Lev Parnas Reacts To Reports Of Bolton Book Revelations, Expects More | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Lev Parnas Reacts To Reports Of Bolton Book Revelations, Expects More | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

February 2, 2020 100 By Kailee Schamberger


TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT UPON OUR A PROFOUND IMPACT UPON OUR COUNTRY IS IN A DEFENDANT’S BEST COUNTRY IS IN A DEFENDANT’S BEST INTEREST. INTEREST.>>AND YOU PUT OUT INFORMATION>>AND YOU PUT OUT INFORMATION ABOUT JOHN DOWD WHO IS THE ABOUT JOHN DOWD WHO IS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER IN THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER IN THE MUELLER PROBE WHO HAD MUELLER PROBE WHO HAD REPRESENTED MR. PARNAS. REPRESENTED MR. PARNAS. WHAT IS THE THRUST OF THAT? WHAT IS THE THRUST OF THAT? IS THERE AN ALLEGATION OF SOME IS THERE AN ALLEGATION OF SOME UNTOWARD LAWYERING ON BEHALF OF UNTOWARD LAWYERING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT THERE? THE PRESIDENT THERE?>>WELL WE PUT THAT OUT IN A>>WELL WE PUT THAT OUT IN A DOCUMENT THAT WE FILED EARLIER DOCUMENT THAT WE FILED EARLIER IN THE WEEK OR LAST WEEK EVEN IN THE WEEK OR LAST WEEK EVEN BECAUSE WE HAD A HEARING LAST BECAUSE WE HAD A HEARING LAST WEEK — YESTERDAY ON WHETHER WE WEEK — YESTERDAY ON WHETHER WE WOULD WAIVE THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT WOULD WAIVE THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE INAPPROPRIATELY AS TO PRIVILEGE INAPPROPRIATELY AS TO OTHER DEFENDANTS BY TURNING OVER OTHER DEFENDANTS BY TURNING OVER MATERIALS THAT WERE UNDER MATERIALS THAT WERE UNDER SUBPOENA IN CONGRESS THAT WE SUBPOENA IN CONGRESS THAT WE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING DIDN’T DO ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATELY. INAPPROPRIATELY. WE TRIED TO GET ALL OF THE WE TRIED TO GET ALL OF THE MATERIAL TO CONGRESS. MATERIAL TO CONGRESS. IN OUR SUBMISSION WE HAD AN IN OUR SUBMISSION WE HAD AN EMAIL DATED OCTOBER 8th, THE DAY EMAIL DATED OCTOBER 8th, THE DAY BEFORE LEV PARNAS WAS ARRESTED BEFORE LEV PARNAS WAS ARRESTED IN WHICH ONE OF THE PRESIDENT’S IN WHICH ONE OF THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS JOHN DOWD WHO CAME ON IN LAWYERS JOHN DOWD WHO CAME ON IN AND I THINK TO CIRCLE WAGONS AND AND I THINK TO CIRCLE WAGONS AND PUT A LID ON LEV, ESSENTIALLY PUT A LID ON LEV, ESSENTIALLY WAS APPRISING JAY SEKULOW AN THE WAS APPRISING JAY SEKULOW AN THE IMPEACHMENT TEAM AND JGRUDY IMPEACHMENT TEAM AND JGRUDY GIULIANI AND THAT LEV AND IGOR GIULIANI AND THAT LEV AND IGOR WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.>>SO YOU THINK HE WAS BEING A>>SO YOU THINK HE WAS BEING A BACK CHANNEL AND POTENTIALLY BACK CHANNEL AND POTENTIALLY COMPROMISE — COMPROMISE –>>THAT IS A BACK CHANNEL –>>THAT IS A BACK CHANNEL — THAT IS A BACK CHANNEL WHEN YOU THAT IS A BACK CHANNEL WHEN YOU SEND A COMMUNICATION ABOUT YOUR SEND A COMMUNICATION ABOUT YOUR CLIENT TO FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, CLIENT TO FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT DIN PEOPLE AND LETTING EIGHT DIN PEOPLE AND LETTING THEM KNOW THAT HE WOULD BE THEM KNOW THAT HE WOULD BE TOWING THE PRESIDENT’S LINE. TOWING THE PRESIDENT’S LINE.>>LET ME DO THAT BECAUSE MR.