Bolton did testify?  Well, well, well...the plot thickens for both Plame-gate and Bolton's nomination.  If he had to testify it means he had knowledge of or a hand in the information flow on Plame.  I wonder if the "It slipped my mind", aka the "I forgot to tell you about that", defense is about to be used?

So what's to be done?  If Bolton didn't disclose his involvement (via being questioned in regard to the Plame outing) then what options does Congress have?  Can he be impeached or is this a matter of Bush deciding his fate?  Perhaps we should be expecting another round of promotions and awards...

Playing Bolton's Advocate, does the mere fact that he
testified before the Grand Jury necessarily mean that he was involved in this mess?

Fitzgerald could have just been casting a wide net, and the fact that the leak had a WMD connection would be reason enough to call for Bolton's testimony, given his job title and position description.

I think this is right.  Adopting an accounting/SEC-like standard for reporting relevant legal matters, merely being called to testify would not rise to the level of something necessary to report.
Were he a "target," or probably even a "subject," it would be different IMO.  But I haven't heard any hints of that. 

If Bolton was called to testify before the grand jury there must have been indications (probably through the testimony of others) he either knew of or was part of the outing.  I am not accusing him of anything except, at a minimum, knowledge of what was going on. 

the Senate about his involvment in this legal issue, his testifying leads me to believe (admittedly w/out much evidence at this point, just sneaking suspicion) he's also up to his eyeballs in the whole Plame affair. After all, he was requesting all sorts of classified documents, wasn't he?  Makes you wonder if the Dems in the Senate were going after this stuff so hard during his confirmation because they already had an inkling what was in them, like, maybe info on Plame, info that eventually found it's way Rove, Libby, Novak et al.

Perhaps he was just too busy screaming at underlings and chasing them through hotels in dangerous foreign cities?
I have a feeling some of the quotes ReThUGs used to voice their support for him going to the UN are gonna come back to haunt.

I saw Shuster's report on MSNBC and the first thing I thought was "Ah, that's why the republicans have gotten so silent on Bolton."

I was certain that Bush would do a recess appointment before seeing this report. Now, I'm not so certain. If Bolton could face an indictment, would Bush want him to be in office? It seems like having to fire Bolton right after appointing him would be a big embarassment--maybe even too big for this brazen administration.

Michael Isikoff and John Barry had this little piece from the May 9 Newsweek/MSNBC thing.

U.S. Senate Democrats, still trying to quash the U.N. nomination of John Bolton, are looking for ammo in Bolton requests for National Security Agency electronic "intercept" reports containing the names of U.S. officials. (NSA rules require it to delete names of Americans caught by its eavesdropping network, but officials can request that the names be disclosed if they have a "need to know.")

Bolton's request for 10 intercepts with U.S. names has set off a D.C. guessing game: Did he want info to undermine rivals like Korea expert Jack Pritchard, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, or even Colin Powell? Was he trying to check up on U.S. representatives to nuclear talks between Iran and Europe? Hoping to find out what two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said to Iran's U.N. ambassador? Wondering what the NSA had on an unnamed U.S. journalist?

The NSA indicates it will this week deliver full documentation on Bolton's requests to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which then will have to figure out how to publicize the contents without leaking sensitive intel.Related?

Bolton was nominated on March 7, 2005.

Save for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, Fitzgerald's investigation was essentialy complete by October 2004.

Therefore, Bolton testified at least six months prior to his nomination.

Now, whether it was actually far enough back for him to conviently "fail to recall" the fact that he testified is an open question.

And it goes something like this:

Bolton gets info on Plame from the interecepts, info goes to Rove/Libby/Fleischer via the infamous memo, info goes to Novak et al.

If Fitz has access to those intercepts he can trace the chain of possession of that intel down the line.

Cognitive dissonance among Bush supporters?  No way.  Once you accept that the earth is less than 10,000 years old then abilty to doubt your chosen leader sort of drips out of your brain.

Why does everyone who commented here believe what David Shuster blurted out on Hardball? If Bolton did testify in the Plame case it is on the record and should be fairly easy to verify.

I wish that some liberal group would start to run anti-recess appointment Bolton ads soon.  Between Bolton's possible involvment in manipulating intelligence, possible lying to Congress on his participation in the CIA leak grand jury, his alleged attempts to force his wife to have group sex (see citation below), his chasing people around who disagreed with him and trying to physically intimidate them, and his trying to ruin the careers of those who disagreed with him, etc. ...  there is just so much about Bolton that would make for dramatic and effective television viewing.  If the public got a good sense that this is the kind of guy that Bush has been appointing to positions of power, and that this is the kind of guy that Bush wants to represent us in front of the rest of the world, it will help expose Bush's real lack of values.  It will make Bush less credible every time he claims to represent America's family values.  Ads about Bolton might provide sufficent pressure to deter Bush from making a recess appointment.  And it will make Democrats more credible in opposing Bush on other matters.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/larry_flynt_bolton_511

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-20-whitehouse-bol
ton_x.htm

I have a post up at CardCarryingMember asking this very question, as well as another.

Can you be fired for lying to a Grand Jury, and win the Medal of Freedom?  Enquiring minds want to know.

You could email Pluto in about 6 hours.  Bolton would have had to be somewhere out beyond the Kuiper belt to alibi himself.

If anything, someone threw out this tudbit to flag us as to what phone records are being examined.  Distance does make a difference in that respect, and not a helpful one to Bolton - even in Beltway circles, phone calls to Australia probably stand out.

If the Bolton intercepts requested by Senate Dems include Plame/Wilson, that would of course, explain the WH's absolute refusal to provide them.  However, according to CNN, at least, ALL requested info was provided to both Cmte. Chair Pat Roberts (another Roberts?) and Jay Rockefeller, the ranking member.  See, e.g., here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/senate.bolton/.  Had Plame/Wilson appeared on the list, Rockefeller presumably would have made some noise about it.  Instead, he's been quoted as saying, in effect, that there's no "there" there.  On the other hand, he may have missed the connection, or had some other reason not to raise a red flag, which raises the better question: why it's ok to provide the information to one Democratic Senator, but not all.  See here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8017664/site/newsweek/
And here: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2005/pr061405a.html

In addition, it appears that being "out of town" and therefore not involved, is part of Bolton's signature m.o.  See here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577473/site/newsweek/
This Isikoff & Hosenball piece also reminds us that in his 10requests for NSA intercepts, Bolton asked specifically for the names of "U.S. officials," and that "Bolton has engaged in a pattern of bullying and attempting to victimize subordinates—particularly career intelligence officials—who have produced analyses that conflict or contradict Bolton's own hard-line conservative views on world events," which is, of course, exactly what happened to Plame.

Bolton  -  '03 trip Australia and NSA Intercepts 

Australia questions - logical answer
July 9,10 Meeting Brisbane Aust. for Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI, led by Bolton) 
see Arms Control Today, September 2003, pg 27

NSA intercepts, Bolton, Senate and CNN
Yes - Bolton requested and got full NSA intercept transcripts
No - Senators did not see full NSA transcripts.  Roberts and Rockefeller, as Sen Intelligence Commtte leaders, only shown transcripts with names of Americans and American companies redacted.
so
CNN wrong to say they saw full transcripts

The mooted Bolton defence of "I was in Australia/the Kuiper belt/the Oort cloud at the time" would be embarrassing to true believers as it assumes the earth is round, not flat.