John Bolton just trashed Democrats and their impeachment

[For the record, I am not a Trump supporter. Nor do I have a lot of time for Bolton].

The Democrats failure or pretence of their interest in subpoenaing Bolton is a major red flag. If Bolton was a witness to an impeachable offence or action, then there is no credible reason not to pursue his subpoena via legal appeals or the Supreme Court. On balance of probability, Bolton's testimony offered three potational possibilities.

Firstly, Bolton's testimony may have aided Trump's defence. If this is the case, why didn't Trump push for Bolton to testify before the House?

Secondly, Bolton has no direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing. In other words, Bolton's testimony would have amounted to additional hearsay statements.

Thirdly, Bolton would have politically exposed the Democrats to open political embarrassment. Their hypocrisy on the issue of supplying military aid to Ukraine helped to undermine their credibility with any rational person. In cohort with CNN and the Obama friendly media outlets, they loved Obama's appeasement of Putin. (Blankets and sanctions took the place of military aid to Ukraine).

My hunch is the answer is a combination of the second and third points, although Trump's insane detractors in Congress and propaganda outlets may not have such a level of awareness.

Besides, if Bolton had first-hand knowledge of Nixon level impeachable offences, he had a moral/ethical obligation to come forward. He was not under house arrest. He had the option of defying the law and coming before the House. If he couldn't avoid mentioning classified material, closed-door hearings spring to mind. But I don't believe behind the doors testimony was necessary.