19 Burst results for "Jeremy bash"

"jeremy bash" Discussed on The Oath with Chuck Rosenberg

The Oath with Chuck Rosenberg

1:10:29 hr | 11 months ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on The Oath with Chuck Rosenberg

"I do solemnly swear I will support defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign the master that I will bear to face allegiance to the scene that I.

"jeremy bash" Discussed on NBC Meet the Press

NBC Meet the Press

12:43 min | 11 months ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on NBC Meet the Press

"Listening welcome back joining me now from New York is Congressman I came Jeffries who chairs the House Democratic Caucus one of the top leadership positions on the house side of things Congressman Jeffries woke to meet the presser wanting to and I'm curious if you've learned or if you know Speaker Pelosi has learned any information outside of what's been said on camera while it's not clear yet whether the administration has communicated with Speaker Pelosi is the president indicated he did not do so in advance of the operation this is a very meaningful step in the right direction in terms of the war on terror or the military should be commended. The intelligence committee should be commended the men and women of the Delta Force who carried out this operation should be commended Pleased that it's been completed in a very substantial way and that they have returned home safely and no American lives have been lost are you pleased that the president green lit this mission in and you think it's been a an appropriate mission to green light it was certainly inappropriate mission to green light and so in that regard the president made the right decision now we need him to continue to make appropriate decisions moving forward what's out while the war on terror continues we can't see American leadership in the Middle East which remains a dangerous part of the world to entities like Russia or Turkey or Syria and Iran what does that mean when you it's interesting you used the phrase the war on terror continues where you don't I take it don't approve of the shrinking of the American footprint in Syria that was in radic decision and has been widely condemned just this week Chuck as you know the House wrongly bipartisan way denounce the decision by President trump to abandon our allies the Kurds in northern Syria individuals who have fought with US closely who have died fighting on behalf of their land and on behalf of the safety and security of the American people that was an inappropriate and and in terms of international relations our credibility is the ultimate currency that we have and so- betraying our allies is wrong it has consequences and hopefully we'll see a continuing American presence as appropriate moving forward because we know that Isis will still try to reconstitute itself notwithstanding the death of its top leader do you still does this at all though you feel better about the idea of shrinking footprints but having these smaller president seemed to describe perhaps our military station more in Iraq and then being able to do these sort of precision strikes when necessary and as a model for Afghanistan well certainly I think a smaller strategic force is the ultimate objective we have been involved in the Middle East now particularly Afghanistan for the better part of eighteen years and I think the American people any broadly bipartisan way understand the need to withdraw and extract so from that situation but it has to be done in a responsible fashion let me move to the other big story is the focus in the House of Representatives and that is the impeachment inquiry Volvo the president and his decisions around Ukraine I want to show you a few quotes here from members of Your Caucus Jerry Hanley Wood I think you have in the public domain already is more than sufficient for an article of impeachment Ted lieu the most damning evidence basically already came out Jackie Speier frankly think we have enough the point being this at what point do you think it is time to move to a public airing of everything found and moving toward wrapping up your inquiry well Speaker Pelosi who by the way is doing a phenomenal job has made clear that we're going to continue to proceed in a serious and solemn fashion to undertake our constitutional responsibility we're going to follow the facts we're going to apply to law we're going to be guided by the constitution the present the truth to the American people no matter where that leads because nobody is above the law chairman Adam Schiff will make the ultimate decision from the committee standpoint in terms of when we transition from the accumulation of information which has been coming in and a rapid way to the public presentation and we'll see when that occurs well I only ask it this way many have compared this stage of the impeachment inquiry just sort of a grand jury and you can seek an indictment from a grand jury even before you've got all your all the information you're going to use in your trial so do you view this the same way that you may have enough to get your indictment but that doesn't mean you stop your investigation well let's be clear the evidence of wrongdoing as many of my colleagues have suggested is hiding in plain insight we have the rough transcript of July twenty fifth call where Donald Trump pressured a foreign government to target in American citizen for political gain thereby solicit foreign interference in twenty twenty election that on the minds on national security and his textbook abuse of power we have the whistle blower complaint that has has been validated by the witnesses who have come forward we have a confession that was made by Mick Mulvaney the acting White House chief of staff who acknowledge that was an ongoing pressure campaign to withhold three hundred ninety one million dollars in aid that have been allocated bipartisan way in order to solicit foreign difference in it's one hundred twenty election we have ambassador Bill Taylor come forward he's a trump appointee here's a west point graduate here's a Vietnam war veteran and acknowledged that there was a scheme that was underway essentially to elevate president trump's personal political interests and undermined on nationals charity interests let me you've got a lot of deadlines you guys are going to have to meet perhaps between now and say the start of the Iowa caucuses where when it comes to impeach it but there's one that comes up on November twenty first and it's funding the government what are you and your colleagues in house leadership doing to try to avoid a government shutdown well we continue to be in dialogue with Senate bus important to note that the House has done into job. We have passed the appropriations bills according to the time line that had been set forth led by Steny Hoyer in partnership with the entire House Democratic Caucus the Senate has failed to act that said expect that we will actually come to an agreement to fund the government sooner rather than later in light of the reckless thirty five government shutdown that took place earlier this year Donald Trump was effectively forced into an unconditional surrender. I don't think Mitch McConnell wants a shutdown we certainly don't WanNa shut down and we need to find common ground in order on the government and and do it soon and do you believe that you do need to be wrapped up with what you're GonNa do with impeachment before the end of the calendar year no we're not going to put a timeline on this investigation other than as Speaker Pelosi has said we're going to proceed expeditiously and of course we're going to proceed comprehensively and fairly in order to get things done this is a matter of urgent national security concern. The president betrayed his oath of office he's undermined on national security of course and and the integrity of our elections this is an abuse of power and it's fundamentally about the United States constitution that is the timeline that will dictate when we wrap things up timeshare not came Jeffrey a member of the leadership in the House Democratic Caucus the chair of the House Democratic Caucus technically thanks very much for coming on and sharing your views much appreciate it thanks to when we come back back boy do we have a lot to digest this morning the panel is welcome back panel is here former homeland security secretary Jay Johnson Amy Walter National Editor of the Cook Political Report our own chief foreign affairs correspondent here at NBC News Andrew Mitchell Lonnie Chen fellow at the Hoover Institution the president it's a big deal the president wants to make it the biggest deal of all time obviously as well but put this in some the fourth he's a very big deal to get Dadi it's arguable how operational he's still was he was on the run clearly moving around it's a tribute to US intelligence and obviously the Special Forces I think he could have praised them more vigorously before he thanked Russia and Putin for clearing the ground moving unimpeded but it does tell you that the Syrian Kurds were valuable allies and the ground intelligence that we are losing by having withdrawn I'm from the sector we withdrew from in Syria is a concern and they're going to be a lot of questions about whether or not we're going to have that kind of ground intelligence I don't under- dan the securing of the oil and why the president makes such a big deal out of that we went overboard in the nineties saying we didn't go in and help you know free wait after Desert Storm for the oil it wasn't about the oil it was about you know international global interest so for for us to make an economic argument is only and a few other counter narratives I thought it extraordinary that he had not after the operation was over spoken to the speaker of the House we are so broken down the speaker of the house the big eight or the big four those are the leaders that as far as we know he is not he had not notified any Democrats Jay Johnson you before your homeland you were actually also council at the Defense Department sue you're a lot of times you're being asked is this legal type of things and so the point is you know a lot of operational details you kept expressing surprise to how much how much detail the president was sharing explain out I there's always the risk that in the first twenty four hours after an operation a lot of what we hear is inaccurate he seemed to think he was watching how M- how much do you think he actually was watching well we do have some pretty good technology in the basement of the Pentagon in the situation room we conceal of that but chuck normally the and this wasn't just President Obama I think it's his predecessors to a presidential level address announcing a strategic success like this is it's on my orders we conducted an operation we took out the leader of Isis we brought justice to him thank you to our men and women in uniform thousand harm way harms way God bless America over to the Pentagon for the operational details and the briefing from the secretary and the chairman and perhaps somebody and and at I think three twenty-three whenever we heard Geronimo we got him my first thought was the courage and the dedication of the professionalism of men and women in uniform who did put themselves in harm's way just like today and I think that's where the credit belongs door Brian refers to this as a win for the president this is a reminder of the excellence of our military and our special forces and it is a win for the country but as you have pointed out you can kill an enemy but you don't defeat an enemy necessarily so there's there's more to do here Geronimo was Bin Laden apparently Jackpot was Al Baghdadi Lonny the president I feel is if he's going to use this as a way to vindicate his point of view on Syria policy versus frankly most of his advisors not just Republicans on Capitol Hill what this sets up as is the president wants this to be the single defining foreign policy moment of his residency in a presidency that's had a number of interesting moments let's not forget he went to Singapore yes to meet with Kim Jong the leader of North Korea and now you've got him sort of center stage in he wants this to we needed a.

