LENGTH OF THIS TRIAL. >> Laura: WE ARE ON IT AND

>> Laura: WE ARE ON IT AND THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE

THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE TONIGHT.

TONIGHT. EARLIER I MENTIONED THE NSC’S

EARLIER I MENTIONED THE NSC’S LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY OF

LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY OF JOHN BOLTON.

JOHN BOLTON. I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THE

I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THE CONTENTS OF HIS UNPUBLISHED

CONTENTS OF HIS UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT WERE LEAKED TO

MANUSCRIPT WERE LEAKED TO "THE NEW YORK TIMES" A FEW DAYS

"THE NEW YORK TIMES" A FEW DAYS AGO BUT ACCORDING TO AN NSC

AGO BUT ACCORDING TO AN NSC LAWYER, THE MANUSCRIPT APPEARS

LAWYER, THE MANUSCRIPT APPEARS TO CONTAIN CLASSIFIED, PERHAPS

TO CONTAIN CLASSIFIED, PERHAPS EVEN TOP-SECRET INFORMATION.

EVEN TOP-SECRET INFORMATION. JOINING WHEN I WAS WHITE HOUSE

JOINING WHEN I WAS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OR KELLYANNE CONWAY.

COUNSEL OR KELLYANNE CONWAY. DOES THE WHITE HOUSE CONSIDER

DOES THE WHITE HOUSE CONSIDER THIS A LEAK OF CLASSIFIED

THIS A LEAK OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

INFORMATION? >> PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO

>> PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

USE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE MANUSCRIPT

I HAVE NOT SEEN THE MANUSCRIPT OR SEEN THE BOOK, I THINK

OR SEEN THE BOOK, I THINK ADAM SCHIFF OR THE MANAGERS ARE

ADAM SCHIFF OR THE MANAGERS ARE STUCK HOLDING A BOOK WE HAVEN’T

STUCK HOLDING A BOOK WE HAVEN’T SEEN, WE WIN AND IT COULD BE

SEEN, WE WIN AND IT COULD BE WRAPPED UP BY THIS WEEKEND.

WRAPPED UP BY THIS WEEKEND. I CAN’T BELIEVE HOW PEOPLE ARE

I CAN’T BELIEVE HOW PEOPLE ARE LIKE ANTS ON A SUGAR CUBE EVERY

LIKE ANTS ON A SUGAR CUBE EVERY TIME THERE’S A NEW PERSON -- YOU

TIME THERE’S A NEW PERSON -- YOU KNOW WITH THE BOMBSHELL

KNOW WITH THE BOMBSHELL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN BOLTON WAS,

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN BOLTON WAS, IT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 29TH.

IT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 29TH. I THINK IT’S TERRIFIC, HE TALKS

I THINK IT’S TERRIFIC, HE TALKS ABOUT THE CALL, THAT

ABOUT THE CALL, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS WITH

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> I WILL BE MEETING

>> I WILL BE MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE AND

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE SPOKEN

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE SPOKEN TWICE, THE PRESIDENT CALLED TO

TWICE, THE PRESIDENT CALLED TO CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY

CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON HIS ELECTION AND ON HIS

ON HIS ELECTION AND ON HIS SUCCESS IN THE PARLIAMENTARY

SUCCESS IN THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, THEY WERE WARM AND

ELECTION, THEY WERE WARM AND CORDIAL CALLS, THEY WERE HOPING

CORDIAL CALLS, THEY WERE HOPING THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET IN

THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET IN WARSAW AFTER A FEW MINUTES

WARSAW AFTER A FEW MINUTES TOGETHER.

TOGETHER. >> Laura: WE HAVE AN

>> Laura: WE HAVE AN INTERESTING FLASHBACK FROM 2010

INTERESTING FLASHBACK FROM 2010 WHEN JOHN BOLTON WAS TALKING

WHEN JOHN BOLTON WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMETIMES HE MIGHT NEED TO

ABOUT SOMETIMES HE MIGHT NEED TO LIVE FOR HIS SAKE OF HIS VIEW OF

LIVE FOR HIS SAKE OF HIS VIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

NATIONAL SECURITY. >> DID YOU EVER LIVE FOR YOUR

>> DID YOU EVER LIVE FOR YOUR COUNTRY?

