appointment, and a chance certainly remains that Bush could initiate that maneuver anytime after the Senate goes into recess.

But some of those "new wrinkles" I mentioned at the outset may make a recess appointment far more unpalatable (or even politically impossible) than it would be under even the most normal of circumstances. As Stygius, Clemons and others have reported, there are very serious questions being asked right now about an entirely new element of the Bolton nomination game: his involvement in the Valerie Plame identity leak investigation. It has been reported, most notably by MSNBC, that John Bolton has given testimony to the federal grand jury looking into that case - a finding that has been disputed on CNN, but which MSNBC "firmly" stands by, calling its source "unimpeachable."

So what's the problem with whether Bolton did or did not provide testimony to the grand jury?

Simply this: when Bolton was nominated to be U.N. Ambassador, he had to fill out an extensive Disclosure Form to be submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Among the many questions on that form is this one: "Have you been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony? If so, provide details."

Bolton's response to that question: "No."

Ah, there's the rub. If Bolton answered that way and did testify (or even if he was simply interviewed or asked for information) in connection with Fitzgerald's grand jury, we have a very serious problem. Withholding information from Congress, especially if you want them to approve you for a new job, is never a good idea - and since the disclosure form is filled out "as if under oath," if Bolton answered untruthfully there may be grounds for perjury or other serious sanction.

Steve Clemons wrote last night "There are now rumblings, given what has been reported in the media, that various Senators may request the State Department to clarify whether or not Mr. Bolton met with the grand jury and/or its investigators. If he did so, they may ask when this took place." He adds tonight that "MSNBC stands by its story that lawyers involved in the Valerie Plame grand jury report that John Bolton was interviewed. CNN and other networks report that the White House and State Department are unofficially - though not officially - denying that Bolton met the grand jury or any of its investigators."

Which news outlet will be first to get someone on the record with this? Did John Bolton testify, or was he asked for information? If so, when, and why didn't he include that information on his disclosure form? Which senator will be the first to demand more information on this?

While Bolton's testimony before the grand jury (if it occurred) would disqualify him for the ambassadorship no more than the myriad other reasons that make him the wrong candidate, providing false information to Congress certainly would make his appointment much more dicey. Where does it all go from here? Your guess, I must confess, is as good as mine.

[Update: Sheesh. Literally moments after I'd posted, Steve Clemons fired off a new post of his own, noting another possible instance of Bolton's non-compliance with the Senate's disclosure form: a State Department inspector general's report of Bolton's office over the Niger/uranium/Iraq question. Wow. -- 6:49 p.m.]