This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Well, sometimes timing works out your way, Chris. We're looking forward to it. Thank you very much, Chris Wallace, in Washington. As we get started with this Fox News Alert tonight, General H.R. McMaster is out as National Security Adviser. Former U.N. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton will be his replacement in early April. Ambassador Bolton will join us in moments to speak about this very breaking news tonight, as he has just been announced in his position. Also breaking this evening, investigators in Austin now hunting for a motive, looking closely at a target list that they have found of future addresses that bomber, Mark Conditt, was looking to strike.

MARY CONDITT, AUNT OF AUSTIN BOMBER: He was at my Christmas table. He was a great kid. He was mart. He was loving. He was kind. I have no idea who this person is.

JEFF REED, NEIGHBOR OF AUSTIN BOMBER: It's extremely confusing and I don't make anything of it because it just is -- it doesn't make sense. And I suppose this type of thing never does.

BRIAN MANLEY, AUSTIN POLICE CHIEF: I know everybody is interested in a motive and understanding why, and we're never going to be able to put a ration behind these acts.

MACCALLUM: So, why do killings with no motives appear to be multiplying in America? The anguish search for what triggers the desire to kill total strangers, including as we remember too well what happened in Las Vegas. Tonight, we now have this chilling just-released video of the killer in the days before the largest mass shooting in American history. Looking, acting, pretty much like any other gambler or tourist going in and out of Las Vegas. Except for this one thing: throughout these pictures and videos, he's methodically loading 21 different suitcases over time into the elevators at Mandalay Bay and setting up a killing field from the 32nd floor. All the while, you can see happy concert-goers and other people in Vegas arriving for what they hoped would be a weekend of music and good times.

JOSEPH LOMBARDO, LAS VEGAS SHERIFF: There was only one person responsible and that was Stephen Paddock. This report is not going to answer every question or even answer the biggest question as to why he did what he did and whether we are ever going to find out why he did what he did.

MACCALLUM: Why did he do what he did? And the same question tonight in Austin as family and neighbors are in shock. The ones little boy who played in their yard, now meticulously constructing and then planting bombs that were designed to blow up in the faces of innocent people in his neighborhood. Ed Davis, served as Boston Police Commissioner, he has thoughts tonight on both of these cases. He oversaw the Boston marathon bombing investigation. But first, Jeff and Nancy Reed, long-time neighborhood of the Conditt family, who are trying to figure out tonight what turned 23-year-old, Mark, into a serial bomber. Good to have you with us, Mr. and Mrs. Reed. You know, I would imagine that when you even hear me say that sentence, you're wondering what the heck you're doing sitting here talking about this tonight, Nancy.

NANCY REED, NEIGHBOR OF AUSTIN BOMBER: Exactly. Exactly.

MACCALLUM: Tell me about him. Tell me how you saw him.

N. REED: I saw him and I still see him as the little 5-year-old boy who moved next door, who I was so glad to see move in because it gave my grandson a playmate. And you know, for the next ten years they -- Mark, his little sister, and my grandson just had an ideal life, time together growing up.

MACCALLUM: Jeff, what can you tell us about the family and what they're going through now?

J. REED: Well, I can't honestly imagine what they're going through. It's -- they're a really nice, caring, great neighbors. They were helpful to us. And, you know, they spent a lot of time with their kids with activities as they growing up -- sports, different things.

MACCALLUM: Jeff, let me ask you, if I could interject, have you spoken -- have either of you spoken to the family since this happened?

MACCALLUM: Nancy, what did they say?

N. REED: When I first spoke to them yesterday morning, the authorities had not been there to confirm that it was Mark that had done this. And they were absolutely -- they knew what they knew from a reporter and from television, and just -- they were in disbelief. And Mark's dad, just like I would be, did not want to believe that this could possibly be his son. It was, you know, it's beyond belief for them.

MACCALLUM: But was there ever anything unusual? Any indication that you picked up on that he was troubled? Because when we listened to the sheriff last night, he said that Mark had recorded an electronic message 25 minutes long. And he said, what was clear from it, was that he wasn't a terrorist in the way that we sort of think of that today. And that he was not -- it was not a hate crime, because originally there was discussion that maybe he was targeting people of different ethnic backgrounds. But then, he was troubled, that he was very challenged and very troubled.

N. REED: Well, I can definitely say they're not a racist family. So, I don't think in anything was racially motivated. And as far as any signs, you know, he was a quiet kid. Very, very smart. Intelligent. And just, you know -- they just did the normal things kids do -- they built tree houses, they built forts, they played on the play scape. They were always outside. And the Conditts are everything you'd want in a parent. You know, they -- you hear, like, kids and these violent movies, violent games -- those kids didn't grow up with that.

MACCALLUM: But you said that he made an effort to -- they made an effort to make sure that he was socializing with other kids, right?

N. REED: Oh, absolutely. They were part of a home-school community. And they had, you know, like baseball teams and once they were in the upper grades, like, you know, as a senior, they had proms.

N. REED: So, he was socialized.

MACCALLUM: Jeff, is there anything when you look back, you think, anything? Anything that crops up in your mind as maybe some indication that something wasn't right?

J. REED: You know, I've had some time to think about it and absolutely nothing comes to mind. And you know, granted we knew him as a kid and an early teenager, not so much as after he got out of high school.

MACCALLUM: Yes, along the way. I'm sure -- go ahead.

N. REED: Yes, absolutely something happened, and it's -- I can't put together that little boy with a person who did these horrible things. I just can't.

MACCALLUM: And I would imagine when we get to hear this statement, a lot of these questions are going to be answered. I got to thank both of you very much, Jeff and Nancy. It has been a tough week. Thanks for being here tonight.

N. REED: Yes, and I do want to say, it is a wonderful family. They are really, really good family.

MACCALLUM: As much as it does for these victims, they're all going through a horrific time.

N. REED: I'm so sorry for the victims.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, thank you so much. Good to talk to both of you tonight. So, here with more, Ed Davis, he was Boston's Police Commissioner during the 2014 marathon bombings and now a Fox News contributor. Ed, good to have you with us tonight. You know, you look at these, and you can't help but sort of look at Parkland and look this young man and look at this guy in Las Vegas who all these months later, we still don't know why. What was his motive? And it just raises questions, I think, about modern life, about America, about what if anything we can take away from the fact that nobody can seem to figure out why these people did what they did?

ED DAVIS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER BOSTON POLICE COMMISSIONER: It is striking, Martha, how normal these individuals are. When you look at that video from the hotel in Las Vegas, you've got a mild-mannered guy that was very relaxed in his dealings with people, even as he was moving these guns and bags of ammunition into his suite. You know, we talked to other police agencies to do profiling at airports and different cities across the world. And they have a list of things to look for. This guy exhibited none of those things. He was laid back, relaxed, not nervous, playing gambling games. And then, he goes upstairs and commits this atrocity. In the same similarity with this young man, he socialized, he got friends, he's playing baseball. And then, a few years later, he does what he does. Although, he described himself as a psychopath. And I think my friends in the forensic psychiatrist field will be working on this over the coming months and years, and we'll attribute some reason and meaning to what happened here. Even if it doesn't go to trial, even if the police aren't interested in it because the suspects are dead. I think you will see psychiatrists and researchers delving into this.

MACCALLUM: As you look at these investigations and, you know -- I mean, it's really striking, and we have this video, we can play it full and take a look at it. It's striking that we haven't seen this prior to now. I mean, there's been pretty much a tight lid on all of this, and I'll just tell people that as they watch, you know, this coming to view here, you can just see him sort of walking around, he's tipping the guy in the elevator, he's, you know, chatting with the person at the snack stand downstairs. But methodically, when you watch him bring in all of these bags in and out of this hotel and that doesn't raise any questions, apparently, from Mandalay Bay.

DAVIS: Right. That is a problem, clearly. These are indicators and with all the video surveillance and all the security people you have at these big hotels in Las Vegas, that is an issue that's going to have to be, not only examined but litigated.

MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you. Thanks for being here tonight. Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: And now back to the breaking news of the evening, this Fox News Alert: General H.R. McMaster, it has been discussed in recent weeks that, potentially, he might be on the way out. Tonight, we have an answer to this question. Ambassador John Bolton who will be taking over for him will join us live in just a moment and his first interview since that news broke within the last hour. We'll speak with him right after this.