COUNTRY? >> I DON’T THINK SO KNOWINGLY

>> I DON’T THINK SO KNOWINGLY BUT I CERTAINLY AM ABLE TO SPIN

BUT I CERTAINLY AM ABLE TO SPIN THINGS AND A GOOD DIPLOMAT IS

THINGS AND A GOOD DIPLOMAT IS ABLE TO SPIN THINGS JUST LIKE

ABLE TO SPIN THINGS JUST LIKE AMERICAN POLITICIANS.

AMERICAN POLITICIANS. >> YOU WOULD LIE IN ORDER TO

>> YOU WOULD LIE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE TRUTH?

PRESERVE THE TRUTH? >> IF I HAD TO SAY SOMETHING I

>> IF I HAD TO SAY SOMETHING I KNEW WAS FALSE TO PROTECT

KNEW WAS FALSE TO PROTECT AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY, I

AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY, I WOULD DO IT.

WOULD DO IT. >> Laura: HE WOULD LIKE TO

>> Laura: HE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE NATIONAL SECURITY,

PRESERVE NATIONAL SECURITY, PERHAPS JOHN BOLTON THINKS

PERHAPS JOHN BOLTON THINKS DONALD TRUMP IS A THREAT TO

DONALD TRUMP IS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT’S WHY

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT’S WHY HE’S GOING TO SPIN WHAT HE

HE’S GOING TO SPIN WHAT HE SPENDS NOW.

SPENDS NOW. >> I WAS REALLY STRUCK BY HIS

>> I WAS REALLY STRUCK BY HIS AUGUST 29TH INTERVIEW.

AUGUST 29TH INTERVIEW. A FULL FIVE WEEKS AFTER HIS

A FULL FIVE WEEKS AFTER HIS SECOND ZELINSKI CALL.

SECOND ZELINSKI CALL. JOHN BOLTON’S INTERVIEW AND

JOHN BOLTON’S INTERVIEW AND DONALD TRUMP DONALD TRUMP’S CALL

DONALD TRUMP DONALD TRUMP’S CALL OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY ARE

OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY ARE SIMILAR IN THIS WAY.

SIMILAR IN THIS WAY. I DON’T HEAR THE WORD AID,

I DON’T HEAR THE WORD AID, DEMAND, I DON’T HEAR JOHN BOLTON

DEMAND, I DON’T HEAR JOHN BOLTON TALKING ABOUT BIDEN OR COOKING

TALKING ABOUT BIDEN OR COOKING UP SOME DRUG DEAL, THAT COMES UP

UP SOME DRUG DEAL, THAT COMES UP LATER AFTER HE LEFT THE

LATER AFTER HE LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHITE HOUSE. IF PEOPLE WEREN’T SOUNDING THE

IF PEOPLE WEREN’T SOUNDING THE ALARM’S AT THE TIME OF THE ONLY

ALARM’S AT THE TIME OF THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOUNDED THAT

PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOUNDED THAT ALARM ARE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE

ALARM ARE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

WITH THE PRESIDENT. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT ABOUT POLICY, I HAVE A

PRESIDENT ABOUT POLICY, I HAVE A GREAT IDEA, RUN FOR PRESIDENT,

GREAT IDEA, RUN FOR PRESIDENT, WIN, THEN YOU CAN SET THE POLICY

WIN, THEN YOU CAN SET THE POLICY POLICY.

POLICY. I THINK THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT

I THINK THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT IN THE SENATE -- I HAVE TO GIVE

IN THE SENATE -- I HAVE TO GIVE A LOT OF CREDIT TO THE

A LOT OF CREDIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE’S LAWYERS FOR THIS

WHITE HOUSE’S LAWYERS FOR THIS REASON.

REASON. THEY LOOK LIKE LAWYERS IN A

THEY LOOK LIKE LAWYERS IN A COURT ROOM, THEY ARE TAKING IT

COURT ROOM, THEY ARE TAKING IT VERY SOLEMNLY AND I THOUGHT

VERY SOLEMNLY AND I THOUGHT TODAY WAS GREAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE

TODAY WAS GREAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE CENTERS ASKING QUESTIONS, THAT’S

CENTERS ASKING QUESTIONS, THAT’S FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN

FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN WITNESSES.

