Podcasts about ambassador bolton

Note: This was recorded prior to the results of the 2024 presidential election. With Eliot traveling, Eric welcomes John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, National Security Advisor to Donald Trump and author of Surrender is Not an Option and The Room Where it Happened. They discuss why Trump is so susceptible to the blandishments of foreign dictators like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un as well as his abysmal level of basic knowledge of how the U.S. government actually works and international affairs more broadly. They discuss the likely makeup of a Trump national security team in a putative second Trump term and what a Trump victory would mean for Ukraine and the future of NATO. They also discuss what a Harris team might look like and whether a Harris foreign policy would be a continuation of the Biden policies or whether it might be more reflective of the more Reaganite rhetoric she has used on the campaign trail. Finally, they discuss the two or three international security issues that Ambassador Bolton believes will require the most urgent attention from whoever wins the election. Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

With Eliot traveling, Eric welcomes John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, National Security Advisor to Donald Trump and author of Surrender is Not an Option and The Room Where it Happened. They discuss why Trump is so susceptible to the blandishments of foreign dictators like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un as well as his abysmal level of basic knowledge of how the U.S. government actually works and international affairs more broadly. They discuss the likely makeup of a Trump national security team in a putative second Trump term and what a Trump victory would mean for Ukraine and the future of NATO. They also discuss what a Harris team might look like and whether a Harris foreign policy would be a continuation of the Biden policies or whether it might be more reflective of the more Reaganite rhetoric she has used on the campaign trail. Finally, they discuss the two or three international security issues that Ambassador Bolton believes will require the most urgent attention from whoever wins the election. Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Former White House national security adviser Ambassador John Bolton sits down with One Decision's Christina Ruffini and former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove to discuss the conflict in the Middle East and the current status of the elusive cease-fire deal. Ambassador Bolton also discusses the recent Ukrainian incursion and notes that it represents a significant win for the country. The former Trump national security adviser also looks at how efforts may be mounted to challenge the U.S. election results should Harris come up on top. Plus, the group shares the worst meal that they have ever been served on a diplomatic trip.

John Bolton served as the 25th United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, and as the 26th United States National Security Advisor from 2018 to 2019 during the Trump Administration. He is the author of The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, as well as Surrender Is Not An Option. Always an erudite figure in politics, Ambassador Bolton is an attorney, Republican consultant, political commentator, and a staunch defender of free expression. ACTA's President Michael Poliakoff spoke at length with Ambassador Bolton to explore his unique outlook on the trajectory of free speech at universities, his experience as a student in the 1960s, and the fundamental differences between that era and today with regard to free speech on campus.

With Trump Republicans withholding military support to Ukraine, former National Security Advisor & UN Ambassador John Bolton made headlines with his straight talking- there will be “celebrations in the Kremlin if Trump is re-elected”. Bolton is one of the few leading Republicans who have dared to highlight the geopolitical consequences of a second Trump Presidency, along with the global and U.S. national security risks of GOP isolationism. Ambassador Bolton joined us again to share his uninhibited perspective on developments in Russia and Ukraine, the Middle East, Asia and the U.S. He answered questions from international reporters in a briefing moderated by FPA President Ian Williams.

This week on The Enemies List, Rick is joined by former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Together, they dive into the transformation of the Republican Party, particularly highlighting its shift towards pro-Putin and authoritarian tendencies. Ambassador Bolton offers insights into the future of US foreign policy, expressing concerns about Ukraine's security and the potential consequences of a second Trump term. The discussion touches on the importance of upholding NATO, the emergence of a new world order, and the need for mature discourse on foreign and defense policy issues. Timestamps: [00:07:01] The future of the Republican party [00:08:36] The fight against Putin [00:11:32] What happens to NATO if Trump comes back [00:13:33] An emerging world order [00:16:16] If there's a second Trump term Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

PREVIEW; In a much longer conversation, asking John Bolton if the Israeli ambition to dismantle Hamas is realistic? Ambassador Bolton was adamant in response. John Bolton, Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/24/hamas-has-just-won-a-major-victory-over-israel/ 1920 Gaza

0:00 - GOP debate, NBC moderators 12:31 - US Rep. Jonathan Jackson calls for rest of Illinois to stepUS Rep. Jonathan Jackson calls for rest of Illinois to step 26:40 - Sports & Politics: MA field hockey game, Sawyer Groothius 47:23 - Eva Moskowitz, founder and CEO of Success Academy & former New York City Council member, reacts to 2023 Illinois Report Card for schools and discusses her new book A+ Parenting: The Surprisingly Fun Guide to Raising Surprisingly Smart Kids. For more from Eva visit evamoskowitz.com 01:02:23 - Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, John Bolton, discusses the pro Palestine protests and Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah's first televised speech since 10/7. Don't forget to check out Ambassador Bolton's book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir 01:20:36 - Come join the murder 01:36:34 - 76 percent of Americans say this Country is heading in the wrong direction. And according to the NYT/Sienna poll: Trump would beat Biden in hypothetical match ups in 5 swing states, AZ, NV, GA,PA, MI 01:52:59 - Rafael Mangual, senior fellow and head of research for the Manhattan Institute's Policing and Public Safety Initiative, shares a New Model Legislation: Incapacitating Serious Criminals and Promoting Data Transparency. Be sure to check out Rafael's most recent book  Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Mass-Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong, and Who It Hurts MostSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

0:00 -Sweden opposes recommending vaccines for kids 5-11 13:55 -Convoy! 33:09 -Dan & Amy on replacing Stephen Breyer 53:05 - Citywide School Psychologist and Members First CTU President Candidate, Mary Esposito-Usterbowski, shares her plans to shake up CTU. For more on Mary and Members First - membersfirstchicago.com 01:10:49 - Fox News Anchor and #1 Best Selling author of To Rescue the Republic: Ulysses S. Grant, the Fragile Union, and the Crisis of 1876, Bret Baier, shares new internal documents revealing  COVID origins downplayed. Check out Bret's report here 01:26:42 - Rick Bayless: Chicago restaurants devastated by omicron 01:29:47 - Dan & Amy get John Bolton's perspective on the rising tensions with Russia in the Ukraine. Check out Ambassador Bolton's most recent book  The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir 01:42:25 - NPR readers' dreams 01:44:16 - Founder of HollywoodInToto.com, the Right Take on Entertainment, and Award-winning film critic Christian Toto: How Hollywood Got Woke and Lost Its Soul. Check out Chris' new book  Virtue Bombs 02:00:00 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

