someone who spent time in the oval office with president trump, his former national security adviser, john boltonpened: a white house memoir." ambassador bolton, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> first i want to get your reaction to what i was told today by general kellogg. he said he briefed trump multiple times about pence during the riots. kellogg claims trump expressed concern about his whereabouts, yet he never reached out to his vice president. what's your reaction to that? >> it doesn't surprise me trump didn't try to get ahold of vice president pence. trump thinks of himself before anyone else, so i don't find it surprising at all. i will say this question of what exactly trump did before the demonstration turned into a riot on january 6th and after it could be very important to a potential criminal prosecution. it could have been very important to the impeachment proceedings as well, but the impeachment advocates wanted to go very quickly even after they made the argument they could continue after trump left office. and they didn't pursue any of these possibilities. >> wh

he used the justice department to bring charges against john bolton. he used the justice department stephanie wilkoff, when she wrote a book critical of the president. the president and first lady didn't just trash her publicly and attack her from the white house. they got the justice department, the u.s. government, to bring a suit against her for supposedly violating a nondisclosure agreement. that one at least the biden administration has acted on. they moved quietly last week to drop that case against stephanie wilkoff, and so that is one case where the president used the u.s. justice department to attack his critics, to intimidate his enemies, using the power of the u.s. government, the power of the criminal law, the power of the civil power of the justice department, to go against people like this. that's one case where they have undone it. they walked away. but the rest of these things are all still live. all still rotting in the proverbial fridge as biden's team moves into the justice department and starts going, what's that smell? and you know

and so john bolton was someone who was in the room. certainly had direct information. i don't believe he has alternative facts. i think calling him in a case would be quite different from calling a president or the former president who every day had alternative facts. >> there was a vote last night in the full house of representatives to strip congresswoman marjorie taylor greene of her committee posts. 11 republican members voted to do so. some of them were from your state of florida. at least three members from the state of florida who did vote to strip her of her committee posts. what do you think of that? >> you know, john, school shootings are tough. all shootings where people die violently, but when children are in one of the -- what should be one of the safest places for them are gunned down, that's pretty tough. and i know, unfortunately, there are a lot of political games that take place on the hill. that's probably been one of my biggest disappointments as opposed to putting the people first. i could not have been prouder of my florida colleagues for standing

ambassador john bolton joins me now. he's trump's former national security adviser. ase a possible run in 2024, but also reinforce that lie that the last election was stolen from him. that he actually won in 2020. other cpac speakers repeated this claim. if conspiracy theories continue to drive the gop, where does that take your party? >> well, conspiracy theories aren't driving the gop. i think if you look at what other party leaders are saying, even today, senator cassidy of louisiana, senator scott of florida, i think everybody who understands what actually happened appreciates that trump lost the 2020 election, lost it fair and square. whatever validity his complaints may have are undercut by the fact his own incompetent legal team didn't do anything about what he's complaining of before the election, when they could have taken steps to do it. i have to say watching the speech at cpac today, it was like watching an old movie or a tv reruns. very stale. i think this is a mark of what happens when somebody leaves the presidency, especially under the cloud of dishono

he's represented house republicans, john bolton, even ted cruz. he was an adviser to his campaign. he says look at article 1, section 3, of this constitution. in there, it says the senate has an option for more punishment than conviction. "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the united states." that punishment can only be imposed on a former officer, like trump. so, if there is an option to disqualify, how can it be unconstitutional to create that option? right? that clause can only apply to someone who is out of office. so here is the problem for the gopq and for trump. their argument on the law is weak, but their argument on the facts is weaker. okay? they couldn't even spell "united" in his brief. let alone, cogently argue that trump was trying to keep us that way. they're arguing that people who criminally breached the capitol did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. so you don't think this encouraged them? >> and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. a