MACCALLUM: Breaking just moments ago, the news that General H.R. McMaster, who is the second National Security Adviser for the Trump administration will be leaving that post in early April. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, will be his replacement. Moments ago, President Trump, breaking the news -- as he often does -- about our next guest, sending out this tweet: 'I'm pleased to announce that effective April 9, Ambassador John Bolton will be my new National Security Adviser. I'm very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job and will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on April 9th.' Here now former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, former Fox News contributor. Good to have you here this evening, sir. Your reaction to your new job.

JOHN BOLTON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATION: Well, I think I still am a Fox News Contributor.

BOLTON: Well, I didn't -- well, I haven't started there yet. So, that demonstrates I think the sort of limbo that I'm in, because I didn't really expect that announcement this afternoon. But it's obviously a great honor, it's always an honor to serve our country. And I think particularly in these times internationally, it's a particular honor. So, I'm still sort of getting used to it. And I'm sure it will take a little more getting used to.

MACCALLUM: You at the White House this afternoon, and the president offered you this position then or before then.

BOLTON: Well, it's -- it came to a conclusion this afternoon. And but as I say, there's still a transition. I look forward to working with H.R. and his team, and the other senior members of the president's team on national security. And I have no doubt there's a lot of work to do. And so, I'll be devoting myself to getting ready to fill in for H.R.

MACCALLUM: But let me ask you this, because one of the stories that was out this week in The Washington Post suggested that the president ignore the advice of someone who was involved in the national security conversation, not to congratulate Vladimir Putin when he spoke with him on the phone the other day. Is there any indication that that was the final catalyst that may have provoked this change?

BOLTON: No, I don't -- I have no idea about that. I will say, when I read about the leak of the notes and the subject of the conversation, I was outraged by it. I mean, it recalled earlier in the administration when somebody was leaking transcripts of the president's conversations with foreign leaders, it's completely unacceptable. You cannot conduct diplomacy, you cannot expect other foreign leaders to be candid and open in their conversations with the president if some munchkin in the executive branch decides they're going to leak the talking points to the transcript or any other aspect of it. And I think this is really a terrible reflection on the individual or individuals who did this. They should be ashamed of themselves. And I think whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a Liberal or a Conservative, there ought to be unity on this point that leaking of that sort is simply unacceptable.

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of the substance of that discussion with Vladimir Putin, you know, your thoughts on the fact that the president did congratulate him on his election.

BOLTON: I don't consider it a significant point one way or the other, really. I've said congratulations to a lot of people of foreign diplomats and officials. It's a matter of being polite. The president had other subjects to bring up according to press reporting. I was not involved in any way in the preparations for it. The election just took place. And I think it's a matter of courtesy more than anything else.

MACCALLUM: Understood. Understood. But that aside, you know, I think in general, Ambassador Bolton, the way that you speak about Russia is quite a bit more hawkish than the way that the president does. In fact, you know, just in terms of being outspoken on this recent poisoning, you talked about the fact that chemical weapons poisons were used against Russians in London and that that is something that needs a very forceful response. What kind of response would you encourage the president to undertake as national security adviser?

BOLTON: Well, you know, in the 45 minutes or an hour since I understood the tweet went out, I've been trying to think about how to answer questions like that. So, I'll give you my first impression. You know, during my career, I've written, I don't know, how many articles and op-eds and opinion pieces I've given. I can't count the number of speeches. I've had countless interviews, maybe a majority of them on Fox in the past 11 years. They're all out there on the public record. I've never been shy about what my views are. But frankly, what I've said in private now is behind me, at least effective April 9th, and the important thing is what the president says and what advice I give him. So, with respect to the second part of your question, I don't think it's appropriate to tell you what advice I would give him. I mean, I think this is part of the difficulty of being in this limbo position tonight.

MACCALLUM: I understand that. You know, I was listening to the -- when the news broke, special report had their panel on. And you know, obviously, the questions that initially comes to mind are that you are obviously a person who is very strong-headed in your beliefs about things, it's gotten you into trouble in times in the past. There was one indication, you know, one indication, I think, on Twitter that said that you promised the president that you wouldn't start any fights. Is that true or is that the sort of mean that you want to come in the White House as more diplomatic that you've been seen in the past or are you going in there to shake things up?

BOLTON: You know, if I believe half of what I saw on Twitter, I probably withdraw from the world, which some people would prefer. Look, I have my views. I'm sure I'll have a chance to articulate them to the president. Some people don't like people who have substantive views. They're more processed oriented. But it's -- if the government can't have a free interchange of ideas among the president's advisers, then I think the president is not well-served and, you know, that's a view I've had -- that's the view I've had throughout government.

MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you this with regard to that because -- you know, it seems as though the one person who, sort of, left is General Mattis who believes that the Iran deal should be maintained. You've made it very clear in your writings, in your interviews that you think that deal is an awful deal, that needs to be scrapped. Is he the odd man out now?

BOLTON: You know, for the reasons I just explained, I've said what I've said about the Iran deal before. I'm not sure I've ever met General Mattis. So, I'm not going to opine on what his views are, what he said to president in private or what discussions we may have the opportunity to have.

MACCALLUM: In terms of North Korea, do you believe that the president should sit down with Kim Jong-un? You have also said that the military option is very -- needs to be in the forefront, I guess, might be a fair way to say it from the statements that you've made, that it should absolutely never be off the table. Do you think you should meet with him?

BOLTON: You give a great interview. Same question, same answer.

MACCALLUM: All right. Understood, and I do appreciate the fact that you came in 45 minutes after this announcement was made. And that you are, as you say, in a bit of limbo. I guess, you know, just a big picture question for you. How do you see -- how do you want to have an impact on the White House in this job? You know, how do you see yourself changing perhaps the tenor of this administration, if you do?

BOLTON: Well, look, any president is entitled to have a national security decision-making structure the way he wants to have it, and the system is designed to be flexible. Different presidents have different approaches, different styles. But I think the consensus would be that the national security adviser among whatever other functions he or she might have has two critical roles: number one, making sure that the president has the full-range of options presented to him and to make the decisions that only the president can make, and that the options have to be presented in a way that gives the president the chance to weigh the pluses and minuses of all the options being presented. I think that's key.

And I think that is sometimes described as an honest broker role. I think the national security advisor, the president wants to hear his opinion, will give it as well. That's one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is when the president makes a decision, the national security adviser is, among others, but certainly one of the leading implementers of the decision, making sure that the bureaucracies out there get the decision and implement it. And I've been in lots of bureaucracies, and I've seen the way that bureaucracies that don't like decisions sit on them. So, I know my way around the corridors in Washington, and I think that role will also be important. So, those are the sort of two sides of the coin, I think, of the central role for the adviser.

MACCALLUM: So, what I'm hearing in that, and tell me if I'm wrong is that although you are an opinionated outspoken person, if the president does not want to take the advice that you're giving him, you will make sure that the White House is presenting a united front?

BOLTON: Absolutely. You know, Jim Baker, who taught me an awful lot about politics, about foreign affairs, used to end most discussions about things where clearly my suggestion wasn't going anywhere by saying, because, John, the guy who got elected doesn't want to do it. And I think that the rest of the bureaucracy needs to understand as well when the guy who got elected makes a decision, that's what the Constitution provides. And there's a famous story about Dean Atchison, the Secretary of State in the Truman administration, was asked by a reporter, maybe somebody like you, how is it that Atchison and President Truman had such a good working relationship? And Atchison said, basically, because neither the president, nor I, ever forgot who was president.

MACCALLUM: Well, this is an interesting president. And he does things in a very different way. There's discussion that if John Kelly does decide to leave that maybe the president wouldn't replace a chief of staff, maybe he would, you know, sort of run things more on his own. You think that would be a wise decision?

BOLTON: You know, if I were a completely private citizen, I might have a view on that. But I'm not sure that in the present circumstances I'm going to comment on that one either. Sorry.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you a more personal question then, because you're someone who over the years has entertained the idea of running for president at times, there was discussion that you would be considered as secretary of state at times during the construction of this administration. So, on a personal level, how do you feel about the job that you've been offered and what it means for you in your life and your future?

BOLTON: Well, it's still sinking in. So, I haven't thought about it a great deal.