He's a phenomenal statesman … Former Ambassador John Bolton doesn't just talk the talk. He walks the walk. Bolton has spent his entire political career shaking up bureaucracies to protect American interests. And he's done so while maintaining diplomacy with major world players. Bolton discusses government service, diplomacy and the fallout from the U.S.'s withdrawal from Afghanistan with host Charles Mizrahi. Topics Discussed: • An Introduction to John Bolton (00:00:00) • Goldwater vs. Reagan (00:04:22) • Government Service: A Calling (00:10:11) • Becoming a U.S. Ambassador (00:14:12) • The Truth About Diplomacy (00:19:18) • The “Endless War” (00:24:21) • Nuclear Arms (00:30:03) • Wrong Impression (00:34:26) • Withdrawal from Afghanistan (00:36:47) • China's Threat (00:39:26) • Promise in America (00:48:32) Guest Bio: Throughout his entire career, John Bolton has defended America. Prior to entering government service, Bolton served as a litigator in Washington D.C. After becoming Under Secretary of State in 2001, he worked to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And from 2005 to 2006, he served as a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Recently, Bolton served as a U.S. National Security Advisor from 2018 to 2019 under President Donald Trump. Resources Mentioned: My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir Transcript: https://charlesmizrahi.com/podcast/2021/08/31/ambassador-bolton-on-the-fallout-in-afghanistan/ (https://charlesmizrahi.com/podcast/) Don't Forget To... Subscribe to my podcast! Download this episode to save for later Liked this episode? Leave a kind review! Subscribe to Charles' Alpha Investor newsletter today: https://pro.banyanhill.com/m/1729783 (https://pro.banyanhill.com/m/1729783)

Ambassador John Bolton's name is synonymous with foreign policy service at the highest levels of government, having served four different presidents. Most recently, Bolton served as assistant to the president for national security affairs from April 9, 2018, until his resignation on September 10, 2019. He chronicled this experience in the recent best-selling book, The Room Where It Happened. From January 2007 until April 2018, John R. Bolton served as a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He was appointed as United States permanent representative to the United Nations on August 1, 2005 and served until his resignation in December 2006. Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Bolton served as under secretary of state for arms control and international security from May 2001 to May 2005. Throughout his distinguished career, Ambassador Bolton has been a staunch defender of American interests. While under secretary of state, he repeatedly advocated tough measures against the nuclear weapons programs of both Iran and North Korea, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide. He led negotiations for America to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so that the Bush Administration could proceed with a national missile-defense program. Ambassador Bolton has spent many years of his career in public service. Previous positions he has held include assistant secretary for international organization affairs at the Department of State, 1989–1993; assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice, 1985–1989; assistant administrator for program and policy coordination at the U.S. Agency for International Development, 1982–1983; and general counsel at the U.S. Agency for International Development, 1981–1982. Ambassador Bolton is the author of The Room Where it Happened, published by Simon & Schuster (June 2020) , Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the U.N. and Abroad, published by Simon & Shuster (November 2007), and How Barack Obama Is Endangering Our National Sovereignty, published by Encounter Books (April 2010). Ambassador Bolton graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from Yale College in 1970, and received his Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 1974. Please join us for this important conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ambassador John Bolton served as National Security Advisor to President Trump for 453 days. One of America’s most experienced international relations advisors, Bolton has served every Republican president since Reagan. In his time with the Trump administration, he dealt with chemical attacks in Syria, G7 showdowns and the Kim Jong Un negotiations. As an unabashed national security hawk — and given his long and distinguished vita — Bolton's criticisms of Trump’s handling of US foreign policy are credible and compelling, detailed in his book The Room Where it Happened. Our conversation with Ambassador Bolton focussed on elements of Trump administration policy — and changes in US strategic thinking — of relevance to Australia’s national interests: strategic competition with China as a foundation of US policy, evolving expectations of alliance partners, US leadership, the likely direction of US policy under either a second Trump administration or a Biden administration. The webinar event featured Ambassador John Bolton in conversation with United States Studies Centre CEO Professor Simon Jackman and Perth USAC CEO Gordon Flake.

Ambassador Bolton reveals what he witnessed during his 17 tumultuous months as National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump.  Bolton shares how he reacted to Trump’s eagerness to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un, why the second North Korea summit was so hastily put together, and what took place behind closed doors in Trump’s infamous one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.  He says the President rarely ever reads and recalls his frustrations at trying to educate a Trump about history and foreign policy.  We talk about President Trump’s bizarre obsession with authoritarian strongmen, his overall lack of interest in advancing freedom and human rights, and the numerous times Bolton considered resigning.  Plus Ambassador Bolton weighs in on whether he thinks Trump would willingly step down if defeated in the November election. Order John Bolton's new book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir on Amazon, Audible, or wherever books are sold, and follow him on Twitter at @AmbJohnBolton.

Leslie is joined by Ambassador John Bolton, who served as National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump for 519 days. A seasoned public servant who had previously worked for Presidents Reagan, Bush #41, and Bush #43, Bolton brought to the administration forty years of experience in international issues and a reputation for tough, blunt talk. His new book, "In The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," offers a substantive and factual account of the period from April 9, 2018 to September 10, 2019, when he was National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump. Known as, 'the book Donald Trump doesn’t want you to read,' there hasn’t been a detailed, inside account on how this President makes decisions on a day-to-day basis, until now. In addition to the book, Leslie and Ambassador Bolton discuss: - What the Ambassador would recommend that the American response be to U.S. intelligence reports that Russia has offered bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan - After telling Reuters that a more aggressive China is “the existential threat to the United States and the West as a whole,” Ambassador Bolton details what he believes the United States should be doing to protect itself from China - Ambassador Bolton warns about what America could transform into if President Trump were to be in power for another four years You can follow Ambassador Bolton on Twitter, where his handle is @AmbJohnBolton.