House Democratic Caucus Speaker Pelosi president Congressman Jeffries New York Delta Force Donald Trump Mitch McConnell Congressman Steny Hoyer Senate three hundred ninety one milli twenty four hours eighteen years twenty fifth
Whistleblower complaint about President Trump involves Ukraine

The 11th Hour with Brian Williams

07:59 min | 1 year ago

Whistleblower complaint about President Trump involves Ukraine

"Quickly to the breaking news reporting yet again tonight. Washington Post is up front on this story reporting that a complaint about President trump from this yet unknown whistle so blower inside the administration involves a promise made to the nation of Ukraine the complaint according to the post centering on trump's communications with a foreign leader later. The complaint was made August twelve and B. C. News has compiled a list of the president's phone calls known to us and has so far confirmed that he spoke with at at least nine different world leaders during this relevant time period including a call with Ukraine's president indeed there on July twenty fifth one with Putin July thirty first also we should note that on August fifteenth former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his chief deputy the veteran sue Gordon left left the administration still with US Carol Lennox Phil Rucker Jeremy Bash as is frequently the case. I have more questions for our guests than time. Allowed so Carolina's Lennick here goes Congress truly does not seem to know and if the law works. They're not supposed to know the identity of this whistle blower. Do you get that same feeling about the White House. Oh deep breath. I would just say that we don't know for certain Brian. Here's one thing I wanNA say about the whistle blower however this person's in a bit of a bind agree with Jeremy Very brave person to put their neck out like like this and some intelligence operatives have essentially said this is a career defining moment you're skiing off the edge of a mountain and and there may be no turning back it. It seems like it is definitely within the houses ability to know exactly who this is. This whistleblower has some advocates in the in the Inspector General the Inspector General has basically sent a letter saying you know we'd like to send this whistle blower to you directly Congress if we're not allowed to tell you what this complaint is about out and that that may be something that's going on behind the scenes right now discussion about whether or not this whistleblower can come forward with their own complaints and figure this out with the committees right now at this moment the acting director of National Intelligence has not given any approval for that but that is one option for this whistle blower Jeremy Bash another aspect of whistleblower law there was rudy tonight on CNN speculating this was a Democrat holdover deep inside the administration used the phrase deep state again as everyone was expecting is he allowed to talk about whistle blowers that that way is there not some equivalent of witness intimidation in these cases while I think clearly they want to silence anybody who sees wrongdoing by the president azan or by somebody at the White House they want to silence that person they want to cover things up but I'd like to see the leadership of the National Intelligence Director off director's his office have at least as much courage bravery as this whistleblower one of their subordinates usually in military or intelligence organization you want the leader to have as much bravery and courage as one of the troops that they command so we need to see that leadership from the from the community from the community head Joe McGuire but we also need need to see the Justice Department and the White House step aside and let the law play out. I do want to emphasize what Carol emphasize earlier. which is that if you look at the July twenty fifth phone phone call between trump and Zalewski this is really potentially about a holding out the prospect that we would withhold military assistance from Ukraine Ukraine unless unless the Ukraine investigate Joe Biden who of course trump believes is the most direct threat to his reelection? That's what this is about this is this is the two thousand sixteen campaign all over again except this time trump is president. He's got military aid to hold as a weapon to achieve his objective okay Phil Rucker. Obviously an unsaid part of this is that there may be more there may be more individuals like this this our mutual colleague. Nicole Wallace reported after talking with two veterans of the Intel business that they keep noting. Here's another their phone call from inside the House saying the house is on fire and I am guessing fill the White House may be bracing for the fact doc that there could be more yet Bryan. They're always could be more with this. President and it's one of the main reason for that frankly is his lack of discipline in in his interactions with foreign leaders. This is not a president who reads from notes or who follow a script he sort of free wheels these conversations he thinks that makes makes him an effective leader and negotiator when he's going head to head face to face or you know the handset handset with a counterpart around the world but the problem according to people in the White House is that he he will oftentimes say things he's not exactly prepared to say or doesn't fully appreciate the ramifications of those comments we saw it very early on in the administration with that pretty raucous phone call he had with the then Australian Prime Minister the contents of which were reported soon thereafter in Washington Post and created a real diplomatic problem for the administration there could be many other instances of this and one other thing to keep in mind minded about the whistle blower and his or her say right now. This is an administration that has gone to extreme lengths to try to silence people who from the inside we'll try to tell the truth they investigate and try to rat out sources two journalists they try to withhold information from being sent to Congress they try to block testimony to the oversight committees in Congress and so you can expect that president trump also his top aides in the White House are going to do everything they can to find who this whistle blower and and punish this person or multiple people. If there's another occurrence hey gang we asked a lot of you tonight because we're covering this breaking news in real time it's all the fall of the Washington Post but our thanks go to Carol Lennick to Phil Rucker to Jeremy Bash for rolling with all of it. We greatly appreciate it coming up for US tonight a former. FBI This is special agent weighs in on just what we're talking about tonight what this means to the intelligence community when we come back this whistle blower is under what I can only imagine must be the most intense pressure because on the one hand there is this terrifying element called the espionage act and if you violated by sharing anything that is truly sensitive and endangers our national security. Iran world trouble the new reporting tonight that a presidential conversation involving Ukraine alarmed an intelligence official enough for that official to kick it up. The chain Clint Watts former. FBI VI special agent is here with us. He's also happens to be a distinguished research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and also happens to be the author of messing with the enemy surviving in a social media world of hackers terrorists Russians and fake news so we thought we would have you here and ask you is a whistleblower whistleblower considered the last line of defense would be would be seen as that way and particularly. I think in this circumstance if you look back what did we you just get done with two Plus Years Muller investigation where people were scrutinized publicly were brought out to Capitol Hill brought to so the Muller Committee questioned interrogated spilled out onto twitter so to make this decision to be very high level intelligence officer in

President Trump White House Ukraine Donald Trump Phil Rucker Jeremy Bash Congress Washington Post Phil Rucker Ukraine Ukraine FBI Dan Coats Sue Gordon National Intelligence Director National Intelligence Director Carol Lennox Foreign Policy Research Instit Putin B. C. News Carolina
Pompeo Declares an End to ‘American Shame’

