Pardon me, but your response is idiotic. If Bolton is reporting the convesation of Trump and Zelinsky as "cordial" and Bolton has a big smile underneath his mustache, I assume that means that he is okay with the call. I agree that cordial calls aren't always "nice.' I am sure that Al Capone had cordial calls with his underlings. But, in the context we are discussing, Bolton had every opportunity to say he was "disturbed" by aspects of the call. But he did not. Now when he is working on a book deal is not the time to suddenly develop regrets.
Of course, you would "assume" that Bolton was "okay with the call." And why the heck not? After all, you have a long history of swallowing whatever lies are being told by, or on behalf of, your adulated Dear Leader. And so, what ever lie Bolton told on Trump's behalf, as Trump's national security advisor, is gospel for you.
Bolton, or course, central to the effort to lie the country into the war on Iraq, is a world-class liar. He is also a national security hawk, and would not ever publicly disclose cracks in the U.S. system of alliances, such as the one Trump opened up between the U.S. and Ukraine (among others). Now that the Ukraine crack is widely published, he, yes, has "every opportunity to say he was 'disturbed'", and, lo and behold, he does exactly that, exposing the loose cannon in the Oval Office for the self-serving, corrupt and incompetent goon he most assuredly is. Of course,you still prefer the lies on behalf of Trump, that's what you are. Isn't that so, goofy?
So he's a liar, but he's absolutely believable as long as he criticizes something Trump said or did? If he's a liar, he can't be trusted.