AND THE AFTERNOON IT CAME OUT, I AND THE AFTERNOON IT CAME OUT, I SAT DOWN AND STARTED READING IT.

SAT DOWN AND STARTED READING IT.

AND I READ IT ALL AFTERNOON, ALL AND I READ IT ALL AFTERNOON, ALL NIGHT, INTO THE NEXT MORNING.

NIGHT, INTO THE NEXT MORNING.

ALL 448 PAGES.

ALL 448 PAGES.

I GOT TO THE END AND THERE ARE I GOT TO THE END AND THERE ARE THREE THINGS, MAN, THERE’S NO THREE THINGS, MAN, THERE’S NO AVOIDING.

AVOIDING.

PART 1, A HOSTILE FOREIGN PART 1, A HOSTILE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ATTACKED OUR 2016 GOVERNMENT ATTACKED OUR 2016 ELECTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING DONALD TRUMP ELECTED.

GETTING DONALD TRUMP ELECTED.

PART 2, THEN CANDIDATE DONALD PART 2, THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP WELCOMED THAT HELP.

TRUMP WELCOMED THAT HELP.

AND PART 3, WHEN THE FEDERAL AND PART 3, WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRIED TO INVESTIGATE GOVERNMENT TRIED TO INVESTIGATE PART 1 AND PART 2, DONALD TRUMP, PART 1 AND PART 2, DONALD TRUMP, AS PRESIDENT, DELAYED, AS PRESIDENT, DELAYED, DEFLECTED, MOVED, FIRED AND DID DEFLECTED, MOVED, FIRED AND DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO OBSTRUCT EVERYTHING HE COULD TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.

JUSTICE.

IF HE WERE ANY OTHER PERSON IN IF HE WERE ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES, BASED ON THE UNITED STATES, BASED ON WHAT’S DOCUMENTED IN THAT WHAT’S DOCUMENTED IN THAT REPORT, HE WOULD BE CARRIED OUT REPORT, HE WOULD BE CARRIED OUT IN HANDCUFFS.

IN HANDCUFFS.

NOW — I GET THAT THIS IS NOW — I GET THAT THIS IS POLITICALLY TOUGH.

POLITICALLY TOUGH.

I GET IT.

I GET IT.

BUT SOME THINGS ARE BIGGER THAN BUT SOME THINGS ARE BIGGER THAN POLITICS.

POLITICS.

AND THIS MATTERS FOR OUR AND THIS MATTERS FOR OUR DEMOCRACY NOT JUST NOW BUT UNDER DEMOCRACY NOT JUST NOW BUT UNDER THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND THE NEXT THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HERE.

RESPONSIBILITY HERE.

AND THAT’S TO START THESE AND THAT’S TO START THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

>> WHEN YOU PUT IT THAT WAY.

>> WHEN YOU PUT IT THAT WAY.

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN LAYING SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN LAYING OUT IN THE CLEAREST TERMS I’VE OUT IN THE CLEAREST TERMS I’VE HEARD SO FAR, THE CASE FOR HEARD SO FAR, THE CASE FOR IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT BASED IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT BASED ON ROBERT MUELLER’S ON ROBERT MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION.

INVESTIGATION.

IT STANDS IN CONTRAST TO THE IT STANDS IN CONTRAST TO THE HAND RINGING AND E KWIFQUIVOCATE HAND RINGING AND E KWIFQUIVOCATE WE’VE SEEN ON CAPITOL HILL EVERY WE’VE SEEN ON CAPITOL HILL EVERY DAY.

DAY.

STARTING WITH THE REMARKS FROM STARTING WITH THE REMARKS FROM JERRY NADLER.

JERRY NADLER.

>> ARE YOU, MR.

CHAIRMAN, >> ARE YOU, MR.

CHAIRMAN, FEELING ANY PRESSURE FROM YOUR FEELING ANY PRESSURE FROM YOUR MEMBERS TO AT LEAST OPEN AN MEMBERS TO AT LEAST OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> IT MAY COME TO THAT.

>> IT MAY COME TO THAT.

IT MAY COME TO A FORMAL IT MAY COME TO A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WE’LL SEE.

WE’LL SEE.

>> IS THAT CLEAR? >> IS THAT CLEAR? JOINING OUR DISCUSSION, FORMER JOINING OUR DISCUSSION, FORMER PROSECUTOR, PAUL BUTLER.

PROSECUTOR, PAUL BUTLER.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT ELIZABETH WARREN SAW WHEN WHAT ELIZABETH WARREN SAW WHEN SHE CRACKED OPEN AND READ THE SHE CRACKED OPEN AND READ THE MUELLER REPORT AND WHAT NANCY MUELLER REPORT AND WHAT NANCY PELOSI AND JERRY NADLER SAW WHEN PELOSI AND JERRY NADLER SAW WHEN THEY OPENED THE MUELLER REPORT.

THEY OPENED THE MUELLER REPORT.

>> THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE IN WHAT >> THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THEY’RE SEEING, THE DIFFERENCE THEY’RE SEEING, THE DIFFERENCE IS WHAT THE REACTION IS.

IS WHAT THE REACTION IS.

SPEAKER PELOSI SAID HE TRIED TO SPEAKER PELOSI SAID HE TRIED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE SO SHE THINKS OBSTRUCT JUSTICE SO SHE THINKS HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

OFFENSES.

I THINK IF HER END GAME IS TO I THINK IF HER END GAME IS TO GET TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE, SHE GET TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE, SHE THINKS A POLITICAL ROUTE, THINKS A POLITICAL ROUTE, OUTSIDE OF IMPEACHMENT IS THE OUTSIDE OF IMPEACHMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT AND, INDEED, THAT IMPEACHING THE AND, INDEED, THAT IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT MIGHT GIN UP TRUMP’S PRESIDENT MIGHT GIN UP TRUMP’S BASE AND GET HIM RE-ELECTED, BASE AND GET HIM RE-ELECTED, WHICH WOULD BE COUNTER TO HER WHICH WOULD BE COUNTER TO HER ULTIMATE GOAL OF GETTING TRUMP ULTIMATE GOAL OF GETTING TRUMP OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> HEIDI, THIS IS HER GOAL.

>> HEIDI, THIS IS HER GOAL.

POLITICO, PELOSI TELLS DEMS SHE POLITICO, PELOSI TELLS DEMS SHE WANTS TO SEE TRUMP IN PRISON, WANTS TO SEE TRUMP IN PRISON, NADLER PRESSED PELOSI TO ALLOW NADLER PRESSED PELOSI TO ALLOW HIS COMMITTEE TO LAUNCH HIS COMMITTEE TO LAUNCH IMPEACHMENT, ONLY TO BE IMPEACHMENT, ONLY TO BE DEFLECTED.

DEFLECTED.

QUOTE, I DON’T WANT TO SEE HIM QUOTE, I DON’T WANT TO SEE HIM IMPEACHED, I WANT TO SEE HIM IN IMPEACHED, I WANT TO SEE HIM IN PRISON.

PRISON.