MACCALLUM: But you clearly been thinking about it over the past few weeks, because I know you've made a few visits to the White House over the past few weeks and no doubt you've had conversations. I mean, you know, in terms of the way that you -- you know, the impact that you can have on America, on being in the White House, on being that close to the president. I know that you feel strongly about this president and his potential -- I know you've said you believe he has enormous potential. So, what do you think John Bolton can bring to the table?

BOLTON: I know, you've said more about my views than I have, which is an interesting observation. But look, you know, the national security adviser like all of the president's top advisers serve at his pleasure. And he may be a different kind of president than others, but I think that's what the people voted for, and that's the role I've been asked to take on that I sought certainly, and that I'm placed to have accepted it and honored to carry it out. We'll see what happens.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to ask you one questions about the topic that we originally brought you on to talk about tonight, ambassador, because you've been -- I respect the fact that you are here tonight.

BOLTON: This is the longest interview on Fox that I've ever had and probably one where I've answered the fewest questions. So, congratulations, it's a mutual record, I'm sure.

MACCALLUM: We're working on it here. You know, in terms of the backup on appointments, and it's interesting because you also went through a very delayed appointment process for your ambassadorship to the U.N., which I believe ended up in a recess appointment in the Bush administration. So, you don't have to go through that process this time, but other people do and they're very backed up as you know. Rick Granell, who worked with you at the United Nations, is one of the people who was waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and the process is such that there have to be 60 hours of debate and discussion in the Senate, which is pretty hard to put together given the work week in the Senate. So, your thoughts on what can be done to make that procession move more quickly.

BOLTON: Well, I think the confirmation process is so far out of control, it is nothing like today what the framers of the constitution intended. I think the Senate rules are being grotesquely abused. And I think it just, it brings government to a grinding halt. Fundamentally, I think the Senate's role for executive branch nominee is different for judicial nominees because they have life tenure, really, not to be exercised because senators of the opposition party disagree with the philosophy of the incumbent president and the people he's trying to put in position. So, I think steps ought to be taken really to give people an up or down vote. If senators want to vote against them, that's obviously their prerogative. But have a vote, stand out in the rain, do what you're elected to do, don't hide in procedural delays.

MACCALLUM: John Bolton. Sir, very good to have you with us tonight. Obviously, a lot to talk about and we hope to continue the conversation as you move into this new very important position as you take on the next chapter of your life at the White House as the national security adviser, April 9th. Ambassador, thank you. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

BOLTON: Thanks very much for having me.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Joining me now, Bill Bennett, host of the Bill Bennett podcast, and also a Fox News contributor. Bill, welcome to you on another breaking news night on The Story. Where we brought time to talk about one thing, and now we're going to talk about John Bolton who, you know, clearly is in an interesting position tonight having just been offered this job. You worked in the White House, so your thoughts on this pick and this changing of the guards.

BILL BENNETT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, very interesting interview. Martha, Martha, you were relentless. I mean you.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, he's in a tough position. It's interesting when you go from, you know, being a contributor and someone who talks very freely about his opinions.

MACCALLUM: And he's on the record on so many topics. But now, obviously, he's in a slightly different moment, but, yeah.

BENNETT: Well, like John Bolton, I'm a Fox News contributor, unlike him I'm going to stay at Fox News contributor. I've had three jobs in government, and after the announcement of each one I was told one thing, shut up, don't say anything. Anyway, I admired your tenacity and his. He's a very strong character with very strong views. As he said, it's a public record. His record on things is public. And interestingly, a different view of the world than Donald Trump's.

BENNETT: In terms of foreign policy, international policy. Interventionist, much more activist, much more engaged. Somewhat engaged in nation building. But, obviously, there's a connection on style. He's direct. He's strong. Trump likes that, admired that. And, you know, team of rival, a strong guy with a different point of view. Donald Trump says he likes to hear different points of views. Different points of views, he'll get one.

MACCALLUM: He certainly will. And, you know, it just makes you wonder because John Bolton is very outspoken. He is very hawkish on Russia. I don't know if he would agree with that characterization. But he, clearly, has been very outspoken on this most recent Russian poisoning that we've talked about. North Korea, he says a military option must be on the table in order to get somewhere in North Korea. So, really -- you know, you look around the globe and he is taken a different perspective than what we have heard from General Mattis. And you just wonder what that, you know, team of rivals is gonna produce.

BENNETT: No one has accused Donald Trump of lacking self-confidence. And when you have that kind of self-confidence that the president has, you don't fear someone with a different point of view. Though I'm not sure it is a different point of view. The fact that Donald Trump hasn't said things that people want him to say about Putin may not mean anything. You know, he feels he needs to negotiate with him. And he thinks, you know, the congratulations -- I agree with Bolton, it was pro forma. Congratulations are not policy. It's politeness, not policy, so we'll see. But I'm glad a strong guy is in there. By the way, the other thing is, John Bolton just knows a heck of a lot. He's truly very experienced in this and a great addition.

MACCALLUM: Very interesting. Interesting night. Bill Bennett, thank you, as always. Good to see you tonight.

BENNETT: You bet, you. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. So coming up next, Trump's top attorney, John Dowd, quits as the Mueller investigation heats up. So what does this mean for the president's legal strategy? Constitutional law attorney, Jonathan Turley, here on why he says Dowd's departure is not necessarily good news at the White House.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, would you like to testify to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, sir?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would like to.

MACCALLUM: I would like to, said the president when asked that today. Maintaining that he wants to sit down and tell his side of the story on Russia. But the question is, if his lawyers will agree with him on that. A statement came shortly after President Trump's lead attorney in the Russia probe, John Dowd, resigned. Dowd did not want the president to speak to Mueller's team. He was a bit outnumbered in his contention on that. George Washington University law professor, Jonathan Turley, says the shakeup could signal a change in the Trump legal strategy. Writing in a new op-ed, quote, the combination of Dowd's resignation and the addition of Attorney Joseph diGenova is taken a sign of a more confrontational, combative approach by the Trump. If true, things could get demonstrably worse for the president. The greatest danger of a scoured-earth approach is when you're standing on that earth at the time. Constitutional law attorney, Jonathan Turley, joins me now. Jonathan, always good to see you. Thank you for being here tonight.

MACCALLUM: You know, it's interesting, I'm looking at the parallels between the conversation that I've just had with John Bolton, and the changes in this legal team, because you used the words full contact, that the president is entering into a full contact phase of this with the people he's bringing on board and, perhaps, the same could be said of his advisers at the White House as well.

TURLEY: I think that's right. I also think there's an analogy to a lack of communication. A sort of cool-hand-luke moment of -- what we have here is a failure to communicate. It does seem like there's been that failure with Dowd. Not always, I think, necessarily his fault. But he's had these public disconnects where his statements had to be pulled back or corrected. That really reflects a break down in the relationship to some extent. But the greater concern is whether we're going to see a significant change in strategy. Dowd -- while Dowd was against, reportedly, the president sitting down, because he was with Mueller, because he was afraid of a perjury trap.

TURLEY: He was also someone who advocated great cooperation with Mueller. Now, I've known Joe for many years. He's a very good lawyer. But he's a very aggressive lawyer. And he also takes a dim view of Mueller's investigation. I think the danger is that. If you try to take an aggressive approach at this time, it may play into the hands of Trump's critics. Mueller is not going to get spooked. You know, you don't spook a guy with a desk full of criminal subpoenas. He is going to pursue this as aggressively as the team itself may be in dealing with him.

MACCALLUM: You make a great point, which (INAUDIBLE). I'm sorry if I interrupted you. You talked about Roy Cohn and the president's relationship with him in New York, and that he was sort of raised as a businessman on a very confrontational approach when it came to business. You know, he said he never settled cases. He would always fight them head on. And it looks like he is falling -- you know, he's in that mode right now, it would appear, with these selections that he's making.

TURLEY: Well, I do think the president's view of lawyering was influenced heavily by Roy Cohn, who is a rather infamous figure, quite frankly. He ended up being disbarred. He died heavily in debt. But that is not what's called for her. The president has reportedly an offer on the table to speak to Mueller on four categories. Those categories are notable in major sense because they don't include a clear collusion category. There's a collusion light issue about the Trump Tower. I would actually be encouraged by those categories. They don't include Stormy Daniels, or the payments to any of these women. They don't appear to include the financial questions raised with the Moscow-Trump Tower. These were really seriously threatening subjects to go into an interview with. He could actually thread this needle. He could do those four categories, but he will have to be prepped, and he's going to have to listen to counsel, and he needs counsel that he communicates with. But it is a high risk strategy. False statements have always been the greatest threat for this president. But he could do this if he allows himself to be prepped and he stays close to that script.

