It was a moderately tough crowd for former National Security Adviser John Bolton at Nashville's Vanderbilt University on Wednesday night, with the students audibly skeptical of his rationale for declining to tell Congress what he knew about President Trump and Ukraine during Trump's impeachment proceedings. And the audience cheered Bolton's co-panelist and fellow former national security adviser, Susan Rice, when she called him out on it.Bolton said he was surprised Senate Republicans voted against having him testify at Trump's impeachment trial. "People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done," Bolton said. "I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome." He suggested he's still not revealing the relevant disclosures in his unpublished book because of "implied threat of criminal prosecution" if he were to "just spill my guts" before the White House clears the book for publication."It's inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony," with or without a subpoena, Rice said, getting a round of applause. "I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution." She added: "I also can't imagine, frankly, in the absence of being able to provide that information directly to Congress, not having exercised my First Amendment right to speak publicly at a time when my testimony or my experience would be relevant."Bolton prompted grumbling when he said House Democrats "committed impeachment malpractice" by creating a process that "drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan." Rice said Trump clearly abused his power and "Congress abdicated their responsibilities and made it impossible in the future to hold any president accountable." The theme of the talk was "Defining U.S. Global Leadership," so Rice added that the Senate's failure to sanction Trump has "unsettled" America's allies and "weakened our democratic model."More stories from theweek.com The growing crisis in cosmology The Nevada Democratic debate set a new viewership record The Democrats gave Mike Bloomberg what he deserved

Johan Hassel, the international secretary for Sweden's ruling Social Democrats, visited Iowa before the caucuses, and he wasn't impressed with America's standard bearer for democratic socialism, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "We were at a Sanders event, and it was like being at a Left Party meeting," he told Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, according to one translation. "It was a mixture of very young people and old Marxists, who think they were right all along. There were no ordinary people there, simply."Hassel was most "impressed" with Pete Buttigieg, though he also liked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Eric Kleefeld, assiduous student of foreign politics, provides some context on Sweden's Social Democrats:> Some more context: The “Left Party” he talks about in there is the old Communist Party back home in Sweden. (They changed their name around 1990 or so — wonder why.)> > The Left/Communists have worked with the Social Democrats in minority parliaments, but never included in cabinet.> > — Eric Kleefeld (@EricKleefeld) February 18, 2020Why would a Swedish Social Democrat favor Buttigieg over Sanders? Well, democratic socialism is different than Sweden's social democracy — the "Nordic model" Sanders touts — "and, unfortunately, Sanders has contributed to this confusion," writes MIT political economist Daron Acemoglu. Democratic socialism seeks to fix the iniquities of the market economy by handing control of the means of production to a company's workers or "an administrative structure operated by the state," he explains. "European social democracy is a system for regulating the market economy, not for supplanting it."Lars Løkke Rasmussen, then the prime minister of Denmark, made a similar point in a speech at Harvard in 2015, when Sanders was gaining national attention. "I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy," albeit with "an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens."Rasmussen's model, Vox's Matthew Yglesias wrote at the time, "is not especially different, as a substantive matter, from what Sanders is saying." Sanders wants "higher taxes, a lot more social welfare spending," and single-payer health care, he adds. "But in Rasmussen's view, this doesn't amount to socialism at all." Which may explain why, in Wednesday's debate, Warren affirmed she is a capitalist and Buttigieg held up Denmark as the paragon of the American Dream.More stories from theweek.com Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils Susan Rice shamed John Bolton for sitting on his impeachment testimony. Bolton said it wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats gave Mike Bloomberg what he deserved