INSTEAD OF IMPEACHMENT, SHE INSTEAD OF IMPEACHMENT, SHE WANTS TO SEE HIM PROSECUTED FOR WANTS TO SEE HIM PROSECUTED FOR HIS ALLEGED CRIMES, ACCORDING TO HIS ALLEGED CRIMES, ACCORDING TO SOURCES.

SOURCES.

I’M NOT UNSYMPATHETIC TO THE BOX I’M NOT UNSYMPATHETIC TO THE BOX SHE’S PUT HERSELF IN ON THIS SHE’S PUT HERSELF IN ON THIS QUESTION.

QUESTION.

BUT ONE, IN POLITICS WHEN YOU BUT ONE, IN POLITICS WHEN YOU PLAY PINBALL, WHEN YOU SAY I’M PLAY PINBALL, WHEN YOU SAY I’M GOING TO HIT HERE SO I LAND GOING TO HIT HERE SO I LAND HERE, YOU ALWAYS LOSE.

HERE, YOU ALWAYS LOSE.

AND TWO, I THINK ELIZABETH AND TWO, I THINK ELIZABETH WARREN HAS THIS RIGHT.

WARREN HAS THIS RIGHT.

POLITICS ARE TOUGH.

POLITICS ARE TOUGH.

POLITICS ARE REALLY TOUGH.

POLITICS ARE REALLY TOUGH.

BUT THERE IS SUCH CLARITY AMONG BUT THERE IS SUCH CLARITY AMONG THE VOTERS, AND WHEN YOU ACT THE VOTERS, AND WHEN YOU ACT LIKE YOU KNOW BETTER THAN YOUR LIKE YOU KNOW BETTER THAN YOUR VOTERS, THAT IS A LOSER AS WELL.

VOTERS, THAT IS A LOSER AS WELL.

>> AND THAT IS THE LOSING BATTLE >> AND THAT IS THE LOSING BATTLE POTENTIALLY THAT THEY’RE PLAYING POTENTIALLY THAT THEY’RE PLAYING HERE, NICOLE.

HERE, NICOLE.

IF YOU DRILL DOWN TO THE NUMBERS IF YOU DRILL DOWN TO THE NUMBERS IF THEY’RE MAKING THIS ABOUT IF THEY’RE MAKING THIS ABOUT PUBLIC POPULAR SUPPORT, THOSE PUBLIC POPULAR SUPPORT, THOSE NUMBERS ARE MOVING.

NUMBERS ARE MOVING.

IT’S UP TO 76% OF DEMOCRATS THAT IT’S UP TO 76% OF DEMOCRATS THAT WANT IMPEACHMENT.

WANT IMPEACHMENT.

WE’RE SEEING IN THE TOWN HALLS WE’RE SEEING IN THE TOWN HALLS NOT ONLY ARE THE NUMBERS HIGH, NOT ONLY ARE THE NUMBERS HIGH, BUT THERE’S INTENSITY TO IT.

BUT THERE’S INTENSITY TO IT.

BUT THOSE VOTERS SEE THE SAME BUT THOSE VOTERS SEE THE SAME THING THAT ELIZABETH WARREN IS THING THAT ELIZABETH WARREN IS ARTICULATEING IN A WAY WE’RE NOT ARTICULATEING IN A WAY WE’RE NOT SEEING ANYBODY IN LEADERSHIP SEEING ANYBODY IN LEADERSHIP ARTICULATE BECAUSE YES, THEY ARE ARTICULATE BECAUSE YES, THEY ARE SPOOKED BY HISTORY, THEY’RE VERY SPOOKED BY HISTORY, THEY’RE VERY SPOOKED BY THE FACT THIS WOULD SPOOKED BY THE FACT THIS WOULD BE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT BE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND THE PUBLIC CAN’T INQUIRY AND THE PUBLIC CAN’T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OPENING AN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OPENING AN INQUIRY AND ACTUAL IMPEACHMENT.

INQUIRY AND ACTUAL IMPEACHMENT.

AND SECONDLY, I DON’T THINK THIS AND SECONDLY, I DON’T THINK THIS GETS MENTIONED ENOUGH, SHE’S GETS MENTIONED ENOUGH, SHE’S SCARED IT WOULD FAIL IN THE SCARED IT WOULD FAIL IN THE HOUSE, SHE WOULDN’T HAVE THE HOUSE, SHE WOULDN’T HAVE THE VOTES TO IMPEACH AND THAT WOULD VOTES TO IMPEACH AND THAT WOULD BE EMBARRASSING.

BE EMBARRASSING.

SHE’S A SHREWD TACTICIAN AND SHE’S A SHREWD TACTICIAN AND KNOWS SHE DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES KNOWS SHE DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW.

HERE’S THE PROBLEM, THEY WANT TO HERE’S THE PROBLEM, THEY WANT TO HAVE THE HEARINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE HEARINGS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT WANT TO BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO IMPEACH.

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO IMPEACH.

THEY DON’T HAVE WITNESSES.

THEY DON’T HAVE WITNESSES.

THE FIRST WITNESS IS JOHN DEAN, THE FIRST WITNESS IS JOHN DEAN, GREAT VOICE BUT THE OPENING GREAT VOICE BUT THE OPENING SCENE IS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY SCENE IS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY FROM 40 YEARS AGO WITH FROM 40 YEARS AGO WITH WATERGATE.

WATERGATE.

>> THIS IS IMPORTANT.

>> THIS IS IMPORTANT.

PELOSI AND WARREN ARE SPEAKING PELOSI AND WARREN ARE SPEAKING TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.

TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.

THE PELOSI AUDIENCE IN THEORY IS THE PELOSI AUDIENCE IN THEORY IS THE MARGINAL SWING VOTER IN THE MARGINAL SWING VOTER IN 2020.

2020.

AND THE WARREN AUDIENCE IS THE AND THE WARREN AUDIENCE IS THE DEMOCRATIC VOTER IN — DEMOCRATIC VOTER IN — >> I’M NEITHER.

>> I’M NEITHER.

LET ME — THEY BOTH WORK FOR ALL LET ME — THEY BOTH WORK FOR ALL OF US.

OF US.

THEY’RE BOTH PUBLIC SERVANTS, THEY’RE BOTH PUBLIC SERVANTS, PAID BY TAX PAYERS.

PAID BY TAX PAYERS.

>> BUT SHE HAS NO DOWNSIDE, >> BUT SHE HAS NO DOWNSIDE, POLITICALLY, TO GOING IN THIS POLITICALLY, TO GOING IN THIS DIRECTION.

DIRECTION.

AND PELOSI DOES.

AND PELOSI DOES.

THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.

THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.

>> LET ME JUST PUSH BACK ON THE >> LET ME JUST PUSH BACK ON THE POLITICAL ANALYSIS.

POLITICAL ANALYSIS.

PELOSI HAS EVERYTHING RIDING ON PELOSI HAS EVERYTHING RIDING ON THIS.

THIS.