MACCALLUM: Fascinating. I want to ask you one last question about the other side of the equation, those who are calling for a second special counsel to discuss the way that all of this was handled, the Hillary Clinton investigation, everything else. What has now come to light is a little-bit more information on the suggestion that James Clapper was misleading in his testimony to the house intel committee when he talked about his leaks, you know, or his decision to share information, however you want to put it, with CNN and other media outlets. What's your reaction to that part of this just-released information from the Republican side of the memo?

TURLEY: Well, in fairness to Clapper, we haven't heard his position. Of course, he was accused of false testimony before congress with regard to the surveillance program. He admitted that he did not tell the truth at that point.

TURLEY: But this would be a very serious question, particularly, about when he knew he'd be a CNN contributor, when these leaks occurred. I mean, we are really seeing a very transparent and not always pleasing view of how Washington works.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. You've got James Comey admitting that he leaked information that may have contained classified information.

MACCALLUM: As you pointed out here. Also, Andrew McCabe being, you know, assessed, charged, or however you want to put it, with the same suggestion that he was leaking to newspapers as well. And now, James Clapper is on that list. So, we'll see where all that goes. Good to see you, Jonathan. Thank you so much.

MACCALLUM: Great column as always. So, it has been a controversial practice in Iceland for years, abortions for nearly a hundred percent of unborn babies who are diagnosed with downs syndrome. But tonight, there is a push from the Vatican to end that practice. An inspiring story that will give everyone a lot to think about in terms of this, when Gina Loudon joins me, next.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We have basically eradicated, almost Down syndrome from our society that there is hardly ever a child born with Down syndrome.

MACCALLUM: It has been a controversial practice in Iceland for years as they've had terminated pregnancy after a test shows a higher risk for Down syndrome. We all know that many of those tests have false positives in them in the early stages of pregnancy. So, Iceland now has a 100 percent termination rate after the screening indicates that compares to the United States, which has a rate of 67 percent. It is a statistic that the Vatican is now speaking out about. They would like to see that number drop to zero, of course. Earlier this week, the Holy See sends parents of children with Down syndrome to a conference at the United Nation, calling out countries like Iceland and the United States, noting that the U.S. has laws that protect the eggs of bald eagles and sea turtles, but none to protect children who are born with Down syndrome.

Dr. Gina Loudon, psychology expert and creator of the non-profit, they all have names, to help families adopt children, like Samuel, who have Down syndrome. She is a -- she's devoted -- she's part of her life to this and many other things. Gina, good to see you tonight. Thank you very much for being here. I think we have a picture of your son, Samuel, who is beautiful up on the screen right now. And it's also worth pointing out that the Gerber baby this year, for the very first time, is a baby who was born with Down syndrome. There he is. There's little Lucas who is adorable. And that's a pretty strong statement on their part, Gina.

GINA LOUDIN, PSYCHOLOGY EXPERT: It really is. We've also had a Miss USA contestant this year that had downs syndrome. She's beautiful. People with Down syndrome are accomplishing major things, Martha. And that's why I'm so glad that you're covering this story, and also that foxnews.com printed my op-ed today on all of this, because this story is really culminating in what is, sort of, a cultural clash when we are talking in terms of eradication of an entire group of people that do nothing, inflict no harm. Name one time where you've ever heard of anyone with Down syndrome hurting anyone else, right? It doesn't happen. And yet, we're talking about eradicating them. We talk about eradicating pests from our house. We talk about eradicating deadly diseases. We don't talk about eradicating people. You don't have to be catholic to be pro-life and realize that adoption like my family and I enjoy with my son, Samuel, is a much better option than abortion or, certainly, any sort of eradication.

MACCALLUM: You know, one of the things that has, I think, promoted this in some ways are these testing -- the testing that's done on children. You know, when you are pregnant, you have an IP test. I had one that came back that indicated that, perhaps, the child might develop into a child with Down syndrome. It didn't happen. However, that's the stage at which so many people are making this choice. And, I, now, know a lot of people don't even have these tests anymore because they don't want that information, because it's not going to change how they feel. But it really is -- it's so sad when you think about the fact that even someone who -- you know -- I mean, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want to welcome a Down syndrome baby into their lives. But those positives are often false to begin with.

LOUDON: Let me speak to those families out there who have a test that comes back that's positive. My -- the lady that had my son, it did give him life after she had planned to abort him, actually, more than one time. She and I are very close friends now. And I can tell you, she would tell you, it's the best choice she ever made to give him life. I was in line for ten years to adopt Samuel, because most of the people who had a child with Down syndrome wanted to have a child with Down syndrome, Martha. And so, what happens is, families like mine were waiting for years to try to adopt a child with Down syndrome. There are families out there waiting, and I personally invite anyone who is facing this situation and doesn't want to parent a child to contact us. We understand that everybody has a different walk of life. But I can tell you, that the joy that is wrapped up in our son, Samuel, and the things that he teaches us as a family every day has made my family stronger and better, and more faithful, frankly.

MACCALLUM: How many kids do you have, Gina?

LOUDON: And they would all say the same thing. They would all say the same thing, Martha, that he is the joy, he's the smile. We call him our belly laugh, because that's really what Samuel is.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Dr. Gina Loudon. Always good to see you.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here tonight.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next, a very interesting story on 'The Story'. Why are top national security officials flocking to a network of backwoods doomsday camps just in case? Colonel Drew Miller runs one of these ranches and he will explain the lure of them, next.

MACCALLUM: Earlier this year, amid the threat of nuclear North Korea and more, a scientist sounding alarm over climate change. The bulletin of atomic scientists ticked their symbolic doomsday clock ahead, only two minutes to midnight, people. Pinning some of the blame on President Trump, I don't know if most of many people would agree that that's the cause of it, but there's a lot going on out there in the world, no matter what. Perhaps, this sparked a recent story in the Washington Examiner that claimed that more and more -- there are Washington officials, especially those who work in the intelligence agency, that are flocking to these doomsday camps and partnerships in them. Places called the Fortitude Ranch and others. That one is near D.C., and it helps people prepare for pending doom. Here now, Dr. Drew Miller. I was going to say Dr. Doom, but you're not. You're Dr. Drew Miller, CEO of Fortitude Ranch and retired Air Force colonel. Doctor, good to have you here tonight. So what is Fortitude Ranch? How does it work?

DREW MILLER, FORTITUDE RANCH CEO: Sure. Fortitude Ranch is a recreational and survival community. So, in good time we're a great place to go to vacation and hunt. But in bad times, we're a survival retreat. A place where you can go to survive a pandemic, or a long term electrical outage, or some other disaster that leads to collapse in economic activity and loss of law and order.

MACCALLUM: And you're genuinely concerned that this is something that we all need to be prepared for.

MILLER: We absolutely do. Government is not prepared to handle a pandemic. Government officials will be protected. We're not that far from Mal weather where government officials will go. Wealthy people can go to places like survival condo if you have millions of dollars. But most of us will be on our own with the loss of law and order from pandemic or loss of the electrical system. Police won't be able to protect you in your neighborhoods. There's going to be gangs and people out there marauding for food. And so, you need to be able to protect yourself.

MACCALLUM: It's horrible to imagine. But these are growing -- how many fortitude ranches are there around the country. I know you don't say exactly where they are, but they're mostly in the middle of nowhere, right?

MILLER: Well, we've located in remote areas. We're in West Virginia, west of D.C., and we're also in Colorado. And we're raising funds now to expand across the U.S.

MACCALLUM: And how -- you know, how would you characterize interest in them? Has it exploded over recent years?

MILLER: It's been high and it keeps getting higher. The North Korean threat is bad, for example. Former CIA director, James Woolsey, warned last year that just one North Korean nuclear weapon that's optimized for electromagnetic pulse exploding over the United States could take down our electric system, not for weeks or months, but for over a year. And the former CIA director warned.

MACCALLUM: I'm sorry. If that happened, how long would you -- how long could you survive at a fortitude ranch if this unforeseeable horrible incident were to happen?

