>> He's the highest-ranking ex-member of the Trump White House to write a tell-all about the President, this week on "Firing Line."

>> Only question to the United States is, what's in our national interest?

>> Famous for being a foreign-policy hawk... >> Our goal should be regime change in Iran.

>> ...John Bolton says it was his television career... >> The Obama era for American foreign policy is clearly over.

>> ...that caught President Trump's attention... >> He's highly respected by everybody in this room.

>> ...landing him a job as President Trump's third national security advisor... >> I actually temper John, which is pretty amazing, isn't it?

>> ...by the President's side for 17 turbulent months, then out.

>> Sort of a sick guy.

There's something wrong with him.

>> He didn't say anything during impeachment.

What does Ambassador John Bolton say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Ambassador John Bolton, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Well, thanks for having me.

Glad to be here.

>> You were President Trump's third and so far longest-serving national security advisor, and now you are the highest-ranking former administration official to have published a book about your time in the Trump White House.

It's been now two weeks since your book "The Room Where It Happened" was released, and President Trump has called you "disgruntled, boring fool" and called your book "pure fiction."

Representative Adam Schiff said that you lacked the basic courage and patriotism, and Speaker Pelosi called the book "a substitute to testifying for Congress about the well-being of the American people."

Is this about what you expected?

>> It's about what I expected from both Donald Trump, whose reaction was as juvenile as it often is.

It demeans the office of the presidency.

And I really am not going to respond to it.

And, you know, as for Adam Schiff, if I had made as many mistakes as he and his colleagues did in the impeachment proceedings, I'd be looking for somebody else to blame, too.

>> Listen, I'd like to step back for people who may be not as familiar with your work.

Can you, for the audience, characterize your approach to American foreign policy?

>> Right.

Well, I've been involved in politics for a long time.

I fundamentally believe in the Reagan approach of peace through strength.

I've been a conservative Republican as long as I thought about political philosophy.

I was a conservative Republican when I went into the Trump administration.

I found he was not a conservative Republican, and I'm a conservative Republican today.

>> Your book, and I've read every word of it, illustrates a very detailed and a very damning portrait of the American President and his basic lack of knowledge and sense of geopolitics, basic geopolitics.

Did you take the job in the Trump administration in part believing that you could help educate President Trump and help, perhaps, lead him towards views closer to your own?

>> Well, I felt, and I try and lay out in the book the long march to the NSA job in the West Wing, which included a substantial number of conversations with Donald Trump where I went through what my views were.

And he told me many times how he had watched me on Fox News since I left the UN job, so I assumed that both in watching on Fox and in meetings that we had, he was listening to what I was saying and understood.

He offered me the job.

Nobody put a gun to his head.

And I accepted, and nobody put a gun to my head, either.

I think we both thought that it would work out, and I believe that much of what the criticism that had been voiced of Trump, it couldn't be that bad.

I guess that's the way I'd summarize it.

It couldn't be that bad, and the book, in many respects, is the recapitulation of how probably my assessment was not warranted.

>> I mean, do you think you were naive in estimating that you could help guide the President towards good policies?

>> Well, it's pretty rare that I'm called naive.

Maybe I should be complimented by that.

But, no, as I say, I didn't think that the criticisms that were voiced of his lack of attentiveness, his lack of interest in learning, his lack of philosophy, his lack of interest in policy -- I just didn't think it could be as true as it turned out to be.

But, you know, one of my conclusions is that Trump is not a conservative Republican.

Now, I don't mean by that to say he's a liberal Democrat.

He's not that, either.

He's nothing philosophically.

And I don't think that's good for the republic.

>> Well, it couldn't have come as a surprise to you when you took the job that he wasn't a conservative Republican.

I mean, he, unlike you, didn't spend his life steeped in the conservative movement.

He hadn't served in three Republican administrations.

Frankly, he'd been a Democrat.

And so you couldn't have been surprised that he didn't adhere to the conservative philosophy.

It strikes me from the outside that you believed there was an opportunity to influence him in a conservative direction.

>> Sure.

Look, no adviser comes in thinking that he or she is going to agree with the president 100% of the time.

That never happens.

And, in fact, you don't want that.

But during the campaign, and I said this in interviews on Fox and elsewhere, the speeches he gave, the prepared speeches that he gave did put him in the mainstream of Republican Party foreign-policy thinking.

And I thought that that kind of structure provided, in effect, a way that we could transform what was said in the campaign into serious policies going forward.

But I was disappointed over time that we couldn't have more consistency, more persistence in the pursuit of policies.

You can't have national security decisions made one morning, change that afternoon, and then change the next day.

You can't have a system where the last person in the room may be the most influential in the decision.

You can't have a foreign and defense policy based on gut instincts.

When it happens, you're going to cause risk and uncertainty for the country, and that is not a good thing.

