security held a meeting and you can see that tonight at 10 eastern. >> sunday night on afterwards. barbara aaron height with her book natural causes that explores how the body ages and dies. she is interviewed by science reporter natalie enter. -- and juror. -- and your -- >> watch afterwards, sunday night at 9 pm eastern. on c-span 2 book tv. >> former white house counterterrorism advisor monaco, former john brennan and james clapper discussed national security in a forum hosted by

the aspen institute here in washington dc. the moderator is msnbc nicole wallace. it's about an hour. >> okay we are ready. good evening everyone. i am clark urban the chairman of the aspen homeland kick security program. i'm delighted to welcome you guys for the preview event for the 2018 aspen security for him. a hearty thank you first of all to our sponsors for the form the summer. are major support comes from amazon web services, mattel, deloitte, lockheed martin, pwc.

in additional support from american airlines and miter -- we are very happy to have our media order -- mediator nicole. she is an nbc political analysis and the host of the must-see tv show, deadline white house. which airs weekdays at 4 pm, and director brennan tells me he rushed over from that show to be here tonight. before joining nbc, nicole was a cohost of abc's of you. previously as i mentioned she served as a community instructor in the white house for president george w. bush. she was also a senior advisor for the 2008 mikael and palin campaign. she is a best-selling author of no fewer than three macbooks. 18 acres -- three -- 3 books. with that please welcome nicole walsh.

>> thank you so much. the people that are here are our vanity most of the talking that you see. i have always cared about what all 3 of you have to say about everything but i think people with your jobs throughout history have never been must- see tv the way you are all now. nothing less than people's sense of what kind of country we are living in and what happens next hangs in the balance. thank you all 3 of you for contributing to the television network and put you on tv and get your voices out. i just want to start with something that director brennan and i talked about today. when asked about your thought, and ask about all the things that are living side-by-side for the first time. tremendously joyful, occurrences of seeing 3 detainees returned from north korea alongside the president talking about the ratings.

>> the reason i talk like this is if you can't be good, let them. it's very gratifying to me personally to see that since last time we did that was when i went to north korea, in november 2014 and brought out 2 citizens who were incarcerated in bad conditions. we should celebrate, no matter what or how it happened getting our citizens out of there. a place like north korea, in less than ideal conditions. so i feel good about that. i got a text from my son. and he said g this was a little different when you brought the 2 back. i did take note the reference

to high tv ratings at 3:00 in the morning or something like that. in our case, we try to stay invisible. we landed in mccourt airport base and dropped off the 2 detainees because that's where their families were and that was a minute objective is to get them with her family. i didn't get off the airplane, i did go up the -- to the cockpit to watch the reunion of the families which was really heartrending. -- heart wrenching. that was a clearly highlight. >> i asked the question that i did because i think that what you just described is the norm. the way you remove yourself from the event. and you watched from the

cockpit. so much of what we see -- feel as reporters covering the white house, is to not allow the obliteration of norms to be unremarked. let people make their minds to vote for whoever they want but let's talk about the dignified and normal weight to handle occasions like that. what about your thought of where you are in this moment and about the sort of every time, every event, whether it's the most sort of sensitive and urgent national security imperative, or bringing extramarital affairs into the briefing or whatever there is there seems to be a norm obliterated every day. >> first let me agree with jim on this issue of the return of the u.s. citizens last night or early this morning. we should give credit where credit is due. it is absolutely an accomplishment, that we should credit and we should praise and

we should be joyful for the return of the citizens to their families regardless of politics. i think, the norm issue whether it's in this is -- instance are the other things you avert to in your question, those are the things i am most concerned about when we think about the moment we are in. so, there are policy differences that something the administration agrees with her many i disagree with. the biggest concern i have aside from policy differences which is why you have elections elections do matter. that is appropriate rate? to have these differences. the thing i am most concerned about though, is this obliteration? is this erosion of norms and many democratic principles that we have seen whether it's a tax on the justice department and fbi, those are the things that i

think transcend all of these individual policy differences as concerned as i am on some of those, the much greater impact, is this chipping away in his erosion of norms we are seeing. that is the thing we should all be focused on.>> and mr. brennan we talked about this at 4:00, but one of the other things that coexist with the objective in the house is the president's approach to north korea and that obviously everyone hopes the american president goes to singapore as his president plans to do in june. with a leader like kim john in that america comes out on top you are worried about what is going to do? but i just think that kim john is not honorable or nice -- >> i just do not think kim john is honorable or nice. he has been masterful on how he has handled the situation with

