Bolton's ~didn't recall~ is something for the court to examine

Authority

249 F.3d 614.[7th App.]

A reasonable grand jury could find that the "lack of recollection" is not credible.When asserting one does "not recall" something is not necessarily of any value.

For the court can review the matter and ask whether it is reasonable that someone "did not recall" something.

One cannot feign ignorance of something that is reasonably be expected to have been recallable.

You cannot claim ignorance where it is more likely that that ignorance and "lack of recollection is not believable."

Thus, it is a matter of law for the court to decide, and not a premise to assert as fact, on whether Bolton has lied or feigned "lack of recollection" over something that would seem to be very clear.

Let us recall what happens when one goes before an investigative body:

They consult lawyers

They review notes

They practice

They review the likely questions

They are under alot of public pressure

It less believable that "he couldn't remember" something when it is very significant.

It is more likely that there is a cast of enablers asserting "it is true" that he doesn't believe.

These are matters for the grand jury to decide. What the public is or isn't told is part of the ruse.

IT is reasonable to question whether Bolton's "lack of recollection" are credible. We also don't know "what other information" the Grand Jury has that would raise further doubts about Bolton, or spark an investigation for perjury.

We don't know. That is reasonable.

But it is not reasonable for such a man to have so much power, and not remember.

We don't need people in high positions of office who, when asked to serve, cannot remember important things.

If we want forgetful people, we need only keep what we currently have: People who forget the laws that are clear; and are unable to lead when given the responsibility.