IF HE’S RE-ELECTED AND SHE IF HE’S RE-ELECTED AND SHE DIDN’T IMPEACH BECAUSE SHE WAS DIDN’T IMPEACH BECAUSE SHE WAS SCARED OF THE POLITICS, THEN SCARED OF THE POLITICS, THEN WHAT? WHAT? THEN HOW? THEN HOW? THEN WHY? THEN WHY? AND ELIZABETH WARREN IS RUNNING AND ELIZABETH WARREN IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WITH 700 PEOPLE, FOR PRESIDENT WITH 700 PEOPLE, SHE’S STAKING HER PRESIDENCY ON SHE’S STAKING HER PRESIDENCY ON HER CLARITY IF X AND Y, HE HER CLARITY IF X AND Y, HE COMMITTED CRIMES AND ROBERT COMMITTED CRIMES AND ROBERT MUELLER FOUND THEM AND SAID HE MUELLER FOUND THEM AND SAID HE DIDN’T NOT COMMIT CRIMES, THEN DIDN’T NOT COMMIT CRIMES, THEN WHY YOU IMPEACH.

WHY YOU IMPEACH.

>> IF I CAN JUMP IN.

>> IF I CAN JUMP IN.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> IF TRUMP IS ELECTED THEN >> IF TRUMP IS ELECTED THEN SPEAKER PELOSI DOESN’T GET HER SPEAKER PELOSI DOESN’T GET HER DREAM OF PROSECUTION EITHER.

DREAM OF PROSECUTION EITHER.

THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS FIVE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS FIVE YEARS.

YEARS.

IF TRUMP IS RE-ELECTED, THE IF TRUMP IS RE-ELECTED, THE EARLIEST HE COULD PROSECUTED EARLIEST HE COULD PROSECUTED WOULD BE 2025, TWO YEARS TOO WOULD BE 2025, TWO YEARS TOO LATE UNDER THE STATUTE.

LATE UNDER THE STATUTE.

>> TO BOTH OF YOUR POINTS ABOUT >> TO BOTH OF YOUR POINTS ABOUT THE PUBLIC OPINION.

THE PUBLIC OPINION.

THIS IS THE KIND OF EVIDENCE, WE THIS IS THE KIND OF EVIDENCE, WE HAVE THIS BREAKING IN THE LAST HAVE THIS BREAKING IN THE LAST HOUR.

HOUR.

WE’LL HEAR A TAPE, PROBABLY IN WE’LL HEAR A TAPE, PROBABLY IN OUR HOUR, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT OUR HOUR, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT WILL SAY.

WILL SAY.

THIS IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF A THIS IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF A TAPE.

TAPE.

IT WAS A PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE IT WAS A PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER LAWYER IN THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER LAWYER IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, JOHN MUELLER INVESTIGATION, JOHN DOWD, IT WAS A VOICE MAIL THAT DOWD, IT WAS A VOICE MAIL THAT HE LEFT ON THE CELL PHONE OR HE LEFT ON THE CELL PHONE OR LAND LAND LANDLINE FOR MIKE FLYNN’S LANDLINE FOR MIKE FLYNN’S LAWYER.

LAWYER.

IT SOUNDED LIKE DANGLING A IT SOUNDED LIKE DANGLING A PARDON OR TRYING TO INFLUENCE PARDON OR TRYING TO INFLUENCE TESTIMONY, WE’LL ASK PAUL BUTLER TESTIMONY, WE’LL ASK PAUL BUTLER IF I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

IF I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

LET ME READ YOU THE TRANSCRIPT LET ME READ YOU THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT WE’LL HEAR HOPEFULLY IN OF WHAT WE’LL HEAR HOPEFULLY IN THIS HOUR.

THIS HOUR.

THIS IS A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO IS THIS IS A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO IS OVERSEEING MIKE FLYNN’S OVERSEEING MIKE FLYNN’S SENTENCING, MIKE FLYNN HASN’T SENTENCING, MIKE FLYNN HASN’T BEEN SENTENCED, THE PRESIDENT’S BEEN SENTENCED, THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO LIED TO THE FBI ABOUT WHO LIED TO THE FBI ABOUT CONVERSATIONS AND CONTACTS WITH CONVERSATIONS AND CONTACTS WITH FORMER RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR SERGEY FORMER RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR SERGEY KISLYAK, HE WAS — THIS PHONE KISLYAK, HE WAS — THIS PHONE CALL, THIS VOICEMAIL WAS LEFT CALL, THIS VOICEMAIL WAS LEFT FOR HIS LAWYER.

FOR HIS LAWYER.

ROB, THIS IS JOHN AGAIN, THAT’S ROB, THIS IS JOHN AGAIN, THAT’S JOHN DOWD, I’M SYMPATHETIC, I JOHN DOWD, I’M SYMPATHETIC, I UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION BUT UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN’T STATE IT LET ME SEE IF I CAN’T STATE IT IN STARKER TERMS.

IN STARKER TERMS.

IT WOULDN’T SURPRISE ME IF YOU’D IT WOULDN’T SURPRISE ME IF YOU’D GONE ON TO MAKE A DEAL WITH THE GONE ON TO MAKE A DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNMENT.

IF THERE’S INFORMATION THAT IF THERE’S INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT WE HAVE IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE SO, A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE SO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED SOME KINDS OF YOU KNOW, WE NEED SOME KINDS OF HEADS UP JUST FOR THE SAKE OF HEADS UP JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING ALL OF OUR INTERESTS PROTECTING ALL OF OUR INTERESTS IF WE CAN.

IF WE CAN.

REMEMBER WHAT WE ALWAYS SAID REMEMBER WHAT WE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FEELINGS TOWARD FLYNN, AND THAT FEELINGS TOWARD FLYNN, AND THAT STILL REMAINS.

STILL REMAINS.

BUT WELL, IN ANY EVENT UM, LET BUT WELL, IN ANY EVENT UM, LET ME KNOW AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ME KNOW AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LISTENING AND TAKING THE TIME.

LISTENING AND TAKING THE TIME.

THANKS, PAL.

THANKS, PAL.

AGAIN, WE WILL HEAR THIS AUDIO, AGAIN, WE WILL HEAR THIS AUDIO, MAYBE IN THE HOUR, MAYBE LATER MAYBE IN THE HOUR, MAYBE LATER TODAY.

TODAY.

IT IS A VOICEMAIL LEFT FROM THE IT IS A VOICEMAIL LEFT FROM THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL CRIMINAL PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL CRIMINAL LAWYER IN THE RUSSIA LAWYER IN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, JOHN DOWD, IT’S INVESTIGATION, JOHN DOWD, IT’S CITED IN THE MUELLER REPORT, THE CITED IN THE MUELLER REPORT, THE TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED LAST TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED LAST WEEK, THE AUDIO HAS BEEN ORDERED WEEK, THE AUDIO HAS BEEN ORDERED RELEASED, IT HAS BEEN RELEASED RELEASED, IT HAS BEEN RELEASED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE IN THE MIKE BY A FEDERAL JUDGE IN THE MIKE FLYNN SENTENCING.

FLYNN SENTENCING.