>>LET ME DO THAT BECAUSE MR. PARNAS, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PARNAS, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. HE IS ALSO A POTENTIAL PERSON IN HE IS ALSO A POTENTIAL PERSON IN THIS WHOLE SCHEME. THIS WHOLE SCHEME. YOUR LETTER, LEV, SAID YOU COULD YOUR LETTER, LEV, SAID YOU COULD TESTIFY ABOUT IT. TESTIFY ABOUT IT. I SHOULD NOTE DURING THE SENATE I SHOULD NOTE DURING THE SENATE TRIAL CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS TRIAL CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS SUGGESTING THERE WAS EXTRA SUGGESTING THERE WAS EXTRA MATERIAL FROM A PENCE AIDE AND MATERIAL FROM A PENCE AIDE AND THAT IT PERHAPS DIDN’T MATCH AND THAT IT PERHAPS DIDN’T MATCH AND THUS COULD CONTRADICT ONE OF THUS COULD CONTRADICT ONE OF DONALD TRUMP’S DEFENSE. DONALD TRUMP’S DEFENSE. WE SHOULD REMIND EVERYONE, WE WE SHOULD REMIND EVERYONE, WE DON’T KNOW BY DEFINITION WHAT DON’T KNOW BY DEFINITION WHAT WAS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL WAS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL. MATERIAL. CAN YOU SHED ANY LIGHT ON THAT CAN YOU SHED ANY LIGHT ON THAT AND THE ROLE OF PENCE AND WHAT AND THE ROLE OF PENCE AND WHAT WOULD YOUR SOURCES BE FOR THAT? WOULD YOUR SOURCES BE FOR THAT?>>FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT ALSO>>FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT ALSO COINCIDES WITH WHAT CAME OUT COINCIDES WITH WHAT CAME OUT TODAY IN ONE OF THE EXCERPTS OF TODAY IN ONE OF THE EXCERPTS OF BOLTON’S BOOK. BOLTON’S BOOK. I COULD DEFINITELY VALIDATE AND I COULD DEFINITELY VALIDATE AND BECAUSE RIGHT AFTER THAT MEETING BECAUSE RIGHT AFTER THAT MEETING THAT BOLTON HAD WITH RUDY, THAT BOLTON HAD WITH RUDY, MULVANEY, PAT CIPOLLONE AND THE MULVANEY, PAT CIPOLLONE AND THE PRESIDENT, I MET WITH RUDY RIGHT PRESIDENT, I MET WITH RUDY RIGHT AFTERWARDS AND I DISCUSSED THE AFTERWARDS AND I DISCUSSED THE WHOLE MEETING AND WAS AWARE OF WHOLE MEETING AND WAS AWARE OF IT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO — IT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO — THAT WAS THE TRIP IN MAY TO GO THAT WAS THE TRIP IN MAY TO GO TO UKRAINE. TO UKRAINE. AND IT WAS INTERESTING FOR ME TO AND IT WAS INTERESTING FOR ME TO FIND OUT TODAY THAT BOLTON NEVER FIND OUT TODAY THAT BOLTON NEVER MADE THE PHONE CALL. MADE THE PHONE CALL. BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOLTON DID MAKE IMPRESSION THAT BOLTON DID MAKE THE PHONE CALL BECAUSE I WAS THE PHONE CALL BECAUSE I WAS TOLD BY RUDY THAT BOLTON WOULD TOLD BY RUDY THAT BOLTON WOULD MAKE THE CALL AND THAT IS WHY MAKE THE CALL AND THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING WOULD WITH BE FINE EVERYTHING WOULD WITH BE FINE AND THEY WOULD GREET US. AND THEY WOULD GREET US.>>LEV, SLOW DOWN ON THAT.>>LEV, SLOW DOWN ON THAT. BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT THE NEW BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT THE NEW ACCOUNT IN “THE NEW YORK TIMES” ACCOUNT IN “THE NEW YORK TIMES” THAT IS SOURCES ALLEGEDLY TO MR. THAT IS SOURCES ALLEGEDLY TO MR. BOLTON’S FORTHCOMING BOOKMENT BOLTON’S FORTHCOMING BOOKMENT YOU’RE SAYING THAT GIULIANI WAS YOU’RE SAYING THAT GIULIANI WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOLTON UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOLTON WAS AT THAT TIME HELPING TO WAS AT THAT TIME HELPING TO ENGINEER THIS UKRAINE PLOT AND ENGINEER THIS UKRAINE PLOT AND THAT, IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THAT, IN FACT, ACCORDING TO BOLTON, WHICH MAY BE SELF BOLTON, WHICH MAY BE SELF SERVING, HE WAS OPTING OUT BUT SERVING, HE WAS OPTING OUT BUT GIULIANI THOUGHT HE WAS IN ON IT GIULIANI THOUGHT HE WAS IN ON IT WITH THEM. WITH THEM.>>NO.