>> When you say -- And you do detail in the book, the President had watched you on Fox News for years.

Everybody knows what your views were.

It was no secret.

But people really knew what President Trump's foreign-policy instincts were because, going back to 1987, when he took a full-page ad out in The New York Times arguing for isolation and against Ronald Reagan, I mean, we knew that he had instincts that were isolationist.

And you write that in your book, that on a very instinctual level, he wants to withdraw completely from Afghanistan, from South Korea, from Syria, from Iraq, even NATO.

And you suspect that "Taiwan is right near the top of the list of who President Trump will abandon next."

So how do you understand that instinct towards isolationism?

>> Well, when I began as national security advisor, I felt that surely, as Trump became more familiar with the circumstances and the facts and the strategic environment that we faced, that he would see the merits of the positions that I and plenty of others were advocating.

But it was the lack of interest in learning, the fact that he didn't pay much attention to the intelligence, that he didn't know much history, and that he didn't really seek to acquire new knowledge that prevented us from making progress.

Now, look, no president comes to office with all the knowledge that he needs.

It's a fact.

It's a huge job.

But the President didn't come with much background or history in international affairs, and he felt that he didn't really need to and that he didn't need the kind of learning process that other presidents engaged in.

I think that's a mistake.

I think if he had learned more history, he would have been better served.

>> I mean, you said you thought that he would come to see the merits of, you know, the point of view and the information that was laid out for him by you and others, and he didn't.

So it does sound like maybe -- I know you don't like to call yourself naive, but there was a little bit of naivety in terms of how this presidency could be shaped.

>> Well, or stubbornness on his part.

>> Look, there are some people who speculate that his instinctive isolationism actually comes from his instincts as a businessman, right, that he's constantly looking at the bottom line and he's looking at expenditures versus the amount that we're getting back, generating returns.

I mean, do you think there's something to that?

Does that help explain why he was instinctively isolationist, from your perspective?

>> Well, I don't think that's a philosophical basis.

Many people have described that approach as purely transactional, which is, I think, correct.

You know, I have to say, I don't know what grand strategy is for a Manhattan real-estate developer.

That's never been my job.

I don't have any aspirations to do it.

I suspect it's make money on this parcel of land and then make money on the next parcel of land, and, you know, some people are good at it, and God bless them.

But that's not how it works in international affairs.

And it's certainly entirely appropriate to say, for example, I think the members of NATO ought to spend more on our collective self-defense alliance, which they committed to do recently in 2014.

And Trump said, "Live up to your commitment that you voluntarily made to spend 2% of your GDP on defense."

I completely supported that but because I felt that that would help strengthen the NATO alliance.

The President's view was, "They either do it or I might get out of the NATO alliance."

It's 180 degrees the opposite approach.

>> Well, I mean, that gets me to one of your successes and one of your early successes, which you write about in the book, which is helping to convince President Trump not to pull out of NATO in July of 2018.

And it was actually the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing that was coming up that you said might be derailed should he pull out of NATO.

Does that typify -- I mean, did you feel after that experience that you kind of had the key to how to persuade President Trump in the right direction on foreign policy, by making political arguments?

>> Yeah, well, actually, it was Mike Pompeo who came up with that argument, and I think it turned out to be the right one, and it did become obvious that the ultimate argument was avoiding a revolt within the Republican Party.

>> You were the national security advisor in the United States, and you expressed interest at one point in also being secretary of state.

Of course, there is one person who held both of those jobs simultaneously, and that was Henry Kissinger.

Here is something Henry Kissinger said on this program with William F. Buckley Jr. in 1993.

Take a look.

>> Don't we need to begin by deserting the egalitarian myth that all countries are the same?

>> But there are some countries that give us a particular problem because they're a threat to the peace of the world and to our own security, such as -- or to the stability of the area, such as North Korea, such as Iran.

And there I want we would be prepared to take stronger and preemptive measures.

>> Does President Trump understand that basic idea?

>> No, I don't think he does, but I'm glad to see Henry Kissinger advocating preemption.

>> So one of the themes in your book is that President Trump is often more willing to negotiate with adversaries than our allies, right, that his conversations with President Macron and Justin Trudeau were far from amicable and that it was clear he didn't like Theresa May, prime minister of Great Britain.

But you also described the relationship he had with Kim Jong-un and President Erdogan as a "bromance."

Tell me, who is President Trump's favorite authoritarian leader?

>> Well, I think it's Xi Jinping, and that fills me with great concern.

If you watch, as I did, on any number of occasions, Donald Trump on the opposite side of the table from Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, it's not a fair fight.

They are extraordinarily focused, hardheaded, knowledgeable, experienced, and thoroughly ruthless.

So they see Donald Trump on the other side, and it's not a fair fight.

So if you're on the pro-American side, it's something to be worried about.