President Donald Trump has been impeached. In this episode, hear the key evidence against him presented by the witnesses called to testify in over 40 hours of hearings that took place in the "inquiry" phase of the impeachment. Using this episode, you will be able to judge for yourself how strong the case against President Trump really is as the country prepares for his Senate trial.  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD136: Building WWIII CD156: Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD202: Impeachment? Articles/Documents Article: Pelosi Says She Plans To Send Articles Of Impeachment To Senate By Claudio Grisales and Dirdre Walsh, npr, December 18, 2019 Article: Impeachment Timeline: From Early Calls To A Full House Vote by Brian Naylor, npr, December 17, 2019 Article: Ukraine and Russia agree to implement ceasefire BBC News, December 10, 2019 Article: How America’s System Of Legalized Corruption Brought Us To The Brink Of Impeachment By Brendan Fischer, Talking Points Memo, December 5, 2019 Article: Who Is Michael J. Gerhardt? Professor Made Impeachment His Specialty by Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, December 4, 2019 Article: The Betrayal of Volodymyr Zelensky by Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, December 3, 2019 Article: Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know By Tom Cleary, heavy November 24, 2019 Article: Why Did ASAP Rocky Keep Coming Up at the Impeachment Hearing? By Aaron Mak, Slate, November 20, 2019 Article: Impeaching Trump And Demonizing Russia: Birds Of A Feather By Robert W. Merry, The American Conservative, November 19, 2019 Article: Gordon Sondland Was A Low-Profile Hotel Owner. Until He Went To Work For Trump By Jim Zarroli, npr, November 19, 2019 Article: Yovanovitch's Moment: Will Her Testimony Help Dems or the GOP? By Susan Crabtree, RealClear Politics, November 14, 2019 Article: Who Is Bill Taylor? Key Witness in the Impeachment Inquiry By Lara Jakes, The New York Times, November 13, 2019 Article: Mulvaney will not pursue court fight over subpoena By Katelyn Polantz, CNN, November 12, 2019 Article: After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine By Desmond Butler, Michael Biesecker, Stephen Braun, and Richard Lardner, AP News, November 11, 2019 Article: CNN host was set to interview Ukrainian President until scandal took shape By Caroline Kelly, CNN, November 7, 2019 Article: Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, defies subpoena in impeachment inquiry By Bart Jansen, USA Today, October 15, 2019 Article: 'Disruptive Diplomat' Gordon Sondland, a key figure in Trump impeachment furor long coveted ambassadorship By Aaron C. Davis, Josh Dawsey, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, and Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post, October 14, 201 Article: The Sleazy Career of Kurt Volker By Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect, October 8, 2019 Article: Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed by Joe Gould and Howard Altman, Defense News, September 25, 2019 Article: After Years Of Stalling, Can Ukraine Finally Become Energy Self-Sufficient? By Todd Prince, RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty, September 15, 2019 Transcript: Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Statement Transcript: House of Representatives Launching Impeachment Inquiry of Trump Rev, September 24, 2019 Article: Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia By Caitlin Emma and Connor O'Brien, Politico, August 28, 2019 Article: Trump kills plan to cut billions in foreign aid by John Bresnahan, Jennifer Scholtes and Marianne Levine, Politico, August 22, 2019 Article: The Complete Timeline of A$AP Rocky’s Arrest in Sweden By Isabelle Hore-Thorburn, High Snobiety, August 14, 2019 Document: Letter to Richard Burr & Adam Schiff August 12, 2019 Article: NATO is the obstacle to improving Russian-Western relations By Ruslan Pukhov, Defense News, March 28, 2019 Article: In Ukraine, A Make Believe Politician Prepares For the Presidency By Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, March 26, 2019 Article: US staged a coup in Ukraine – here’s why and how by Chris Kanthan, Nation of Change, August 15, 2018 Article: How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine by Eric Zuesse, Strategic Culture Foundation, June 3, 2018 Article: What Did Ex-Trump Aide Paul Manafort Really Do in Ukraine? by Kenzi Abou-Sabe, Tom Winter and Max Tucker, NBC News, June 27, 2017 Article: What Exactly Did Paul Manafort Do Wrong? by Julia Ioffe, The Atlantic, March 24, 2017 Article: How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine By David Morrison, Huffington Post, October 3, 2014 Article: That time Ukraine tried to join NATO — and NATO said no By Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, September 14, 2014 Article: It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war By Seumas Milne, Guardian, April 30, 2014 Article: Facing Russian Threat, Ukraine Halts Plans for Deals with E.U. By David M. Herszenhorn, The New York Times, November 21, 2013 Article: Former Soviet States Stand Up to Russia. Will the U.S.? By Carl Gershman, The Washington Post, September 26, 2013 Article: Ukraine Says ’No’ to NATO By Kathleen Holzwart Sprehe, Pew Research Center, March 29, 2010 Article: Ukraine Faces Battle of NATO, Pro and Con By Mara D. Bellaby, The Associated Press, Washington Post Archive, June 6, 2006 Article: 'Meddling' In Ukraine By Michael McFaul, The Washington Post, December 21, 2004 Article: AFTEREFFECTS: THE LAW; American Will Advise Iraqis On Writing New Constitution By Jennifer 8. Lee, The Washington Post, May 11, 2003 Additional Resources Bill Summary: H.Res.755 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: Rudolph Giuliani Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: David Hale, U.S. Department of State Biography: George P. Kent, U.S. Department of State Biographies: Speakers’ Bios: US-Ukraine Working Group Yearly Summit IV, Center For US Ukrainian Relations Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 State Department Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2019, CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6157 Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 Explanatory Statement: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 State Department Hearing: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment U.S. House Committee on The Judiciary Profile: Gordon Sondland LinkedIn Profile: Kurt Volker LinkedIn Profile: Timothy Morrison LinkedIn Public Library of US Diplomacy: UKRAINE: PM YANUKOVYCH TELLS A/S FRIED: UKRAINE'S EUROPEAN CHOICE HAS BEEN DECIDED Wikileaks, November 17, 2006 USIP: About United States Institute of Peace USIP: Stephen J. Hadley United States Institute of Peace The Origins of USIP: Institute’s Founders Were Visionaries, Grass-Roots Americans, World War II Veterans United States Institute of Peace Video: Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told, YouTube, March 12, 2014 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Emerging U.S. Defense Challenges and Worldwide Threats, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, December 6, 2019 Witnesses General John M. Keane Mr. Shawn Brimley Dr. Robert Kagan Transcript: 55:55 Robert Kagan: But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated. CNN Town Hall: Pelosi says Bill Clinton impeached for "being stupid", CNN, December 5, 2019 Speakers: Nancy Pelosi Transcript: Questioner: So, Ms, Pelosi. You resisted calls for the impeachment of president Bush in 2006 and president Trump following the Muller report earlier this year, this time is different. Why did you oppose it? Why did you oppose impeachment in the past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our president now? Pelosi: Thank you. I thank you for bringing up the question about, because when I became speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach president Bush on the strength of the war in Iraq, which I vehemently opposed. And I say it again, I said it other places. That was my wheelhouse. I was intelligence. I was a ranking member on the intelligence committee, even before I became part of the leadership of gang of four. So I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there. They had to show us, they had to show the gang of four. All the intelligence they had, the intelligence did not show that that was the case. So I knew it was a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was in my view, not a ground for impeachment. They won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think, people think that it was the right thing to do. People think Iraq had something to do with the 9/11. I mean, it's appalling what they did. But I did and I said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it forward. They had impeached bill Clinton for personal indiscretion and misrepresenting about it and some of these same people are saying, Oh, this doesn't rise to impeachment or that right there. And impeaching Bill Clinton for being stupid in terms of something like that. I mean, I love him. I think it was a great president, but being stupid in terms of that and what would somebody do not to embarrass their family, but in any event, they did Bill Clinton. Now they want me to do George this. I just didn't want it to be a way of life in our country. As far as the Muller report or there was a good deal of the academic setting and a thousand legal experts wrote a statement that said, the Muller Report impeach...is what's in there as an impeachable offense? So much of what's in the Muller report will be more clear once some of the court cases are resolved, but it wasn't so clear to the public. The Ukraine, this removed all doubt. It was self evident that the president undermined our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections as he violated his oath of office. There's just... That's something that cannot be ignored. Hearing: Hearing on Constitutional Framework for Impeachment, House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, December 4, 2019 Watch on Youtube: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump Witnesses Professor Noah Feldman Professor Pamela Karlan Professor Michael Gerhardt Professor Jonathan Turley Transcript: 1:41:00 Michael Gerhardt: The gravity of the president's misconduct is apparent when we compare it to the misconduct of the one president resigned from office to avoid impeachment conviction and removal. The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later. The first article charged him with obstruction of justice. If you read the Muller report, it identifies a number of facts. I won't lay them out here right now that suggest the president himself has obstructed justice. If you look at the second article of impeachment approved against Richard Nixon, it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the FBI, IRS, and CIA to harass his political enemies. In the present circumstance, the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust, placing him by the American people, by soliciting foreign countries, including China, Russia, and Ukraine, to investigate his political opponents and interfere on his behalf and elections in which he is a candidate. The third article approved against president Nixon charged that he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. In the present circumstance, the president has refused to comply with and directed at least 10 others in his administration not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas, including Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and acting chief of staff and head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney. As Senator Lindsey Graham now chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeaching president Clinton, the day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury. That is a perfectly good articulation of why obstruction of Congress is impeachable. 2:02:30 Norm Eisen: Professor Feldman, what is abuse of power? Noah Feldman: Abuse of power is when the president uses his office, takes an action that is part of the presidency, not to serve the public interest, but to serve his private benefit. And in particular, it's an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection or to gain an advantage that is not available to anyone who is not the president. Noah Feldman: Sir, why is that impeachable conduct? Noah Feldman: If the president uses his office for personal gain, the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office because the department of justice works for the president. So the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the electoral process for personal gain is to impeach him. That is why we have impeachment. 2:09:15 Norm Eisen: Professor Gerhardt, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime? Michael Gerhardt: No, it plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes. And again, not all crimes are impeachable offenses. We look at, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct. 2:35:15 Michael Gerhardt: The obstruction of Congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. If you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. The job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. A president who says, as this president did say, I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with your process robs a coordinate branch of government. He robs the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment. When you add to that the fact that the same president says, my Department of Justice cannot charge me with a crime. The president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. I don't think it's possible to emphasize this strongly enough. A president who will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry is putting himself above the law. Now, putting yourself above the law as president is the core of an impeachable offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. 3:15:30 Jonathan Turley: I'd also caution you about obstruction. Obstruction is a crime also with meaning. It has elements. It has controlling case authority. The record does not establish obstruction. In this case, that is what my steam colleagues said was certainly true. If you accept all of their presumptions, it would be obstruction, but impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions. That's the problem. When you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me - why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment. Fast is not good for impeachment. Narrow, fast, impeachments have failed. Just ask Johnson. So the obstruction issue is an example of this problem. And here's my concern. The theory being put forward is that President Trump obstructed Congress by not turning over material requested by the committee and citations have been made to the third article of the Nixon impeachment. Now, first of all, I want to confess, I've been a critic of the third article, the Nixon impeachment my whole life. My hair catches on fire every time someone mentions the third article. Why? Because you would be replicating one of the worst articles written on impeachment. Here's the reason why - Peter Radino's position as Chairman of Judiciary was that Congress alone decides what information may be given to it - alone. His position was that the courts have no role in this. And so by that theory, any refusal by a president based on executive privilege or immunities would be the basis of impeachment. That is essentially the theory that's being replicated today. President Trump has gone to the courts. He's allowed to do that. We have three branches, not two. You're saying article one gives us complete authority that when we demand information from another branch, it must be turned over or we'll impeach you in record time. Now making that worse is that you have such a short investigation. It's a perfect storm. You set an incredibly short period, demand a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. In Nixon, it did go to the courts and Nixon lost, and that was the reason Nixon resigned. He resigned a few days after the Supreme Court ruled against him in that critical case. But in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. It didn't say, "You had no right coming to us, don't darken our doorstep again." It said, "We've heard your arguments. We've heard Congress's arguments and you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress." Do you know what that did for the Judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. Now recently there's some rulings against president Trump including a ruling involving Don McGahn. Mr. Chairman, I testified in front of you a few months ago and if you recall, we had an exchange and I encouraged you to bring those actions and I said I thought you would win and you did. And I think it's an important win for this committee because I don't agree with President Trump's argument in that case. But that's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues in order and unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough. And I'll say just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. 