The 11th Hour with Brian Williams

03:11 min | 1 year ago

Pompeo Declares an End to ‘American Shame’

"Now comes the real new beginning. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo earlier today in Cairo part of his ongoing nine nation Middle East tour, and while he never actually said Barack Obama's name. He didn't need to from birtherism to the continued trolling of the former president by the per current president on Twitter diminishing, the Obama name and presidency has been a foundational goal of this president and his team pump Eos attack on Obama's legacy comes almost ten years after the former president's own address to the Muslim world from the very same city. We've asked Jeremy bash to stick around and come back and take a question or two on this. Jeremy does does the audience in the room in the wider Muslim world? Look at that and say while you have to marvel at America, they they pull off a change in their foreign policy without bloodshed or do. They look at that. And hear that and say what's going on with our friend. America in my experience. Brian folks in the Middle East, actually, folks on actions less so on words and speeches, and if you look at the Trump administration's actions with this hasty abrupt and unilateral withdrawal from Syria without giving it heads up to any of our allies, we've essentially emboldened the Assad regime embolden, Iran emboldened, Russia, abandoned, the Kurds caused deep consternation inside Israel's security establishment with one fell swoop. Basically undermined American foreign policy in the region. I think that's what people are going to focus on Brian. But then we undermine that as you well know Bolton goes over to Israel. We see him standing next to Netanyahu and sounding like every American has sounded kind of traditional American foreign policy for the last several decades completely reversing the pullout by tweet that the president did by Fiat on Twitter. That's right. So there is a lot of cleanup on. L A that's part and parcel of these efforts to go around the region. Say don't worry we're still going to be here. But again, I think people will focus on our actions. Not. So on our words, and again with respect to Russia because Russia is a big winner with our withdrawal from Syria. You just have to look at our actions. The Trump administration has resisted or relaxed sanctions on Russia. The Trump administration has undermined NATO. The Trump administration has failed to hold Russia accountable. And they've taken the we've taken the word of the former KGB spy Putin and his intelligence services over our our own CIA. And so again, people just need to look at the actions. Not the words of the rhetoric. Our own veteran of the CIA and the Pentagon, Jeremy bash always a pleasure. Thank you for staying up late with us tonight. We appreciate it and coming up, Donald Trump is facing multiple challenges on multiple fronts. Nothing less than an excess stencil challenge to his presidency. We'll talk about what to watch for next when we come back. As we inch

Trump Administration Russia President Trump Jeremy Bash Barack Obama Donald Trump Twitter Mike Pompeo CIA America Israel Syria Middle East Cairo Brian Bolton Birtherism
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:53 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"The sort of the more political ends, which is they went off the Trump reservation and they decide to kind of stick it to Donald Trump and they did it with notwithstanding the fact that it would harm him politically. But I think honestly, intelligence community leadership don't view it through that lens. They viewed as sort of what's best for the country and what's the right thing to do, and they thought, and they believed. And I think this is the right decision that in order to protect the national sturdy interest, the United States. On a non political non partisan basis. This information had to be included in a bona fide criminal indictment, and you and I both know that generally speaking, the intelligence community and whatever particular intelligence agency owns the information does not part with it, lightly absolute. There have been cases, you know, this case was one in which they thought it was important for the reasons you suggest. But there've been other cases that unite both know about where literally intelligence officials have been prepared to let a bad guy go free. Yes, rather than reveal methods and sources, and it makes us kind of annoyed when that happens. But it's understand. That's right. In fact, defendants in criminal cases who've been accused of, say, espionage, sometimes use what's called gray mail in which they basically say the government. If you put me on trial, I'm going to reveal all the secrets is not exactly blackmail, but it's sort of a form of blackmail and the government would rather as you noted not prosecute somebody because they don't want their secrets to be revealed publicly. I wanna ask them at spy recruitment. Yeah. How does that work? When the Russians want to recruit someone to spy. On their behalf. Does that happen in a day? Does it happen a month is a long term thing. What goes into that human intelligence collection, whether it's been done by the United States or by other countries, is some of the hardest work done by any government at some of the most difficult insensitive work again, I was not a operations officer at CI, but I worked alongside many. I think they would say that this is this is not the work done in a day a week or even sometimes a year at this is a long term effort to spot, assess recruit and handle individuals who have access to information that you need for your national security. So for example, if the United States will undertaking this activity, we would try to analyze who in adversary nation or let's just take a terrorist organization, as example who number one actually has access to the information we want. It has to be useful, right? It has to be useful. What would motivate that person to work with us? And basically. Engage in treason exactly. Engage in trees in risk their own life and also do something that you know here to for their own clan. Our own society has deemed immoral, and you know, sometimes is the motivation. Sometimes they actually have lost faith in their organization, and they actually believe in what we're doing. Sometimes they have some other aspect of their life where they are looking for an exit and they want to be kind of going to ineffective witness protection program and and work with us because they think we can protect them. Sometimes blackmail to, I would say that in general, the United States is not used that tactic, but other countries might mother was the Russians. Might this word people keep using a lot compromise? Yeah. The idea being that if they have embarrassing information about someone that might be the lever that you can press to get that person to turn to your son. Yes, that's right. And then once once you obviously have developed a relationship in effect a contract with that individual where they're going to work for you, you know, you're the CIA and that human source is going to work for you. Then. Real challenge is how do you handle that person meet with them communicate with that person? If the counterintelligence service of the other country is is keeping close tabs on that in, what do you think is going with Carter page? I don't know exactly the documents that were released about Carter page. I think in in some important ways, undercut the claims that were made by Devin Nunes and other Republicans on Capitol Hill that somehow the FIS application, the application to listen to his communications was unwarranted. It was week, no..

United States Donald Trump Trump Carter Devin Nunes CIA operations officer
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

04:09 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"It just because you have even that clearance, which you know I used to have. It doesn't mean you have access to everything. It's right. The sea in compartment. It means there are various compartments within that category. One compartment may be information related to signals intelligence. One compartment may be information for alleged covert action. One compartment may be related to human intelligence collection, and depending on your job, you have to have both access to his compartments and in need to know that information in order to be granted that clearance that ax because I, I don't think this is clear to people because it gets alighted a lot when I was he was attorney. Lots of people had secret top secret SEI, but there were sometimes occasions where you only had two people in the entire office who had details about something. I'm sure the same was true in this ya in at the DOD. That's right. And when you're talking about the intelligence community doing work against Russia, for example, much of the work there is going to be held in a very strict compartment within SEI because of course, some of the information derived could be from the most sensitive. Sources, including potentially human sources. And so you wanna limit the number of people who know about that. Obviously, if that secrets out there, we've had had penetrations by the Russian intelligence services of our own intelligence committee like people like aims at Hanson and others. When those sources become known, those sources can actually have their lives in danger and become killed. I mean, Tokyo Jeff, who is the one of the most productive spies for the United States government. He was a, he was a Soviet scientists. You know, he was added by aims and ultimately he was killed. How does something come to be classified? So basic practice of an intelligence professionals that whenever they generate work product, a cable or an Email, or even believe it or not, you know, hey, do you guys want to go to lunch an Email to office colleagues that actually will probably have a classification on it presumptively? Yep, it does does. In fact, when you generate emails inside the intelligence community, you have, there's a kind of a dropdown menu where you have to select which classification it is. And I think most people set their default to top secret. Right. Does that not result in over-classification. This is one of the downsides of our system is that there's huge punishment for not classifying something that should be classified or treating something as unclassified that is classified, but there's zero punishment. If you over classify things and over-classification has its own costs, they're actually literally costs of handling classified information, computer systems and security clearances and polygraphs and all the rest. But there's also cost in that if everything is classified, nothing is classified. Meaning if you treat everything is super secret than the specialness of a secret gets watered down and it's not treated with enough sensitivity and care as it needs to be. So with respect to the criminal indictment against the twelve GRU Russian agents, there's a lot of stuff in that that's now public, but once upon a time you believe classified, right? So how does that process work? I mean, we dealt with it all the time. It explained quickly how it can be something is highly, highly classified then makes its way not only to a lower level of classification, but in fact, a comp-. Plea publicly disseminated document. Yeah. So for for any classified information that needs to be in a sense declassified revealed publicly for governmental purpose. For example, for a criminal indictment, there's a process that goes on and and it's up to the Justice department principally the national security division that would bring the stakeholders, people who own that classified information around the table and say, look, you know, special council wants to go public with this information and there's probably a dialogue and they probably around to fight. It's a knife fight and they probably, you know they're redlining and exchanging red lines of documents back and forth. And finally, ultimately, the leadership of say, CIA NSA has to be comfortable with the fact that the is going to be revealing publicly this information. And so what does that tell us about what happened here? It tells us that the intelligence community felt strong enough about the importance of calling out publicly what the GR you had done that they were willing to risk their own sources and methods to some extent and allowing Bob Muller to state that publicly and view it through one lens of.