>>NO. BOLTON WAS ALWAYS AGAINST IT AND BOLTON WAS ALWAYS AGAINST IT AND BUTTING HEADS WITH GIULIANI BUTTING HEADS WITH GIULIANI GOING BACK TO VENEZUELA STUFF. GOING BACK TO VENEZUELA STUFF. SO BOLTON WAS AGAINST IT BUT SO BOLTON WAS AGAINST IT BUT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO DO IT, WE WERE UNDER THE TO DO IT, WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION HE WOULD FOLLOW THE ASSUMPTION HE WOULD FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND DO IT. ORDERS AND DO IT.>>YOU THOUGHT HE WOULD FOLLOW>>YOU THOUGHT HE WOULD FOLLOW THROUGH. THROUGH. YOU DON’T KNOW IF HE DID. YOU DON’T KNOW IF HE DID. YOUR INFORMATION IS COMING FROM YOUR INFORMATION IS COMING FROM BOLTON AS WELL. BOLTON AS WELL. YOU DIDN’T KNOW AT THE TIME YOU DIDN’T KNOW AT THE TIME WHETHER HE WAS OR NOT. WHETHER HE WAS OR NOT. IT SOUNDS LIKE. IT SOUNDS LIKE.>>CORRECT.>>CORRECT. THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE NOW WHY THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE NOW WHY THEY ACTED THE WAY THEY ACTED THEY ACTED THE WAY THEY ACTED BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING TOLD NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING TOLD NOT TO MEET WITH GIULIANI, BOLTON TO MEET WITH GIULIANI, BOLTON NEVER MADE THE PHONE CALL AND NEVER MADE THE PHONE CALL AND THEY WERE VERY SKEPTICAL. THEY WERE VERY SKEPTICAL.>>AND THEN THEY PRESSED ON TO>>AND THEN THEY PRESSED ON TO THE OTHER CHANNEL. THE OTHER CHANNEL. STAY WITH ME. STAY WITH ME. CHUCK ROSENBERG. CHUCK ROSENBERG.>>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR.>>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BONDY IF I MAY. BONDY IF I MAY. MAYBE TWO QUESTIONS, JOE, IF YOU MAYBE TWO QUESTIONS, JOE, IF YOU DON’T MIND. DON’T MIND. ARE YOU STILL TRYING TO ARE YOU STILL TRYING TO COOPERATE WITH THE SOUTHERN COOPERATE WITH THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND THE REASON THEY MAY NOT DO THAT IS REASON THEY MAY NOT DO THAT IS THE INFORMATION MAY NOT BE THE INFORMATION MAY NOT BE VALUABLE OR CREDIBLE AND VALUABLE OR CREDIBLE AND THOROUGH AND COMPLETE IS THAT THOROUGH AND COMPLETE IS THAT STILL SOMETHING YOU’RE TRYING TO STILL SOMETHING YOU’RE TRYING TO DO AND THEN SECOND QUESTION DO AND THEN SECOND QUESTION AFTER THAT ONE? AFTER THAT ONE?>>I WOULD SAY OUR DOOR IS OPEN>>I WOULD SAY OUR DOOR IS OPEN AND NOW WE’VE REVERSED THINGS A AND NOW WE’VE REVERSED THINGS A LITTLE BIT. LITTLE BIT. OUR DOOR IS OPEN. OUR DOOR IS OPEN. ON MONDAY WE’LL BE IN COURT ON MONDAY WE’LL BE IN COURT AGAIN SELECTING A TRIAL DATE AND AGAIN SELECTING A TRIAL DATE AND A MOTION SCHEDULE AND A TRIAL A MOTION SCHEDULE AND A TRIAL DATE BUT OUR DOOR IS ALWAYS DATE BUT OUR DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN. OPEN.>>I THINK CHUCK IS IMPLYING IT>>I THINK CHUCK IS IMPLYING IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE THEY’RE DOESN’T SEEM LIKE THEY’RE INTERESTED IN YOUR COOPERATION. INTERESTED IN YOUR COOPERATION.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT. I COULDN’T IMAGINE WHY THEY I COULDN’T IMAGINE WHY THEY WOULDN’T WANT TO HEAR FROM LEV. WOULDN’T WANT TO HEAR FROM LEV. THERE MUST BE A VERY GOOD THERE MUST BE A VERY GOOD REASON. REASON.