MILLER: Well, we produce our own food, so we can last forever. But, as Admiral Woolsey warned, if there is this kind of attack and the electric system goes down, there'll be societal collapse. There won't be law and order. They'll be mass starvation. He estimated up to 90 percent of the U.S. population could potentially perish in a disaster like that. And the worst threat we face is pandemics. We're overdue for a natural pandemics. And there're bioengineered viral pandemics that could just cause a catastrophe that we can't imagine today.

MACCALLUM: This has been uplifting. I want to thank you. Thank you for being here and you're giving everybody an option. Dr. Drew miller, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight. Wow. What a show. That is our story for tonight. We will see you back here tomorrow night. Tucker Carlson is in D.C., coming up next. Have a good night, everybody.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.</s>Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton is the latest foreign policy hawk to join Donald Trump’s administration, replacing H.R. McMaster as national security adviser. A fierce supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and frequent commentator on Fox News, he’s sparked controversy for his comments on hot spots like Iran and North Korea.

“I think it’s a strategic debacle for the United States. You can always tinker around the edges, and the question is whether putting lipstick on a pig is really going to make a difference here. I think the answer to that’s clearly no.” — March 20 on Fox News.

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.” — March 2015 in a New York Times op-ed titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

“It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.” — Feb. 28 in a Wall Street Journal commentary titled “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First”. He added: “Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute.”

“How do you know the North Koreans are lying? Because their lips are moving.” — March 9 on Fox News.

“I think the only diplomatic option left is to end the regime in North Korea by effectively having the South take it over.” — September 2017 on Fox News.

“They’re stealing our intellectual property. We’re just supposed to sit there, is that the answer? I don’t buy it. I am a free trader but I don’t think that means just getting pounded into the ground when another country does not abide by the commitments it made.” — March 22 on Fox News.

“It is high time to revisit the ‘one-China policy’ and decide what America thinks it means, 45 years after the Shanghai Communique. Mr. Trump has said the policy is negotiable. Negotiation should not mean Washington gives and Beijing takes.” — January 2017 in the Wall Street Journal, where he also advocated for closer military ties with Taiwan.

“The recent Russian presidential election was a chance for #Putin to practice election meddling on his own elections so he can do it better elsewhere. We need a long term strategy to deal with countries like #Russia and #China with long standing rulers.” — March 21 on Twitter.

“It’s an act of defiance. It’s saying to London and the other western capitals, ‘what are you gonna do about it?’ Well, I think there should be a very strong answer to that.” — March 15 on Fox News, regarding the poisoning (allegedly by Moscow) in the U.K. of a former Russian spy.

“Rather than striving to recreate the post-World War I map, Washington should recognize the new geopolitics. The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state.” — November 2015 in a New York Times op-ed, with Bolton referring to such a state as “Sunni-stan.”

“The U.S. ought to abandon or substantially reduce its military support for Iraq’s current government. Despite retaining a tripartite veneer of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, the capital is dominated by Shiites loyal to Iran.” — June 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

Also in the Wall Street Journal, on Syria: “The Trump administration must take a clear-eyed view of Russia’s intervention. The Syrian mixing bowl is where confrontation between American and Russian forces looms,” he said. “Russia’s interference, particularly its axis with Mr. Assad and Tehran’s mullahs, critically threatens the interests of the U.S., Israel and our Arab friends.”

“Putting too much pressure on Pakistan risks further destabilizing the already volatile country, tipping it into the hands of domestic radical Islamicists, who grow stronger by the day.” — August 2017 in the Wall Street Journal, referring to U.S. accusations that Pakistan provides a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban and other groups.

Bolton added the U.S. should address the question of China in its South Asia policy, holding Beijing “accountable for the misdeeds that helped create the current strategic dangers.”</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John Bolton, U.S. President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, said Trump should insist that any meeting he holds with North Korea’s leader must be focused squarely on how to eliminate that country’s nuclear weapons program as quickly as possible.

FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S. February 24, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

Bolton, a hawk who Trump named on Thursday to replace H.R. McMaster in the key security role, told Radio Free Asia on Monday that discussions at the proposed summit with Kim Jong Un should be similar to those that led to components of Libya’s nuclear program being shipped to the United States in 2004.

“Let’s have this conversation by May, or even before that, and let’s see how serious North Korea really is,” Bolton said, according to a transcript of his remarks posted on the RFA website on Friday.

“If they’re not prepared to have that kind of serious discussion, it could actually be a very short meeting.”

Bolton said North Korea had used negotiations in the past to camouflage its weapons development and he was skeptical about its intentions. He said U.S. ally South Korea, which restarted talks with North Korea this year, should be cautious before agreeing to anything with Pyongyang.

“We should insist that if this meeting is going to take place, it will be similar to discussions we had with Libya 13 or 14 years ago: how to pack up their nuclear weapons program and take it to Oak Ridge, Tennessee,” he said.

Bolton said it was important for Trump to “make the point that he’s not there to waste time and that we expect real denuclearization, not talks about talks about denuclearization, but concretely how we’re going to eliminate their program as quickly as possible.”

Bolton also said the United States should not offer North Korea economic aid, or a peace treaty, adding, “they’re lucky to be having a meeting with the President of the United States.”

Bolton, a hardliner who has advocated regime change and military force against North Korea, said no one wanted to see military action, but it would be a mistake to leave the country with nuclear weapons. He warned of the risk of Pyongyang selling nuclear weapons technology to Islamic State, al Qaeda, or any aspiring nuclear-weapons state.

“President Trump has unattractive options ... he doesn’t have much time,” Bolton said. “Somebody said, you know, we can’t kick the can down the road any further because there isn’t any road left.”

South Korean officials met Kim Jong Un this month and told Washington the leader was open to giving up his nuclear weapons if North Korea’s security was guaranteed.

Trump responded with a surprise announcement that he was willing to meet Kim before the end of May in a bid to resolve the crisis over North Korea’s development of nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States.

North Korea argues its weapons program is needed for defense, a belief analysts say is reinforced by the fate of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after giving up his nuclear program.</s>John Bolton is the latest Fox news commentator to join the Trump administration. He's built up a reputation as a hawk, rather than a consensus builder on some of the most pressing issues facing the U.S., Iran and North Korea.</s>FILE - In this Feb. 24, 2017, file photo, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Oxon Hill, Md. President Donald is replacing National security adviser H.R. McMaster with Bolton. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

Charging ahead with the dramatic remaking of his White House, President Donald Trump said he would replace national security adviser H.R. McMaster with the former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, a foreign policy hawk entering an administration facing key decisions on Iran and North Korea.

After weeks of speculation about McMaster’s future, Trump and the respected three-star general put a positive face on the Thursday departure, making no reference to the growing public friction between them. Trump tweeted that McMaster had done “an outstanding job & will always remain my friend.” He said Bolton will take over April 9 as his third national security adviser in just over a year.

The national security shakeup comes as the president is increasingly shedding advisers who once eased the Republican establishment’s concerns about the foreign policy and political novice in the White House. McMaster is the sixth close adviser or aide to announce a departure in a turbulent six weeks, joining ally Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was unceremoniously fired last week.

The White House has said the president is seeking to put new foreign policy leaders in place ahead of a not-yet-scheduled meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un. Bolton is likely to add a hard-line influence on those talks, as well as deliberations over whether to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal.

The White House said McMaster’s exit had been under discussion for some time and stressed it was not due to any one incident, including this week’s stunning leak about Trump’s recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Related: Trump gets angry about election meddling, but not at Russia

McMaster had briefed Trump before the Putin call — and his team drafted all-caps instructions telling Trump not to congratulate the Russian leader on his re-election victory. Trump did it anyway.

An internal investigation into the leak is underway, said a White House official who — like others interviewed about the announcement and the White House shakeup — demanded anonymity to discuss internal matters.

In a statement released by the White House, McMaster said he would be requesting retirement from the U.S. Army effective this summer, adding that afterward he “will leave public service.”

McMaster had told confidants he would leave the post if at any point he lost credibility on the international stage, according to three White House officials. The feverish speculation about an impending exit sped up the decision for him to depart, the officials said, in part because McMaster believed foreign partners were beginning to doubt his influence.

Chief of staff John Kelly and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had been pushing Trump to get rid of McMaster and had been escalating their campaign in recent weeks. It had appeared McMaster’s departure was imminent last week — but White House officials insisted the speculation was false.