attorney GRU Russian DOD Bob Muller Russia CIA Tokyo Justice department United States Hanson Jeff
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

04:09 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"I mean, the messages is that we have you penetrated that we have been able to collect on your tactics, techniques and procedures that we know exactly what you did two summers ago and that we are going to lay out in precise detail for all the world to see the way you attack American democracy in the way you attack other democracies. And by the way I should say, I don't like to use the word meddling because meddling is something that's annoying something you're. Mother-in-law does. It's something inefficient long, never nettles the right word is attack. Russia attacked our country. They didn't meddle in anything, but you reference pre the two thousand and ten roll up of the Russian illegals that you were when you were serving as US attorney intimately involved with and you and I did work quite a bit on that matter. That was dubbed ghost stories by the FBI that was the codename for that operation. A couple of interesting kind of contemporary points about that. I, when the Russian intelligence services went to assassinate scribble on the streets of the UK, a lot of people don't realize, but scribble was one of the individuals who was traded, got free trading him for the Russian illegals that we arrested inside the United States. And so you know, one of the reasons why that action by the Russian federation was so morally offensive, almost above all else to US intelligence community. And it's so recent is because it was done. In effect a fair trade and to go after someone who they traded away really kind of violates every single code there truly is no honor among thieves. But second is that the individual who early in his career directed operations for the illegals program. He was a line and officer and the KGB supporting Russian illegal programs globally was flawed and Putin. That was his job in the KGB. So for him, these illegal programs were very significant. And third, very interestingly is who was the individual who ran the ghost stories investigation who knows the Russia file than most who's the person who played a central role in wrapping up the Russian illegal activities and really sticking it to a lot of MIR Putin at the time Bob, Muller. All true. When an indictment with the specificity is unsealed for their what you're saying a second ago and folks in Russia in the intelligence agencies and specifically the Jere, you see how much we have and must know that. Even more we have. We didn't even put in and we didn't declassify the people get fired. What's the reaction there. There may be some retribution inside the Russian federation, but I'll tell you after the Russian illegals were wrapped up in two thousand ten McCall frag cough, who is the director of the s fiar the successor to the KGB. He did not get fired, and I gotta believe it wasn't that surprised. I mean, it was. It was and I gotta believe Preet that there's a lot of spin and just kind of cover up inside the Russian federation. Everyone's blaming somebody else and making excuses, and there's no real reckoning. There's no real accountability inside their intelligence services, which is obviously something that makes them incredibly weak. So what are the reasons I'm happy to have you here is that there's lots of people in the country, a lot of questions about how intelligence works, but sometimes we don't go to basics. So let me ask you some questions about classified information has been in the news a lot, longtime this back to Hillary Clinton. Another folks, how many levels of classification are there? Well, there are three main categories of classified information. There's secret information, there's top-secret information, and then there's what's called s. c. i. or sensitive compartment and information. The highest level of classification and is most classified information in one of those categories will the vast majority of the US government's information that's classified is of course the lowest level at secret. But when you're talking about the intelligence community, you talking about CIA you're talking about NSA. Most all of that information is actually the highest level s. CI and then even within SEI, there are particular programs that are only known to certain folks on a need. To know basis. That's right..

Russian federation Russia KGB MIR Putin United States US attorney FBI US government CIA Hillary Clinton Preet officer UK McCall director Bob Muller
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

04:09 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"And here's my viewpoint, which is that if you look at general, Joe dumpstered a four-star marine who's the chairman of the joint chiefs. If you look at Jim Mattis who's a retired marine four stars now, secretary defense. If you look at John Kelly, retired marine four star, who's now chief of staff of the White House they have. I think a an understanding among themselves at their job is to protect the country from the gravest national security threats facing our nation. And they believe though they probably wouldn't ever say publicly, they believe that one of the great. Vist national security threats facing our country is a president who is not informed and who does not have good instincts on national security and who may not always be acting in a manner that's in the best interest of our nation. And so in essence, they have agreed among themselves and others as well that the best highest use of their time. Even though it may come a cost to the personal reputations is to stay in government and to prevent the president from doing great harm to our countries. They're, they're the metrics ordinary thing to say there to protect America from the elected president. From decisions of the elected president that would harm our country. One thing that I mentioned the list of items to discuss with you can't get all of it was the news last week that the special counsel by Muller unsealed an indictment against twelve military intelligence officials in Russia, accusing them with great in great detail and specificity, various crimes against the United States, including hacking the DNC and the d. Tripolsky and various other folks. Do you ever immediate reaction to that? Yeah, I thought it was expected in the sense that the earlier Muller indictment from earlier this year focused on the internet research agency in those individuals in the Russian federation who had been involved in the social media campaign, which was also likewise, very detailed, very troubling. I mean, people need to read these indictments for example, in the earlier Muller indictment, there was this line about the Russians organizing coal miners for Trump rally in Pennsylvania. I mean, just think about that for a second. This wasn't just things on Facebook. There were actual physical rallies that were organized by Russian agents, so that's in the earlier Muller indictment. And then likewise with the new indictment of twelve GRU military intelligence officials. It helped round out the story because it number one, it made clear that the officials who were responsible for this activity were rushing government officials. Second is that they were leadership of the Russian intelligence agency that's associated with the hacking operation. And third, there were some. Phenomenal detail in the in the diamond. For example, the fact that on July twenty seventh twenty sixteen dollar Trump stood up after there had been the hacking of the DNC and he said, Russia. If you're listening, please hack into Hillary Clinton's personal Email server. And then as the indictment lays out after hours for the first time, those are words from the indictment after hours. For the first time, the Russian GRU began a hacking operation of Hillary Clinton's personal Email domain. Of course, you could think of that. That's a total coincidence or it's clear that there is a actual connection between Donald Trump's call to do this and the action of reaction from the Russian government likely to coincidence, less than two percent less than two percents. Yes, there's a couple of things going on here. You know, as you see it, I think of the outset you and I got to know each other even better in mittens bone on a regular basis. As I discuss with Leon Panetta as well in two thousand ten, we were taking down the ten Russian spy ring in New York, and we had a detailed complaint criminal complaint into one purpose of a complaint. Or an indictment is to lay out the allegations sufficient for grandeur defined probable cause, and also to give some notice that's required by law to the people that you're prosecuting, a, make sure your site to all the proper statutory provisions. But another purpose sometimes in these contexts is to send a message to the adversary, and that was part of what was going on in two thousand ten at the most important thing, but a part of it. To what extent do you think in this charging document this indictment against the twelve year you people was their message being sent to Russian intelligence? And if so, what was that message?.