>>TYPICALLY THEY DON’T FIND IT>>TYPICALLY THEY DON’T FIND IT CREDIBLE VALUABLE OR IT IS NOT CREDIBLE VALUABLE OR IT IS NOT ABOUT EVERYTHING. ABOUT EVERYTHING. THAT CAME UP WITH MR. COHEN, THAT CAME UP WITH MR. COHEN, MICHAEL COHEN, HE DIDN’T WANT TO MICHAEL COHEN, HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS. TALK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS LATE>>I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS LATE AND HE GOT STUCK IN THE RULE 35 AND HE GOT STUCK IN THE RULE 35 POSTURE. POSTURE. LEV IS MONTH MICHAEL COHEN AND LEV IS MONTH MICHAEL COHEN AND WHAT HE’S BEEN SAYING BEFORE ANY WHAT HE’S BEEN SAYING BEFORE ANY OF THIS EVIDENCE WAS RELEASED OF THIS EVIDENCE WAS RELEASED HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE FACTS BEYOND CHANGE. FACTS BEYOND CHANGE. THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD WAS CLEARLY VALUABLE TO THE CLEARLY VALUABLE TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. MAYBE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT IS MAYBE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT IS LAUNCHING NOW OR MOVING INTO LAUNCHING NOW OR MOVING INTO HIGH GEAR WITH THEIR HIGH GEAR WITH THEIR INVESTIGATION OR EVEN THE INVESTIGATION OR EVEN THE BRINGING OF CHARGES AGAINST BRINGING OF CHARGES AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE MR. GIULIANI. PEOPLE LIKE MR. GIULIANI. MAYBE THEY HAVE A PLAN TO MAYBE THEY HAVE A PLAN TO RESERVE LEV — RESERVE LEV –>>BUT THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF>>BUT THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF IT. IT. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT HAVING IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT HAVING NOT SECURED THEIR INTERESTS IN NOT SECURED THEIR INTERESTS IN YOUR PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS, YOUR PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS, YOU’RE THOUSAND TRYING TO MAKE YOU’RE THOUSAND TRYING TO MAKE THEM MORE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC? THEM MORE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC?>>NOT REALLY.>>NOT REALLY. WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS PRETTY WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS PRETTY SIMPLE. SIMPLE. WE’RE DEALING WITH A VERY LOW WE’RE DEALING WITH A VERY LOW WHAT WE CALL SENTENCING WHAT WE CALL SENTENCING GUIDELINE CASE. GUIDELINE CASE. WE WERE FACING PROSECUTORS THAT WE WERE FACING PROSECUTORS THAT DIDN’T WANT TO HEAR WHAT WE HAD DIDN’T WANT TO HEAR WHAT WE HAD TO SAY. TO SAY. WE WERE UP AGAINST A TIME CRUNCH WE WERE UP AGAINST A TIME CRUNCH WITH SOMETHING OF INCREDIBLE WITH SOMETHING OF INCREDIBLE IMPORTANCE, THE IMPEACHMENT IMPORTANCE, THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT IS NOT EVERY DAY INQUIRY THAT IS NOT EVERY DAY THAT THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT THAT THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND THEN A TRIAL. INQUIRY AND THEN A TRIAL. AND WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE COULD AND WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE COULD GET OUR MESSAGE TO CONGRESS THAT GET OUR MESSAGE TO CONGRESS THAT LEV WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE LEV WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MOST PROFOUND IMPACT. MOST PROFOUND IMPACT.>>WE’RE OVER TIME BUT I WANT TO>>WE’RE OVER TIME BUT I WANT TO GIVE CHUCK ONE MORE QUICK SHOT. GIVE CHUCK ONE MORE QUICK SHOT.>>YOUR LETTER SETS UP A VERY>>YOUR LETTER SETS UP A VERY SELDOM USED DEFENSE OF PUBLIC SELDOM USED DEFENSE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY DEFENSE, THE NOTION AUTHORITY DEFENSE, THE NOTION THAT A DEFENDANT IS RELYING ON THAT A DEFENDANT IS RELYING ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM A SENIOR INSTRUCTIONS FROM A SENIOR OFFICIAL IN THE GOVERNMENT, AND OFFICIAL IN THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEREFORE CAN’T BE CULPABLE THEREFORE CAN’T BE CULPABLE CRIMINALLY FOR HIS CONDUCT, CRIMINALLY FOR HIS CONDUCT, SELDOM USED AND SELDOM SELDOM USED AND SELDOM SUCCESSFUL. SUCCESSFUL. TELL ME ABOUT THAT. TELL ME ABOUT THAT.