IT IS THE KIND OF EVIDENCE, PAUL IT IS THE KIND OF EVIDENCE, PAUL BUTLER THAT COULD DO WHAT HEIDI BUTLER THAT COULD DO WHAT HEIDI AND NICK ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND NICK ARE TALKING ABOUT, BEGIN TO SHIFT PUBLIC OPINION BEGIN TO SHIFT PUBLIC OPINION AND MAKE THE PUBLIC REALLY TAKE AND MAKE THE PUBLIC REALLY TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT TRUMP AND THE A SECOND LOOK AT TRUMP AND THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM WHO SEEM TO PEOPLE AROUND HIM WHO SEEM TO SOUND LIKE AND ACT LIKE SOUND LIKE AND ACT LIKE MOBSTERS.

MOBSTERS.

>> EXACTLY RIGHT, NICOLE.

>> EXACTLY RIGHT, NICOLE.

TWO THINGS REAL QUICK.

TWO THINGS REAL QUICK.

FIRST HEARING IT WILL PACK A FIRST HEARING IT WILL PACK A PUNCH THAT READING IT DOESN’T.

PUNCH THAT READING IT DOESN’T.

WHICH IS WHY IT’S SO IMPORTANT WHICH IS WHY IT’S SO IMPORTANT FOR THE HOUSE TO HAUL ROBERT FOR THE HOUSE TO HAUL ROBERT MUELLER AND OTHER WITNESSES IN, MUELLER AND OTHER WITNESSES IN, EVEN IF THEY JUST READ THE EVEN IF THEY JUST READ THE MUELLER REPORT, THAT WOULD HAVE MUELLER REPORT, THAT WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT IMPACT HEARING IT.

A DIFFERENT IMPACT HEARING IT.

THE OTHER THING IS, THIS IS THE OTHER THING IS, THIS IS WITNESS TAMPERING.

WITNESS TAMPERING.

THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER IS SAYING THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER IS SAYING IF MICHAEL FLYNN TELLS THE IF MICHAEL FLYNN TELLS THE TRUTH, THAT’S A THREAT TO TRUTH, THAT’S A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY WHEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY WHEN THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

IF MICHAEL FLYNN LIED ABOUT HIS IF MICHAEL FLYNN LIED ABOUT HIS CONTACTS WITH THE RUSSIANS, CONTACTS WITH THE RUSSIANS, THAT’S THE THREAT TO NATIONAL THAT’S THE THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

SECURITY.

ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE IN TRUMP’S WORLD PUTTING PEOPLE IN TRUMP’S WORLD PUTTING TRUMP’S INTERESTS OVER THE TRUMP’S INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> WE JUST GOT THAT AUDIO.

>> WE JUST GOT THAT AUDIO.

LET’S TAKE A LISTEN.

LET’S TAKE A LISTEN.

THIS IS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER THIS IS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER LEAVING A VOICEMAIL FOR MIKE LEAVING A VOICEMAIL FOR MIKE FLYNN’S LAWYER.

FLYNN’S LAWYER.

HERE IT IS.

HERE IT IS.

>> HEY, ROB, UM, THIS IS JOHN >> HEY, ROB, UM, THIS IS JOHN AGAIN.

AGAIN.

UM, MAYBE I — I — I’M UM, MAYBE I — I — I’M SYMPATHETIC, I UNDERSTAND YOUR SYMPATHETIC, I UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION, BUT LET ME SEE IF I SITUATION, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN’T STATE IT IN STARKER TERMS.

CAN’T STATE IT IN STARKER TERMS.

IF YOU HAVE — IT WOULDN’T IF YOU HAVE — IT WOULDN’T SURPRISE ME IF YOU’VE GONE ON TO SURPRISE ME IF YOU’VE GONE ON TO MAKE A DEAL WITH AND — UH, WITH MAKE A DEAL WITH AND — UH, WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

THE GOVERNMENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN’T I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN’T JOIN.

JOIN.

IF ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE’S IF ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE’S INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT, THEN WE’VE GOT A PRESIDENT, THEN WE’VE GOT A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, OR NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, OR MAYBE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, MAYBE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, I DON’T KNOW.

I DON’T KNOW.

SOME ISSUE WE’VE GOT TO DEAL SOME ISSUE WE’VE GOT TO DEAL WITH.

WITH.

NOT ONLY FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT NOT ONLY FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT FOR THE COUNTRY.

FOR THE COUNTRY.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN — THEN, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN — THEN, THEN WE NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS THEN WE NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS UP.

UP.

UM, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF UM, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING ALL INTERESTS, IF WE PROTECTING ALL INTERESTS, IF WE CAN, WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO GIVE CAN, WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO GIVE UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

SO, UM — AND IF IT’S THE SO, UM — AND IF IT’S THE FORMER, THEN, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER FORMER, THEN, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT THE WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FEELINGS PRESIDENT AND HIS FEELINGS TOWARD FLYNN.

TOWARD FLYNN.

THAT STILL REMAINS.

THAT STILL REMAINS.

BUT WELL, IN ANY EVENT, UH, LET BUT WELL, IN ANY EVENT, UH, LET ME KNOW AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ME KNOW AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LISTENING AND TAKING THE TIME.

LISTENING AND TAKING THE TIME.

THANKS, PAL.

THANKS, PAL.

>> LET ME RESET AND WE CAN PLAY >> LET ME RESET AND WE CAN PLAY THAT AGAIN.

THAT AGAIN.

WE ARE HEARING FOR THE VERY WE ARE HEARING FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, A PHONE CALL FIRST TIME, A PHONE CALL SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR ROBERT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR ROBERT MUELLER TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED MUELLER TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN HIS REPORT, THE SECOND IN HIS REPORT, THE SECOND VOLUME, THE OBSTRUCTION REPORT, VOLUME, THE OBSTRUCTION REPORT, THIS WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WAS THIS WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WAS SCRUTINIZED AS PART OF THE SCRUTINIZED AS PART OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATION.

INVESTIGATION.

LISTENING TO IT I THINK IT’S LISTENING TO IT I THINK IT’S CLEAR WHY.

CLEAR WHY.

PAUL BUTLER, I HEARD ECHOS OF PAUL BUTLER, I HEARD ECHOS OF YOU KNOW HOW THE PRESIDENT FEELS YOU KNOW HOW THE PRESIDENT FEELS ABOUT YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT THE ABOUT YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT DO, HE MIGHT PRESIDENT MIGHT DO, HE MIGHT TAKE CARE OF YOU, AND I WANT TO TAKE CARE OF YOU, AND I WANT TO KNOW, I WANT A HEADS UP, NOT KNOW, I WANT A HEADS UP, NOT JUST FOR THE PRESIDENT, BUT FOR JUST FOR THE PRESIDENT, BUT FOR THE COUNTRY.

THE COUNTRY.

WHAT DID YOU HEAR AS A FORMER WHAT DID YOU HEAR AS A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR? FEDERAL PROSECUTOR? >> I HEARD A FEDERAL CRIME.

>> I HEARD A FEDERAL CRIME.

I HEARD OBSTRUCTION, WITNESS I HEARD OBSTRUCTION, WITNESS TAMPERING.

TAMPERING.

THE QUESTION IS, WHO PUT JOHN THE QUESTION IS, WHO PUT JOHN DOWD UP TO THIS? DOWD UP TO THIS? HOW MUCH WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP HOW MUCH WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP INVOLVED IN THIS? INVOLVED IN THIS? AND NICOLE, THIS IS SMOKING GUN AND NICOLE, THIS IS SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCE.