WITNESSES. WE HEARD FROM 17 WITNESSES, WE

WE HEARD FROM 17 WITNESSES, WE ARE 0 FOR 17 IN TERMS OF BEING

ARE 0 FOR 17 IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES AND THAT

ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES AND THAT IS WHY SOME OF THESE SENATORS

IS WHY SOME OF THESE SENATORS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE UP FOR

EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE UP FOR REELECTION THIS YEAR ARE SAYING

REELECTION THIS YEAR ARE SAYING I DON’T NEED TO HEAR FROM THE

I DON’T NEED TO HEAR FROM THE 18TH, 19TH, 20TH WITNESS.

18TH, 19TH, 20TH WITNESS. THE DEMOCRATS BLEW IT IN THE

THE DEMOCRATS BLEW IT IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE THERE WITNESSES

HOUSE BECAUSE THERE WITNESSES WERE A BUNCH OF LAW PROFESSORS

WERE A BUNCH OF LAW PROFESSORS AND EACH OTHER.

AND EACH OTHER. >> Laura: ALAN DERSHOWITZ WAS

>> Laura: ALAN DERSHOWITZ WAS UP LATE TONIGHT ONE OF THE LAST

UP LATE TONIGHT ONE OF THE LAST PEOPLE TO SPEAK AND HE WAS

PEOPLE TO SPEAK AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PHRASE THEY

TALKING ABOUT THE PHRASE THEY KEEP THROWING OUT, "NOBODY IS

KEEP THROWING OUT, "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW" AND HE TURNED IT

ABOVE THE LAW" AND HE TURNED IT ON THE DEMOCRATS.

ON THE DEMOCRATS. >> ANYTHING THE HOUSE WANTS TO

>> ANYTHING THE HOUSE WANTS TO DO TO IMPEACH IS IMPEACHABLE,

DO TO IMPEACH IS IMPEACHABLE, THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TODAY.

THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TODAY. THAT PLACES THE HOUSE OF

THAT PLACES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ABOVE THE LAW,

REPRESENTATIVES ABOVE THE LAW, WE HEARD MUCH ABOUT HOW NO ONE

WE HEARD MUCH ABOUT HOW NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THE HOUSE OF

IS ABOVE THE LAW, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT ABOVE THE

REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

LAW. >> Laura: THEY WANT TO BE ABLE

>> Laura: THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO CALL THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OF

TO CALL THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OF EXTORTION, CONSPIRING WITH THE

EXTORTION, CONSPIRING WITH THE RUSSIANS, THEY WERE SAYING ALL

RUSSIANS, THEY WERE SAYING ALL THIS STUFF DEFAMING THE

THIS STUFF DEFAMING THE PRESIDENT, NONE OF THAT WAS IN

PRESIDENT, NONE OF THAT WAS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY THINK THEY CAN DO IT WITH

THEY THINK THEY CAN DO IT WITH IMPUNITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE

IMPUNITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE IMMUNITY, THEY WERE SAYING IT IN

IMMUNITY, THEY WERE SAYING IT IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS.

THE HALLS OF CONGRESS. >> THE LAWYERS AREN’T DOING

>> THE LAWYERS AREN’T DOING THAT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE.

THAT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE. IT’S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR

IT’S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR DEMOCRATS TO PUT UP A NAKEDLY

DEMOCRATS TO PUT UP A NAKEDLY PARTISAN POLITICIANS WERE

PARTISAN POLITICIANS WERE PREENING FOR THE CAMERA AS THEIR

PREENING FOR THE CAMERA AS THEIR PROSECUTORS BECAUSE THEY

PROSECUTORS BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY OFFENDED THE JURY.

PROBABLY OFFENDED THE JURY. WHEN YOU’RE GIVING YOUR OPINION,

WHEN YOU’RE GIVING YOUR OPINION, CONJECTURE, ASSUMPTION, WISHFUL

CONJECTURE, ASSUMPTION, WISHFUL THINKING, YOU’RE NOT PROVIDING

THINKING, YOU’RE NOT PROVIDING EVIDENCE OR FACTS.

EVIDENCE OR FACTS. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WHERE DO

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WHERE DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF X, THEY

YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF X, THEY REPEATED THEMSELVES, THEY THINK

REPEATED THEMSELVES, THEY THINK THEY ARE ON A TV SHOW.