. >>> next, john bolton joins us to discuss the conservative legal opinion to bolster their case andesident biden said at the white house today about the trial. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it, lowering my blood sugar from the first dose. once-weekly trulicity responds when my body needs it, 24/7. trulicity is for type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. it isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. side effects include indigestion, fatigue, belly pain, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting which can lead to dehydrat

lawyer in the most recent fights over the impeachment trial and john bolton's book and so on and so forth. but chuck cooper is actually a longtime conservative lawyer, representing and advising everyone from ted cruz to the nra. chuck cooper coming out in an editorial, making a lengthy case for why the impeachment trial is appropriate and constitutional and debunking the argument that it's not. i think between liz cheney and chuck cooper, democrats are going to seek to get these two prominent republican thoughts on to the record, whether they're witnesses as we think of them, or whether it's just sort of witness testimony entered into the record. >> ben, if you were prosecuting this case, would you call witnesses? >> i think i would call witnesses only in two instances. the first would be someone who could testify that donald trump actually told them to go break into the capitol or was part of that planning. and a new farm war about the actual plans to break in that have come out so far. and number two, if i had a witness who was with donald trump on the afternoon of january 6th, wh

cross-examination is for and i'm getting a bit of a flash back to last year's impeachment with john bolton we learned in the midst of the trial had this smoking gun evidence but the senate voted no witnesses. that was republican controlled. now it's democratic controlled. >> maybe this congresswoman has broken the dam. the witnesses will come -- you can hope that the witnesses will do the right thing and come forward if they have information that they think is so important. i mean, is that impossible? >> no, no, the rules -- >> they are there in the actual room. >> there is a dam breaking? >> i don't know. >> that's just it. right now it looks like the president has the votes for for acquittal. right now the president is set up to win the trial. if the house managers want to take a legitimate shot at changing that dynamic, they have to call witnesses. there has to be new evidence. it doesn't look like that will be happening. >> for perspective. i know the concern for calling witnesses, as well. this will draw out. to this date, the shortest presidential impeachment trial was last year. 21

retain the agreement that we have right now there was a position to it from 2 crazy people bond was john bolton who said that the united states was given up on its you know superiority jumbo above and the other man who was a big story knew what to who is now a deputy secretary of state and it just shows you know people can go get crazy in many ways you can be a tough american nationalist like trump or you can be a liberal interventionist like by them that there is all just the same huge danger and possibly 'd a new war that would and i await the mankind you know it's very interesting george that again the what makes this even ministration different than others is that we have similar. jake sullivan. in a position of great power and these are in plain can as well these are brushy gators ok they when they propagated this hoax here so as we have worried over the last years that this hoax would seeped into policy and it is seeping into policy. the apparently during the readout of the between presidents conversations the the the afghan bounties was mentioned which was completely debunked by the the

brazilian president john bolton oros threatened to pull emergency aid from states which reintroduced locked arms he says any governor who quote destroys jobs won't get support from the central government. who had covert 19 himself is strongly against most restrictions and often dismissed the danger even though more than a quarter of a 1000000 people have died from it in brazil. health ministers resigned after it was revealed several members of his family jump the queue to receive their vaccines on cost of alice is the 3rd health minister in south america to go following similar scandals in peru and argentina the support for. the battle to control the colored 1000 pandemic in latin america is underway but is being hindered by patchy deliveries of the vaccine and scandals in the government with the task of organizing the vaccination programs. the latest to go is the ecuadoran health minister one caller survive yours ensuring that his family was given preferential treatment all the more committed we have all committed era's this is a pandemic that has taught us the importance of recogni

was ousted by president john bolton or the company says plunged 22 percent on monday after the governmentnominated an army general with no oil and gas experience as its new boss also criticized the firm's market driven pricing policy off the truck drivers threatened to strike over the rising cost of fuel. the united states supreme court has ruled that donald trump's tax records can be released to new york prosecutors as part of a criminal investigation it's a major setback for the former president who's fought to keep the documents private investigation is partly focused on payments made to 2 women who say they had extramarital affairs with trump is also looking into the false for cation of business records. u.s. transportation officials say it's too early to draw conclusions about what caused the engine failure of united airlines flights have a colorado on saturday and every results of the investigation show it was likely due to metal fatigue herself and lines around the world to ground some of its triple 7 jets john 100 has more now from chicago. for boeing a fiery flight leads to anoth