AND WITNESS TAMPERING AND AND WITNESS TAMPERING AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASES, YOU RARELY GET IT ON TAPE.

YOU RARELY GET IT ON TAPE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MUELLER ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MUELLER SAID IS THAT ONE REASON HE SAID IS THAT ONE REASON HE WASN’T ABLE TO GO FURTHER WITH WASN’T ABLE TO GO FURTHER WITH OBSTRUCTION, IN ADDITION TO THE OBSTRUCTION, IN ADDITION TO THE DOJ POLICY, IS THAT TRUMP’S DOJ POLICY, IS THAT TRUMP’S ANSWERS TO THOSE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THOSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS WERE WORTHLESS, THERE STATEMENTS WERE WORTHLESS, THERE WERE THINGS HE WOULDN’T TALK WERE THINGS HE WOULDN’T TALK ABOUT AND THAT HE WAS EVASIVE ON ABOUT AND THAT HE WAS EVASIVE ON OTHERS.

OTHERS.

I REALLY WISH THAT MUELLER HAD I REALLY WISH THAT MUELLER HAD HAULED TRUMP INTO SOME OFFICE HAULED TRUMP INTO SOME OFFICE AND MADE HIM ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AND MADE HIM ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> LET ME PUT A FEW MORE FACTS >> LET ME PUT A FEW MORE FACTS OUT THERE AND LET ME ASK A FEW OUT THERE AND LET ME ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

MORE QUESTIONS.

THIS WAS A PERIOD WHERE ONCE THIS WAS A PERIOD WHERE ONCE MIKE FLYNN PLEADED GUILTY, THE MIKE FLYNN PLEADED GUILTY, THE JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT WAS TORN JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT WAS TORN UP, RIGHT? UP, RIGHT? SO THEY NO LONGER HAD SHARED SO THEY NO LONGER HAD SHARED LEGAL INTEREST, THIS CALL WAS LEGAL INTEREST, THIS CALL WAS INAPPROPRIATE ON EVERY LEVEL, INAPPROPRIATE ON EVERY LEVEL, RIGHT, NICK? RIGHT, NICK? >> IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK OF >> IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK OF FLYNN’S LAWYER HAVING THAT FLYNN’S LAWYER HAVING THAT VOICEMAIL AND LISTENING TO IT, VOICEMAIL AND LISTENING TO IT, AND WHAT WAS HE THINKING WHEN HE AND WHAT WAS HE THINKING WHEN HE LISTENED TO THAT VOICEMAIL AND LISTENED TO THAT VOICEMAIL AND THE FACT THAT IT NOW EXISTS FOR THE FACT THAT IT NOW EXISTS FOR ALL OF US? ALL OF US? THAT VOICEMAIL WAS ALMOST TRUMPY THAT VOICEMAIL WAS ALMOST TRUMPY IN THE SENSE IT WAS A MENACING IN THE SENSE IT WAS A MENACING WORD SALAD.

WORD SALAD.

THERE AREN’T A LOT OF GREAT THERE AREN’T A LOT OF GREAT SOUND BITES OUT OF THERE.

SOUND BITES OUT OF THERE.

>> NO, THERE ARE NOT.

>> NO, THERE ARE NOT.

>> BUT IT DOES PAINT THE PICTURE >> BUT IT DOES PAINT THE PICTURE THAT IRSAYING, NICOLE, WHICH IS THAT IRSAYING, NICOLE, WHICH IS TO SAY HE’S CLOAKING THE TO SAY HE’S CLOAKING THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL INTEREST IN PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL INTEREST IN AN AURA OF NATIONAL INTEREST.

AN AURA OF NATIONAL INTEREST.

HE’S SAYING DO US A SOLID, TELL HE’S SAYING DO US A SOLID, TELL US WHAT’S HAPPENING, WORK WITH US WHAT’S HAPPENING, WORK WITH US, AND MAYBE WE CAN TREAT YOU US, AND MAYBE WE CAN TREAT YOU WELL.

WELL.

>> IT’S IN LINE FROM THE >> IT’S IN LINE FROM THE REPORTING FROM YOUR NEWS REPORTING FROM YOUR NEWS ORGANIZATION AND YOURS AROUND ORGANIZATION AND YOURS AROUND ESPECIALLY THE OBSTRUCTION ESPECIALLY THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS THAT THE INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS DIDN’T KNOW PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING AND THEY GOT ALL THEIR ANYTHING AND THEY GOT ALL THEIR INFORMATION FROM THE WITNESSES INFORMATION FROM THE WITNESSES GOING IN AND BEING INTERVIEWED GOING IN AND BEING INTERVIEWED BY ROBERT MUELLER’S PROSECUTORS.

BY ROBERT MUELLER’S PROSECUTORS.

>> THAT’S THE ONLY WAY THEY >> THAT’S THE ONLY WAY THEY FOUND OUT ANYTHING.

FOUND OUT ANYTHING.

THEY HAD NO IDEA.

THEY HAD NO IDEA.

THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THEY WERE TRYING TO GET INFORMATION.

INFORMATION.

THE PART AT THE END IS JUST THE PART AT THE END IS JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, MIKE, REMEMBER LIKE, YOU KNOW, MIKE, REMEMBER THE BOSS REALLY THINKS A LOT OF THE BOSS REALLY THINKS A LOT OF HIM.

HIM.

IT’S OUT OF A MOB MOVIE.

IT’S OUT OF A MOB MOVIE.

>> LIKE A BAD ONE.

>> LIKE A BAD ONE.

>> A BAD MOB MOVIE, YEAH.

>> A BAD MOB MOVIE, YEAH.

SO ONCE AGAIN, IT’S NOT A SO ONCE AGAIN, IT’S NOT A QUESTION OF THE EVIDENCE NOT QUESTION OF THE EVIDENCE NOT BEING THERE.

BEING THERE.

IT IS STRIKING AND IT MAKES A IT IS STRIKING AND IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO HEAR IT.

DIFFERENCE TO HEAR IT.

BUT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

BUT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS, DOES SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS, DOES THE HOUSE GO FORWARD AND, AS THE HOUSE GO FORWARD AND, AS NICK SAID, NANCY PELOSI HAS TWO NICK SAID, NANCY PELOSI HAS TWO THINGS SHE’S THINKING ABOUT, THINGS SHE’S THINKING ABOUT, SHE’S THINKING ABOUT HER HOUSE SHE’S THINKING ABOUT HER HOUSE MAJORITY AND SHE’S THINKING MAJORITY AND SHE’S THINKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF DONALD ABOUT GETTING RID OF DONALD TRUMP, I’M NOT SURE THOSE ARE IN TRUMP, I’M NOT SURE THOSE ARE IN CONFLICT, SHE THINKS THOSE ARE CONFLICT, SHE THINKS THOSE ARE IN CONFLICT POTENTIALLY.

IN CONFLICT POTENTIALLY.

>> LET ME COME BACK TO YOU ABOUT >> LET ME COME BACK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WHAT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING MEANS.

MEANS.

