With me right now is
somebody who has up front experience
with Donald Trump
when he was president
of the United States,
and let's call it his
questionable handling
of national security information.
The former national security
adviser, Ambassador John Bolton.
Ambassador Bolton, thanks so much
for joining us.
First of all, let's just start
with the basics of the case.
Several members of President Trump's
administration have been
very critical of his actions
as described in the indictment.
Former Attorney
General Bill Barr said, quote,
If even half of it is true, then
he's toast, unquote.
Do you agree?
What's your view of this indictment?
Well, I think
it's a devastating indictment.
It's it's very powerful
in the way that it's portrayed.
But it's also very narrow, very targeted
The government didn't throw everything
and the kitchen sink at the wall.
It has focused this
and in a way that I think
as a matter of law
is going to be very difficult
for the president to resist.
I think the real question
is the question of timing and scheduling.
You know,
if Donald Trump were an honest man,
if he were an innocent
man, he'd be saying,
I want the trial within 30 days.
I want this cloud
removed from over my head.
I want the stain on my reputation removed
So we'll wait
and see what Donald Trump does.
I think he'll try and postpone
it, too, after the 20, 24 election.
So my suggestion
to Jack Smith
and the Justice Department
is go
lean on the Manhattan district attorney
and get him to move his trial
until after the election.
This trial should take precedence.
We'll find out
whether Alvin Bragg
is a real prosecutor or a political hack.
So there's obviously an historic
aspect to what we saw today.
A president of the United States
being arrested and arraigned
in a federal courthouse.
Looking at it
through that lens from 30,000 feet.
What was your take?
What was your
what did you experience while watching
I'm sorry.
You were a little bit broken up there.
But but I think it's important
to understand,
although this is unprecedented,
to indict a president we have had
similar kinds of events
in American history.
Thomas Jefferson, in his second term,
personally ordered the arrest
and prosecution of Aaron Burr
for treason, even though Aaron Burr
had run as Thomas Jefferson's
vice president.
How did they break apart?
Wait for it?
Aaron Burr
tried to steal the 1800 election
from Jefferson
by fiddling with the Electoral College.
So, you know,
we have had a crisis
involving political figures
at the highest level of the government.
And I don't think
anybody should think this is necessarily
an apocalyptic moment.
A lot depends on Donald Trump,
and I think he will do his best
to make it apocalyptic.
It's depended on the rest of us
not to let that happen.
You're the former U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations.
You were the former
national security adviser.
You know, of
classified documents, secret documents.
Do you believe,
based on the facts
laid out in the indictment,
that Donald Trump put the U.S.
and its allies at risk
with his possession insecure storage
and then refusal
to turn over these documents?
We also know,
of course, just from reporting
that there have been
at least two of the two Chinese nationals
and another con
woman of sorts
who have gotten access to Mar a Lago.
Now, look,
sorry.
Obviously, the
government has to prove its case
to a jury. There's no no doubt about it.
But I know what kinds of documents
we used to give to Donald Trump
to help him make decisions.
I don't know specifically what
the documents look like that
the special counsel
has listed in the indictment
But if they're anything like
some of the things we presented to
Trump in the Oval
Office, in the Situation Room
and the tank at the Pentagon,
it could cause enormous damage,
incalculable damage to the United States.
And I know some people are saying, well,
we don't have any allegation.
The Russians have seen these documents
or the Chinese have seen these documents.
The purpose
of the provisions of the Espionage Act
and other protections around
national security
information is to reduce the chances
that our adversaries
can get the documents
and the behavior
that's alleged in the complaint.
Intentional, clearly intentional
after receiving the subpoena
that Trump didn't want to receive
is just willfully
puts the United States in grave danger.
I think people need to
focus on this reality.
This is not some case about porn stars
and hush money.
This the conduct alleged here direct
threat to the national security
of the United States.
One of the big questions
that I think everybody watching
has is why?
Why would he take these documents
with him to Mar a Lago?
Why would he show them, as alleged
in the indictment,
to random people that don't really don't?
Definitely
don't have national security clearance.
And why would he not just turn them over
when the FBI was demanding that he do so
Well, I think there's a sense
of entitlement
about Donald Trump
that what he wants, he's entitled to,
he can take it.
He can do what he wants with it.
And he doesn't face consequences.
And it has to say base
based on his career to date.
He had very strong reason
to think he could do
whatever he wanted to do.
And so he could show to people,
I've got documents you can't have
and you can't see.
I can tell the FBI
that I don't have information
and I can get away with that.
I can do all these things.
And his experience would tell him that
that there would be no downside for him.
Now we're about to find out
whether there's going to be downside.
I think he's shocked by this.
I think this is
put he's been put in a
situation
he has never experienced before.
Lastly, sir,
before you go
and we do appreciate your time,
what's your message
to the Republicans
who continue
to stand by his side,
the Lindsey
Graham's of the world,
the Marco Rubio's of the world,
the individuals out there
who are saying
this is just a political prosecution,
this is not real.
The charges are unfair.
This is just people out
to get Donald Trump.
What would you say to them?
Well,
yeah, I would say this.
For those who think
there's a double standard
and take
for purposes of this discussion, assume
there is a double standard, assumed
Hillary Clinton
should have been prosecuted
and it was not fair that she wasn't
the Joe Biden should be prosecuted.
And it's not fair that he's not.
That's what these people believe.
The answer to their complaint
about a double standard,
the question
they should be asked
is, even though Biden has escaped scot
free, Clinton has escaped scot free,
fill in the blank,
has escaped
scot free,
is the answer to the double standard
to let Donald Trump
escape scot free
is the answer to the double standard
to revert to no standard at all.
I think that's wrong.
I think Republicans have rightly believed
for a long time
that when you don't prosecute criminals,
you get more crimes.
And the answer is,
when you've got the allegations
in a complaint like this
with the conduct
that that that the indictment shows
the prosecution is entirely warranted,
worry about the others later.
This is a decision before you.
I want Republicans who think Trump
should be given a pass to say
so explicitly, don't. What about it?
Talk about whether you think
this complaint, this indictment
shows criminal behavior.
And if it does,
we should all favor prosecuting.
All right.
Former ambassador
and national security adviser
John Bolton,
thank you so much for your time at.