“Just spoke to @POTUS and Gen. H.R. McMaster — contrary to reports they have a good working relationship and there are no changes at the NSC,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted late last Thursday night.

McMaster never developed a personal rapport with Trump, who chafed at his long-winded briefing style, according to a White House official and a person close to the president. His influence in high-level decision-making had waned in recent months, as Trump has increasingly relied on the direct counsel of Kelly and Mattis.

Yet officials said the president still has genuine respect for McMaster. He had been under consideration for a fourth star, and White House officials hoped it would provide a graceful exit from the West Wing for the longtime soldier. No suitable postings had been identified, leaving McMaster — long an iconoclast among the top brass — with no choice but retirement.

Bolton, probably the most divisive foreign policy expert ever to serve as U.N. ambassador, has been a force in Republican foreign policy circles for decades. He served in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and as a Bush lawyer during the 2000 Florida recount.

A strong supporter of the Iraq war and an advocate for aggressive use of American power, Bolton was unable to win Senate confirmation after his nomination to the U.N. post alienated many Democrats and even some Republicans. He resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush “recess appointment,” which allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.

The role of national security adviser does not require Senate confirmation.

Bolton met with Trump and Kelly in early March to discuss North Korea and Iran. He was spotted entering the West Wing earlier Thursday.

Tension between Trump and McMaster had grown increasingly public. Last month, Trump took issue with McMaster’s characterization of Russian meddling in the 2016 election after the national security adviser told the Munich Security Summit that interference was beyond dispute.

“General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” Trump tweeted Feb. 17, alluding to frequent GOP allegations of impropriety by Democrats and Hillary Clinton.

Tillerson’s exit also forecast trouble for McMaster, who had aligned himself with the embattled secretary of state in seeking to soften some of Trump’s most dramatic foreign policy impulses.

McMaster told The New York Times last year that Trump’s unorthodox approach “has moved a lot of us out of our comfort zone, me included.”

The military strategist, who joined the administration in February 2017, has struggled to navigate a tumultuous White House. Last summer, he was the target of a far-right attack campaign, as conservative groups and a website tied to former Trump adviser Steve Bannon targeted him as insufficiently supportive of Israel and not tough enough on Iran.

McMaster was brought in after Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was dismissed after less than a month in office. White House officials said he was ousted because he did not tell top advisers, including Vice-President Mike Pence, about the full extent of his contacts with Russian officials.

Related: Possible good news for Canada on tariffs: White House hints ‘carve-out’ coming

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

Catherine Lucey, Zeke Miller And Ken Thomas, The Associated Press

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.</s>WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick of John Bolton for his next national security adviser stirred up the same burning question Friday in Washington as in anxious foreign capitals: Just how much will his hawkish, confrontational approach rub off on Trump?

As he confronts matters of war and peace with North Korea and Iran, Trump is bringing in an adviser likely to magnify many of his own instinctive qualities: hard-hitting, fiercely nationalistic and eager to confront U.S. adversaries. In his first year in office, Trump surrounded himself with foreign policy aides whose views spanned a wide spectrum. Bolton’s pick rounds out a team that in Trump’s second year will compromise almost entirely hawks whose public views on national security veer decidedly to the right.

Yet historically, even those who espoused the most extreme positions as private citizens have a way of moderating when faced with the awesome task of running the nation. And Trump has been known to overrule even the consensus of his aides in the past.

In Bolton’s White House meeting with Trump on Thursday, hours before the president announced the pick, the former U.N. ambassador told Trump he would separate his personal opinions from his responsibility as national security adviser to present all sides and arguments to the commander in chief, according to a person familiar with Trump’s exchange with Bolton.

He told the president that when asked for his view, he won’t hesitate to share it, but will give Trump room to decide, said the individual, who wasn’t authorized to discuss private conversations and requested anonymity.

“The important thing is what the president says,” Bolton said on Fox News late Thursday after news broke of his selection, declining to repeat his past bellicose rhetoric about North Korea, Russia or Iran. “If the government can’t have a free interchange of ideas among the president’s advisers then I think the president is not well served.”

Trump has admired Bolton for years, praising him on Twitter as far back as 2014. Trump has told allies he thinks Bolton is “a killer” on television, where Bolton is a frequent face on Fox News, even though he has voiced some unhappiness about his trademark moustache, said a person familiar the president’s thinking but not permitted to reveal private discussions.

Still, Bolton’s pick sent shockwaves through the diplomatic and military communities, and on social media, fueling speculation that the prospects for global confrontation are increasing. After all, in the span of a week Trump named Bolton to replace H.R. McMaster and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — ousting two aides seen as tempering influences in favour of others who have advocated a hard-line approach to North Korea and fierce opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.

Two State Department officials and two Western diplomats in Washington said Friday that their offices are now operating under the assumption that Trump will almost surely pull out of the Iran deal. Bolton has tweeted that withdrawal should be “a top @realDonaldTrump administration priority” and that U.S. policy instead should be “aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

Faced with that uncertainty, some American diplomats posted to the Middle East have been discussing among themselves the possibility of a war and how they could evacuate the region if needed. All of the officials requested anonymity to discuss diplomatic conversations.

Trump’s upcoming, unprecedented summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is another variable that could be shaped by Bolton’s pick. Instead of diplomatic outreach favoured by Tillerson and others, Bolton less than a month ago advocated a pre-emptive U.S. military strike in a Wall Street Journal editorial.

“It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first,” he wrote.

Bolton, a Yale Law School graduate, served as President George W. Bush’s U.N. ambassador as a “recess appointment” due to broad opposition to his confirmation in the Senate. Yet Bolton’s allies have pointed out that for all the fiery rhetoric, Bolton has spent his career as a diplomat — he was once the State Department’s top arms control official — and has never sought a military role.

Another unknown: how Bolton’s world view and Trump’s “America First” doctrine will intersect.

Trump’s definition of “America First” has always been somewhat nebulous, although he’s stressed the importance of U.S. sovereignty, limited overseas intervention and burden-sharing among allies so that Washington doesn’t disproportionately foot the bill.

Bolton, as U.S. ambassador, was sharply critical of the United Nations and its notoriously cumbersome bureaucracy — a view of multilateral obligations that echoes that of Trump. He was equally disinclined to indulge the bureaucratic constraints of the State Department back in Washington.

One U.S. official who worked for the State Department when Bolton was at the U.N. said that the assistant secretary of state for international organizations, whose office oversees the U.S. Mission to the U.N., was in a constant tug-of-war with Bolton and his chief of staff, trying with limited success to rein in Bolton or persuade him to tone down his public comments.

But while Bolton’s pugnaciousness might pair well with Trump’s, his views could cause friction with the president’s anti-interventionist bent. Trump, for example, made a campaign-trail mantra out of his opposition to the Iraq War, an intervention Bolton championed.

Although McMaster was beloved by many on the National Security Council staff, he never developed a personal rapport with Trump, who chafed at his long-winded briefing style, White House officials and another person close to Trump said. Both Mattis and Kelly angled for McMaster to be replaced.

But neither had lobbied for Bolton, and now they must contend with a powerful voice who has his own public profile and extensive experience manoeuvring in government. Kelly has expressed concerns to confidants about Bolton having unfettered access to the president, one person familiar with his thinking said.

Lemire reported from New York. Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report.</s>Washington: US President Donald Trump has named former ambassador and Fox News analyst John Bolton as his new National Security Adviser replacing Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, media reports said.

The President announced the news in a tweet on Thursday, saying that Bolton would take the job starting April 9, making him Trump’s third National Security Adviser in the first 14 months of his presidency, reports The Washington Post. “I (am) pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job and will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/19,” he tweeted.

Bolton’s appointment does not require Senate confirmation. Following Trum’s tweet, McMaster said in a statement released by the White House: “After 34 years of service to our nation, I am requesting retirement from the US Army effective this summer after which I will leave public service… I am thankful to President Donald Trump for the opportunity to serve him and our nation as National Security Adviser.”

Trump and Bolton have been discussing for weeks how he could replace McMaster, CNN quoted an informed source as saying. Shortly after the news broke, Bolton said on Fox News that he was not expecting an announcement to be made Thursday afternoon. According to the source, Trump and Bolton had met earlier on Thursday.