3:26:40 Jonathan Turley: There's a reason why every past impeachment has established crimes, and it's obvious it's not that you can't impeach on a non-crime. You can, in fact. Non-crimes had been part of past impeachments. It's just that they've never gone up alone or primarily as the basis of impeachment. That's the problem here. If you prove a quid pro quo that you might have an impeachable offense, but to go up only on a noncriminal case would be the first time in history. So why is that the case? The reason is that crimes have an established definition and case law. So there's a concrete, independent body of law that assures the public that this is not just political, that this is a president who did something they could not do. You can't say the president is above the law. If you then say the crimes you accuse him of really don't have to be established. 3:39:35 Jonathan Turley: This is one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment. I mean the Johnson record one can can debate because this was the fourth attempt at an impeachment, but this is certainly the thinnest of a modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which was is almost wafer thin in comparison, and it has left doubts - not just in the minds of people supporting president Trump - now it's in the minds of people like myself about what actually occurred. There's a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don't know, but it's not in this record. I agree with my colleagues. We've all read the record and I just come to a different conclusion. I don't see proof of a quid pro quo no matter what my presumptions, assumptions or bias might be. Hearing: Impeachment Hearing with Fiona Hill and David Holmes, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 21, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes Witnesses Dr. Fiona Hill David Holmes Transcript: 44:45 David Holmes: Our work in Ukraine focused on three policy priorities: peace and security, economic growth and reform and anti-corruption and rule of law. These policies match the three consistent priorities of the Ukrainian people since 2014 as measured in public opinion polling, namely an end to the conflict with Russia that restores national unity and territorial integrity, responsible economic policies that deliver European standards of growth and opportunity and effective and impartial rule of law, institutions that deliver justice in cases of high level official corruption. Our efforts on this third policy priority merit special mention because it was during Ambassador Yovanovitch's tenure that we achieved the hard-fought passage of a law establishing an independent court to try corruption cases. 51:00 David Holmes: It quickly became clear that the White House was not prepared to show the level of support for the Zelensky administration that we had originally anticipated. In early May, Mr Giuliani publicly alleged that Mr. Zelensky was "surrounded by enemies of the U S president" and canceled a visit to Ukraine. Shortly thereafter we learned that Vice President Pence no longer plan to lead the presidential delegation to the inauguration. The White House then whittled down an initial proposed list for the official presidential delegation to the inauguration from over a dozen individuals to just five. Secretary Perry as its head, Special Representative for Ukraine and negotiations Kurt Volker representing the State Department, National Security Council director Alex Vindman representing the White House, temporary acting Charge D'affairs Joseph Pennington representing the Embassy, and Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. While Ambassador Sondland's mandate as ambassador as the accredited ambassador to the European Union did not cover individual member states, let alone non-member countries like Ukraine, he made clear that he had direct and frequent access to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and portrayed himself as the conduit to the President and Mr. Mulvaney for this group. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, and Ambassador Volker later styled themselves "the three Amigos" and made clear they would take the lead on coordinating our policy and engagement with the Zelensky administration. 53:30 David Holmes: The inauguration took place on May 20th and I took notes in the delegations meeting with President Zelensky. During the meeting, Secretary Perry passed President Zelensky a list that Perry described as "people he trusts." Secretary Perry told President Zelensky that he could seek advice from the people on this list on issues of energy sector reform, which was the topic of subsequent meetings between Secretary Perry and key Ukrainian energy sector contacts. Embassy personnel were excluded from some of these later meetings by Secretary Perry's staff. 56:50 David Holmes: Within a week or two, it became apparent that the energy sector reforms, the commercial deals, and the anti-corruption efforts on which we were making progress were not making a dent in terms of persuading the White House to schedule a meeting between the presidents. 58:10 David Holmes: We became concerned that even if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky could occur, it would not go well. And I discussed with embassy colleagues whether we should stop seeking a meeting all together. While the White House visit was critical to the Zelensky administration, a visit that failed to send a clear and strong signal of support likely would be worse for President Zelensky than no visit at all. 58:30 David Holmes: Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine since 2014. This assistance has provided crucial material and moral support to Ukraine and its defensive war with Russia and has helped Ukraine build its armed forces virtually from scratch into arguably the most capable and battle-hardened land force in Europe. I've had the honor of visiting the main training facility in Western Ukraine with members of Congress and members of this very committee, Ms. Stefanik, where we witnessed firsthand us national guard troops along with allies conducting training for Ukrainian soldiers. Since 2014 national guard units from California, Oklahoma, New York, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have trained shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainian counterparts. 59:30 David Holmes: Given the history of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and the bipartisan recognition of its importance, I was shocked when on July 18th and office of management and budget staff members surprisingly announced the hold on Ukraine security assistance. The announcement came toward the end of a nearly two hour national security council secure video conference call, which I participated in from the embassy conference room. The official said that the order had come from the president and had been conveyed to OMB by Mr. Mulvaney with no further explanation. 1:03:30 David Holmes: The four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland and the two staffers sat off to our sides. At first, the lunch was largely social. Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us and we discuss topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business. During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone and I heard him announce himself several times along the lines of Gordon Sondland holding for the president. It appeared to be he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistance. And I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor changed and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speaker phone, I could hear the president's voice through the ear piece of the phone. The president's voice was loud and recognizable and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume. I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from Kiev. I heard president Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state President Zelensky "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So he's going to do the investigation?" and Sondland replied that "He's going to do it" adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the president. The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland's efforts on behalf of the president to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden. I can only hear Ambassador Sondland's side of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the president that the rapper was "kind of effed there and should have pled guilty." He recommended that the president "Wait until after the sentencing or we'll only make it worse", and he added that the president should let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker tape when he comes home. Ambassador Sondland further told the president that Sweden quote "should have released him on your word, but that you can tell the Kardashians you tried." 1:15:00 David Holmes: Today, this very day, marks exactly six years since throngs pro-Western Ukrainians spontaneously gathered on Kiev's independence square, to launch what became known as the Revolution of Dignity. While the protest began in opposition to a turn towards Russia and away from the West, they expanded over three months to reject the entire corrupt, repressive system that had been sustained by Russian influence in the country. Those events were followed by Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and invasion of Ukraine's Eastern Donbass region, and an ensuing war that to date has cost almost 14,000 lives. 1:17:00 David Holmes: Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. 2:00:15 David Holmes: In the meeting with the president, Secretary Perry as head of the delegation opened the meeting with the American side, and had a number of points he made. And, and during that period, he handed over a piece of paper. I did not see what was on the paper, but Secretary Perry described what was on the paper as a list of trusted individuals and recommended that President Zelensky could draw from that list for advice on energy sector reform issues. Daniel Goldman: Do you know who was on that list? Holmes: I didn't see the list. I don't know other colleagues. There are other people who've been in the mix for a while on that set of issues. Other people, Secretary Perry has mentioned as being people to consult on reform. Goldman: And are they Americans? Holmes: Yes. 4:18:15 Fiona Hill: As I understood there'd been a directive for a whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance and the ties between our foreign policy objectives and the assistance. This has been going on actually for many months. And in the period when I was wrapping up my time there, there had been more scrutiny than specific assistance to specific sets of countries as a result of that overall review. 4:21:10 Fiona Hill: I asked him quite bluntly in a meeting that we had in June of 2019. So this is after the presidential inauguration when I'd seen that he had started to step up in much more of a proactive role on a Ukraine. What was his role here? And he said that he was in charge of Ukraine. And I said, "Well, who put you in charge Ambassador Sondland?" And he said, "The president." Stephen Castor: Did surprise you when he told you that. Fiona Hill:It did surprise me. We'd had no directive. We hadn't been told this. Ambassador Bolton had never indicated in any way that he thought that Ambassador Sondland was playing a leading role in Ukraine. 4:36:30 Fiona Hill: And one of Ukraine's Achilles heel, in addition to, it's military disadvantage with Russia, is in fact, energy. Ukraine remains for now the main transit point for a Russian oil and gas and pipelines to Europe. And this has been manipulated repeatedly, especially since 2006, by the Russian government. And in fact, I mean many of you here will remember, in the Reagan era, there was a huge dispute between the United States and Europe about about whether it made sense for Europe to build pipelines from the then Soviet union to bring gas to European markets. 4:55:30 David Holmes: United States has provided combined civilian and military assistance to Ukraine since 2014 of about $3 billion plus to $1 billion - three $1 billion loan guarantees that's not...those get paid back largely. So just over $3 billion, the Europeans at the level of the European Union and plus the member States combined since 2014. My understanding and have provided a combined $12 billion to Ukraine. 5:02:05 Fiona Hill: And so when I came in Gordon Sondland was basically saying, "Well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. I have a deal here with the Chief of Staff, Mulvaney there will be a meeting if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and Burisma" and I cut it off immediately there because by this point, having heard Mr. Giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the issues, that he was asserting. By this point, it was clear that Burisma was code for the Bidens because Giuliani was laying it out there. I could see why Colonel Vindman was alarmed and he said this is inappropriate with the National Security Council. We can't be involved in this. 5:03:45 Fiona Hill: And that's when I pushed back on Ambassador Sondland and said, "Look, I know there's differences about whether one, we should have this meeting. We're trying to figure out whether we should have it after the Ukrainian, democratic, sorry, parliamentary elections, the Rada elections", which by that point I think had been set for July 21st. It must have been, cause this is July 10th at this point. And Ambassador Bolton would like to wait until after that to basically see whether President Zelensky gets the majority in the parliament, which would enable him to form a cabinet. And then we can move forward. 6:05:50 Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): Dr. Hill, turning back to you, there's been discussion about the process of scheduling the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump, and you testified that there was hesitancy to schedule this meeting until after the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct, yes. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And that's because there was speculation in all analytical circles, both in Ukraine and outside the Ukraine, that Zelensky might not be able to get the majority that he needed to form a cabinet, correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And you also testified that another aspect of the NSC hesitancy to schedule this meeting was based on broader concerns related to Zelensky's ability to implement anti-corruption reforms. And this was in specific relation to Ukrainian oligarchs who basically were the owner of the TV company that Mr. Zelensky his program had been a part of. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. 6:21:40 Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): One of them is headlined "After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine." The other one is titled "Wall Street Journal, federal prosecutors probe Giuliani's links to Ukrainian energy projects." Mr. Holmes. Thank you, chairman. You indicated that Secretary Perry, when he was in the Ukraine, had private meetings with Ukrainians. Before he had those private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, I believe, he had presented a list of American advisers for the Ukraine energy sector. Do you know who was on that list? David Holmes: Sir, I didn't see the names on the list myself. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Do you know if Alex Cranberg and Michael Blazer were on that list? David Holmes: I have since heard that Michael Blazer is on the list. Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale Witnesses Laura Cooper David Hale Transcript: 45:30 Laura Cooper: I have also supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense program of defense reform to ensure the longterm sustainability of US investments and the transformation of the Ukrainian military from a Soviet model to a NATO inter-operable force. 45:50 Laura Cooper: The National Defense Authorization Act requires the Department of Defense to certify defense reform progress to release half of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or USAI funds, a provision we find very helpful. Based on recommendations from me and other key DOD advisers, the Department of Defense in coordination with the Department of State certified in May, 2019 that Ukraine had "taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability."  47:15 Laura Cooper: Let me say at the outset that I have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. 48:05 Laura Cooper: I and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent, because it takes time to obligate that amount of money. And my understanding was that the money was legally required to be obligated by September 30th to the end of the fiscal year. 49:15 Laura Cooper: I received a series of updates and in a September 5th update, I and other senior defense department leaders were informed that over a $100,000,000 could not be obligated by September 30th. 49:45 Laura Cooper: After the decision to release the funds on September 11th of this year, my colleagues across the DOD security assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to be able to ultimately obligate about 86% of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they had originally estimated they would be able to. Due to a provision in September's continuing resolution, appropriating an amount equal to the unobligated funds from fiscal year 2019, we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the USAI funds. 51:04 Laura Cooper: Since my deposition, I have again reviewed my calendar, and the only meeting where I recall a Ukrainian official raising the issue with me is on September 5th at the Ukrainian independence day celebration. 