were i mean trumps party is that a lot of people who are not supportive of arms control remember john bolton was his national security advisor for some time has always been a skeptic of arms control and there's a some have substantial proportion of the republican party that doesn't really has never supported arms control it's traditionally been more supportive in the democratic party so the fact that the you know democratic administration is more eager to launch arms control negotiations is not a surprise and it's kind of true to form doesn't it also mean that despite all their hawkish i would even say belligerent rhetoric about putin in particular that they have more room more freedom more on mental power perhaps even more goodwill ringback to discuss those issues with russia and more specifically one of the ideas that put in put on the table is this summit built the permanent. members of the security council which could provide a rare change up involving china into the discussions on strategic stability announced control do you think by the end. of that politically or do you think he would

the president president john bolton are certain to pull emergency aid from states which reintroduced lockdowns he says any governor who quote destroys jobs won't get support from the central government. remember he had cove in 1000 him self is strongly against most restrictions and is often dismissed the danger despite the deaths of more than a quarter of a 1000000 resilience in the news ahead. protesters in the french caribbean demanding action over a pesticide blamed for high cancer rates. and don't try to visit their president anymore but his influence still looms large for american republicans before florida you know. it's time for the perfect gentlemen. sponsored point qatar airways we've got lots of quiet weather now across a good parts of europe some bits and pieces of cloud just sliding down towards the southeast some outbreaks of right here just tucked in behind our cold front so some cooler air just coming in here for many with high pressure in charge going to see a fair amount of sunshine and some decent warmth to that sunshine not quite as hot as it has been over the past

they're john bolton and chris christie.e the old-school bush and reagan-era official who's have always been never-trumpers, if that's the case, okay anthony, than who is left in the republican party? what is the party? >> well, it's a very large group of people that are in the penalty cult of donald trump and you've got those who will acquit and you get to ask those people at some point, what does the president have on you? and when does he get it on you? because you can see prima facia that he broke the allow, he disa vowed the constitution. it's not just political expedient yenscy, i agree with what matt said holding on to something that doesn't exist but it's more than that they have an opportunity to have lights out by him, he has been weaken, disa vowed on twitter, and he's not coming back. the gollum is effectively dead, don, so what does he have on those guys, why they won't turn on him, all of those independent of donald trump either making salaries away from him, not tied to him politically but there's a large grou

case last year, yes, i think our case would have been stronginger for example, if we had gotten john boltonify, and his testimony may have led to other witnesses. it stole would have been very uphill, but nonetheless there was a prospect of possibly changing minds, with president trump holding funds to get e eye -- how they think the case should be best tried. the once thing they have that we didn't is the moment they stepped on the senate floor, there would be over 100 wins present, because, of course all the of the house members and senators witnessed the terrible events of that day. >> the democrats certainly want this trial to go quickly, but is there a risk that moving too quickly will give them less time to paint a clear picture of what happened? >> i think the rules that have been hammered out already give both house and defense adequate time to make the case, and the case will be powerful for the house. i think the managers will demonstrate a whole course of events. the trump team may want to focus on just january 6th, ignore everything else, but the how managers will show the count

john bolton and chris christie.o old school bush and reagan era officials who have always been never-trumpers. if that is the case, okay, anthony, then who is left in the republican party? what is the party? >> well, it's a very large group of people that are in the personality cult of donald trump, and you've got the act colites that matt is referring to that are going to acquit him. i think you have to ask those people, what does the president have on you and when did he get it on you? you can see prima fascia we droek the law. it's not just political expediency. i agree with everything matthew said about the demographic of the country, and people trying to hold on to something that doesn't exist anymore, but i think it's something more than that. because they have this opportunity to put him lights out right now. they don't need to be intimidated by him anymore. he's been weakened, disem bowled on twitter, and he's not coming back. the golem is effectively dead. so what does he have on these guys? why are they no

not just a republican, a conservative attorney chuck cooper who he last saw in a public, keeping john bolton from testifying in the last impeachment trial. he writes the ideal this is unconstitutional is bunk. he says a vote by the senate to disqualify can be only after the officer is removed and is by definition a former officer. given it can impose permanent disqualification only on former hougs house office older, it suggests they are prohibitive from trying and convicting former office holders. i wonder what you think of the merits of his argument then also the impact of it coming from someone like cooper? >> well, i do agree with the merits of the argument and coming from chuck cooper, who has represented many of the conservative senator who's are the potential swing injury pools going to be very meaningful. but it's important to remember this is a question about whether a former president can be impeached. that has never been litigated, never been tried and in fact in other settings, the courts, the supreme court said we're not really going to mess with the impeachment proceedings beca