president Muller Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Russian government Russian federation DNC Russia Jim Mattis Joe dumpstered Facebook Leon Panetta John Kelly chief of staff chairman White House secretary America Tripolsky
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:39 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"And then he said he said, but inter, I think it's time now to move on. And he basically said, I don't really want to dwell on this. I don't want the whole interview to be about this because I did my job. Let's move on, but then there was breaking news. Yes. So for the rest of the interview, I would say Dan Coats was trying to focus on other issues. He was not trying to amp up the pressure on Trump. He was not as some people have been said trying to get fired or trying to stick it to him. It was a very, in my view, fair respectful way to handle a very delicate dicey situation. Well, at some point later in the interview about forty minutes in Haley Talbot, who is the producer for Andrea Mitchell reports. Scribbled a note on eight and half by eleven piece of paper and and try to step over people in the audience in wander, her way up to the right side of the stage, and she walked up to the stage while coats was giving an. Answer about whatever it may have been handed. This note to Andrea Andrea said, we have breaking news and now everyone has seen the the tape of this moment. You know that on Twitter, we have learned that President Trump has invited Vladimir Putin to Washington. And at first, I think actually codes didn't really even hear what she was saying because there was such an audible gasps in the room. And by the time she finished the description of what the tweet said. You know, people were muttering among themselves, and so he kind of anted up a little bit and say, say that again. And then he said, well, that's going to be special, which what sounded like he was being critical of it a because maybe it's not a good idea and be maybe he should have known about it. Right, exactly. And so I don't think he was attempting to be critical and I certainly don't think he was trying to be disrespectful in any way, but here's the, here's the broader point which is inviting a Russian leader to Washington for a second summit, especially so soon after the first one that's a fairly significant foreign policy decision. You would think that there would be a process inside the government to recommend to the president, whether he'd do that or not. And certainly at that table of principles, cabinet, secretaries senior officials from all the departments and agencies who have an equity there, you would have the director of national intelligence. And so what that moment revealed was that director coats not only wasn't debriefed about what had happened in Helsinki, but that he was not consulted at all, not just about this particular invitation, but about what to do. Generally speaking. With regards to follow on the summit. And so we have a sort of a president who was conducting foreign policy without the benefit of his professionals. Certainly without the benefit of the intelligence community, and therefore without the benefit of facts, that's incredibly dangerous. And moreover, pre I just want to say that the director of national intelligence is the one person on our government from whom no secrets are kept. And so if the president is conducting secret diplomacy with Putin, and he doesn't even tell his own director of national intelligence by definition, this is a secret deal that Donald Trump has cut with Putin. So that's a powerful response in a powerful analysis. But what what does it say to you that people like Dan Coats appears and other folks who are not in the loop who supposed to be in the loop who was supposed to provide recommendations and guidance and counsel are being ignored? What does it tell you that they remain in government that they don't resign. This question about the role of senior people inside the Trump administration and whether or not they ought to hang in there, stay in their jobs whether or not they ought to resign has been one that's been asked really since the beginning of the administration from the very first moments that patriots like Gimenez the secretary of defense, and even people like John Kelly who I knew very well when he was a marine four star when they joined the administration..

Dan Coats President Trump Vladimir Putin president director Trump Andrea Andrea Washington Andrea Mitchell Haley Talbot Twitter John Kelly Gimenez producer Helsinki secretary forty minutes
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

04:21 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"That's not part of the rhetoric in the adversarial nature ever relations between our countries now. So in the absence of that, how do you explain in the clearest way that you can why they should be concerned? I think all Americans need to trust their government need to know that their government is being candid and forthright in truthful about their objectives. I also think the first role of government is to protect the country. So I think in both of those realms taking a tough line on Russia is in the interests of all the American people. Now, the problem that we have with Trump's approach towards Russia is twofold. Number one is it's clear. He's not being forthright and candid about the true nature of the relationship that the Trump organization has had with the Russian federation, and also he's doing things to advance American foreign policy objectives that are manifestly against our interests like undermining NATO. Now to get back to your question pre about why should an American care. I think all American families do care whether or not America is going to be a leader in the world. Can it be strong gonna have strong alliances going to protect our interests, whether it's because it's to protect our economic interests around the world or to protect our national security interests. And they also want to know that the attributes of the highest office in the land are those of truth and Justice, and and they don't want to have a secret agenda a secret deal emanating from the Oval Office. And you know, overall, I think my concern about the Helsinki summit and the follow on summit is that it's clear that Donald Trump has entered into a secret deal with Latimer Putin, a secret deal to reshape American foreign policy in the image of Putin in Russia's theories about international relations. So President Trump has as meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. And then I think two days later, it becomes known that he's invited Putin to come to another meeting in DC, and I believe last week you were to conference where you're not? Yes. Which conference was that? Was the Aspen security forum and in Colorado. And at the Aspen security conference, there is a now much watched interview. There was a Korean real time with Andrea Mitchell and the head of the deny Dan Coats we present for that. Yeah. So what happened? What was your reaction? So Andrew Mitchell was interviewing Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence. Of course, Dan Coats is a former Republican Senator from Indiana has a long record of public service and and was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate is deny denies what director of national intelligence overseeing the sixteen intelligence agencies and the office of the director of national intelligence and Dan Coats was being interviewed by Andrew Mitchell. And I was sitting there in the room in the audience about twenty five feet in front of the stage. So just just looking directly at coats and injury, Mitchell, you can get a front row seat. I couldn't. No, I wasn't a heavy hitter enough of sponsor, but I will tell you that Coates was not looking for a way to stick it to Donald Trump. In fact, the first question Andrea asked him was. Director coats earlier in the week. You put out a statement clarifying that. In fact, the intelligence assessment that said that Putin directed and interference campaign had benefit Donald Trump, that the intelligence can be stood by that assessment. Why did you do that? And Dan Coats, the first line he said was I was doing my job and he basically in a very humble straightforward candidate and not not a way full of bullshit. Oh, was basically saying the job of the intelligence professional without fear or favor, and oftentimes having speak truth to power partisan consequences, be damned is to call it like we see it is to say, if Russia directed an attack on our country and did it to favor Donald Trump. We have to say that and most often we say it in private channels. Most often, we say in our classified intelligence assessments, but when those intelligence assessments have been made public and there's been great public discourse about and someone who is trying to twist. That intelligence assessment for their own political gain. We do viewed as a responsibility of the intelligence leader of our country to stand up and say, no, and to stand up for the men and women, the intelligence community. So we started good. He started, you start very well..