united dates. i think it was very intentional in terms of his escalation as far as the acceleration of the nuclear testing and missile testing, as well as save -- cyber. is a way to ratchet up the tension between united states and north korea. and then to make the adjustments and then to be seen as much more accommodating in terms of saying i'm going to sit down and negotiate, i'm going to release his prisoners. i think is a ejection -- objection is for everyone to breathe a sigh of relief and then hoping that everyone will be sufficient so he can maintain his nuclear arsenal because they worked on it for so many years so hard. while at the same time during the sanctions relaxed and the national pressure off.'s been very masterful i think. i think mr. trump who happens to like flattery, and so nice things that kim john has said about him he has returned in kind. so in getting the world stage

with the president of the united states, is a tremendous coup for kim john. what is he actually given up? thankfully we have those 3 citizens back. he said he is going to retire the nuclear test site. but by all reports it already collapsed. he has 6 nuclear test already? he does not need to test more. i don't believe he is going to denuclearize. i don't think he will give up the capability that he and his father and grandfather worked as a deterrent against some type of military aggression against north korea. i think he will get a lot out of this. i think mr. trump frankly is going to use the summit , to say that it has been a success. he will portray it as such. he was a well we've got them to do this there's a lot of things going on behind the scenes, and kim john strategy is to draw it out over time, and relax because it's national pressure, and retain that nuclear

capability.>> this sort of thing that he said, i do think that 1 difference in contrast to what of the history that we have had engagement of the north koreans and think nuclear, is i believe the north koreans actually achieved whatever they wanted to achieve in the way of nuclear deterrent. they do not use the same standards, to validate the testing weapons as we might. in their mind, they achieved whatever it is they wanted. that puts them in the position, for the first time, of not being supplicant. which is the case in our previous engagements with them on nuclear matters. i give a lot of credit as an orchestrator here that the president needs a south korea. i think he managed his team respective accounts very astutely.

he tweeted out out -- how to influence him as north koreans they really wanted to be present and representative -- representative -- represented. kim john exploited that. he knows how to do that. i do think there's a difference , when i was there, ms. monaco, my first white house talking point was we must denuclearize. that was a nonstarter. he negotiated away his weapons of mass destruction and it didn't turn out well. so, i think it's a good thing they will talk, and listen.

will be very useful to get it straight from his mouth so to speak. north korea is a family-owned country. exactly we want to know exactly what they say they want and what is it would make them feel secure so they don't have to rely nuclear weapons. that price may be high. like withdrawing all u.s. forces at the peninsula, which is not a good thing to deal, not just for the peninsula, but it has huge regional applications. >> so i want to introduce urinalysis on pulling out of the iran nuclear agreement. what impact do you think that has on the conversation to be having singapore in june. >> i think john's point about the shrewdness of kim john's position, let's not forget, the 2 of the individuals that returned early in the night last night were detained in the

last 15 or 16 months. in the trump administration. so creating a chip that is used to position kim john with the same deals with same thing with the olympics. coming in with a high-strength. on the nuclear deal, this has been described as the most consequential decision that the president has made, and his presidency. the analysis and longtime professional speak to this. the analysis that it hurts her credibility, with the north, in terms of whether they venture into a deal we might remake later, i am less compelled by that because i think it applies too much rationality to both kim john, that's less of a

concern to what he does to our credibility with our allies. rate, i am more concerned about what the germans, the british, the french are seeing in terms of their efforts to work with us , to continue the -- to impose sanctions. although things will crumble, it is one more [null] in the armor of our transatlantic agreement. >> here some examples taking a few trips to europe pulling out of the paris accord, and also talking about caring more about pittsburgh and paris. the message have us come to our allies. and something a former intelligence official who tells me not to be so emotional. they said the real laws and