WE HAD JIM COMEY BEFORE THE WE HAD JIM COMEY BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BEGAN, WE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BEGAN, WE ONLY LEARNED THIS AFTER HE WROTE ONLY LEARNED THIS AFTER HE WROTE HIS BOOK AND WAS DOING HIS BOOK AND WAS DOING INTERVIEWS, HE HAD THE FIRST INTERVIEWS, HE HAD THE FIRST MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE THE RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ELECTION.

ELECTION.

YOU COULD — I WOULD ARGUE THE YOU COULD — I WOULD ARGUE THE POLITICS ARE THE WRONG PLACE TO POLITICS ARE THE WRONG PLACE TO FOCUS.

FOCUS.

THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ACT LIKE THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ACT LIKE BAD MOBSTERS.

BAD MOBSTERS.

>> THIS TOOK ME BACK TO BEING IN >> THIS TOOK ME BACK TO BEING IN THE HEARING ROOM WITH MICHAEL THE HEARING ROOM WITH MICHAEL COHEN.

COHEN.

WHO SAID THIS IS EXACTLY HOW WHO SAID THIS IS EXACTLY HOW TRUMP TALKS P.

TRUMP TALKS P.

HE DOESN’T TELL YOU TO LIE, HE HE DOESN’T TELL YOU TO LIE, HE SUGGESTS YOU LIE AND HE MAKES A SUGGESTS YOU LIE AND HE MAKES A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS AND LOT OF SUGGESTIONS AND INFERENCES.

INFERENCES.

THE REASON THIS IS SO THE REASON THIS IS SO SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE THIS SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE THIS BRINGS US BACK TO SQUARE ONE OF BRINGS US BACK TO SQUARE ONE OF THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION AND THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION AND THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSY, WHICH THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSY, WHICH WAS THE PRESIDENT ASKING JIM WAS THE PRESIDENT ASKING JIM COMEY TO GO EASY ON MICHAEL COMEY TO GO EASY ON MICHAEL FLYNN BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT FLYNN BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT MICHAEL FLYNN KNOWS SOMETHING.

MICHAEL FLYNN KNOWS SOMETHING.

>> RIGHT.

>> RIGHT.

>> AND HE NEEDED TO PROTECT >> AND HE NEEDED TO PROTECT MICHAEL FLYNN.

MICHAEL FLYNN.

AND THEN FIRING JAMES COMEY AT AND THEN FIRING JAMES COMEY AT THE END OF IT ALL, AND THAT’S THE END OF IT ALL, AND THAT’S WHAT LAUNCHED THIS WHOLE WHAT LAUNCHED THIS WHOLE INVESTIGATION.

INVESTIGATION.

THE THING THAT WE STILL DON’T THE THING THAT WE STILL DON’T HAVE AN ANSWER TO, WHICH SHOWS HAVE AN ANSWER TO, WHICH SHOWS WHETHER THERE WAS A REWARD TO WHETHER THERE WAS A REWARD TO THE RUSSIANS IS WHAT MICHAEL THE RUSSIANS IS WHAT MICHAEL FLYNN KNOWS ABOUT WHAT THE FLYNN KNOWS ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW IN TERMS OF PRESIDENT KNEW IN TERMS OF HUSBAND CONVERSATIONS HIS HUSBAND CONVERSATIONS HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS ABOUT THE SANCTIONS.

ABOUT THE SANCTIONS.

SO EVEN IF THERE IS NO SO EVEN IF THERE IS NO UNDERLYING CONSPIRACY, CRIME, UNDERLYING CONSPIRACY, CRIME, MICHAEL FLYNN KNOWS, IF THE MICHAEL FLYNN KNOWS, IF THE PRESIDENT AFTER HE WELCOMED THIS PRESIDENT AFTER HE WELCOMED THIS SUPPORT, USED IT TO GREAT EFFECT SUPPORT, USED IT TO GREAT EFFECT IN HIS COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY, IN HIS COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY, BUILT HIS STRATEGY AROUND IT, BUILT HIS STRATEGY AROUND IT, AROUND WIKILEAKS AND THEN SOUGHT AROUND WIKILEAKS AND THEN SOUGHT TO REWARD THE RUSSIANS, MICHAEL TO REWARD THE RUSSIANS, MICHAEL FLYNN KNOWS THAT.

FLYNN KNOWS THAT.

>> I WANT TO PLAY IT ONE MORE >> I WANT TO PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME AND THEN GET INTO IT WITH TIME AND THEN GET INTO IT WITH YOU.

YOU.

WHAT MICHAEL FLYNN IS BEING WHAT MICHAEL FLYNN IS BEING SENTENCED FOR, THE REASON THIS SENTENCED FOR, THE REASON THIS FEDERAL JUDGE RELEASED THIS FEDERAL JUDGE RELEASED THIS AUDIO TODAY IS BECAUSE MICHAEL AUDIO TODAY IS BECAUSE MICHAEL FLYNN IS AWAITING SENTENCING FOR FLYNN IS AWAITING SENTENCING FOR LYING TO THE FBI ABOUT WHAT LYING TO THE FBI ABOUT WHAT HEIDI JUST DESCRIBED A HEIDI JUST DESCRIBED A CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR SERGEY KISLYAK ABOUT AMBASSADOR SERGEY KISLYAK ABOUT SANCTIONS AND OTHER TOPICS.

SANCTIONS AND OTHER TOPICS.

WE NEVER LEARNED.

WE NEVER LEARNED.

WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHY ALL THE WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHY ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT TOLD PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT TOLD SO MANY LIES ABOUT SO MANY SO MANY LIES ABOUT SO MANY CONTACTS WITH SO MANY RUSSIANS.

CONTACTS WITH SO MANY RUSSIANS.

HERE’S THE PHONE CALL ONE MORE HERE’S THE PHONE CALL ONE MORE TIME BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT’S TIME BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CRIMINAL LAWYER WHO FORMER CRIMINAL LAWYER WHO REPRESENTED HIM IN THE RUSSIA REPRESENTED HIM IN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND A LAWYER FOR INVESTIGATION AND A LAWYER FOR MIKE FLYNN WHO AWAITS SENTENCING MIKE FLYNN WHO AWAITS SENTENCING FOR LYING TO THE FBI ABOUT FOR LYING TO THE FBI ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIANS.

CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIANS.

>> HEY, ROB, UM, THIS IS JOHN >> HEY, ROB, UM, THIS IS JOHN AGAIN.

AGAIN.

UH, MAYBE I — I — I — I’M UH, MAYBE I — I — I — I’M SYMPATHETIC AND I UNDERSTAND SYMPATHETIC AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION.

YOUR SITUATION.

BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN’T STATE BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN’T STATE IT IN STARKER TERMS.

IT IN STARKER TERMS.

IF YOU HAVE — IT WOULDN’T IF YOU HAVE — IT WOULDN’T SURPRISE ME IF YOU’D GONE ON TO SURPRISE ME IF YOU’D GONE ON TO MAKE A DEAL WITH — UH, WITH THE MAKE A DEAL WITH — UH, WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNMENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN’T I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN’T JOIN — IF ON THE OTHER HAND, JOIN — IF ON THE OTHER HAND, WELL, THERE’S INFORMATION THAT WELL, THERE’S INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT, THEN IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT, THEN WE’VE GOT A NATIONAL SECURITY WE’VE GOT A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, OR MAYBE A NATIONAL ISSUE, OR MAYBE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, I DON’T KNOW.