51:45 Laura Cooper: Specifically, on the issue of Ukraine's knowledge of the hold or of Ukraine, asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance. My staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the state department. One was received on July 25th at 2:31 PM. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about security assistance. The second email was received on July 25th at 4:25 PM that email said that the Hill knows about the FMF situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian embassy. I did not receive either of these emails. My staff does not recall informing me about them and I do not recall being made aware of their content at the time. 53:04 Laura Cooper: On July 3rd at 4:23 PM they received an email from the State Department stating that they had heard that the CN is currently being blocked by OMB. This apparently refers to the congressional notification State would send for Ukraine FMF. I have no further information on this. 53:20 Laura Cooper: On July 25th a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance. Because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was on USAI. The OMB notice of apportionment arrived that day, but the staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward on USAI, but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State regarding the FMF. 1:02:40 David Hale: We've often heard at the state department that the President of the United States wants to make sure that a foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure that it's truly in US national interests, and that we evaluated continuously to meet certain criteria that the president's established. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And since his election, is it fair to say that the president Trump has looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distributed? David Hale: Yes. The NSC launched a foreign assistance review process, sometime, I think it was late August, early September, 2018. 1:04:30 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, Ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld from it, is that correct? David Hale: Correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, was aid held withheld from Pakistan? David Hale:Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Why was aid withheld from Pakistan? David Hale: Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the Pakistani government towards certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with United States. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And in the past year was aid also withheld from Honduras. David Hale: Aid was withheld from three States in central Northern central America, yes. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): The past year was aide withheld from Lebanon? David Hale: Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And when aid was first held withheld from Lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld? David Hale: No. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): So having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon. I would say it is not the normal way that we function... Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But it does happen. David Hale: It does happen. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And is it true that when aid was being withheld from Lebanon that was at the same time aid was being withheld from Ukraine? David Hale: Correct, sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):And, you've testified that the aid to Lebanon still hasn't been released, is that right? David Hale: That is correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Alright. 1:26:05 Laura Cooper: Russia violated the sovereignty of Ukraine's territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that belonged to Ukraine. They also denied Ukraine access to its Naval fleet at the time. And to this day, Russia is building a capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian military power projection far beyond the immediate region. 1:59:40 Laura Cooper: There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces. The first is the foreign military finance system, which is a State Department authority and countries around the world have this authority. That authority is used for some of the training and equipment. There's also the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. That's a DOD authority. Unlike the State authority, the DOD authority is only a one year authority. And then third, there's an opportunity for defense sales. And that is something that we're working with Ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase U.S. equipment. But the javelin specifically was provided under FMF initially and now the Ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. 2:00:35 Rep. Will Hurd (TX): And there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of equipment, is that correct? Laura Cooper: Not to my understanding, no. 2:04:15 Laura Cooper: There were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. And the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. The second is a reprogramming action that the Department of Defense would do... Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): In both of those would require congressional notice. There would be an extra step that the president would have to take to notify Congress. As far as, you know, was there ever any notice that was sent out to Congress? Laura Cooper: Sir, I did express that, that I believed it would require a notice to Congress and that then there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. 2:07:41 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But you can't say one way or another whether the inquiries in these emails were about the whole, is that fair? Laura Cooper: I cannot say for certain. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):Right, and you can't say one way or another, whether the Ukrainians knew about the whole before August 28th, 2019 when it was reported in Politico, correct? Laura Cooper: Sir, I can just tell you that it's the recollection of my staff that they likely knew, but no, I do not have a certain data point to offer you. Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Ambassador Gordon Sondland Witness Gordon Sondland Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:00 Gordon Sondland: I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 59:40 Gordon Sondland: During the Zelensky inauguration, on May 20th the US delegation developed a very positive view of the Ukraine government. We were impressed by President Zelensky's desire to promote a stronger relationship with the United States. We admired his commitment to reform, and we were excited about the possibility of Ukraine making the changes necessary to support a greater Western economic investment. And we were excited that Ukraine might, after years and years of lip service, finally get serious about addressing its own well known corruption problems. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:12:05 Gordon Sondland: After the Zelensky meeting, I also met with Zelensky's senior aide, Andre Yermak. I don't recall the specifics of our conversation, but I believe the issue of investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. 1:12:15 Gordon Sondland: Also, on July 26 shortly after our Kiev meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump. The White House, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys confirms this. The call lasted five minutes. I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev, and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani's demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations. I knew that investigations were important to President Trump. We did not discuss any classified information. Other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call. For the most part, I have no reason to doubt their accounts. It's true that the president speaks loudly at times and it's also true, I think, we primarily discussed ASAP Rocky. It's true that the president likes to use colorful language. Anyone who has met with him at any reasonable amount of time knows this well. I cannot remember the precise details. Again, the White House has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call and the July 26 call did not strike me as significant. At the time, actually, actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:23:10 Gordon Sondland: There was a September 1st meeting with President Zelensky in Warsaw. Unfortunately, President Trump's attendance at the Warsaw meeting was canceled due to Hurricane Dorian. Vice President Pence attended instead. I mentioned Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations. I recall mentioning that before the Zelensky meeting. During the actual meeting, President Zelensky raised the issue of security assistance directly with Vice President Pence and the vice president said that he would speak to President Trump about it. Based on my previous communication with Secretary Pompeo, I felt comfortable sharing my concerns with Mr. Yermak. It was a very, very brief pull aside conversation that happened. Within a few seconds, I told Mr. Yermak that I believe that the resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. 1:38:30 Gordon Sondland: I finally called the president, I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me, but I believe I just asked him an open ended question, Mr. Chairman. "What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?" And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell them Zelensky to do the right thing. Something to that effect. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 2:10:30 Gordon Sondland: Again, I don't recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance ever. 2:44:00 Stephen Castor: Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? Gordon Sondland: No. Okay. Stephen Castor: So the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? Gordon Sondland: No. Stephen Castor: The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting? Gordon Sondland: Personally, no. 3:01:10 Stephen Castor: And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies? Gordon Sondland: That I'm definitely aware of. Stephen Castor: And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the president. Gordon Sondland: Yes, that's correct. Stephen Castor: And how do you know that wasn't the reason for the hold? Gordon Sondland: I don't... Stephen Castor: But yet you speculate that there was a link to the this announcement. Gordon Sondland: I presumed it, yes. Stephen Castor: Okay. 3:07:05 Stephen Castor: And when you first started discussing the concerns the president had with corruption, Burisma wasn't the only company that was mentioned, right. Gordon Sondland: It was generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine. Stephen Castor: But other companies came up, didn't they? Gordon Sondland: I don't know if they were mentioned specifically. It might've been Naftagas because we were working on another issue with Naftagas. So that might've been one of them. Stephen Castor: At one point in your deposition, I believe you, you said, "Yeah, Naftagas comes up at every conversation." Is that fair? Gordon Sondland: Probably. 3:14:55 Gordon Sondland: I think once that Politico article broke, it started making the rounds that, if you can't get a White House meeting without the statement, what makes you think you're going to get a $400 million check? Again, that was my presumption. Stephen Castor: Okay, but you had no evidence to prove that, correct? Gordon Sondland: That's correct. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did Mr. Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the President of the United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with Mr. Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. 5:20:40 Rep. Michael Turner (OH): Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president and said it's because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says "Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid." Is that your testimony today, Mr. Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations the aid? Cause I don't think you're saying that. Gordon Sondland: I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump... Rep. Michael Turner (OH): So no one told you, not just the president...Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody - Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct? Gordon Sondland: I think I already testified. Rep. Michael Turner (OH): No, answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Cause if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong. And the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that president Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no? Gordon Sondland: Yes. Hearing: Impeachment Hearing with Ambassador Kurt Volker and National Security Aide Tim Morrison, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison Witnesses Kurt Volker Timothy Morrison Transcript: 43:20 Timothy Morrison: I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one. United States aids Ukraine and her people, so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be. 48:00 Kurt Volker: At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know, from the extensive realtime documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions. 50:20 Kurt Volker: At the time I took the position in the summer of 2017 there were major complicated questions swirling in public debate about the direction of US policy towards Ukraine. Would the administration lifts sanctions against Russia? Would it make some kind of grand bargain with Russia in which it would trade recognition of Russia seizure of Ukrainian territory for some other deal in Syria or elsewhere? Would the administration recognize Russia's claimed annexation of Crimea? Will this just become another frozen conflict? There are also a vast number of vacancies in key diplomatic positions. So no one was really representing the United States in the negotiating process about ending the war in Eastern Ukraine. 51:20 Kurt Volker: We changed the language commonly used to describe Russia's aggression. I was the administration's most outspoken public figure highlighting Russia's invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine, calling out Russia's responsibility to end the war. 54:45 Kurt Volker: The problem was that despite the unanimous positive assessment and recommendations of those of us who were part of the US presidential delegation that attended the inauguration of President Zelensky, President Trump was receiving a different negative narrative about Ukraine and President Zelensky. That narrative was fueled by accusations from Ukraine's then prosecutor general and conveyed to the president by former mayor Rudy Giuliani. As I previously told this committee, I became aware of the negative impact this was having on our policy efforts when four of us, who were a part of the presidential delegation to the inauguration, met as a group with President Trump on May 23rd. We stressed our finding that President Zelensky represented the best chance for getting Ukraine out of the mire of corruption and had been in for over 20 years. We urged him to invite President Zelensky to the White House. The president was very skeptical. Given Ukraine's history of corruption. That's understandable. He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country full of terrible people. He said they tried to take me down. In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations with Mayor Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new president, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view. Within a few days, on May 29th, President Trump indeed signed the congratulatory letter to President Zelensky, which included an invitation to the president to visit him at the White House. However, more than four weeks passed and we could not nail down a date for the meeting. I came to believe that the president's long-held negative view towards Ukraine was causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting, much as we had seen in our oval office discussion. 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced Mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to President Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians that Mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with Mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to Mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mayor Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr. Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that the Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of Vice President Biden in these conversations. 1:02:40 Kurt Volker: Ambassador Sondland and I discussed these points and I edited the statement drafted by Mr. Yermak to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed it further with Mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that since Mr. Lutsenko was still officially the prosecutor general, they did not want to mention Burisma or 2016 and I agreed. And the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations I had about this statement, which were on or about August 17 to 18. 1:04:00 Kurt Volker: At the time I was connecting Mr. Yermak and Mr. Giuliani and discussing with Mr. Yermak and Ambassador Sondland a possible statement that could be made by the Ukrainian president, I did not know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and Ukraine pursuing investigatio