pulling out of the deals that we have never known or have the potential to know so much about why ron was doing as we did during the period of when we were in the deal. -- bout -- about what iran was doing. >> i think it was mr. trump following up on the campaign promise. it was a very flawed understanding of the deal, and then intentional miss representation of what the deal did. we were involved with that. i am surprised at how much of the iranians give up. i'm very invasive inspection regime. the other things to the deal are going to adhere to it. the europeans as well as russia and china. and i'm hoping that the iranians are not going to start to violate the terms of the agreements. i must tell you a lot of the european firms, wondering

whether the secondary sanctions are going to come in, and if they're gonna get penalized if they are going to continue to work with iran. it sets off a chain of events is disappointed as but also to our credibility in terms of our word. the commitment of one administration can be justified by the next. also the emphasis on bilateral deals. and dismissing the globalized wheel. whether it's the climate accord, or the paris accord, the transfer for partnership. even looking at things like nafta. just dismissing that, and this mantra of america first, america first is being heard around the world by a lot of our partners and allies. the united states is gonna use it to advantage itself at the expense of others. ever since world war ii the united date have had a very well deserved reputation, of trying to help all those rides.

yes, we're doing intrusive security and were trying to advance our geological and so forth. mr. trump is sending that all these deals are awful, and why are they awful? it's because they were negotiated by his predecessors. he does not understand them, he misrepresents them, in his usual way of you know this rhetorical broadside, he has convinced a lot of people around the world, you know he's the world's greatest showman. a lot of rhetorical flourishes signifying nothing. >> what john said is true, this retreat from any multilateral work, any cooperation, when you look at the major threats that we all expect -- spent our time

in government to terrorism to cyber threats to global health threats, every single one of them, requires a coordinated global, response. the u.s., has been an effective leader time and again of those global responses. and if you have an agenda, this is america operation in isolation, it does not have the confidence of its former partners, to address that stuff. i think that is a huge concern. >> in light of this, what is the plan b? plan b is a better deal. what that means, as we not -- we want to reduce iran to moderate its nuclear rate and stop all of its other terrorism activities in the region. but yet we are going to do that, with less than what we brought to them. there was never the

objective to create or make iran the shiny city on the hill. that was not in the cards at all. we only agreed to do the one narrow thing. we are to this point about dropping out of our alliances. no one is going to join us. to reassemble, the international coalition of people that really brought them to the sanctions and brought iran to negotiating table in the first place. we are getting out there all by ourselves. trying to induce an even broader reform of behavior then just nuclear. for me, which would you rather have? state sponsors with nuclear or state with -- without.

or use that as a building block and leverage, to get after this other behavior. the only thing that's bad about it in terms of the -- of iran, a place of the hard line narrative. there's a lot of people underfoot in iran, and a lot of nationwide demonstrations and frustrations and -- in particular the young people that want reform and are tired of the regime. what we do, is play to that narrative of opposition to engaging with united states. >> someone said that this does just that. it strengthens the hardliners, this furthers the impression of america and israel, do not want the best future for the iranian youth. even the harshest critics are saying that. do you think it is possible, you said the truck message, is

it a better deal?. >> if they want and i'd just -- i just another want to engage with us at all now. it was not a bilateral deal. and they're not dropping out. okay u.s., good luck. the prospect of trying to get broader behavioral change with less leverage to induce it, i don't get it.>> it was always seen as a building block, not going to name a region but it's not can it change its ways. now on the nuclear front. it would also help to encourage the moderator. why we simultaneously do the terrorism front, military front and so forth. but to try to do it all in one

fell swoop, that would be a bridge too far. let's try to put the nuclear program in a box. so we can build upon it in that dimension. naove taken with a building block. now maybe there's a great mice plan out there?>> does anyone disagree? is there one? i want to talk about russia. do you believe, now that what you knew when you testified about a year ago, about he and she who may be or unwittingly or not aiding the russian effort do we now know as a public to be no more that you could not address then or is there still more than we don't understand about what you all were dealing with in the summer and fall of 2016 in terms of the russian.