conservative commentators, chuck cooper, who was our adversary in the first impeachment, defending john boltonh the republicans to say enough is enough. this is not -- so the next president can't be tried, a big piece in the wall street journal olal. so those arguments are poppycock. >> on the opinion argument, how can his lawyers divorce the expression, call it an opinion from all the actions that he took prior and post-january 6th, right, to actually overturn the election? he was pressuring state election officials, et cetera, right? how do you disconnect the opinion from those actions? >> you can and what the donald trump showed during the whole course of the election was making false charges about fraudulent elections. it goes up to this now it's an opinion. that is a nonsenseiccal argument. i agree with norm about that. but it is why his lawyers need to stick solely to the constitutional argument because if they make the republican senators defend donald trump on the fraudulent elections, where his opinions as to the crowd were much, if anything, beyond the constitutional ones, then repub

he was shepherded, he was jeff session's adviser in the sessions confirmation hearing, john bolton's lawyer, a member of the federalist society for decades. he clearly gets it. that this was the most lawless thing any president has done. and the fact of the matter is that the former president doesn't have a good legal argument. there's professor calabrese who signed at least two op-eds that i've seen that says president trump should be convicted, not just impeached, but convicted. i have seen statements joined by charles fried, the reagan solicitor r general, and others that issued a statement and you hear virtually nothing on the other side and i think that speaks volumes. n the fundamental thing is that the conservative lawyers do believe in the rule of law and though many probably stayed too quiet the last four years, there's no question that they've seen more than enough. and the conservative judges who are among the 60 courts that ruled against donald trump, wera against -- tried to protect the rule of law as well. >> george conway, thank you so much for making time tonight. app

. >> reporter: trump's former security adviser john bolton detailed the collapse of the summit talksbook writing trump offered to fly him back to north korea, cancelling his meeting in hanoi. kim laughed and said he couldn't do that. >> kuim jong-un, a five-day tran journey to get down there, lots of buildup and then to get dumped publicly i think that upset kim. >> reporter: after the failed summit, kim reportedly disciplined high-ranking members of his entourage. the ambassador said the u.s. diplomacy under trump never recovered. >> i think the first misstep was preparation was never enough. second misstep, i believe, was trump pulling it back and leaving early without sitting there and negotiating. >> reporter: he says trump's air force offer was a failure to understand the north korean's mind-set. >> he wanted to appear as an equal. he got nothing in sanctions, so, what? a plane ride will do? no, that was not going to happen. >> reporter: kim began work saums immediately, quietly growing his nuclear arsenal. >> i think his legacy is in many ways a complete failure. kim jong-un ha

if nouns are in the course of this year during the biden administration it becomes public that john boltony in the shadows of conferences with the chinese foreign minister. or one of the other members of president trump's previous administration is meeting with say the north korean lead negotiator. you can imagine the uproar this would cause. i think it is fine. you want diplomacy, right? but you don't want a previous administration and existing administration crashing in their agendas. there is no way. kennedy: people were very upset when nixon was going behind johnson's back directly at negotiating with the south vietnamese government, come on man we can't do that we are better than that. mike baker you are the best respect we are racing to an agreement i guarantee that brady look at who biden is put in. so far we are lance armstrong and a bicycle. it's been that we are racing thank you you're welcome. thank you you're welcome. kennedy: topical storm is sarah shopped for the lowest mortgage rate and chose amerisave, the one choice she'll never regret... ...unlike buying a do-it-yourself