>>SELDOM USED BECAUSE THE FACTS>>SELDOM USED BECAUSE THE FACTS OFTEN DON’T SUPPORT THAT. OFTEN DON’T SUPPORT THAT.>>CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>BUT THIS IS A DEFENSE RIGHT>>BUT THIS IS A DEFENSE RIGHT OUT OF WHAT YOU CALL THE YOU SAM OUT OF WHAT YOU CALL THE YOU SAM OR THE JUSTICE MANUAL AND THE OR THE JUSTICE MANUAL AND THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN — DEFENSE HAS BEEN –>>OUT OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF>>OUT OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>ABSOLUTELY. AND MR. GIULIANI IS WORKING AS AND MR. GIULIANI IS WORKING AS THE PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEY IN THE PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FURTHERANCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS STATEMENTS THAT MR. PARNAS HIS STATEMENTS THAT MR. PARNAS IS IN DEED WORKING IN IS IN DEED WORKING IN FURTHERANCE OF HIS OBJECTIVES, FURTHERANCE OF HIS OBJECTIVES, MR. GIULIANI’S OBJECTIVES. MR. GIULIANI’S OBJECTIVES. I THINK WE HAVE THAT DEFENSE. I THINK WE HAVE THAT DEFENSE.>>I’VE GOT TO FIT IN A BREAK.>>I’VE GOT TO FIT IN A BREAK. IT HAS BEEN FASCINATING IT HAS BEEN FASCINATING PARTICULARLY ALL OF THIS WITH PARTICULARLY ALL OF THIS WITH THE EXPERTISE AT THE TABLE AND THE EXPERTISE AT THE TABLE AND MR. PARNAS SQUOINING US BY PHONE MR. PARNAS SQUOINING US BY PHONE ON A BIG NIGHT WHEN THE SENATE ON A BIG NIGHT WHEN THE SENATE HAS MOVED AWAY FROM WITNESSES HAS MOVED AWAY FROM WITNESSES YOU WERE ONE OF THE ONES THAT YOU WERE ONE OF THE ONES THAT SOME SENATORS WANTED SO I SOME SENATORS WANTED SO I APPRECIATE YOU JUMPING ON THE APPRECIATE YOU JUMPING ON THE LINE. LINE.>>THANK YOU AND BEFORE WE GO I>>THANK YOU AND BEFORE WE GO I WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK NOTE, I WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK NOTE, I CAN’T WAIT UNTIL MORE OF THE CAN’T WAIT UNTIL MORE OF THE BOOK COMES OUT ABOUT WHAT BOLTON BOOK COMES OUT ABOUT WHAT BOLTON SPOKE TO BARR ABOUT BECAUSE BARR SPOKE TO BARR ABOUT BECAUSE BARR KNEW EXACTLY WHAT ME AND KNEW EXACTLY WHAT ME AND GIULIANI WAS DOING THERE AND GIULIANI WAS DOING THERE AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON THE THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON THE SHOW. SHOW.>>AND YOU THINK MORE WILL COME>>AND YOU THINK MORE WILL COME TO PROVE THAT ABOUT BILL BARR. TO PROVE THAT ABOUT BILL BARR.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THERE IS A TREASURE I THINK THERE IS A TREASURE TROVE. TROVE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COINCIDENCE. COINCIDENCE. ME AND BOLTON DON’T SPEAK. ME AND BOLTON DON’T SPEAK. THERE WAS NO INTERACTION. THERE WAS NO INTERACTION. AND HERE YOU GO ALL OF A SUDDEN AND HERE YOU GO ALL OF A SUDDEN I MADE THE CHAM THAT BAR KNEW I MADE THE CHAM THAT BAR KNEW AND BOLTON SPOKE TO HIM AND BARR AND BOLTON SPOKE TO HIM AND BARR CALLED BOTH OF OUR LIARS AND CALLED BOTH OF OUR LIARS AND MORE TRUTH WILL COME OUT IN HIS MORE TRUTH WILL COME OUT IN HIS BOOK. BOOK.>>IT IS VERY INTERESTING AND WE>>IT IS VERY INTERESTING AND WE EMPHASIZE YOUR LEGAL SITUATION EMPHASIZE YOUR LEGAL SITUATION AND YOUR FACT A WITNESS BUT MR. AND YOUR FACT A WITNESS BUT MR. BOLTON ALSO A FACT WITNESS AND BOLTON ALSO A FACT WITNESS AND HAD CONTACT WITH A LOT OF THE