This is the scenario I laid out a few weeks ago:
If Bolton only knows what he thinks the President "preferred," and as the President's National Security Advisor Bolton is only asked about the consequences of taking negative actions while leaving the positive discussions to other advisors, how would cherry-picking Bolton's testimony in isolation be received?
If the President is seeking opposing opinions that cover the whole spectrum of possibilities, but each advisor is unaware of the questions asked of others, what would an advisor who was asked only about the negative scenarios testify to when subpoenaed?They only know less than half of what was really going on.
How can anyone determine "state of mind" from only one person when that mind is seeking out diametrically opposed opinions from many advisors before making a decision?
The solution is not to demand other witnesses to rebut Bolton's testimony, dragging this out for months, it is to deny any witnesses and make the House to their own job properly.
-PJ
My view is that state of mind is irrelevant. The action is either legal/constitutional or not.
If Trump is out to get Biden as a matter of personal vendetta, and some legal reason comes along to enable that, the action is legal.