. >> john bolton detailed the collapse of summit talks in his book, writing, trump offered to fly himing in hanoi. kim laughed and said he couldn't do that. trump abruptly cancelled a working lunch, leaving the table empty. >> kim jong-un, this five-day train journey to get down there, lots of build-up. then to be dumped publicly, i think it really, really upset kim jong-un. >> reporter: after the failed hanoi summit, kim reportedly disciplined several high ranking members of his entourage. ambassador joseph yun says u.s./north korean diplomacy under trump never recovered. >> the first misstep was preparation was not enough. second misstep was, i believe, trump pulling it back and leaving early without sitting there and negotiating. >> reporter: he says trump's air force one offer was a failure to understand the north korean leader's mindset. >> he wanted to be appear as an equal. he got nothing in sanctions. so a plane ride will do? no, that was not going to happen. >> reporter: kim began work almost immediately, quietly growing his nuclear arsenal. >> i think his legacy is in many w

we just heard chuck cooper, who was our main adversary, representing john bolton in the last impeachment, wolf, has now come over and said there's no constitutional basis not to prosecute a president here. the founders of our country and the framers of the constitution are rolling over in their graves, thinking that this could not be an impeachable offense. so i thought the brief that they filed today, you know, was brief, powerful made those points. it tore down the other nonsense, first amendment defenses, which are totally inapplicable here. the only question that remains is will a sufficient number of republican senators, as governor kasich said, do the bipartisan thing, right thing, across the aisle and vote to convict and disqualify? >> we'll have live coverage of the impeachment trial tomorrow. >> wolf? >> we've got to take a quick break. everybody stand by. also coming up, my one on one interview with the new secretary of state, anthony blinken. he's standing by over at the state department. you can see him live. we have lots to discuss. the most important national security issue

who said they went down to congress on orders of the commander-in-chief who spoke to them, and john boltonsaid that obstruction of justice was a way of life in the white house. he is national security advisor before he resigned. otherwise, what the republicans will do is simply say, this is a video show trial. a lot of the material was taken out of context. and the protagonists were entirely members of the house democratic party. if you have witnesses, you have the pontial of breakthrgh testimony. mike pce, for examp, j rose, brad raffensperger. they might be required to testify about our deeper crimes than simply a telephone call to the justice department by trump or to the georgia's secretary of state twisting thereabouts to chai to change the course of the election. that is the unfortunate aspt of it, amy, that they had an opportunity. because here you have a president who has ceased congressional power day after day in four years. he spent money without authorization. he has violated congressional mandate and health, safety, regulations. yes to fight over 130 subpoenas and dozens of fo

it appears so, it's interesting, though, i was talking to john bolton in the last hour, and he said basicallytrump, we shouldn't be talking about it, even if it is far from over. that was sort of his view of things. but i want to ask you, big picture, given the results of the last three impeachment trials and the fact that, you know, nothing came of it in terms of a conviction, do you think impeachment still carries the same weight? >> well, you know, i've actually been a student of all impeachments, from andrew johnson through nixon where i was scheduled to be a witness if it went forward, to clinton, where i was a commentator and an anchor buddy for somebody, along with the two trump impeachments. and i understand, it is the big cannon. and the house is really rather reluctant to bring it out, so it takes a pretty jarring event before that happens. i would say there's an exception in there, it was very partisan with clinton, republicans were just itching, after the lewinsky a few surfaced, because they had had him under investigation for years, to find something they could impeach him on, a

john bolton thought trump committed insurrection.of his cabinet, most of his staff. and you, senator your name here, you voted to let him get away with it. they're showing them the future. how do you think it cops out? you think it's an acquittal? what does it mean for the party? >> i fear it probably is an acquittal. it means the chance the republicans had to close the books and renew and rebuild, instead of a chance to do that in five minutes it's probably going to take a political generation. many of the kwyoung people, talented people in the generation, senator lankford who was speaking when the mob arrived, they're betting their future on this, and it's a long future. we are going to have to wait for another whole half generation or full generation of political talent for the republican party to be what it is right now. david frum, good to see you. we'll take a break. we're going to be back in the moment. but first a look at the new cnn original series "lincoln". sit perfectly timed to what we're living through. divided we stand

he was john bolton and jeff sessions' lawyer. this is not a left winger. this is a conservative republican who argued the case against california's same sex marriage. someone that republicans are well acquainted with. he said to them have courage and debate this on the issue at hand, which is whether donald trump insighted a insurrection and not on the constitutional issue which he points out is ridiculous. >> when you get to the mer pittings of this, one of them is that he did everything that he could as quickly as he could to stop it. they say there was a flurry of activity inside the white house to organize assets. no proof that president trump was delighted by events at the capitol. the proof of everyone around him who all said the same thing, that he did enjoy it and he was delighted by it for hours into this. pence had to be involved in mobilizing the national guard. does it all add up to proof? >> it adds up to competting proof. i also want to add a word about chuck cooper. he is a person of principle and courage. the head of the office of legal cou