THEY ARE ON A TV SHOW. >> Laura: A LOT OF FOLKS ARE

>> Laura: A LOT OF FOLKS ARE REACHING OUT ON TWITTER TO ME,

REACHING OUT ON TWITTER TO ME, WE’VE BEEN COVERING THE LEGAL

WE’VE BEEN COVERING THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE SAYING WHY

ASPECTS OF THIS CASE SAYING WHY IS IT THE WHITE HOUSE SEEMS TO

IS IT THE WHITE HOUSE SEEMS TO HAVE PEOPLE BURROWED IN FROM

HAVE PEOPLE BURROWED IN FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR CIA WHO ARE

OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR CIA WHO ARE WORKING PERHAPS RIGHT NOW

WORKING PERHAPS RIGHT NOW AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S AGENDA

AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S AGENDA IN FOREIGN POLICY, DOMESTIC

IN FOREIGN POLICY, DOMESTIC POLICY AND IS THAT NOT A

POLICY AND IS THAT NOT A CONTINUING ACHILLES’ HEEL FOR

CONTINUING ACHILLES’ HEEL FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION IF THEY ARE

THIS ADMINISTRATION IF THEY ARE STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY?

STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY? >> IT WOULD BE IF THAT IS TRUE,

>> IT WOULD BE IF THAT IS TRUE, I THINK PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE

I THINK PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE DEEP STATE, I TALK ABOUT THE

DEEP STATE, I TALK ABOUT THE SHALLOW STATE.

SHALLOW STATE. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT DEEP

IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT DEEP OR BE HERE THAT LONG, IF YOU ARE

OR BE HERE THAT LONG, IF YOU ARE WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES TO THE

WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES TO THE PRESIDENT’S AGENDA, HE

PRESIDENT’S AGENDA, HE APPRECIATES WHEN PEOPLE PUSH

APPRECIATES WHEN PEOPLE PUSH BACK OR HAVE A DISSENTING VIEW,

BACK OR HAVE A DISSENTING VIEW, DIVERSITY OF OPINION.

DIVERSITY OF OPINION. I WAS THERE WHEN THAT WAS

I WAS THERE WHEN THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING BUT

EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING BUT WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES -- IF

WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES -- IF YOU ARE ATTACKING THE PRESIDENCY

YOU ARE ATTACKING THE PRESIDENCY AND ATTACKING AGENDA AND THERE’S

AND ATTACKING AGENDA AND THERE’S SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO

SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WANT TO SERVE IN THIS

WANT TO SERVE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.

ADMINISTRATION. >> Laura: ARE YOU CONFIDENT --

>> Laura: ARE YOU CONFIDENT -- >> I’M NOT CONFIDENT, I’VE

>> I’M NOT CONFIDENT, I’VE EXPRESSED THAT MANY TIMES TOO

EXPRESSED THAT MANY TIMES TOO MANY PEOPLE, I AM CONFIDENT

MANY PEOPLE, I AM CONFIDENT ABOUT ONE THING.

ABOUT ONE THING. MAGA WORLD HAS A POINT WHEN THEY

MAGA WORLD HAS A POINT WHEN THEY SAY THERE’S SO MANY OF US WHO

SAY THERE’S SO MANY OF US WHO WOULD LOVE TO SERVE IN THIS

WOULD LOVE TO SERVE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION AND NEVER GOT A

ADMINISTRATION AND NEVER GOT A CHANCE, THAT’S A QUESTION FOR

CHANCE, THAT’S A QUESTION FOR PERSONNEL.

PERSONNEL. >> Laura: PRESIDENTIAL

>> Laura: PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL.

PERSONNEL. >> FOR TRANSITION, THERE WERE

>> FOR TRANSITION, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO SERVE IN

PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO SERVE IN THE ADMINISTRATION, THEY CAN

THE ADMINISTRATION, THEY CAN JOIN US IN THE SECOND ONE.

JOIN US IN THE SECOND ONE. >> Laura: I KEPT SAYING

>> Laura: I KEPT SAYING THAT -- WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND

THAT -- WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND DIDN’T THAT WORK FOR JEB BUSH?

DIDN’T THAT WORK FOR JEB BUSH? GOD BLESS JEB BUSH BUT --

GOD BLESS JEB BUSH BUT -- >> I THINK THIS IS VERY