The new contestant in the 7,000th Democratic debate, which took place in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, was former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who got on the debate stage by spending 400 million dollars, and most of the key discussion focused on his candidacy and his record.Practically the whole field united to savage Bloomberg. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders all attacked him more aggressively than any candidate has attacked another at any previous debate, and Bloomberg was all but helpless before the withering assault. Though he has bought off dozens of Democratic politicians and think tanks, it seems like all but one of his competitors are not at all keen on their party being bought wholesale by a billionaire oligarch.The most riveting moment of any Democratic debate so far came almost immediately, when Warren nailed Bloomberg on his appalling record of sexual harassment, racism, and plutocratic corruption:> I'd like to talk about who we're running against — a billionaire who calls women 'fat broads' and 'horse-faced lesbians.' And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump, I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg. Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk … Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. [Elizabeth Warren]Later, when Bloomberg tried to deflect a question about allegations of workplace harassment, Warren pounced again: "He has gotten some number of women — dozens, who knows? — to sign non-disclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. So Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all those women from those non-disclosure agreements, so we can hear their side of the story?" (By the way, the total number is at least 64 women as part of 40 different lawsuits.)Bloomberg again tried to deflect, arguing that the agreements were made to protect the privacy of the women involved. "They decided when they made an agreement that they wanted to keep it quiet." Biden then joined in, pointing out the obvious fact that this is not what NDA agreements are really about. People take the money, and in return they agree not to discuss the horrible event. It's basically hush money, and the American people deserve to know the truth. "All the mayor has to do," Biden said, is tell those people, "'You are released from the nondisclosure agreement.'"Bloomberg still did not agree to release the agreements, but he was completely nonplussed by the exchange. He clearly was not prepared for these rather obvious questions, perhaps because he is a cloistered plutocrat surrounded by yes men and toadies, or perhaps because there is no defense at all. He appeared very much like what he in fact is — a very rich man who is likely facing bitter, unfiltered criticism to his face for the first time in years.The only candidate who largely refused to leap on the dogpile was Pete Buttigieg. When Biden and Warren were mercilessly destroying Bloomberg on his sexual harassment history, Buttigieg did not join in. When Klobuchar was attacking Bloomberg for failing to release his tax returns (as Trump has also refused to do), Buttigieg stood aside. When Sanders was attacking Bloomberg for endorsing George W. Bush in 2004, and for being a gigantic vector of corruption in the political system, Buttigieg said nothing.In his one clear attack on Bloomberg, Buttigieg triangulated himself between Bloomberg and Sanders. "Most Americans don’t see where they fit if they’ve got to choose between a socialist who thinks capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks money ought to be the root of all power," he said. "We shouldn’t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another candidate who wants to buy this party out."Every other candidate, especially Warren, seemed genuinely infuriated at the prospect of a racist, sexist, authoritarian former Republican like Bloomberg buying the Democratic nomination like a slurpee at 7/11. But Buttigieg, well, he's cut from a different kind of cloth.It remains to be seen how much Bloomberg's epic debate faceplant will matter when it comes time to vote in upcoming states. He is spending a totally unprecedented amount of money on this primary. But this was by far the most interesting and dramatic debate of the primary season, and he ate it big time. It doesn't speak well for his ability to hold up under the scrutiny of a general election campaign, where his money will be a lot less useful than it is right now.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils Susan Rice shamed John Bolton for sitting on his impeachment testimony. Bolton said it wouldn't have mattered. Trump's new acting intelligence chief Richard Grenell lacks intelligence experience but he is a gold Trump Card member

But former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice Rice challenged his decision not to publicly discuss Trump's Ukraine pressure campaign.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House's impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as ”grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump's acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book.

Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House's impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as ”grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump's acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book. In his second public discussion this week, Bolton was on stage at Vanderbilt University with former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, Susan Rice, who questioned Bolton's refusal to discuss more details while his book undergoes screening for possible classified national security details by the Trump administration.

