♪ ♪ ♪ >> Stephen: HEY, EVERYBODY,
WE'RE BACK WITH AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON, AUTHOR OF "THE ROOM
WHERE IT HAPPENED."
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT UKRAINE, IMPEACHMENT, AND YOUR DECISION
NOT TO TESTIFY.
OR RATHER, YOUR BELIEF THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO
TESTIFY.
THE BIG QUESTION SIX MONTHS AGO WAS DID ANYONE SEE TRUMP
EXPLICITLY TIE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE TO THE BIDEN
INVESTIGATIONS?
EVERYONE IS SAYING, LIKE, IF THERE WAS ANYONE OUT THERE--
REPUBLICAN SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM AND OTHER PEOPLE SAYING,
IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY IN THE ROOM WHO COULD TELL US THAT THAT
HAPPENED, THIS WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY.
HOW DID IT FEEL TO KNOW THAT YOU WERE THAT PERSON WHILE EVERYONE
WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION?
>> LOOK, I THINK-- I THINK THE IMPEACHMENT EFFORT WENT INTO A
DITCH LONG BEFORE THAT POINT.
I THINK THE WAY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS STRUCTURED IT, THEY
WERE LOOKING FOR A PARTISAN FIGHT.
THEY PUSHED REPUBLICANS WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN WILLING IN THE
TRADITION OF WATERGATE, SAM IRVIN AND HOWARD BAKER, MIGHT
HAVE BEEN WILLING TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.
THEY PUSHED THEM AWAY.
THEY CREATED A PARTY-LINE VOTE IN THE HOUSE AND THEY GUARANTEE
A PARTY-LINE VOTE, ESSENTIALLY, IN THE SENATE.
SO THIS WAS A HUGE STRATEGIC FAILURE BY THE DEMOCRATS.
AND I THINK-- AND I BELIEVE THEN AND I BELIEVE NOW-- THAT WHETHER
I HAD TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE
OF THE PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SWEPT ARB SIDE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
IT WO WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE, AND WHAT I DID HAVE
TO SAY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BURY GLD MY QUESTION WAS, KNOWING
THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WERE LOOKING FOR, SO MUCH IFNG WAS SPILLED
OVER, COULD ANYONE TIE TRUMP SPECIFICALLY SAYING THIS TIT FOR
AT TAT, AND KNOWING YOU WERE THA PERSON, WHAT WAS IT LIKE TO SIT
ON THAT INFORMATION AND NOT SHARE IT?
>> WELL, I FELT BEST THING TO DO AT THAT POINT WAS TO MAKE SURE
THE REAL JUDGES OF PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE, WHO ARE, AFTER ALL,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SHOULD HEAR IT.
I THOUGHT THIS IMPEACHMENT EFFORT WAS DOOMED ALMOST FROM
THE START.
I THINK IT WAS JUST BASED ON A HUGE MISCALCULATION.
>> Stephen: WHAT'S THE MISCALCULATION?
>> THE MISCALCULATION THAT THEY COULD TAKE A VERY NARROW SUBJECT
AND RAM IT THROUGH QUICKLY, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE EXACTLY
DONALD TRUMP'S STRATEGY.
HE WANTED A VERY NARROW TRIAL IN THE SENATE, RAMMED THROUGH
QUICKLY, AND THAT'S WHAT HE GOT.
>> Stephen: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT ACTUAL NARROW SUBJECT
WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
YOU TOLD "USA TODAY" AS A SENATOR YOU WOULD HAVE VOTED TO
CONVICT.
>> I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE.
ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, I STILL DON'T THINK-- I CERTAINLY DON'T
BELIEVE I KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON IN UKRAINE OR THAT,
FRANKLY, MAY STILL BE GOING ON IN UKRAINE AT THE BEHEST OF THE
PRESIDENT.
>> Stephen: DO YOU THINK IF YOU LEARNED MORE, IT WOULD BE
AGREEMENT STUFF OR BAD STUFF?
TAKE A GUESS.
>> BAD STUFF.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW WILL HURT US.
>> Stephen: I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS, BECAUSE IT WAS
PRIEWPTED POORLY IN YOUR OPINION, AND TOO NARROWLY, ISN'T
THAT LIKE SOMEONE SAYING, "I HAPPEN TO KNOW THIS GUY MURDERED
A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PROSECUTING HIM AS A
SERIAL KILLER, I DON'T WANT TO TESTIFY IN THIS ONE MURDER THEY
FOUND."
>> LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
IT WASN'T SIMPLY THE SCOPE.
IT WAS THE WAY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TREATED HOUSE
REPUBLICANS.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE SOME SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER WHO WOULD
HAVE BEEN OPEN TO A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF A RANGE OF
ISSUES.
THAT WAS NEVER PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN.
SO THAT MANY REPUBLICANS WHO WERE NO FANS OF DONALD TRUMP
ENDED UP IN THE POSITION OF DEFENDING HIM.
NOW, YOU CAN ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT
THAT'S THE FACT PUP KNOW IT'S THE FACT.
