obama warm policy? >> i try to look for areas where i can be supportive of president trump and his foreign policy. whatever it turns out to be. for example, i agreed with where he came out on afghanistan. and i know it was a teleprompter speech and all of that. but i thought he said the right things. and we need to stay there. as undesirable as many may view that. so i thought that was the right call. i actually supported president trump's acceptance of the invitation at a summit with kim jong-un. i don't know where that is going to go. there are all kinds of potential pitfalls here. but, why not try something different. >> watch "afterwards" sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two.

>> next, the former national intelligence director joins former cia director john brennan and former white house homeland security and counterterrorism advisor lisa monaco for a conversation hosted by the aspen institute in washington. it is moderated by nicole wallace, the host of msnbc's "deadline white house."

>> we are ready. good evening everyone. i am clarks urban, the chairman of the aspen homeland security program. i am delighted to welcome all of you to our preview event for the 2018 aspen security forum. a hearty thanks first of all for the form to our sponsors. major support comes from amazon web services, lockheed martin, pwc, semantic. additional support from american airlines. we are very pleased to have as our moderator, an old friend of mine, nicole wallace from the george w. bush days. one of the major stars at nbc news. nicole is an nbc political analyst and also the host of the must-see tv show "deadline white house, which airs weekdays at 4 p.m. director brennan tells me he rushed over right from the show to be here tonight. so it is to for him. before, nicole was cohost of "the view." she had formally served as the key vacations director in house for george h. w. bush and was a senior advisor for the mccain campaign. she is a graduate of uc

berkeley. and the best-selling author of "no fewer than three books to -- 18 acres, it's classified and a clearly fictional work called madam, president. please welcome nicole. >> thank you so much. the stars are the people that will do most of the talking. and i have always cared about what all three of you have to say about everything. but i think it is fair to say the people with your job through out history have never seen must-see tv the way you all are now. and nothing less than people's sense of what kind of country we are living in and what happens next hangs in the balance. so thank you to all three of you for being contributors and getting her voice is out. i just want to start with something that doctor brennan and i talked about today --

and ask about all the things living side-by-side for the first time. the tremendously joyful occurrence of seeing two detainees return from north korea along said the president -- alongside the president. >> you can't be good and look good. it was very gratifying to me personally to see that since -- last time we do that was when i went to north korea in november of 2014 and bought out -- brought out two citizens that were incarcerated. and we should celebrate no matter what -- getting our citizens out of a place like north korea. and in less than ideal conditions. so i felt good about that.

i got a text from my son's high school teacher who said, this is a little different from when you brought the two back. i did take note of the reference to high tv ratings at 3:00 in the morning or something. and in our case, we tried to stay invisible. we landed at mcchord air force base in washington state. and dropped off the two detainees because that is where their family is so that was the main objective to get them reunited with their family. i did not get out of the airplane. i did go up to the cockpit and watch the reunion of the families, which was really heart wrenching. it was the highlight of my time -- among a lot of lowlifes.

that was clearly a highlight. >> i asked a question the way i did because i think that -- what you just described is the norm. the way you watched from the cockpit and remove yourself from the event. so much of what we feel -- is recovering -- as reporters covering this white house is to not let this go unremarked. let people make up their own minds to vote for whoever they want but let's not let the alliteration -- this is a dignified and normal way to handle an occasion like that. that is not what happened last night. can you speak to any thoughts about where we are in this moment? and every event -- whether it is the most sensitive and urgent national security imperative or bringing extramarital affairs -- whatever it is, that there seems to be a norm obliterated every day. >> let me first 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. and it is absolutely an accomplishment that we should credit and praise and be joyful for the return of the citizens and their families regardless of politics. >> i think the norm issue -- whether it is in this instance and all the other things he referred -- referred to in your question -- those are the things i am the most concerned about. so there are policy differences -- some things the administration does that i agree with and many that i disagree with. but the biggest concern i have, aside from policy differences -- which is why you have elections and elections matter. and that is appropriate -- to have these differences. the thing i am the most concerned about is this