SECURITY ISSUE, I DON’T KNOW.

SOME ISSUE WE’VE GOT TO DEAL SOME ISSUE WE’VE GOT TO DEAL WITH.

WITH.

NOT ONLY FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT NOT ONLY FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT FOR THE COUNTRY.

FOR THE COUNTRY.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN — THEN SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN — THEN WE NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS UP.

WE NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS UP.

SO FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING SO FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING ALL — ALL INTERESTS IF WE CAN.

ALL — ALL INTERESTS IF WE CAN.

WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO GIVE UP WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO GIVE UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

SO, UM, AND, IF IT’S THE FORMER, SO, UM, AND, IF IT’S THE FORMER, THEN, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER WHAT THEN, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT THE WE’VE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FEELING TOWARD PRESIDENT AND HIS FEELING TOWARD FLYNN AND THAT STILL REMAINS.

FLYNN AND THAT STILL REMAINS.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, LET ME KNOW.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, LET ME KNOW.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LISTENING AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LISTENING AND TAKING THE TIME.

AND TAKING THE TIME.

THANKS, PAL.

THANKS, PAL.

>> JUST TWO THOUGHTS.

>> JUST TWO THOUGHTS.

NIXON WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY THE NIXON WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY THE TAPES.

TAPES.

NOT THE BRILLIANT REPORTING BY NOT THE BRILLIANT REPORTING BY WOODWARD AND BERN SEEN THE,STINE WOODWARD AND BERN SEEN THE,STINE BUT HE WAS BROUGHT DOWN WHEN THE BUT HE WAS BROUGHT DOWN WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARD THE TAPE.

PUBLIC HEARD THE TAPE.

THIS IS THE TAPE OF A LAWYER WHO THIS IS THE TAPE OF A LAWYER WHO WORKED FOR ONE PERSON, DONALD J.

WORKED FOR ONE PERSON, DONALD J.

TRUMP, WHO SAID IF THERE’S TRUMP, WHO SAID IF THERE’S INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT CAN’T PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT CAN’T BE IMPLICATED IN ANYTHING OTHER BE IMPLICATED IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CRIME.

THAN A CRIME.

THEN WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY THEN WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE SO YOU KNOW WE NEED A ISSUE SO YOU KNOW WE NEED A HEADS UP.

HEADS UP.

THAT IS AS PAUL BLER SAID, THAT IS AS PAUL BLER SAID, ASKING HIM TO COMMIT A CRIME FOR ASKING HIM TO COMMIT A CRIME FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING OUR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING OUR INTERESTS.

INTERESTS.

THEY NO LONGER HAD SHARED THEY NO LONGER HAD SHARED INTERESTS.

INTERESTS.

REMEMBER WHAT WE ALWAYS SAID REMEMBER WHAT WE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S FEELINGS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S FEELINGS TOWARDS FLYNN.

TOWARDS FLYNN.

THAT SEEMS TO BE SOME SORT OF THAT SEEMS TO BE SOME SORT OF BRIBE OR PROMISE OR DANGLING OF BRIBE OR PROMISE OR DANGLING OF A PARDON OR GOOD CONSEQUENCE IF A PARDON OR GOOD CONSEQUENCE IF HE DOESN’T IMPLICATE THE HE DOESN’T IMPLICATE THE PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT.

>> SO IF ROBERT MUELLER HEARD >> SO IF ROBERT MUELLER HEARD THIS, HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE THIS, HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE SAME — I SUSPECT HAD THE SAME SAME — I SUSPECT HAD THE SAME REACTION THAT PAUL BUTLER HAD.

REACTION THAT PAUL BUTLER HAD.

THIS IS WITNESS TAMPERING, IT’S THIS IS WITNESS TAMPERING, IT’S OBSTRUCTION, CLEARLY.

OBSTRUCTION, CLEARLY.

BUT MUELLER SAID, EXPLICITLY, BUT MUELLER SAID, EXPLICITLY, THAT HE WAS UNDER CERTAIN KIND THAT HE WAS UNDER CERTAIN KIND OF CONSTRAINTS, THAT HE COULD OF CONSTRAINTS, THAT HE COULD NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

AND IN SOME WAYS THAT MOMENT AND IN SOME WAYS THAT MOMENT WHEN DOWD MAKES THE CLAIM THAT WHEN DOWD MAKES THE CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT’S INTEREST IS IN THE PRESIDENT’S INTEREST IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL SECURITY ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS — INTERESTS — >> WITH THE NATION’S.

>> WITH THE NATION’S.

>> — THAT’S A VOICING OF A >> — THAT’S A VOICING OF A CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING OF CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING OF EXECUTIVE POWER.

EXECUTIVE POWER.

SO WE HAVE A SMOKING GUN.

SO WE HAVE A SMOKING GUN.

IF PAUL BUTLER REACTED TO IT IF PAUL BUTLER REACTED TO IT THAT WAY WE SHOULD PRESUME THAT WAY WE SHOULD PRESUME MUELLER REACTED TO IT IN THAT MUELLER REACTED TO IT IN THAT WAY.

WAY.

WHAT IS CONGRESS GOING TO DO? WHAT IS CONGRESS GOING TO DO? WE DON’T NEED POLITICIANS RIGHT WE DON’T NEED POLITICIANS RIGHT NOW.

NOW.

WE NEED STATESMEN AND WOMEN.

WE NEED STATESMEN AND WOMEN.

WE NEED FOLK TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED FOLK TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE VERY SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND THE VERY SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE — IS AT STAKE BALANCES ARE — IS AT STAKE HERE.

HERE.

SO WHAT WE’RE SEEING HERE IS SO WHAT WE’RE SEEING HERE IS WHAT MUELLER TOLD US.

WHAT MUELLER TOLD US.

IF I TOLD YOU, IF HE DIDN’T IF I TOLD YOU, IF HE DIDN’T COMMIT A CRIME, I WOULD HAVE COMMIT A CRIME, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU HE DIDN’T COMMIT A TOLD YOU HE DIDN’T COMMIT A CRIME.

CRIME.

>> DID ANYBODY GET THIS? >> DID ANYBODY GET THIS? >> MAYBE MUELLER SPEAKS IN TOO >> MAYBE MUELLER SPEAKS IN TOO PRECISE OF A LANGUAGE.

PRECISE OF A LANGUAGE.

MUELLER IS SAYING HE COMMITTED MUELLER IS SAYING HE COMMITTED CRIMES.

CRIMES.

>> YEAH.

>> YEAH.

>> HE COULD HAVE SAID HE HADN’T, >> HE COULD HAVE SAID HE HADN’T, HE WOULD HAVE.

HE WOULD HAVE.

>> HE SAID I CAN’T CHARGE HIM.

>> HE SAID I CAN’T CHARGE HIM.