YOU SAW -- >> Stephen: SO YOU THINK THE
REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE BEEN OPEN TO OTHER CHARGES OR OTHER
INVESTIGATIONS, EVEN THOUGH EVERYTHING THEY DID WAS TO
STYMIE THE INVESTIGATIONS?
>> WE HAVE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
CAN WORK CALLED WATERGATE, WHERE DEMOCRATS WORKED WITH
REPUBLICANS AND WHERE THE KEY PEOPLE WHO EVENTUALLY FORCED
NIXON OUT WERE REPUBLICANS.
JIM BUCKLEY OF NEW YORK, ELECTED ON THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY LINE,
WAS THE FIRST REPUBLICAN TO CALL FR RICHARD NIXON TO RESIGN.
THAT WAS SOMETHING, IF THE DEMOCRATS REALLY WANTED
IMPEACHMENT AND CONVICTION, THAT'S THE APPROACH THEY WOULD
HAVE FOLLOWED.
>> Stephen: BUT, CIRC I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT
THAT'S LIKE SAYING YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT IT WAS A FAIR
CASE AGAINST HIM AND IT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
ALL YOU'RE SAYING IS TODAY'S REPUBLICAN PARTY, FAR FROM FROM
NOT BEING INVITED INTO A BIPARTISAN PROCESS, ARE MERELY
SO TOXIC AND SO PARTISAN, THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THEE IS
GUILTY THEY WILL NOT DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
>> NO, I THINK IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO CREATED THIS
SCENARIO.
THEY WANTED TO HURRY SO THAT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DID NOT
AFFECT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION GRI
AGREE WITH YOU THERE.
THAT WAS A MISTAKE.
>> OKAY, BUT THAT IS A POLITICAL CONSIDERATION.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE SAYING.
BUT THEY WERE USING A GOVERNMENTAL POWER, PROBABLY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' MOST IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL POWER,
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THEY TORQUED IT AROUND THEIR OWN
POLITICAL INTEREST.
DOESN'T THAT SOUND A LOT LIKE DONALD TRUMP TO YOU?
>> Stephen: UH, BUT THERE'S IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED.
HIS IS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.
>> HE WAS USING -- >> Stephen: THERE'S A
DIFFERENCE.
>> NO, HE WAS USING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND TORQUING THAT
AROUND TO DEMAND THAT THE UKRAINIANS LAUNCH A POLITICAL
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OPPONENTS.
>> Stephen: TO BENEFIT HIMSELF.
>> FOR HIS POLITICAL CONVENIENCE.
AND WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE DOING WERE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR
OWN POLITICAL CONVENIENCE.
THIS WAS A HUGE LOST OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE DEMOCRATS CAUSED ON
THEIR OWN.
>> Stephen: IT MAY BE, IT MAY BE, SIR, BUT I THINK THAT'S A
FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
THEY'RE PROSECUTING HIM FOR A CRIME THAT'S IMPEACHABLE.
HE IS USING HIS POLITICAL POWER TO BENEFIT HIMSELF AND HIS
FAMILY.
>> TO ME IT WAS A HUGE LOST OPPORTUNITY BY THE DEMOCRATS
BECAUSE THEY SAW THE ISSUE MUCH TOO NARROWLY, AND IN MUCH TOO
PARTISAN A FASHION.
>> Stephen: WELL, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT TO GO IN JUST A
MOMENT, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS IF YOU DON'T
MIND, SIR.
>> SURE.
>> Stephen: OKAY, GREAT.
THE TURNING POINT IN WATERGATE WAS WHEN THE TAPES WERE
REVEALED.
WULD YOU AGREE THERE?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE TURNING POINTS.
BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL.
AND IT WAS IMPORTANT -- >> Stephen: BUT AFTER THE
TAPES WERE REVEALED THAT'S WHEN THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS MARCHED
OVER TO THE AND SAID, "THIS IS OVER AM.
>> THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE BASIS OF BELIEF THAT HAD BEEN
ESTABLISHED ON A LONG RECORD COMPILED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME.
THIS WAS NOT A QUICK-MOVING PROCESS, AS WE SAW IN THE TRUCH
IMPEACHMENT.
>> Stephen: I UNDERSTAND.
I GRANT YOU THAT.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS THAT ISN'T YOUR BOOK THE TAPES?
>> WELL -- >> Stephen: AREN'T YOU THE
RELEEBL WITNESS?
>> LOOK, I HAVE PUT OUT A BOOK THAT CERTAINLY HAS A LOT OF
OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN IT, BUT WHICH I WROTE MOSTLY TO LAY
OUT FACTS.
AND DESPITE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EFFORT TO STOP
THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK, THE FACTS ARE NOW OUT THERE.
AND THEY'RE OUT THERE IN WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ALL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY'LL MAKE UP THEIR MINDS IN NOVEMBER.
>> Stephen: AMBASSADOR, WE HAVE TO TAKE ONE MORE BREAK, BUT
WHEN WE RETURN, EVERYBODY, I'LL ASK THE AMBASSADOR WHAT THE
PATRIOTIC RESPONSE TO DONALD TRUMP IS.
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