Bolton’s hard edged, hawkish views on issues like North Korea, Iraq and Syria make him a controversial pick especially ahead of a proposed meeting between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Bolton is a fierce North Korea hawk who, in his prolific writings and television commentary, has said that pre-emptive war would likely be the only way to stop North Korea from obtaining the capability to attack the US with a nuclear missile, reports The Washington Post.

Bolton had touted “the legal case for striking North Korea first” in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. However, Bolton, who had dismissed negotiations with North Korea as a waste of time, moderated his views slightly after Trump announced he would sit down with Kim, suggesting that the encounter between the two leaders would be short and largely devoid of traditional diplomacy.

Regarding Iran, Bolton told Fox News in January that Trump should dump the nuclear deal, re-impose economic sanctions on Tehran and work toward an overthrow of the government there. Bolton had previously served in the George W. Bush administration in a key arms-control job.</s>This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: We have breaking news. President Trump has just tweeted "I am pleased to announce that effective 4/9/18," April 9th, "Ambassador John Bolton will be my new national security adviser. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster, who has done an outstanding job, and will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9," April 9th.

So the president announcing that H.R. McMaster, General McMaster, is out as his national security adviser, and former ambassador John Bolton, a FOX News contributor, is in as the national security adviser.

I think it's fair to say -- let me first bring in the panel: Byron York from the Washington Examiner; Susan Page of USA Today, and Jonathan Swan of Axios. I think it's fair to say that this -- while the timing may be a bit of a surprise, the fact that McMaster was going to be out sooner probably rather than later is maybe a surprise, the timing of it. Jonathan, you've been covering this, the question as to whether or not McMaster is out and when he was going to be out and who the replacement was going to be. Your thoughts?

JONATHAN SWAN, AXIOS: I tell you, this has shocked people inside the building. Again, it's the timing of it. There was an assumption at some point he was going to remove H.R. McMaster. They never formed a personal chemistry. He never worked out how to brief the president.

And this appointment about John Bolton, this is not about ideology. This is not about ideology. John Bolton is as interventionist and hawkish as they come. And this is about chemistry with the president of the United States. He thinks he's strong, he sees him on television, he likes him. And, again, H.R. McMaster never really gelled with this president. It didn't become as toxic as it did Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, but he was seen as a dead man walking for months inside the White House.

WALLACE: I want to talk a little bit more about this, but General McMaster has just issued a statement in response to the statement from President Trump. McMaster says "After 34 years of service to our nation I am requesting retirement from the U.S. army effective this summer after which I will leave public service. Throughout my career it has been my greatest privilege to serve alongside extraordinary service members and dedicated civilians. I am thankful to President Donald J. Trump for the opportunity to serve him and our nation as the national security adviser. I am grateful for the friendship and opportunity of the members of the National Security Council who work together to provide the president with the best options to protect and advance our national interests. I'm especially proud to have served alongside the men and women of the National Security Council staff who established a strong foundation for protecting the American people, promoting American prosperity, achieving peace through strength, and advancing American influence. I know that these patriots will continue to serve our president and our nation with distinction."

Before I bring in Susan and Byron, Jonathan, the reason I think we're a little bit surprised is there was a story on the front page, I believe it was the "Washington Post" last week, that said McMaster was out, and on Friday McMaster and Kelly said, no, he's not out, that he's there with that dreaded vote of confidence. So why give him the vote of confidence and then less than a week later pull the rug out?

SWAN: Because the honest truth is they didn't know the timing. They didn't know the timing. And I'll tell you because I was one of those reporters on Thursday that reached out to the White House. And the reason the "Washington Post" could run that story was the White House stopped pushing back. On Thursday last week, the White House stopped leaning into aggressively opposing reporters who were saying I'm hearing McMaster is out. They subtly said basically behind the scenes, we're not really going to wave you off in a very aggressive way.

The next morning, you can't completely say the guy is gone while he's still in the job, so they had to walk this very awkward tightrope knowing full well that the president of the United States wanted a new national security adviser, not knowing who that person would be or when he was going to make the decision. And I'll just tell you, this afternoon I was getting calls from the White House. The press team was chaotic and running around. It seems to me like they were caught a little bit off guard by what happened today.

WALLACE: Susan, there are two aspects of this that are interesting. One obviously is McMaster, his service, why he didn't gel with the president, and then the appointment of John Bolton and what that says about the president's foreign policy going forward. We've got to remember we're less than two months away, if it goes as planned, from a summit with Kim Jong- un, the president of North Korea, and the president is going to have a completely new, except for the defense secretary, national security team, a news secretary of state in Mike Pompeo, a new national security adviser in John Bolton.

And we also need to remember McMaster was brought in after the precipitous and sudden firing after three weeks of Michael Flynn as national security adviser. First your thoughts on McMaster, what he did right, what he did wrong.

SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY: Well, as we've said, he wasn't a good fit personality-wise with the president. Although Bolton wasn't either when they first met. Remember Bolton was up for a job, went in and met with the president and did not immediately click with him either.

The reason this is shocking but not surprising, because we knew McMaster was having trouble. It's shocking because of the timing that you mentioned. This spring we're supposed to have a meeting with the North Korean leader. We may not have a secretary of state. We don't know that Mike Pompeo will be confirmed by the time the North Korean meeting takes place, if it takes place on time. Of course the national security adviser can work at the president's discretion, doesn't require confirmation. So he can start in April as they've said.

But this is the time when we've got these huge foreign policy challenges. We know that the State Department is not staffed in the way it's traditionally been staffed up with experts, and now the president will have this new team that will take presumably at least some time to find their footing.

WALLACE: And as I'm thinking as you're talking, we're all obviously reacting in real time here, the president surprised his foreign policy team when he had his phone call with Vladimir Putin this week, not only congratulating him on his victory but, perhaps more consequentially, talking about having a meeting in the not-too-distant future, and they're not supposed to be in the same city for one of these huge multilateral meetings until next November. So conceivably they could be on the fly be having to deal with a Kim Jong-un summit and a Vladimir Putin summit.

PAGE: And Meanwhile we've started a trade war with China. So if you want to talk about --

WALLACE: Well, we don't know that we have a trade war with them.

PAGE: It's possible. It's a world in turmoil, that's for sure.

WALLACE: It is interesting, Byron, about John Bolton, who is a respected member of the FOX News team as a contributor, because I do know the president was considering him when he first came in in December during the transition, December of 2016. And one of the concerns was the fact that he was very aggressive, that he was a neoconservative in the sense of wanting to confront other countries. Of course the president ran on the idea of avoiding those kinds of international entanglements.

BRYON YORK, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I think you can talk about one policy in particular in the sense that McMaster I think was a guy who told the president he couldn't do stuff, particularly concerning the Iran nuclear deal. It has to be recertified every three months, so it's come up four times so far. And the president wants to get out of it. And they said no, no, you can't do that. Maybe you should pull out a little bit or issue an ultimatum or get some other people and try to get them on board. There's other things you can do. Meanwhile, our commitment to it stands.

He sees John Bolton on television talking about the Iran nuclear deal, he sees Bolton on television taking a very hard line toward North Korea. So he calls them up. It's not like they haven't talked all year. They have been talking at various times. So I think he feels he wants that he wants that kind of voice.

Also, this is a position that doesn't have to be confirmed by the Senate, and George W. Bush when he made Bolton the U.N. ambassador had to do it through recess appointment because Rand Paul and a few other members of the U.S. Senate just said it would not happen. So it had to be, if you were going to appoint Bolton, had to be in a non-confirmed position.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.</s>National Security Adviser-designate John Bolton’s long record of tough talk could give President Trump some much-needed rhetorical back-up in difficult upcoming negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, some security policy watchers say, even as critics warn Mr. Bolton’s appointment could undermine the delicate, multilateral diplomacy needed to strike a deal with Pyongyang.

While outgoing White House national security chief H.R. McMaster was widely seen as a brake on Mr. Trump’s policies and rhetoric in confronting the North’s nuclear weapons build-up, the hawkish Mr. Bolton will likely reinforce Mr. Trump’s own inclinations to present a tough face to Mr. Kim.

“John Bolton is a brilliant iconoclast thinker who intuitively understands how to deal with dictators, including Chairman Kim,” said Michael Pillsbury, the Mandarin-speaking conservative intellectual who advised Mr. Trump’s transition team and has worked with nearly every U.S. administration since Richard Nixon.