Some of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's rivals don't think he should exist.Or rather, they don't think the billions of dollars he has in the bank should've ever been his. So during Wednesday night's Democratic, Meet The Press host Chuck Todd posed the very meta question to Bloomberg himself.Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) answered the "should billionaires exist" question first, affirming his previously declaration that no, they should not. Todd then asked Bloomberg "should you exist," to which Bloomberg said "I can't speak for all billionaires." But he's "been very lucky" and "worked hard" for his money, Bloomberg said and he deserves it because he's "giving it all away to make this country better. > .@chucktodd: "Mayor Bloomberg, should you exist?"@MikeBloomberg: "I can't speak for all billionaires. All I know is, I've been very lucky, made a lot of money and I'm giving it all away to make this country better." pic.twitter.com/gy18iIXVap> > -- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) February 20, 2020More stories from theweek.com Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils Susan Rice shamed John Bolton for sitting on his impeachment testimony. Bolton said it wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats gave Mike Bloomberg what he deserved

* Ex-national security adviser criticized by Obama official * ‘I would feel like I was shamefully violating the oath I took’Former national security adviser John Bolton faced a roasting from one of his predecessors on Wednesday night, in his second public appearance since the conclusion of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.Bolton, speaking alongside Susan Rice at a lecture series at Vanderbilt University, was taken to task by his co-speaker, who served as national security adviser under Barack Obama.Rice criticized Bolton for refusing to testify before the House of Representatives during the impeachment hearings. It later emerged that Bolton has documented, in a forthcoming book, evidence regarding Trump and Ukraine that Democrats had sought him to provide on the record.“I can’t imagine withholding my testimony with or without a subpoena,” Rice said at the Vanderbilt event, according to CNN reporter Jennifer Hansler.“I would feel like I was shamefully violating the oath that I took to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”Bolton refused to give testimony during the House impeachment hearings late last year. In January he said he was prepared to testify, if subpoenaed, in the Senate trial, where Republicans – as expected – voted against hearing from new witnesses.At the Vanderbilt event, Bolton said, according to the Vanderbilt Hustler student newspaper: “I said I would testify if subpoenaed. My position is exactly the same as Joe Biden.”Rice reportedly responded: “Except Joe Biden didn’t have firsthand knowledge about what transpired with Ukraine.”Vanderbilt said ahead of the event it would not be livestreamed, and no audio of the event was provided online.“When I was the sitting national security adviser in 2016, I was called to testify in front of the House select committee about Benghazi,” Rice said, according to the Hustler. “The last thing I wanted to do was take time away from my duty as national security adviser. But I did so voluntarily. I wasn’t subpoenaed.”Bolton’s appearance came after an event at Duke University on Monday, where he said he was facing “censorship” from the White House, which he claimed was trying to block publication of his book.According to the Hustler, Rice said of Bolton: “I don’t understanding using [White House] pre-clearance as a reason to not be forthcoming.”Bolton, who left the White House in September, gave a series of teasers on Monday about what his forthcoming book might contain, in one instance referring an audience member to a specific chapter of the book.“For all the focus on Ukraine and the impeachment trial and all that, to me, there are portions of the manuscript that deal with Ukraine, I view that like the sprinkles on the ice cream sundae in terms of what’s in the book,” Bolton said, according to the New York Times.Bolton is said to have written that Trump spoke to him about withholding aid to Ukraine until they agreed to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.After being criticized for remaining coy over national security matters until publishing them in a commercially published book, Bolton seemed keen to tamp down his sales pitch on Wednesday.“I didn’t come here to promote the book,” Bolton told the Hustler in an interview published before his onstage appearance.“I’m not going to talk about the book in part because it’s still in the pre-publication review process. And to avoid criticism that I’m simply out talking [about] the book, which I am not.”The New York Times has previously shared details from a draft of Bolton’s book. In it, Bolton affirmed that Trump was intent on withholding military aid to Ukraine until it helped investigate Democrats and the Bidens, supporting Democrats’ impeachment case against Trump.Bolton is also said to have written that Trump was granting favors to the leaders of Turkey and China, claims the justice department has denied.In January the White House, having received a copy of Bolton’s book, said it “appears to contain significant amounts of classified information”, and said it could not be published until certain details are removed. Bolton’s lawyers dispute that any information in the book could be considered classified.