When U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton announced Washington's new strategy for Africa last December, he mentioned China 14 times in his speech. So often, in fact, that a lot of observers commented that the new policy seemed to be more focused on containing China's rising influence on the continent than on Africa itself. Now, two months later, there's been no follow-up from the White House, leaving a lot of people to wonder what's going on and if the policy, known as "Prosper Africa," has somehow gotten lost amid the chaos that has subsumed the Trump administration. The silence since the Bolton speech no doubt provides some reassurance to officials in Beijing even if the U.S. wanted to really challenge the Chinese presence in Africa, they just don't seem to be up to the task. "So how concerned should China be about this new US policy towards Africa? Not very," professors Joshua Eisenman and David Shinn in a column published in the South China Morning Post (SCMP) newspaper. "Bolton’s statement is heavy on rhetoric, but the strategy is stillborn because the administration is not allocating the resources or manpower required for it to succeed," they added. Meanwhile, other experts contend that resources have nothing to do with it, and instead, it's more about the fact that the Chinese are not central America's long-term strategic interests in Africa. "China may get all the ink following Ambassador Bolton’s announcement of a new Africa Strategy, but the things that ought to interest Africans have far less to do with “great power” competition and more to do with bilateral U.S. individual African state relationships," said Colonel Chris Wyatt, Director of African Studies at the U.S. Army War College. Professor Eisenman, a China-Africa scholar at the University of Texas in Austin, joins Eric & Cobus to discuss his SCMP recent column and the current state of U.S.-China-Africa geopolitics. Join the discussion? What did you think of the Bolton speech and the new U.S. strategy for Africa? Do you think China should be worried? Let us know what you think. Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProject Twitter: @eolander | @stadenesque  Email: eric@chinaafricaproject.com | cobus@chinaafricaproject.com   Sign up here if you would like to join our weekly email newsletter mailing list for a carefully curated selection of the week's top China-Africa news. 

President Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton sat down with Tim Constantine to talk about a variety of foreign policy issues. Among them was the impact of the relentless news stories about Russian collusion with the 2016 Trump campaign. How does this impact America's ability to conduct diplomacy with the Kremlin? Ambassador Bolton gives Tim the full picture.

The Beltway establishment has reacted with horror to President Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as national security adviser. Ambassador Bolton, they claim, is a dangerous warmonger unfit for the office. That’s wrong. As the president’s top security aide, Bolton will be an honest broker and someone who can drive decisions through molasses-thick resistance. These qualities, plus his top-shelf intellect, make Bolton the best national security player to join Trump’s West Wing team so far. The bottom line is that Vladimir Putin’s worst nightmare just walked into the West Wing. Bolton can outlast and outthink anyone Putin, Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping sends to negotiate quiet deals before the big public ones with the president. There are rough waters ahead across the globe and the president is to be commended for surrounding himself with strong, competent and very smart foreign policy professionals.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

HIGHLIGHT of the hour - MORE this hour with Ambassador John Bolton. Guest this hour - Logan Jenkins (S.D. Union-Tribune) - Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and religious leaders are on the ground in Louisiana during the flood crisis. - Logan Jenkins, columnist for San Diego Union-Tribune talks about the distinct way to talk (word use) and pronounce things in San Diego; it can either make you sound like a tourist or a “real” San Diego native. – Mark UPDATES the story on the slowing on I-8 WB East of 805 due to a body being found on the shoulder. – Mark talks about the Egyptian athlete not shaking the hand of the competition, NBC finally acknowledges it. – There’s the first Trump paid for add during the general election. – Mark has MORE with Ambassador Bolton this hour about Obama criticizing Bush over Katrina, but doing worse in Baton Rouge by not even showing up. – Mark talks in length about the media not trying to hide their bias anymore towards Bush and conservatives. The Mark Larson Show mornings 6-9, on AM 1170 "The Answer".

