Sen. Tim Scott Accuses Bolton of Trying to ‘Monetize His National Security Clearance’ With His Book

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) says he wishes that former National Security Advisor John Bolton had testified before the House during the impeachment proceeding to discuss his allegations and be cross-examined.

However, he says Bolton did not want to testify because he wanted to “monetize” his security clearance by detailing, as he says, President Donald Trump’s illegal behavior.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Scott said, “I do wish that Mr. Bolton would have come in to the House under oath and testified.”

“One of the things about making allegations in a book for $29.95 — certainly going to be a best seller for sure — the problem is that when you’re selling it in a book, you’re not putting yourself in a position to be cross-examined,” he continued.

“So for $29.95, he can monetize his national security clearance. But under oath, he would have had an opportunity to answer questions and not just make assertions,” he added.

Scott asserted that it “would have been good” for Bolton to testify before the House to reveal details of “fact patterns.”

“So far, it looks like he’s monetized it, more than he has actually provided a fact pattern,” Scott said.

Watch the video below: 

Bolton’s memoir “The Room Where It Happened” is set to be released on June 23, and has received criticism from Republicans and Democrats.

The publisher of the book says that Bolton shows that “Trump’s Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Bolton for not testifying before House during the impeachment process, but putting recording criminal and impeachable activity in his book, as IJR reported.

“When Bolton was asked, he refused, and said he’d sue if subpoenaed,” Schiff said in a tweet last week. “Instead, he saved it for a book.”

“Bolton may be an author, but he’s no patriot,” he added.


  1. If the Senate had taken its duties as an impeachment jury seriously, it would have called John Bolton to testify. It didn’t.

    1. If Jonathan Karl had taken his job seriously, he would have ASKED Senator Scott WHY he voted AGAINST having Bolton testify at the Senate hearing. WHERE was Senator Scott’s concern on January 31, 2020 regarding Bolton’s monetizing the information when Scott voted against hearing from Bolton? Trump enablers have MANY questions to answer.

  2. If someone leaving an administration doesn’t gain monetarily from, say, writing a tell-all book, they will do it by other corrupt means, such as becoming a lobbyist. Generals do THAT all of the time.

  3. Mr. Bolton was playing both sides of the fence, trying to get rich quick…… this book is going to be an epic failure for him. ahahaha even the Democrats are upset with him.

    1. True. Like so many “former” WH personnel he sees his political opportunities and public attention fading. The attention he’s gained by Trump’s actions is yuge.

      Here’s a thought: if Trump simply ignored the “tell alls” it would deflate sales except to the media, Never Trumpers, and rabid Left (which may be redundant). There’ have been SO many tell-alls against Trump, but notice the scarcity of those against the Clintons or Obozo?

        1. Exactly. The more hype generated by Trump’s tweets, the greater the sales hype.

          I still firmly believe the publishers should praise Trump for keeping their industry viable. Look at the sales figures before and after his election.

    2. Angela, you appear to ignore who else the Democrats and other patriotic Americans are upset with. The list includes the HOUSE REPUBLICANS that claimed Trump was within his right to withhold Congressional appropriated money to Ukraine WITHOUT notifying Congress. HOUSE REPUBLICANS that cited Russian propaganda they had been told was a danger to U.S. national security. SENATE REPUBLICANS that voted against hearing from Bolton. SENATE REPUBLICANS that claimed to believe “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.” SENATE REPUBLICANS that claimed to believe “Trump has learned his lesson.” TRUMP ENABLERS who claimed to believe the Mueller Report contained “No collusion. No Obstruction.” TRUMP SUPPORTERS that claimed anyone that speaks out against Trump’s lies and corruption simply “hate” Trump. Lots of disgust out there.

Comments are closed.