was echoed by former top official after former trial official here is what former nascar devices john bolton h r n mcmaster former white house communications director alyssa farah and former chief of stack mick mulvaney said let me just ask you do you think president trump has blood on his hands. i think he does look i agree with bill barr i think he did incite this mob with the clear intention of having them disrupt the electoral college certification and delay it to give him more time i don't think there's any question about it there are many reasons for this assault on the capitol but for most among them was the president's exhortations was the president sustained this information we've seen a president stoking fears amidst these crises in 1st and foremost i want to say that what happened at the capitol was unacceptable un-american undemocratic i think everybody recognizes that what happened on wednesday is different you can go down the long litany of things that people complained about with donald trump but i could probably defend almost all of the many of them were policy differential d

when there was a vote on witnesses, republicans defeated it after that last information came from john bolton. it shows the difference a majority can make. >> absolutely. i didn't think there were going to be witnesses called in this proceeding. i think most didn't expect there would be witnesses called. i think the arguments that were made mattered. i think that the level of vitriol, the attacks on the house managers, the claims that the house managers were manipulating videos, essentially engaging on a fraud on this impeachment court, the comments about voter fraud from the trump team, i think all of that together probably ignited these house managers. yes, is the reporting that occurred overnight, that's a part of it. i think what happened yesterday led the house managers to be more willing to say, you know what, if they're going to go down that road, if they're going to play that game, we'll call witnesses. >> it's as simple as one of the arguments they were making is the democrats could have done this earlier. it was mitch mcconnell, the senator republican leader at the time, who would n

nonetheless, succeed, is if we could get witnesses, if the country could hear from someone like john bolton, who was in the room, that might lead to more witnesses and that might lead to changed minds, and of course, that was precisely the fear that mitch mcconnell had and why he wouldn't allow it. so, yes, we realized we had a chance, but it was very uphill, but nonetheless, we needed to make the case to the american people. >> what do you make of the idea of witnesses this time? i know some democrats are talking about it, but you know, you have some democratic senators who are just as anxious, including a former senator who's now president, just as anxious to see this impeachment trial go away. do you think witnesses don't get called because of that? >> well, i think, you know -- and what we wanted in the last trial -- was let the house and let the prosecution put on its own case. let it decide whether to call witnesses, what witnesses to call. that's what should be allowed in this trial. it will be up to jamie raskin, an extraordinarily capable, brilliant constitutional scholar, to make

he represented john bolton when bolton was trying not to testify, and didn't, ultimately, in the last impeachment trial. and this conservative lawyer wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal." he basically says, it's ridiculous the idea that you can't hold a trial for a former impeached president. he says, a vote by the senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. given that the constitution permits the senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only for former office holders, it defies logic to suggest that the senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former office holders. now, david, i genuinely, even though this is probably a sound legal argument, i don't suspect it will sway some republican senator who is want to hide behind the veil of constitutionality, but it does have an impact maybe after the trial. it maybe does sort to color the arguments about the risks some of these senators might talk. >> no, i think that's true. and it is a blow to that argument. but i'm not sure the academic a

john bolton waited till he published his book to come out and give all the details about what reallypened. but this does get to the point, you say they are appeal hing to his ego. he has president had his twitter account. he doesn't have his platform any more. and he wants to be heard. so, you know, what he may want to do and what his lawyers may want him to do could be very different things. do you think there is a chance he wants to do this? >> well, i think there is always a chance that he might not listen to his lawyers, but his lawyers are telling him, you've got 45 republican senators to say that the process of impeachment -- of impeaching you is unconstitutional. you win if the status quo is not disrupted. if you go in and testify, you're not going to be giving a discourse on constitutional law. you're going to be talking about election fraud and your first amendment rights. republican senators do not want to have to defend you on your theories of election fraud. >> right. there's been plenty who have said he incited this entire thing and is fully to blame, would use to your p