>>> I’D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
TO SAY. HE HAS FIRSTHAND INFORMATION,
AND ASSUMING THAT ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT DO REACH THE SENATE,
WHY I’D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT HE
KNOWS.
KNOWS. >> HMM.
>> HMM. >> THAT MAKES SENSE.
SOMEBODY HAS INFORMATION, A
CENTRAL PLAYER IN A CRISIS, A
FOREIGN POLICY CRISIS.
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. >> THAT 77% OF AMERICANS WANT TO
HEAR MORE ABOUT.
>> MITT ROMNEY WANTS TO HEAR
FROM HIM.
FROM HIM. >> MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK
DONALD TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED
FOR DOING, MAJORITY OF AMERICANS
BELIEVE SHOULD GET MORE
TESTIMONY IN.
TESTIMONY IN. MITT ROMNEY GOES, YEAH.
THIS GUY’S AT THE SENT OF IT.
CALLED IT A DRUG DEAL.
TOLD EVERYBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF
A MEETING GO TO YOUR LAWYERS
RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS ILLEGAL.
YEAH.
YEAH. I WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM.
GOOD FOR MITT.
I WONDER WHERE THE OTHER
REPUBLICANS ARE?
REPUBLICANS ARE? DO YOU THINK OTHER REPUBLICANS
WILL DO WHAT’S RIGHT?
DO WHAT’S BEST FOR AMERICA?
DO WHAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT?
I’M CURIOUS.
I’M CURIOUS. >> NOT SO MUCH.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN
BOLTON NOW WILLING TO TESTIFY IN
THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
IN A STATEMENT POSTED YESTERDAY
BOLTON WROTE IN PART SINCE MY
TESTIMONY IS AT ISSUE I HAVE HAD
TO RESOLVE THE SERIOUS COMPETING
ISSUES AS BEST I COULD BASED ON
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND STUDY.
I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IF THE
SENATE ISSUES A SUBPOENA FOR MY
TESTIMONY, I AM PREPARED TO
TESTIFY.
TESTIFY. >> WELL, GOOD.
>> TO WHICH SENATOR MARCO RUBIO
SAID --
SAID -- I THINK OUR INQUIRIES SHOULD BE
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE THEY USED TO REACH
THOSE ARTICLES NOW.
WE’RE UNDER NO OBLIGATES TO
EXTEND BEYOND THE RECORD THAT
THEY CREATED.
THEY CREATED. AND LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID, "NO.
I’M READY TO GO.
IF THEY WANT TO CALL BOLTON THEY
SHOULD HAVE CALLED BOLTON IN THE
HOUSE".
HOUSE". >> REALLY?
>> REALLY? >> WHAT DOES DONALD TRUMP HAVE
ON THIS GUY?
>> COMPARE THAT TO THEN
CONGRESSMAN LINDSEY GRAHAM
DURING THE IMPEACHMENT OF FORMER
PRESIDENT CLINTON IN 1999.
>> WHY DO YOU NEED A WITNESS?
THE WHOLE POINT THAT WE’RE
TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT IN EVERY
TRIAL THAT THERE HAS EVER BEEN
IN THE SENATE REGARDING
IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES WERE
CALLED.
CALLED. THE BIG PROBLEM I HAVE IF WE
DON’T GET TO CALL MEANINGFUL
WITNESSES, DIRECT WITNESSES TO
THE POINT, IS THAT YOU’RE
BASICALLY CHANGING IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE IS NOT
THE TRIAL.
THE TRIAL. YOU CAN HAVE THREE DAYS OF
LAWYERS TALKING TO EACH OTHER ON
BOTH SIDES, 16 HOURS OF
QUESTIONS, AND BASICALLY BORE
EVERYBODY TO DEATH, TALK
EVERYBODY TO DEATH, BUT WHEN YOU
HAVE A WITNESS WHO WAS THERE,
WHO WAS ENGAGED IN IT, WHO WAS
IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, TELLING YOU
ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND
WHY, THAT’S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
CASE, AND IT’S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN GETTING THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH.
TRUTH. >> HMM.
>> HMM. >> WOW.
>> WOW. HE’S CHANGED SO MUCH.
I MEAN -- WHEN YOU HAVE
WITNESSES WHO WHO WERE THERE --
>> WHAT DID HE SAY?
>> WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM.
>> HE SAID DIRECT WITNESSES TO
THE POINT.
THE POINT. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS SUCH A PALATE
CLEANSER EARLY IN THE MORNING,
ALEX.
ALEX. >> I KNOW.
>> I’D LIKE TO HEAR IT.
>> PLEASE.
>> PLEASE. >> WHY DO YOU NEED A WITNESS?
THE WHOLE POINT THAT WE’RE
TRYING TO MAKE IS, THAT IN EVERY
TRIAL THAT THERE HAS EVER BEEN
IN THE SENATE REGARDING
IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES WERE
CALLED.
CALLED. THE BIG PROBLEM I HAVE IF WE
DON’T GET TO CALL MEANINGFUL
WITNESSES, DIRECT WITNESSES TO
THE POINT, IS THAT YOU’RE
BASICALLY CHANGING IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE IS NOT
THE TRIAL.
THE TRIAL. YOU CAN HAVE THREE DAYS OF
LAWYERS TALKING TO EACH OTHER ON
BOTH SIDES, 16 HOURS OF
QUESTIONS, AND BASICALLY BORE
EVERYBODY TO DEATH, TALK
EVERYBODY TO DEATH, BUT WHEN YOU
HAVE A WITNESS WHO WAS THERE,
WHO WAS ENGAGED IN IT, WHO WAS
IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, TELLING YOU
ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND
WHY, THAT’S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
CASE, AND IT’S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN GETTING THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH.
TRUTH. >> ALL RIGHT.
>> GOSH.
>> GOSH. THAT JUST SEEMS SO CLEAR.
>> 1999.
>> 1999. KATTY KAY, FROM THE AGE OF
PRINCE, I OFFER A DIRECTED
VERDICT.
VERDICT. FOR 1999.
FOR 1999. LINDSEY GRAHAM.
LINDSEY GRAHAM. WHAT SAY YOU?
>> IT IS REMARKABLE HOW MANY
TIMES WE CAN PLAY SOUND BITE
FROM LINDSEY GRAHAM A FEW YEARS
AGO AND LINDSEY GRAHAM TODAY AND
HOUSE HE’S DONE 180 DEGREES ON
HIS FORMER POSITIONS, WITH NO
SHAME.
SHAME. WITH NO --
>> NO SHAME.
>> NONE AT ALL!
NO SENSE OF KIND OF, WELL,
MAYBE, YOU KNOW, I WAS WRONG
THEN BUT NOW I’M RIGHT NOW.
NO.
NO. I MEAN, LOOK, THIS IS TOTAL
EXPEDIENCY.
EXPEDIENCY. MITT ROMNEY IS THE ONLY
REPUBLICAN, THE ONLY CRACK SO
FAR IN THIS TRUMP-BUILT WALL OF
REPUBLICANS, IS MITT ROMNEY
WHOSE PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT JOB
SO FAR IN AMERICAN POLITICS IS
THAT SENATOR OF UTAH COMING
FORWARD TO SAY ACTUALLY WE DO
HAVE TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
THAT’S A GOOD IDEA IN THE TRIAL.
OTHERWISE WHAT IS THE POINT OF
EVER HAVING A SENATE TRIAL WHERE
THERE ARE WITNESSES?
SOMEBODY LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM
SAYING WE NEVER NEED WITNESSES.
THE SYSTEM IS BUILT TO HAVE