On CNN Tuesday, Mark Groombridge, a former senior aide to ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton, laid into his boss for refusing to appear before Congress to testify about the Ukraine scheme.
"What about his argument, I think, his lawyer's argument, that he wants the court to compel him?" asked anchor Alisyn Camerota. "Is that legitimate?"
"It's smoke and mirrors," said Groombridge. "Dr. Fiona Hill courageously testified, and I didn't see any erosion of separation of powers or executive privilege issues. In fact, one could make a strong counterargument that she helped reinforce or bolster the operation of powers by affording Congress the opportunity to exercise its legitimate oversight responsibility."
"You have to go through a process of elimination here," Groombridge continued. "Bolton knows the courts aren't going to decide this one way or another prior to a Senate trial. You can knock that off the list. Then you can also consider the fact that nothing is stopping him from writing an op-ed, giving a speech or appearing on a program like this to explain his views. That can essentially mean there's only one logical conclusion, and forgive me for being snarky and blunt, but he's stealing a page from Omarosa's playbook by arguing 'I've got something really important to say, but you're going to have to wait to hear it.' He could speak publicly right now. He's choosing not to do so. The only logical reason is he's teasing his book."