Below:

Bolton& #39;s lawyer claiming that the court& #39;s ruling in McGahn& #39;s case does not apply to officials who advise on national security.

Also below:

THREE TIMES the court said the ruling applies to officials who advise on national security.

#BoltonMustTestify

Bolton& #39;s lawyers quote is in this piece by @Axios& #39; @zacharybasuhttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Down pointing backhand index" aria-label="Emoji: Down pointing backhand index">

Note: The court also explains, at length, that the very idea of absolute immunity from testifying is complete made-up fiction.

Bolton& #39;s argument for immunity is predicated on that fiction. https://www.axios.com/national-security-officials-mcgahn-ruling-john-bolton-5719a0c9-572b-4906-8be5-e2d1d98b145c.html">https://www.axios.com/national-...

Bolton lawyer& #39;s claim is the Judiciary Committee told the court McGahn did not cover national security.

But what& #39;s more important:

DOJ told the court McGahn& #39;s position covered national security. The court said, okay, but that& #39;s irrelevant! Immunity does not exist regardless.

Bottom line: According to the court: #BoltonMustTestify

Bolton can wait it out. For that, the court said:

"The official’s defiance...substantially harms the national interest."
"Recalcitrant witnesses actually undermine the broader interests of the People of the United States."