Dan Coats President Trump Andrea Mitchell Vladimir Putin Trump director Russia Helsinki Aspen America Oval Office NATO Russian federation Colorado President Justice Senate Coates
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:10 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Ability, but my mind would have to go to a very dark place in order to conclude that they would record it in order to hold that over Donald Trump in the future. And I've just you're not prepared to go that dark dark an upward to go that dark just yet, but the go polonium but they don't go recording. I think it's possible Preet, but you put it over two percent around two percent. I'll put it in ninety six percent. Okay. Do you think it's possible some other nations intelligence agency sought to and succeeded in recording that conversation? I think several nations intelligence agencies sought to understand what happened in the meeting, and they could have done it through technical means that could have done it through human sources. It could done through a wide variety of means. I think for example, many intelligence agencies probably have Donald Trump's personal phone tapped, and I think to extent that he's communicate with anybody about what happened during the meeting on his phone that that's in the hands of foreign intelligence services that's comforting. So what's the likelihood then we're doing a lot to likelihood those you have as many predictions? Yeah. What's likely that we will come to understand pretty thoroughly or not? What happened in that meeting? I think it's really, I think it's a low likelihood. Honestly, I think actually Trump doesn't retain a lot of information in detail about policy, and I think it's possible that Putin was talking in a lot of specify. About ideas and concepts and Trump was just sort of thinking this was a, you know, a bonding time. I'm not even sure of the sounds weird and saying, I'm not even sure that Donald Trump knows what happened in that meeting. For the most. And I mean, he was there. He was, I know, but but I think I think he wanted to be able to signal to Putin. You know, we're going to work together and we're going to be, I mean, how for Trump it's often it's about signaling about impressionism and the flavor and sentiment as opposed to particular hard concrete things. Even though he's supposed to be the master of the deal. It seems to be all wrapped up in an era of dealmaking as opposed to actual deal terms. That's right. And and I would actually even go one step further which is when Trump describes what's going to happen at a summit. He often says, I'm going to do well, or I did well as if he was the contestant in the Miss Universe pageant strutting around and and being observed and being judged as opposed to really any substance of diplomacy. I was talking to someone smart like you formerly in the intelligence community recently. And the question we were discussing, I want to put the question to you. Is how do you explain to an average person in the United States who has to deal with, you know, lower wages and health care and education burdens and all sorts of things that you you deal with as as a busy working person in America, why they should care about Slattery Putin what he does. I mean, the old days during the Cold War, a lot of this back and forth in the tag team was understood to be based on the fact that the Russians would Soviet Union was really trying to export communism to the United States and undermine our way of life in that very particular way. No capitalism communism though, democracy communism..

Donald Trump Slattery Putin Preet United States Soviet Union America two percent ninety six percent
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

02:35 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Do you have concerns about other asks that were made that have not been revealed yet? Yes. So let's let's unpack exactly what the overall dynamic of the summit was, which was innocent as far as we know Trump went into the summit with no agenda, other than to quote have a better relationship. I mean, that's what he said publicly in his interviews. So we went in President Trump went in with a very weak stance. It was basically just to have a meeting to have a meeting a relationship, and maybe to ask some of these questions that I that I referenced about what Putin might have on Trump. Whereas on the Russian side, they clearly had an agenda. They clearly had specific. Things that they wanted to discuss. They wanted to discuss Syria. They wanted to discuss Crimea. They wanted to discuss the issue of of the Magnitsky act and sanctions on Russia, and in conjunction with Magnitsky act. They clearly want to ask about the idea of undercutting the claims of Bill Browder and Michael McFaul and others, and the way Putin prepared for the meeting by intimidating that Trump would raise the election hacking issue. Even though he probably did it in the most week way. Possible Putin was ready with this jujitsu move up posing a quote, cybersecurity investigation on both sides which Trump described in the press conference has quote an incredible offer. When, of course, you know, asking for a cyber security working group with the Russians is kind of like asking, hi SIS to do a working group on beheadings. It makes no sense from the perspective of US policy objectives to work with Russia on cybersecurity. So I do think that the whole Helsinki summit was incredibly lopsided Putin. Had a specific agenda Trump did not Putin had certain things he want to say were outcomes of the summit? Trump did not. And one of the main issues that I think will be discussed in the future also will be arms control. So I think the Russians have a strong interest in extending some of the arms control agreements under new start, and it's unclear yet what the US policy position is on nuclear weapons and arms control. I wanted to go to question last question on this meeting the private meeting between the president of our country and let them reporting. Do you have any doubt, given your experience and until work you have any doubt that the Russians at least have both recording in a transcript of that meeting? I do have some doubt. I don't know for certain they would have the ability to or the need to record it. Could their interpreter were putting themselves as to warrant worn a wire-to-wire area. I'm guessing they weren't being checked? Yes, I suppose that that's..

Trump Putin Russia president US Bill Browder Helsinki Crimea Syria Michael McFaul Magnitsky
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:45 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"People who in effect, Putin control, and that gives them not just financial leverage, but now because they're now two leaders of the country's actual political leverage over Donald Trump. So I think Trump is worried that the revelations of these financial arrangements will be harmful to Donald Trump, and also I. Think he worries that. No kidding. Putin's people could actually call the loans and that can wipe out Donald Trump and the Trump organization Fancsali. I think people need to remember that long before Donald Trump was a politician, even long before he was a reality star. He was associated with sort of wealth. His brand was the rich guy not wealth associated with well, yes, he, in fact was wealthy well, that's the thing, which is he's an actor. He acted as the wealthy man. He was sort of like the cartoon Richie rich. He kind of he wanted to be portrayed as the guy with the airplane and the gold plated chandelier, and the person who was sort of the quintessential billionaire. He thought that that would give him a lot of stature. And when you have someone who could actually wipe that out and actually revealed publicly that you are not as wealthy as you think and actually take out some of your wealth, then you know you sort of live and fear of those people. I also think it's possible that just over time because there were so many relationships between Trump and Russians that it's possible that their efforts to. Manipulate his thinking, you know whether that hasn't had an effect over time and through osmosis. He's kind of adopted the Russian line in effect Crete. He is doing the work of the KGB that's not to say that he works for the KGB. It's not to say that he is kind of a witting asset of the KGB successor organizations, but in effect, he is doing their bidding. So I wanna talk about this meeting the Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump had there was about two hours or more than two hours where there was nobody except interpreters for both sides, and there was no cheaper staff. There was no press person. There was no staff member on the American side. Do you have a theory about what was discussed there? I know it speculation. You know you, you seem to have theory, so. So in my experience, and I think probably in your experience as well, having looked at actively, we're trying to define the motive. What would cause someone to clear the room at kind of hearken back to the Oval Office event where Trump wanted to have a chat with Jim Komi. You're going to say something that maybe doesn't put you in a good light right where you don't want any other witnesses or you don't want any other people to your. So I, I kind of go into the this analysis and the assumption that there were things that Donald Trump wanted said that he didn't think he wanted anybody else to hear. Now before I unpack that a little bit, what's an alternative alternative is that he has such a large ego that he thought himself. I can do this better than anybody else. I don't really need anybody pump Heo and John Kelly, I confirm Putin. I can look into his eyes like prior presence of said that they did Ryan. I will bond with him and all will be well, right, exactly. And that I wanna have a better relationship with him in the best way to do. It isn't a one on one setting. Now, in my experience. Having kind of set up many meetings of senior government officials, bilateral meetings. There is a role for a one on one private meeting, but let me tell you how I've seen it work carefully. You'll have sort of the senior principal, you know, the euro, president or cabinet secretary spend a little time one on one with the person sometimes a little warm up, get to know you, or you know, occasionally a foreign leader will want to raise something like something very personal. Like I'm going to be leaving this job in six months, and I want you to know that my successor is either a a great guy or be someone you can't trust. I mean, there's some things you don't want written down as part of the official record, and that's perfectly normal and appropriate and not nefarious. Totally..