Mr. Pillsbury, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, said that if Mr. Kim’s recent offer to halt nuclear weapons and missile testing while direct talks with South Korea and the U.S. turns out to be legitimate, it would represent a “stunning victory” for hardliners like Mr. Bolton, who as recently as February argued pre-emptive airstrikes were justified if the U.S. faced an imminent threat from North Korea’s military programs.

“Like President Trump, John Bolton excels at negotiating successfully, as he revealed in his best selling book, ‘Surrender is not an Option,’” Mr. Pillsbury said.

Frank Gaffney, president of the conservative Center for Security Policy, praised Mr. Bolton’s selection as much more than a “changing of the guard.”

“It is a sea change, one that holds promise of allowing Mr. Trump to accomplish his national security and foreign policy objectives, rather than endlessly contend with them being sabotaged by his own insubordinate subordinates.”

Along with the proposed replacement of the cautious Rex Tillerson at the State Department by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Mr. Trump “will have actual adults [in his administration] who actually want him to succeed. Hallelujah,” Mr Gaffney said in a statement.

But others are far less optimistic about the transition from Gen. McMaster to Mr. Bolton, set to become official April 9.

While Mr. Bolton, currently a senior fellow with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, has long enjoyed the support of GOP hawks by advocating aggressively for Washington to clarify who its enemies are and to be on a war footing against nations like North Korea and Iran, his positions are a source of deep unease for the left — and for many libertarians.

“Americans who voted for Donald Trump believing he would be disinclined to start new wars should be puzzled by his decision to tap John Bolton as his third national security adviser,” says Christopher A. Preble, the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

“The rest of us should be concerned,” Mr. Preble wrote in a blog posted Friday on the Institute’s website, adding that “Bolton has been one of the most reliably hawkish voices in American politics in recent memory.”

“His faith in the utility of force, and his general disdain for diplomacy, is legendary — and apparently hasn’t been shaken by the wars of the recent past,” wrote Mr. Preble, noting that “most Americans — 67 percent in a recent poll — believe that the Iraq war failed to advance — or, worse, undermined — American security.”

Mr. Bolton, who years ago advocated in favor of the sacking Baghdad, “appears to agree with the mere 22 percent of Americans who think that that war made things better,” Mr. Preble wrote.

Within hours of Thursday’s announcement of Mr. Bolton’s pick, The New York Times published an editorial suggesting the development will derail the fragile chance of diplomacy with North Korea, highlighted by Mr.Trump’s surprise decision earlier this month to meet Mr. Kim face-to-face before the end of May.

“Bringing on the fiery Mr. Bolton now, at a delicate moment with North Korea, is a terrible decision,” the editorial argued. “While Mr. Trump has often threatened North Korea with military action, he accepted Mr. Kim’s invitation to a summit, brokered by South Korea’s president, who is eager for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis.”

“Mr. Bolton, by contrast, told Fox News earlier this month that talks would be worthless and has called South Korean leaders ‘putty in North Korea’s hands.’”

The paper added that Mr. Bolton “has argued for attacking North Korea to neutralize the threat of its nuclear weapons, which could set off a horrific war costing thousands of lives.”

But one former high-level American intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity with The Washington Times recently, argued that Mr. Kim very likely perceives Mr. Bolton to have influence in Washington at the moment, and saw him — even prior to Thursday’s development — as someone who could seriously impact Trump administration policy toward Pyongyang.

The former official went so far as to say they believed Mr. Bolton’s recent advocacy for a pre-emptive U.S. military strike against North Korea directly contributed to motivating Mr. Kim’s reported offer in early March to halt all nuclear and missile tests in pursuit of diplomacy with Washington.

At issue is a February 28 op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal, in which Mr. Bolton argued that despite North Korea’s “propaganda” around recent diplomacy with South Korea, the nuclear threat emanating from Pyongyang remains “imminent” and that Washington should be seriously weighing a strike against North Korean nuclear facilities.

“In contemporary times, Israel has already twice struck nuclear-weapons programs in hostile states: destroying the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007,” Mr. Bolton wrote. “This is how we should think today about the threat of nuclear warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. … It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.”

“Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute,” he wrote. “That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.”

What remains to be seen is whether he plans to further that argument once inside the White House.

Having served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006 in the George W. Bush administration, and as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2001 to 2005, Mr. Bolton is no rookie to the kinds of internal fights that go on in an administration. Earlier in his career, he worked in under President Reagan as a policy official at USAID.

But how he goes about the pursuit of such ideas as pre-emptive military strikes is likely to make or break his effectiveness as Mr. Trump’s national security advisor, according to some former officials.

“Bolton may not be effective in the role if he reverts to the aggressive and ideological approaches that made him the darling of the right and the President in the first place,” says Michael Green, senior vice president for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Mr. Green was a director for Asian affairs on President Bush’s national security council during the early 2000s when Mr. Bolton was working on arms control at the State Department. “Bolton is always a smart and unrelenting advocate for his own position, but at the State Department he developed a reputation for bomb-throwing and not consensus-building. This will not work at the NSC,” Mr. Green wrote in a blog published Friday by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney, Australia-based think tank.

“[He] will also find the White House Situation Room a very different setting than the Fox News studio when it comes to advocating military strikes on North Korea or immediate cancellation of the Iran nuclear deal, particularly when he has two combat-experienced Marines — Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford — sitting to his immediate right,” Mr. Green wrote.

As for those who support for Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pillsbury told The Times: “I first met him in the Reagan Administration in 1981 when he revolutionized our foreign aid program while a senior official at USAID because he required foreign aid recipients to expand free markets and the private sector.”</s>President Donald Trump is replacing national security adviser H.R. McMaster with the former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, injecting a hawkish foreign policy voice into his administration ahead of key decisions on Iran and North Korea.

Trump tweeted Thursday that McMaster has done "an outstanding job & will always remain my friend." He said Bolton will take over April 9.

Bolton will be Trump's third national security adviser. Trump has clashed with McMaster, a respected three-star general, and talk that McMaster would soon leave the administration had picked up in recent weeks.

His departure follows Trump's dramatic ouster of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last week. It also comes after someone at the White House leaked that Trump was urged in briefing documents not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin about his recent re-election win. Trump did it anyway.

In a statement released by the White House, McMaster said he would be requesting retirement from the U.S. Army effective this summer, adding that afterward he "will leave public service."

The White House said McMaster's exit had been under discussion for some time and stressed it was not due to any one incident.

Bolton, probably the most divisive foreign policy expert ever to serve as U.N. ambassador, has served as a hawkish voice in Republican foreign policy circles for decades. He met with Trump and White House chief of staff John Kelly in early March to discuss North Korea and Iran. He was spotted entering the West Wing earlier Thursday.

Bolton has served in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and served as a Bush lawyer during the 2000 Florida recount.

A strong supporter of the Iraq war and an advocate for aggressive use of American power in foreign policy, Bolton was unable to win Senate confirmation after his nomination to the U.N. post alienated many Democrats and even some Republicans. He resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush "recess appointment," which allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.

Tension between Trump and McMaster has grown increasingly public. Last month, Trump took issue with McMaster's characterization of Russian meddling in the 2016 election after the national security adviser told the Munich Security Summit that interference was beyond dispute.

"General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems," Trump tweeted Feb. 17, alluding to frequent GOP allegations of impropriety by Democrats and Hillary Clinton.

Tillerson's exit also forecast trouble for McMaster, who had aligned himself with the embattled secretary of state in seeking to soften some of Trump's most dramatic foreign policy impulses.

McMaster told The New York Times last year that Trump's unorthodox approach "has moved a lot of us out of our comfort zone, me included."

The military strategist, who joined the administration in February 2017, has struggled to navigate a tumultuous White House. Last summer, he was the target of a far-right attack campaign, as conservative groups and a website tied to former Trump adviser Steve Bannon targeted him as insufficiently supportive of Israel and not tough enough on Iran.

McMaster was brought in after Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was dismissed after less than a month in office. White House officials said he was ousted because he did not tell top advisers, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the full extent of his contacts with Russian officials.

Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report.
New US National Security Advisor John R. Bolton says that President Donald Trump should insist on Libya-styled denuclearization for North Korea.