>> Why does he have a blind spot when it comes to authoritarian leaders?

>> You know, I can't explain it.

I'm not a shrink myself.

I'm not going to attempt to explain it in terms of his early years or that sort of thing.

I think in part, you know, he wants to be a big guy with the real big guys, and the big guys are Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.

Law enforcement systems, concern for trivial democratic constraints, it doesn't bother Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump doesn't want to be bothered by that sort of thing, either.

So big guys get together, and they talk about big-guy things, and it makes him feel like a big guy.

That's the best I can do.

I think it's a reflection of his shortsightedness and really his inability to appreciate or to care about the complexities of relations with adversaries like those.

>> Look, bullies only respect strength.

Do you think that President Trump believes that democracies like the United States of America are weak?

>> Yeah, I think he sees democratic leaders as fundamentally weaker, and I think he sees himself as somewhat different from other democratic leaders.

When you take a transactional approach to allies who don't seem to live up to your expectation, it seems to be easier to deal with the authoritarian leaders.

The presidency and national security policy are worlds apart from the business experience that he had.

And his unwillingness or inability to learn, to say, "You know, I'm in a new job here.

I'm dealing with a different league of people.

Xi Jinping is not another Manhattan real-estate dealer."

And that is the sort of thing that leaves him vulnerable to the view, for example, he expressed on Iran, that if he could sit down with the Ayatollah Khamenei or President Rouhani, they could wrap up a deal on the Iran nuclear program in a day.

So Donald Trump sitting down to negotiate with Vladimir Putin on strategic weapons has me greatly concerned if he's re-elected.

>> One other thing you say has you concerned if he's re-elected is the example of Taiwan, which is, of course, the outstanding example of Chinese democracy.

And you paint a very bleak picture for the future of Taiwan.

What could happen?

>> That's one of the reasons I don't want to see a second Trump term.

As I say in the book, he had picked up from somebody, he'd take up one of his famous Sharpie pens and he'd point to the end of it, and he'd say, "That point, that's Taiwan."

Then he'd point to the resolute desk, the huge desk in his office, and say, "That's China."

Well, number one, that comparison is not right.

Number two, Taiwan is an ally of the United States, a democracy, a force for stability in the region.

And we see now what happens when you dismiss people who actually aspire to govern themselves in Hong Kong, where today his rhetoric is tough because of the coronavirus pandemic and China's obvious culpability in allowing the disease to spread.

So rhetorically, he's tough on China because of what they're doing in Hong Kong.

He's tough on China rhetorically because of what they're doing to the Uyghurs in the concentration camps in Xinjiang.

But if he wins on November the 3rd, it's entirely possible the next day he'll call his buddy Xi Jinping and say, "Let's talk about the trade deal."

>> You just mentioned the Uyghurs, which to me was one of the most horrifying revelations in your book, that President Trump verbally condoned to Xi Jinping the continuation and construction of modern-day concentration camps for a Muslim minority, the Uyghurs.

What happens, Ambassador Bolton, when the President of the United States is so dismissive and, frankly, condones the decimation of human rights in an adversarial country like China?

>> Well, I think it's a signal that Xi Jinping can do what he wants.

And I'm sure that's exactly the way he took it.

Look, I don't think human rights is the only value in foreign policy by any stretch of the imagination.

It's often not even the most important value when you look at American strategic interests around the world.

It's part of who we are as a country, and you have to take that into account.

But the Trump approach is just to take it off the table and give the authoritarians a free pass.

And I think that's a big mistake because it signals to our friends that after having told them for decades, "You should aspire to be a market-oriented democratic society," we're basically now saying, "But actually we don't care that much."

>> Look, let me read you a statement.

This is a quote.

"The Russian government's goal is to weaken our country, to diminish American's global role, and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests."

Do you agree with that statement?

>> I think that's largely a statement of their perception, yeah.

>> Yeah.

So that was, of course -- You probably recognize the quote.

It was from Dr. Fiona Hill from her testimony from House impeachment hearings.

And she, of course, worked for you at the NSC.

What did you think about her decision to testify?

>> Well, I think she did what she thought was the right thing to do, and I agree that in her position, it was the right thing to do.

Others on the NSC staff also testified.

We've just learned that Alex Vindman, who was then Fiona's directorate, has retired from the military.

I think that's a great tragedy.

I think his lawyer has written a statement criticizing the President and the White House for bullying and intimidation.

This is not a question of the President's authority.

Of course the President runs the executive branch.

It's a question of judgment and his inability or unwillingness to see disagreement as being directed at something not at him personally, but at a desire people have to point the country's policy in the right direction.

It's part of his inability to distinguish between American national interests and Donald Trump's personal interests.

He sees them as fused together.

And I think that leads to things like the Ukraine scenario that was the subject of their testimony.