Donald Trump Vladimir Putin Trump KGB Ryan Richie rich Jim Komi principal official president Heo secretary John Kelly two hours six months
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

02:45 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"He has unlike some other things he does when he blows the whistle. Some people say on the confederate flag. On immigration or any of those kinds of things at least get some benefit from his. I don't think he's base is clamoring for him to be embracing Letterman Putin's a why is he doing well, I agree it. It doesn't make sense, and I started with this that we have a foreign policy against Russia. That makes no sense. I think one idea is that Trump is a genus of international relations. The likes of which we haven't seen since Henry Kissinger in that he is figured out something about international relations that none of us believes are understands. Let's just put that to be generous at two percent probability. Okay. Then I think there is a small chance worth keeping in the back of our mind though. I kind of discounted that Vladimir Putin has some no kidding derogatory information on Donald Trump, whatever is discussed in the dossier about what happened in the on the midnight shift in Moscow, but I'll discount that and just put that a two percent. Are you doing that for argument's sake, or do you really think it's a two percent? I, I'm doing that for argument's sake because I don't know, and I don't know how to credit it. So I'm just gonna put a very low probability in park is the implications of it being true are obviously so. So stark. But so I think there's a ninety six percent chance that the reason why Donald Trump has taken this very pro Russia position pro-putin position is because of money because of the longstanding financial ties that existed between the Trump organization and people around the Russian government to include Russian oligarchs. And the Trump organization obviously is a largely a real estate enterprise and then ultimately branding enterprise needed capital for expansion. And so they saw cheaper forms of capital more ready form of capital. And that was largely coming out of the the old Soviet Union, and there was a concomitant need on the other side on the Russian side where they had to have a place for their capital. So the oligarchs who really took over the Russian state and we're able to rebuild of dollars needed to have capital leave the country in part to ensure that it wouldn't be accessed by new machine that we come to power and try to seize it would in part because they need in effect a laundry. And so there was kind of a marriage of interest and you've seen quotes from people like Eric Trump in which he has said, we got a lot. Of our money from Russia. Do you think that these entanglements caused Trump to be favorable towards Putin? Because a, it's a thank you for all these business opportunities gone be insurance policy against it being revealed that there was nefarious activities user, just potential money laundering or see a down payment on having future relationships. Once he leaves the presidency for him and his family, or is it some combination of those? I wait a NB more. You know, the word leverage is I think exactly the right word here because leverage has a financial connotation in which Donald Trump is sort of overly leveraged and the person who holds the loans or who the call the loans are..

Donald Trump Trump Letterman Putin Russia Henry Kissinger Russian government Soviet Union Moscow two percent ninety six percent
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:14 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"But over the past weekend, the Carter page visor affidavit was released, which was a bit of a controversial wrangling back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans on the Intel committee. And also just generally in the news, we have President Trump in Helsinki eating with President Putin alone than looking. Like he wasn't standing up for his Intel agency and credited Putin more than Donald Trump reversed himself and said, he meant to say, wouldn't when he said would then he invited Putin come to the United States in the fall. We have the business of Michael McFaul the former ambassador to Russia and former podcast guest here seeming like Trump was open to letting him be interrogated by our adversaries in Russia. We also had the indictment by special counsel Muller's office of twelve military intelligence officers who engage in all manner of hacking to interfere in the election in favor of Donald Trump with us. We talk about among those very topics. Why don't you pick one? And I'll ask questions. Well, let's start with Helsinki pre. We have a foreign policy Vizi Russia. That makes no sense. We have a policy that in essence, embraces Putin that defers to a large. Agree on Putin's worldview. You know, for many, many years now, the basic standoff and policy vis-a-vis Russia has been the United States works with allies works with a posse works with our partners principally with NATO, including alliances with the European Union and Russia tries to break up those alliances. And so what we hadn't Helsinki was sort of, I think the culmination of a month of foreign policy decision making in which the Russian foreign policy objective of breaking up those alliances succeeded. Why do I say that? I obviously the month started with the g seven summit in which President Trump on the way to that summit said, I want Russia to be part of the g. seven. And then when of course, Trump left town and left the meetings with Trudeau and others. He said, in essence that the alliance was over. That's something that Putin has long wanted to see. You also saw the NATO meeting which the president went there. And although at the end he tried to declare that it was some success that NATO was stronger. I think everybody who has followed this knows well and understands that. In fact, the ally. Alliance has been severely weakened by the attitude that President Trump took. And then of course, it was capped by the Helsinki summit in which the president said, we have a great relationship with Russia and when asked pointblank by Jonathan linear of the AP, you know, who do you believe your own intelligence services or the Russian intelligence services? He said I have quote confidence in both sides of the boat side. Exactly. It's the moral equivalence between an effect, the CIA and the KGB successor organizations, which to a CIA officer to the intelligence community professional who's out there, you know, working hard to to protect the country, risking his or her own life, risking the lives of his own assets in some very austere difficult corners of the world that is about as as great as an insult as you can hurl it intelligence professional. I agree with all of that, but do you have a theory as to why the president keeps seeming to take Putin side over his own people? It doesn't seem to be a way to endear himself to any constituency..

President Putin President Trump Russia Helsinki president NATO Vizi Russia United States Intel Intel committee Trudeau Michael McFaul CIA Carter special counsel European Union Muller
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:13 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"McDougal may represent a campaign finance violation. Thanks for your time. Love the podcast, extra question. Look, I think it depends on what the facts are. So one way for there to be a campaign finance violation is if you don't report in expenditure the Tim connection with your campaign, that's how there's transparency in our election process. So if you spend a lot of money on advertisements, that's supposed to be reported. So ordinarily a payment like the one that has been reported here between the owner of the National Enquirer and MS McDougal to buy her story about an alleged affair with Donald Trump and then kill it, what's known as catch and kill ordinarily with no further evidence or connection to the campaign or to President Trump wouldn't be much of anything. As a legal matter, at least on the other hand, as this now newly released tape suggests it's a tape, the Michael Cohen who probably didn't trust Donald Trump and trust. Trump's version of events, surreptitiously secretly recorded his client, which is a bizarre thing and who wouldn't council it, and I've never done it. And I would be very angry if someone did it to me, but he did it that tape seems to suggest that there was some conversation between among people representing Trump and the people who are responsible for the payment to MS McDougal at the National Enquirer. I don't think there's enough information yet in the tape cuts off and some of it is unclear, but regardless I think there's now the beginnings of some evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign itself felt the need for purposes of enhancing his election prospects to coordinate reimburse or pay the one hundred fifty thousand dollars McDougal. So that's an example of what a campaign finance. Violation allegation would look like. Now on the other hand, if it was not the Trump folks who made the payment and it really was made by the folks at the National Enquirer by David pecker on behalf of Donald Trump because it was going to help him in the campaign and is reasonable reason to think that because it came in the weeks before the election will the NATs, an illegal campaign contribution that both exceeds the limit and also wasn't disclosed. So kind of either way you slice it, there's a possibility of a campaign violation depending on what the motivations were, depending what people's knowledge was, and if it is a campaign finance violation than presumably some office will think about whether or not they should prosecute whether or not make sense, and is in the interests of Justice. In that office at the moment appears to be the southern district of New York. Before we get to the interview, I just wanted to share some news on a couple of fronts. I, some of you may know I've been writing a book. It's really, really hard. It's very, very slowly. But this past Monday, I finally. Delivered a draft of the book to my editor have off. He seemed very happy and I am very happy, but I've been mostly keeping my head down basically just doing this podcast and reading that book. And I've been thinking as I mentioned some weeks ago about the possibility of running for the open seat of attorney general of the state of New York, and I mentioned that I was likely to do it. Politics is not my Cup of tea, but I went to finish writing the book in sleep on it. I think it's an.