SO HE LAID OUT A BLUEPRINT FOR SO HE LAID OUT A BLUEPRINT FOR CONGRESS TO DO SOMETHING.

CONGRESS TO DO SOMETHING.

INSTEAD OF CONGRESS INSTEAD OF CONGRESS UNDERSTANDING — I UNDERSTAND UNDERSTANDING — I UNDERSTAND THE BOX THAT NANCY PELOSI HAS THE BOX THAT NANCY PELOSI HAS PUT HERSELF IN.

PUT HERSELF IN.

I YOU UNDERSTAND THE POLITICS OF I YOU UNDERSTAND THE POLITICS OF IT.

IT.

BUT YOU TOOK AN OATH.

BUT YOU TOOK AN OATH.

BE A STATESPERSON, STEP ABOVE BE A STATESPERSON, STEP ABOVE IT.

IT.

RIGHT.

RIGHT.

AND DO WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO AND DO WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

DO.

THAT’S WHAT — AT THE END OF THE THAT’S WHAT — AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM DAY, YOU CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK.

AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK.

>> HERE’S THE OTHER PROBLEM.

>> HERE’S THE OTHER PROBLEM.

IF SHE LOSES ANYWAY, THEN WHAT IF SHE LOSES ANYWAY, THEN WHAT WAS IT ALL FOR? WAS IT ALL FOR? >> RIGHT.

>> RIGHT.

WHAT WAS IT ALL FOR? WHAT WAS IT ALL FOR? >> HERE’S THE THING FOR >> HERE’S THE THING FOR POLITICAL POWER, IT ONLY SLIPS POLITICAL POWER, IT ONLY SLIPS AWAY WHEN YOU GRIP IT TOO TIGHT.

AWAY WHEN YOU GRIP IT TOO TIGHT.

>> YOU WERE RIGHT HOW THE BANK >> YOU WERE RIGHT HOW THE BANK SHOT NEVER WORKS.

SHOT NEVER WORKS.

>> BELIEVE ME I WORKED FOR >> BELIEVE ME I WORKED FOR PEOPLE — PEOPLE — >> EXACTLY.

>> EXACTLY.

WHEEL GOES THIS WAY TO END UP — WHEEL GOES THIS WAY TO END UP — >> I’VE DONE IT.

>> I’VE DONE IT.

>> IT NEVER WORKS.

>> IT NEVER WORKS.

>> NEVER.

>> NEVER.

>> YOU END UP OFF THE RAILS.

>> YOU END UP OFF THE RAILS.

>> YOU END UP WITH SARAH PALIN.

>> YOU END UP WITH SARAH PALIN.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

BUT YOU BETTER GO STRAIGHT AT BUT YOU BETTER GO STRAIGHT AT IT.

IT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW — LOOK AT AND I THINK, YOU KNOW — LOOK AT WHAT — PEOPLE LOOK TO THE WHAT — PEOPLE LOOK TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND SAY, CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND SAY, WELL, REPUBLICANS — REPUBLICANS WELL, REPUBLICANS — REPUBLICANS WON THE NEXT ELECTION.

WON THE NEXT ELECTION.

>> HERE’S THE OTHER THING, BILL >> HERE’S THE OTHER THING, BILL CLINTON LIED ABOUT PERSONAL CLINTON LIED ABOUT PERSONAL CONDUCT.

CONDUCT.

>> YES.

>> YES.

>> BILL CLINTON WASN’T LYING >> BILL CLINTON WASN’T LYING ABOUT LIES ABOUT RUSSIA.

ABOUT LIES ABOUT RUSSIA.

PAUL BUTLER LET ME GIVE YOU THE PAUL BUTLER LET ME GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD.

LAST WORD.

BEFORE THIS GETS SOMEONE UP TOO BEFORE THIS GETS SOMEONE UP TOO MUCH, I GUESS ONE OF FOX’S MUCH, I GUESS ONE OF FOX’S ANCHORS IS IN A CEMETERY IN ANCHORS IS IN A CEMETERY IN FRANCE, BUT THE REST OF THEM FRANCE, BUT THE REST OF THEM WILL SEIZE UPON THIS, THIS IS WILL SEIZE UPON THIS, THIS IS NOT AT ALL REMOVED FROM DONALD NOT AT ALL REMOVED FROM DONALD J.

TRUMP.

J.

TRUMP.

THIS WAS HIS PERSONAL CRIMINAL THIS WAS HIS PERSONAL CRIMINAL LAWYER.

LAWYER.

THIS WAS SOMEONE WHO SPOKE FOR THIS WAS SOMEONE WHO SPOKE FOR HIM ON WHAT, FOR A VERY LONG HIM ON WHAT, FOR A VERY LONG TIME, WAS THE MOST URGENT TIME, WAS THE MOST URGENT PRIORITY FOR DONALD J.

TRUMP PRIORITY FOR DONALD J.

TRUMP STAYING OUT OF CRIMINAL TROUBLE.

STAYING OUT OF CRIMINAL TROUBLE.

THIS IS JOHN DOWD ON TAPE NOW THIS IS JOHN DOWD ON TAPE NOW RELEASED MAKING ALL SORTS OF RELEASED MAKING ALL SORTS OF CLAIMS AND COMMITMENTS TO A CLAIMS AND COMMITMENTS TO A LAWYER FOR A WITNESS IN THE LAWYER FOR A WITNESS IN THE CONSPIRACY INVESTIGATION AND THE CONSPIRACY INVESTIGATION AND THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION, MIKE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION, MIKE FLYNN.

FLYNN.

>> THIS IS DONALD TRUMP TRYING >> THIS IS DONALD TRUMP TRYING TO PROTECT A MAN WHO THE JUDGE TO PROTECT A MAN WHO THE JUDGE AT MICHAEL FLYNN’S SENTENCING AT MICHAEL FLYNN’S SENTENCING HEARING — REMEMBER, NICOLE, HE HEARING — REMEMBER, NICOLE, HE STOPPED THE HEARING AND SAID, I STOPPED THE HEARING AND SAID, I DON’T UNDERSTAND MICHAEL FLYNN, DON’T UNDERSTAND MICHAEL FLYNN, WHY YOU WEREN’T CHARGED WITH WHY YOU WEREN’T CHARGED WITH TREASON, WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE TREASON, WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE FROM MUELLER ABOUT WHY MUELLER FROM MUELLER ABOUT WHY MUELLER IS GIVING YOU A BREAK.

IS GIVING YOU A BREAK.

AND MUELLER SAID BECAUSE HE WAS AND MUELLER SAID BECAUSE HE WAS VERY HELPFUL TO THE VERY HELPFUL TO THE INVESTIGATION.

INVESTIGATION.

BUT THE FACT IS, MICHAEL FLYNN BUT THE FACT IS, MICHAEL FLYNN BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY AND NOW WE BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY AND NOW WE HEAR DONALD TRUMP’S CRIMINAL HEAR DONALD TRUMP’S CRIMINAL LAWYER SAYING, YO, THE LAWYER SAYING, YO, THE PRESIDENT’S GOT YOUR BACK.

PRESIDENT’S GOT YOUR BACK.

THE PRESIDENT’S GOT WARM.