>> i learned a lot like some of the other folks here since the inauguration day 2016. a lot of things. is about the extent and nature of what the russians are doing. about how they are able to adopt all these personas in social media environment. and present themselves and try to be american citizens. i have to give the russians credit for the sophistication and the digital environment. and how they took full advantage of the freedoms and liberties that make this country great in order to present their case, and an -- try to undermine us. there's a lot more out there given that we were involved in not. any incidental collection that we might've picked up about an american person we would immediately follow -- forwarded to the fbi. knowing the russians the way we deal. and with great experience, there is about adoption -- a dozen russian illegals that

became american americans. that were then tapped by the russians to be able to facilitate russian intelligence objectives. i have no doubt whatsoever, that the russians during this whole run up to the campaign and to the election, were utilizing individuals who were both waiting and unwitting and some people who just blindly ignoring what the standards or norms or laws are about consorting with foreigners. i think bob moeller who is a national treasure will continue to uncover i'm sure there's a lot of stuff that bob mueller's team knows that we don't know. we are very eager to see. the russians are very very good. it's an insidious threat, and i think they were able to dupe a number of people and get people to work with them in a very, very unfortunate manner. >> you mean people the trump campaign?

>> i would not exclude anybody from that category. >> same question to you, but i would like to add to the conversation john mccain's expert today from his book leak he said we are not at war with just one president or one political entity is just war of the west. >> it's true. and have 6 you -- more years of him. putin. i would just say that we had a pretty good understanding of the broad outlines of what the russians were doing. i did not appreciate what we have learned in the details what we have learned on how the exploited social media. which is a big difference. there's a long history of the russians interfering with elections.

but never as direct as what they did in 2016. you have to think, they exceeded beyond their wildest expectations. just throwing discord and discontent in this country. that message is for everyone. block lives matter, white supremacist, pro-gun right, anti-gun rights they had messages to exploit everybody. the election was settled, the russians deliberately targeted the 3 states that the elections were up to. we have learned a lot on what has come out about the details of all of this. and about the russian sometimes you forget, they are raging war against us in active war in terms of immigration -- information operations campaign which is going on right now, they're preparing for a genetic

war and their strategic nuclear arsenal is gary. -- is scary. varying degrees, there are russians only have one adversary in mind when they in build those things and that's us. and putin has a strong animosity towards the west and what the country means, and our system and our standards. he's very opposed. he holds us responsible for the collapse. >> if you look at the indictment that was on february 16 from the moeller team. 15 russian individuals, the sheer scope of that effort i

urge folks who have not read it it is a page turner. speaking indictment. it really lays out a very thorough conspiracy i feel i think we have learned, and a 3500 facebook ads? they were released in the last day or two exposing exactly what jim said, going after every division in our society. i think mccain is exactly right that putin is at war with the west its leadership, the way it it is in the world, its vision of itself as u.s. on the shiny -- shiny city on the hill and i think putin wanted nothing more than to say you know, the americans are not all that and i'm going to fulfill that discontent. >> the russian government, the

russian intelligence services, and russian citizens, i'm expecting the next shoe or another shoe to drop would be the russian officials that are actually engage in that type of attack against our election. and that would serve as a basis for conspiracy. is you can't conspire against a foreign citizen, but you can conspire with a foreign government. so i do think what we have seen so far is the tip of the iceberg but clearly has been stated, this was directed by mr. putin, and it was something that the russian government is a matter of policy. >> you both have taken the term for medium moeller investigation. there's a debate from the right and left about special councils in general. one of the debates i have often

is if not bob mueller then whom? should the trump administration been after the 13 people that bob mueller had to indict? and i am talking about the role that bob mueller is playing in our justice system in terms of punishing the people who meddled the 2016 and then we look at what bob mueller is doing, and you look at what the current national security officials have gone to capitol hill under oath and have testified, you have christopher rice testified under oath that the president said he would do anything to protect us from russia. your pond arose saying that were doing nothing too make sure that putin doesn't do it he did in 2016. give other officials under oath , not one of them has ever said that the president has ever asked them, to do anything to protect this country or our democracy or our elections from

russian intervention. speak to that fact in the predicament there with the president, the import -- and the importance of bob mueller right now. >> i quite agree with brennan that bob mueller's a national treasure and serving as his chief of staff. i think nobody better. we are very fortunate as a country in my view that he has answered the call once again. he signed up to go to vietnam, and earned a bronze star with the v for valor, he served his country in the justice department as a prosecutor, and let the fbi through the most tumultuous times up until now. in so, we are very fortunate that he is leading this investigation. and he will be driven and his team well by the facts and the law. the white house but to be rooting for his conclusion,