>> You said in a recent interview that President Trump is "dangerous enough that he shouldn't get a second term."

You've alluded to that in our conversation here.

"Dangerous" is a strong word.

What do you mean by "dangerous"?

>> I don't think he understands enough about international affairs to be able to recognize threats to America unless and until they have a direct impact on his personal political circumstances.

I think the damage that he's done in one term can be corrected.

I'm very confident in that.

I don't think we'll have any trouble bouncing back.

A second term, though, is what worries me because over time, his weaknesses vis-à-vis the authoritarian leaders who do represent our principal adversaries will enable them to play him in ways that it will be increasingly difficult to recover, and because if he's reelected, the constraint of having to keep that pesky Republican Party on side and to worry about the voters will be removed.

>> Does your portrait of him and estimation of him lead you to believe that he is unfit to serve a second term?

>> Yes, I think he is unfit.

I think two things -- he's not a conservative, and he's not competent enough to be president.

>> Do you think he's an existential threat?

>> You know, I don't like to use the word "existential" about Donald Trump.

I don't see it in that light.

I do think it's very important, speaking to someone who, for the first time in his adult life, is not gonna vote for a Republican nominee to be president, that Republicans keep a majority in the Senate.

>> It strikes me that when it comes to geopolitics, your approach, when responding to threats to the United States, is to respond with strength.

So what you're saying to me is that you don't want him reelected.

What else are you going to do to ensure that doesn't happen?

>> Well, I think I've laid this book before the American people.

There's a lot of criticism that I should have somehow done it in Congress, and I would say, if you can't talk about a president's competence and character in the middle of a presidential election, I don't know when you can talk about it.

And, really, at the real bottom, bottom line, is that the protectors of America are not Senators and members of the House of Representatives.

The real guardians of our liberty are the people.

The people are gonna make up their mind this November.

>> I mean, you say the President of the United States is a danger to the republic and he is unfit for office.

Is a book your best weapon to ensure that he doesn't remain president?

>> Well, I'm on TV as you can tell right now, and people can make up their minds about that as well.

>> There's a criticism of the book of course that is, if you deeply believed he was a danger and unfit, that the principled thing to do would be more than just write a book, that you perhaps joined the administration to further a world view that you have that when your influence ran out, you know, you left the job, and that you wrote a book that's full of anecdotes that helps sell a book to people who already don't like the President.

How do you respond to that criticism?

>> Well, if I were really concerned about financial issues, I never would have joined the government to begin with.

I think the best thing you can do is put the facts in front of people.

You cannot do that in tweets.

You can't do it in op-eds.

You can't do it in two-page statements.

I think a lot of people look at this as an exercise in virtue signaling.

I'm against Donald Trump.

Great.

So what?

The issue is, can you persuade other people, and the book, you know, is maybe of more interest to people on the left side of the spectrum, but I really wrote it thinking more about conservatives, to say don't misunderstand that when you get some things that you agree with that that reflects a philosophy that you'll see in a second term.

>> If you believe in responding to threats with strength and with force, are there any other ideas you have about how to respond to the threat the President poses to the United States?

>> Well, if you believe in our Constitutional system, then you have to believe that ultimately the repository of sovereignty, the defense of that system, the people for whom it's designed, we the people, can make up their minds and do the right thing.

If you think they're gonna make a mistake, then you look at alternatives like impeachment as the main effort.

I think the Democrats blew their opportunity.

We know how to conduct a bipartisan impeachment.

It happened in Watergate, but the Democrats this time made no effort to reach out to Republicans, and maybe they would have been unsuccessful.

They never tried.

They wanted a partisan inquiry in the House.

They got it.

And that produced a partisan inquiry and result in the Senate.

So now they've taken impeachment off the table themselves by their own malpractice, and it is down to a question of what the people decide.

>> You have been a movement conservative your entire life, and one of your laments is that President Trump is not a conservative.

How do you reflect on the current state of the Republican Party?

Which, you know, I certainly thought was a conservative party, and many people believe that people flock to the Republican banner because of the ideas behind it.

How do you reflect on that movement and its being overtaken by tribalism and Donald Trump?

>> I think on November the 4th, whether Trump wins or loses, we need to have a conversation about where the Republican Party is going.

I do not think that if Trump loses, it's a defeat for conservatism.

And I think if he wins, it's not a victory for conservatism.

It's all about Trump.

And my objective, beginning on November the 4th, will be to find a way to cut this albatross off from the neck of the Republican Party and allow us in victory or defeat to try and regain the principles that certainly attracted me to the party to begin with, because those principles don't change with differing social circumstances.

They are principles which last over time.

And they are worth fighting for.

I am not going to abandon the Republican Party because of Donald Trump.

I'm gonna stay in the Republican Party and fight for it.

>> Ambassador Bolton, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line."

>> Well, thanks so much for having me.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... and by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