Donald Trump MS McDougal National Enquirer Trump New York Tim Michael Cohen attorney President editor David pecker one hundred fifty thousand dol
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

03:25 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"To be the epitome of arbitrary and capricious based on speech hashtag aspirin, thanks for you. The hashtag Matthew. So that's a very good question. And I have a bunch of things to say about it. As you'll hear in the conversation coming up with Jeremy bash. We spent quite a bit of time talking about the basics of security clearances and how information is classified and the different levels of classification. But because this is the world we live in now newsbreaks in a constant basis right after I tape it interview with Jeremy was the news that the president looks like he's considering stripping the security clearances from a number of people, including Jim Komi, Andy McCabe, John Brennan and some others. Now, as you say, people security clearances get removed all the time. And generally speaking, when people leave office, they lose their security clearance. I don't believe I any longer have security clearance. Maybe I do. I'm not aware of it. I don't expect to have it. I don't expect to be ridden on any classified information going forward because I left that that office there has been an exception as maybe you've been reading about and seeing on TV last few days for people who are very high up in the intelligence community so that they can give. The benefit of their experience and expertise and knowledge to their successors. So it's not something that's supposed to be a benefit to the person who continues to retain security clearance after the office because why would you do that? The reason we have it and the reason it's been afforded to a lot of people including folks like James Clapper, who I think has had continuous security clearance at the highest level for multiple decades. It's to allow current officials to read people in who have had those positions before and say, hey, we'd like to get the benefit of your wisdom and how we should have dealt with this issue or this crisis or this phenomenon better. And there are people need Tilden's community who have as a pro Bono matter on the side while they have other jobs after leaving office have formed working groups and gotten together and done sort of informal commissions. And the only reason they can provide that expertise and wisdom back to the government that used to employ them is to retain some security clearance. So you know, it's like something yourself in the eye despite someone else. So it doesn't make a lot of sense. And the second point is. You're absolutely right. There may be a first amendment challenge. I don't know. There's some lawyers including lawyer for any McCabe was suggested on social media that there's a first amendment problem here. If you decide to change the policy and decided you wanted to make sure that every former official no longer has a security clearance because that's a national security issue or it's bad policy and you decide as a blanket manner to do that, you know, maybe that's why maybe it's not, but that seems okay. But this is just the most recent manifestation of something president continues to do in other areas, and that is he singles out only his critics. You know, he singles out only the press outlets that he doesn't like he singles out only the former officials, they doesn't like and tries to figure out ways to punish them. The funny part about all this to these anything here can be funny, there's as Jim Komi has made clear through Ben witness this week and maybe other outlets he doesn't even have a security clearance. So you know, Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders and made a big deal of trying to take something away from somebody out of spite. And anger in retaliation that they don't even have. So it's a grievous combined with comedic as a lot of things as president does are just to give you a sense of how outlandish it is to decide you wanna take some privilege away from people who have criticized you in how unusual that is somebody..

Andy McCabe Jim Komi Jeremy president official aspirin James Clapper Tilden Sarah Huckabee Sanders Trump Ben John Brennan
"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

04:28 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Okay. Let's get to your questions. Hey, this is Jovan ration- in Lexington, Massachusetts. I had a question about all of this stuff is going on that might McFaul and Trump's suggesting that maybe he's talked with the Russians about having him turned over for questions. How does that even work? He is a private citizen and he doesn't have to talk to anybody if he doesn't want to. I mean, are they talking about having to have him arrested? I'm just not quite sure how that works. Thanks. Bye. Joe, thanks for your question. I actually spoke with ambassador McFaul over the weekend, and as you know, he was a guest on this program, not that long ago and you know he is naturally unhappy and upset his family's not happy and is upset because we've never seen a situation before where a president would even suggest that a former official and not just any visual, but the United States Basser to a country might be open to considering either handing someone over for questioning or maybe even positive about a criminal charge of some sort against someone who served his country as a public servant. And as a patriot, even though the happened in a prior administration, it's it's it's as close to an abomination as any other thing that president might consider. And it doesn't sound like putting America first couple of points with respect to the idea that that President Trump powerful as he is as the head of the executive branch could just pick up an American citizen in hand him over. To another country. That's really not going to happen that really couldn't happen. Notwithstanding the power that the president arrogates to himself and McFaul has acknowledged this. The threat really is not that in violation of law without going through. You know, things that are called 'em latch treaties that we have with other countries for the obtaining of evidence that's just not going to happen. The problem is as a master McFaul keeps reciting. It is similar to the problem that another guest past and future Bill Browder has made clear, and that is the problem being able to freely travel around the world is this thing called INTERPOL, which is a repository for among other things. Something called a red notice, which is basically a notification to governments around the world with respect to somebody who against him, there might be a criminal charge. So for example, if there's a notorious murderer in America and he becomes a fugitive and we want to make sure that we bring him back done through lawful process. The Americans would put a red notice in to the INTERPOL system so that when that person tries to flee and travel in between, let's say the UK and France. The authorities in France will get an alert because there's a red notice and would according to the agreements we have between and among countries might hold that person. And then depending on the process that unfolds deliver that person back to the United States. I mean, it's all complicated, that's a simplification, but that's how it's supposed to work that system. However, it can be abused and to the extent, you know, Trump's remarks were suggesting that we would allow the Russians as they have done with Bill Browder and others that we would allow the Russians to misuse the INTERPOL system and file some spurious criminal charge against Michael McFaul in Russia that would cause him and his family to be detained. If they traveled in the natural and ordinary course, that's worrisome. You know, there have been times when I've had to worry about travel because of the position that has been taken by the governor. Turkey, which I mentioned before, you know, by president Erta one personally, and you like to think that based on the work that you did in good faith as a public servant in this country, that when other countries start playing politics and start to manipulate actions and activities for their own political gain in their own country that we're not going to criminalise our own people's conduct. And as far as I know going back to forever American presidents respect in uphold the dignity of their prior public servants and don't know cave to foreign despots and through the rhetoric that the president was using. There's some doubt as to how strong Huby in defending American citizens. This next question comes in a tweet from Matthew Berge, Ron. Hey, pre Perera while I have no doubt a person's clearance can be stripped for pretty much any reason how is doing so based on criticism of the government, not a first amendment violation seems to me.

Russia president Michael McFaul McFaul INTERPOL Bill Browder Trump United States America Lexington Massachusetts Joe Matthew Berge Huby Turkey France Perera Erta
"jeremy bash" Discussed on MSNBC Morning Joe

MSNBC Morning Joe

01:43 min | 2 years ago

"jeremy bash" Discussed on MSNBC Morning Joe

"Good morning and welcome to morning joe it is wednesday february 21st with us here in washington we have washington anchor for bbc world news america katty kay former white house press secretary to president obama now and nbc news political analyst josh earnest the cofounder and ceo axios jim banda high and former chief of staff at the cia and department of defense now one nbc news national security analyst jeremy bash good to have you all on board this morning a lot going on what what goes go on around subscription headlines week we start with the new york post which of course rupert murdoch's paper uh and somebody the trend with go to trump's go to somebody that trump and jared kushner and a lot of people in the white house listen to some people have been surprised the past couple of days since parkland by the new york post headlines but here actually hope for guncontrol uh and of course you have the prison the united states saying he's moving on bumps stocks he's talking about uh background checks expanded background checks you also have in murdoch's other paper of note in uh better background checks the wall street journal better background checks for for gun control that's actually more of that so that's a planned the nra itself supports it really wouldn't goes for is the bill that pat toomey talking about putting back on but here's the daily news a one of the other papers the donald trump breeds every morning bump ban is fixing this and uh it's not but it is it is.

nbc donald trump pat toomey new york jared kushner analyst department of defense cia chief of staff jim banda ceo political analyst joe president white house nra wall street journal united states rupert murdoch