whatever it is. because i still believe, it has the best chance of having any legitimacy. and are very driven politics. >> do agree with that? jim? >> absolutely. i do. >> what's the danger if bob mueller gets fired? >> it would set off a firestorm. not only on the hill but in the streets. i don't think that would be a good thing to happen. >> i think they're trying to find a pretext since the department of justice is rightly refusing to provide information about sources,

very, very sensitive intelligence to the oversight committees. is something we would never do a show identities. you protect them jealously. and vigorously. i think everyone's looking for a reason to fire them that would take and help constrain bob mueller. im concerned on what's going to happen in the coming weeks and months because i think mr. trump and others see that the circle is tightening up at an bob mueller's investigation continues to move forward. mike pence said in an interview, he hopes this thing will be brought to a conclusion soon. but that is not going to phase bob mueller one iota. he will not move any faster or slower. than the situation requires. i think, we're going to be facing some painful times ahead. more painful i think it will get worse before it gets better. it will be a true test of our democracy and institution of governance. and checks and balances. but i'm confident that this

country is strong and we will be able to get through it. it's going to be no pun intended -- intended stormy weather's until we get there. >> last time we were together, we are with general hayden and the topic was an assault on the troops. before there was a war on the department of justice and fbi and before the trump appointed director of the fbi was rebuffed by markãrecommend like paul, and he had grave concerns. paul ryan went to the white house and the white house said well we released it. before that, before the war on the justice department and fbi, the president before he became president was in war with the intelligence community. what has transpired let's talk about, and how they've had to adjust and use their chief client the intelligence product, how it's delivered to the -- president.

some say he doesn't read it's -- they go through things verbally with him but they do not brief anything orally about russia so that's just in the written version that he doesn't read? so talk about serving in america's intelligence community. >> i think the one before this, to brief on trump's intelligence. a 2017. -- of trump's intelligence committee. he was professional for the most part, but he was very clear that there is a great difficulty accepting any evidence that indicates or questions the legitimacy of his election. there may be other things, and he's been consistent about that.

ever sense. -- ever since.. -- he was even calling people nazis. i felt like i could not sit still with pets. -- sit still with that. i called him but i only had 10 days left so. i tried to at the time impart to him as -- what a national treasure that he was inheriting as a national intelligence committee. thousands of dedicated men and women and some served in very odd places and great risk of their own lives. just to support policymakers and include policymaker number 1. and i wrote him a note accompanying his first tv. i hope you will embrace the notion of truth and paul.

and it's my believe i said this repeatedly, i believe the intelligence committee, and not listening to the truth in the long run put the nation in peril. >> do you agree? >> absolutely. the job of the intelligence community, is to give rigorous analysis, based on facts and based on all sorts of intelligence to present it. i would put in many hours of situations where these guys delivered i think analysis sometimes it got the rest of the table did not want to hear. they didn't mess it up one bit, and it helped inform policy decisions with rigorous analysis.

nobody thought for one minute, that these guys were the men and women that they loved, would tolerate such shaving. -- shaming. if you don't have the trust from the political leaders and men and women of the intelligence committee, that is a real danger for policy decisions. >> i will say, that it might be a high water mark or between the cia director and nobody could be more proud to have as my buddy john brennan. >> the 3 of us spent a lot of time talking to young americans. students at schools, the ones that want to enter those -- are going to those very noble professions of intelligence. what we do is try and spend a lot of time telling them, do not listen to all the craziness in washington. all this political commentary or whatever.

the men and women and from the cia and fbi do on a daily basis is so vital to this country's security and the future. so the people that are in the trenches right now, are used to this stuff. yes it's dispiriting, but they'll continue to do their mission. the ones i worry about the up- and-coming generation the ones we rely on for our futures but also the families of cia officers and fbi agents and others and once i keep the home fires burning, and the ones that make the sacrifices, the ones i have to juggle things. when their loved ones are lost to a place far away for extended period of time. they're not there to help the kids with homework. they are the ones that must say to their loved ones why are you doing this honey? because the united states is degrading her work and profession. as a try to make ends meet, and high cost area like washington dc. it's despicable.>> johnson point

