. >> although john bolton's potential testimony, and we put a big asterisk there, barrett, is one of the big questions that comes out of this, because john bolton's attorney released a statement saying in mcgahn, meaning the ruling, the house judiciary committee emphasized to the district court that the information it sought from mr. mcgahn, quote, did not involve the sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs. therefore, any passing references in the mcgahn decision instead of court's opinion to presidential communications concerning national security matters are not authoritative on the validity of testimonial immunity for close white house advisers. that's legal speak for that doesn't apply to us. but judge jackson said her ruling applies to all claims of testimonial immunity, writing nor does it make any difference whether the aides in question are privy to national security matters or work slowly on domestic issues. who's right? >> well, the judge really shot down this defense, i guess, of john bolton saying this doesn't apply to me, but it's important to note that