HIGHLIGHT of the hour - MORE this hour with Ambassador John Bolton. Guest this hour - Logan Jenkins (S.D. Union-Tribune) - Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and religious leaders are on the ground in Louisiana during the flood crisis. - Logan Jenkins, columnist for San Diego Union-Tribune talks about the distinct way to talk (word use) and pronounce things in San Diego; it can either make you sound like a tourist or a “real” San Diego native. – Mark UPDATES the story on the slowing on I-8 WB East of 805 due to a body being found on the shoulder. – Mark talks about the Egyptian athlete not shaking the hand of the competition, NBC finally acknowledges it. – There’s the first Trump paid for add during the general election. – Mark has MORE with Ambassador Bolton this hour about Obama criticizing Bush over Katrina, but doing worse in Baton Rouge by not even showing up. – Mark talks in length about the media not trying to hide their bias anymore towards Bush and conservatives. The Mark Larson Show mornings 6-9, on AM 1170 "The Answer".

HIGHLIGHT of the hour - MORE this hour with Ambassador John Bolton. Guest this hour - James Hirsen (Newsmax) - Clint Eastwood is in the media; and he’s picking Trump over Clinton in this year’s election. How is the media handling it all? Mark has MORE this hour with Ambassador Bolton discussing, Trump’s self-inflicted gaffing, and network overage of that. Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan react to Trump’s recent behavior. – Hillary Clinton is being asked about the 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran. – James Hirsen joins Mark this hour to talk about a new L.A. Times poll on the 2016 election, what does Trump’s African-American support look like on the east coast, and Clint Eastwood is choosing Trump over Clinton. The Mark Larson Show mornings 6-9, on AM 1170 "The Answer".

-Mark and John Bolton hit the ground running and talk about ISIS and the U.S. request help from allies. How long will the Islamic fundamentalism continue? Is there still a U.S./Iran deal?

Guests this hour include - Rowan Scarborough (The Washington Times), and John Bolton (Ambassador to the U.N.). -Rowan Scarborough joins Mark to talk about ISIS, and an ad in the New York Times. PLUS, #FreeOurGirls and Mrs. Obama, and an Al Qaeda UPDATE! - Mark speaks with Ambassador Bolton about the Iraqi gvt, Al Qaeda-Afghanistan, and MORE on the Sony Hack! All those "Answers" and MORE on The Mark Larson Show - AM1170 "The Answer".

Guests this hour include - Carl DeMaio (for Congress), and John Bolton (former U.N. Ambassador) Bumper music to *BE COOL* to - considering the heat wave and SDG&E rate increases that conveniently started this month! Carl DeMaio on the utility rates in San Diego, and why they're going up; also on why he decided to NOT run for San Diego Mayor! San Onofre is STILL closed may be one of them! AND we'll round off the hour with Ambassador Bolton to talk with Larson about a senate vote on attacking Syria! No vote needed, listen to The Mark Larson Show - LIVE and LOCAL on KCBQ!

DARmageddon came, went, and injured no one! There's more on Mayor Bob Filner this morning, will he be getting back to work as usual? And Mark Larson says Carl DeMaio has a important announcement to make today. Ambassador Bolton is back with Mark to talk about the pace of threats increasing globally - let's focus on Egypt. Focusing is hard at 6am, but we're on it LIVE and LOCAL here on The Mark Larson Show!

What a great pleasure and honor to welcome former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John Bolton, to Pundit Review Radio. Ambassador Bolton joined us for wide ranging, thirty minute interview in which we covered a ton of ground. I have broken the interview into two segments. His excellent new book, Surrender is Not an Option, was the basis for our discussion Segment two is about 12 minutes long and we covered the sorry state of the Ivy League (Bolton has some great stories in the book about his experience as a conservative at Yale); the Israeli bombing of Syria, which Bolton thinks should be talked about more publicly and the rise of China's military while the world focuses its attention on Islamic fanatics. What is Pundit Review Radio? Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

What a great pleasure and honor to welcome former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John Bolton, to Pundit Review Radio. Ambassador Bolton joined us for wide ranging, thirty minute interview in which we covered a ton of ground. I have broken the interview into two segments. His excellent new book, Surrender is Not an Option, was the basis for our discussion Segment two is about 12 minutes long and we covered the sorry state of the Ivy League (Bolton has some great stories in the book about his experience as a conservative at Yale); the Israeli bombing of Syria, which Bolton thinks should be talked about more publicly and the rise of China's military while the world focuses its attention on Islamic fanatics. What is Pundit Review Radio? Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

What a great pleasure and honor to welcome former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John Bolton, to Pundit Review Radio. Ambassador Bolton joined us for wide ranging, thirty minute interview in which we covered a ton of ground. I have broken the interview into two segments. His excellent new book, Surrender is Not an Option, was the basis for our discussion This first segment runs about 18 minutes and we cover the sorry state of the U.N., the situation with Iran and North Korea, as well as the inter-agency friction between State, Defense and Justice. We also talked about the relationships between the principals at the top of these agencies, people such as Richard Armitage, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. It was very interesting to talk to him about the role of interpersonal relationships and how it can influence public policy. What is Pundit Review Radio? Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

Ambassador Bolton talks to us about his upcoming book, why the Republicans care about Darfur, his thoughts on President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his take on the controversial book The Israel Lobby.