-- john's point of importance of young people, we spent a lot of time making the rounds of colleges and universities. i was in pennsylvania yesterday, middle america. i spoke at erie county bar association observance of law day. i was very impressive. before this i spoke to about 125 high school and college students. in the erie proper or erie county. i will tell you, these kids are wonderful. smart, thoughtful, ask great questions. they are interested in public service. and not surprisingly i'm pushing intelligence committee. trying to recruit there. it's the geezer responsibility i think. is really quite inspiring. i think that is important for people to do is reach out to

them. that is the lifeblood of the intelligence committee. >> it's hard to recruit when you have you know a president making their career a civil servant us dirty word. that is really dispiriting, we all start our careers in public service, and to have career serval -- civil servant to be seen as a nasty set of words or something to be critical about is rough. >> i spent a lot of time in the area pa, and the counties that voted for trump. they have a lot of history. one thing i get asked a lot of time, is can you

imagine if when you were working you're making hundred $25,000 a year is a white house committee member or something like that. if the president had targeted you on twitter, or influence your employment and resulted in a situation where you either had to hire a defense attorney to represent you in a special conference, and most people have to become witnesses that do not make hundred $25,000 year. -- one $25,000 a year. i hear you, young people will say this, what will be left? he's leaving so much carnage and he's firing people on twitter nobody wants to go in there and have the reputation chicken. it's hard to sugarcoat the current state of affairs. i grapple with young people,

yes, go do these jobs, but are they ever going to be the same? i do not know. >> the question was the extent to which we are resilient. the resilience of our institutions. >> 40% of buying what he's selling, how many of us need to bounce back? >> that's the issue. how are we gonna come out of this? another shameless plug, i wrote with a collaborator. so i'm not supposed to talk about it. the only argument my collaborator -- my collaborator and i had on the last 3 ages. we had a pretty heated argument on how to any book. some should be go to reharb -- happy face version or very dark one? we finished up by saying the united dates have survived traumas before. civil war a travel -- a trauma

that i would lived through the vietnam war. and we came out better for it in most cases. that's where i stopped. and left it there. >> is a very large and painful national kidney stone. >> i'm not gonna let you go on that. because i can't top that. when it is gone, what does a body look like? is there truth? there's a lot of people saying i don't know what to believe anymore. but you seem nice i watch fox network and they say the fbi has been taken over by the deep statement he trump. they don't believe the fbi i

think a lot of people are scared about what's going happen. what is the party look like -- body look like? >> this is what the russians do. and what they want is for people to doubt that there is or that facts are not normal and they have done that. people are skeptical, cynical and it could be this or that. we digress into reality bubbles where people have their own sets of facts. the question is will we survive this, these institutions, i would like to think so. >> i think the answer to your question as potentially if the fbi when they stand up in the agent races -- raises his or

hand court to swear the truth in a investigation or case, where they have to be believed by the jury or by the judge, as somebody is not willing to report a crime or cooperate, that has real public or practical safety causes. in my hopeful that we are resilient? i am. i think the courts are stepping up i think the press is stepping up. i think we have to continue to have faith in those institutions and be engaged. whether it's young people or others who are engaged in public service or political or running first office. because they are so concerned. >> that was a beautifully elegantly dressed man has somewhere to go.>> president trump has been feeling polarization in this country. that is very much under minding

what this country really is all about and what they need to do in the future. to confront these challenges overseas and domestically. we really do need to have a people, who are in elected positions or others or appointed positions be able to speak openly, honestly, and candidly. all to him and the american people. stop apologizing and making excuses for really bad behavior. for unethical behavior. for things that are breaking norms left and right. what signals are resending to the young children of this country. these people like john mccain and others that have these fortitude to speak out. to many of those, and myself i'm not a republican or democrat i have and enemies on both sides. have friends on both sides of the aisle. that the republican party is going to salvage itself from the trauma of mr. trump that's

what it is. they really need to and reach deep inside themselves. >> i didn't really hear the question. >> i am wondering how talking about national security to nonexperts has changed, whether going to erie, pennsylvania?

is it totally the same is it changing? >> i think first of all, in general and this started before this administration, there is a lot more transparency. we have been driven to that, but that is a good thing. as a consequence, there is a lot more information out there and a lot of people do pay attention to it. i think the quick answer is it has raised level of sophistication to the answers i get. and i have been to remote areas, and i am always impressed with the level -- maybe these are just the people who are brave enough to ask questions. >> i would just add that as a tv viewer, foreign policy did not used to be the sort of

thing that would keep an audience from going outside to play with their kid. people have an insatiable -- and i worry that it is coming from a place of fear, i'm not saying that this is a good thing, but people do have intense interest -- like what all three of these public servants no. so people are asking more questions and they are desperate for reassurance. >> and nicole is one of the best anchors, you really are. because you are knowledgeable and balanced and sensible on these issues. and thank goodness for the fourth estate in the media in this country. i must say that the ideologues on the right and left to misrepresent the facts in order to espouse and advance political agendas do a disservice. i think we have to have more honest representation of what is going on out there, and less of the ideological fervor that

is driving people on whichever side of the political spectrum to become more convinced of the rightness of the right or the rightness of the left. we need more people in the middle who will talk about what this country needs to do together. >> bernie kutty, former air force b-52 member and a lawyer here in washington. in terms of what provoked putin, hillary -- the obama administration had a big plan for technological transfers and joint ventures and what have you. it did not work out. and hillary launched a huge campaign in the ukraine and let the west in a huge campaign to attack putin in the russians.

now, it got very personal between hillary and putin, as you probably all know. and putin then decided, this is what i gather, there was a lot to do that was not reported in the press that was going on in the ukraine, with hillary and with all her ngos and coming into the ukraine. it would be similar to russia going into mexico and trying to get involved in political situations there. >> which they are doing, by the way. >> writes. and we are probably going to react. in any event, you have any insight into what has provoked the attack by russia, by putin on the united states? and does this campaign in the ukraine plan to that at all?

>> well, let me try to jump in here. yes, there is great personal animus i putin for both clinton and for both president clinton and secretary clinton. any held her directly responsible for fomenting what he thought was a cold revolution. the ukraine for putin is part of this -- i've always characterized it as a throwback to the czars, not soviet court communist ideologue necessarily. and it is unthinkable for putin not to have a toehold of some sort in the ukraine. used to call that little rush off. and crimea was just correcting an injustice that was done some time ago when khrushchev gave crimea to the ukraine. so now he is in the position to

right that wrong. but it starts about what we talked about before, this general animus towards united states and all that we stand for, in our values and our system. and clearly, we saw this focused on hatred of clinton's, both the clintons, and especially her for attempting to foment a coalition. >> putin is paranoid, i think with some justification. he sees the united states and behind anything, at least the panama papers. the disallowing of the russian olympians because of the doping scandal. and so many things. and also the cold revolution. he sees that behind everything that goes behind what goes wrong in russia. not true. but the legitimate paranoia is a continued march of democracy that was going eastward and that was encroaching upon --

you point out ukraine. and ukraine was right in the middle of that. and he did not want the ukraine to gravitate toward you -- towards europe. so i think he interprets everything is a move against him and our efforts to try to change the regime in moscow. there and i think a lot of the statements about hillary's ngos were overstatements. yes, there were efforts to try to prop up some of these democratic initiatives inside of the ukraine that putin saw as a direct effort to try to displace influence there. >> nothing to add beyond the points. really we end where we began, which is this is about animus towards the west, towards the idea of the united states as a global validator and protector of the world order

, and being that should -- and being that shining city on the hill. >> there is no greater honor than sharing the stage with these three. they have in other places to go, so thank you. [ applause ]

>> prime time tonight on the c- span networks. doctors from the national institutes of health on the presidents 2019 budget request for the research centers. they testified before senate appropriations subcommittee. and on c-span 2, transportation security officials on the agency's pre-check program. homeland security subcommittee held a hearing and you can see it in its entirety tonight on 10 eastern. sunday night on afterwards, the book natural causes which explores how the body ages and dies. she is in her right -- interviewed by science reporter from the new york times.

>> that is one of the jobs of being old is passing your torch . taking what you know or have accomplished a or wonton and passing it on to younger hands. >> watch after words sunday night on c-span 2, book tv. >> next a senate hearing on the 2019 budget request for the federal communications commission, and the federal trade commission. after that, a senate hearing reviewing initiatives to improve railroad safety. than a house committee hearing looking at operations for the u.s. capital visitor center. later, a senate hearing on the epa's 2019 budget request. >> and now the chairs of the federal communications commission in the federal trade commission discuss thei