obliteration -- this erosion of norms. and many democratic principles that we have seen -- whether it is a tech -- an attack on the just department and the fbi -- those are the things that will transcend all of these individual policy differences differences. as concerned as i am about some of those, the greater impact is the erosion of norms that we are seeing. that is the thing i think we should focus on. >> we talked about this at 4:00. one of the other things that coexist around any objective analysis -- the president's approach to north korea, is that obviously, everybody hopes that when an american president goes to a summit -- as the president plans to do in june -- with a leader like kim jong-un, that america comes out on top. >> i think that kim jong-un

-- who is not nice -- he has been masterful on how he has handled the united states -- the situation with the united states. i think it was intentional as far as his escalation -- as far as the missile testing -- as well as a way to ratchet up tensions between the united states and north korea. and then to make the adjustments and the scene is much more accommodating. and saying, i will -- i will say that i think his objective and intention is to bring it down to a level where the tensions are reducing and everyone is breathing a sigh of relief and hoping that will be sufficient so he can maintain his nuclear arsenal -- which they have worked so hard on for many years -- and the same

client -- same time, getting sanctions relaxed. i think he has been quite masterful. i think mr. trump -- who happens to like flattery -- so the nice things that kim jong-un has said about him, he has returned in kind. so getting the world stage with the president of the united states is a tremendous coup for kim jong-un on. and what has he actually given up? well, thankfully we have three citizens back. great for that. he says that he is going to retire the nuclear testing site. but we are told it has already collapsed. he has nuclear tests already so he does not need to test more. i do not believe he is going to denuclearize or give up the stockpile or the capability that he and his father and grandfather worked for as a deterrence against some type of military aggression against north korea. but i think he is getting a lot out of this. i think mr. trump frankly will use the summit to say that it

is a success. he will portray it as such. he will say, there are a lot of things going on behind the scene. and i think he will draw it out over time. but maintaining that. >> i do think that -- one difference in contrast to the history of the engagement with the north koreans and all things nuclear -- i believe the north koreans achieved whatever they wanted to achieve in the way of a nuclear deterrent. they don't use the same standards for validating and testing weapons as we might. but in their minds, 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 -- to

president moon of south korea. if you want to give somebody the nobel peace prize, i think him. he has managed the two respective accounts very astutely. the one to the north and the one here. as he figured out how to influence them -- and kim jong-un, -- in his case, they wanted to be representative of the winter olympics. i think president moon jae-in exploited that fairly well. of course he knows how to flatter our president by appealing to his ego. >> conway west figure that out. >> he has done that very well. >> i do think there is a difference. when i was there -- my first white house issue talking point was -- you must denuclearize. so that was a nonstarter. they went to school with

qadhafi and brought that up. with the weapons of mass destruction's -- did not turn out so well for him. i do think it is a good thing that there has been talk. but i hope the president will -- get it straight -- from one in the family. north korea is a family-owned country. exactly what they say they want and what is it that would make them feel secure so they don't have to rely on nuclear weapons? like withdrawing all u.s. forces from the peninsula which of course -- not a good thing to do. not just for the peninsula but huge implications. >> let me pick this up and introduce your analysis on -- pulling out of the iran nuclear agreement and what affect you think that has on the

conversations in singapore. >> the first thing -- first thing i was going to say -- was to john's point about the shrewdness of kim jong-un's positioning here. let's not forget two of the individuals that returned early in the wee hours of the night last night were detained in the last 15-16 months during the trump administration. so to the point of creating -- what could be used to position kim jong-un -- whether it is the same deal with the olympics -- coming in from a position of strength or high ground. on the nuclear deal -- this is -- it has been described as the most consequential decision that the president has made in his presidency. and the analysis -- and longtime intelligence professionals are probably better to speak to this. but the analysis that it hurts our credibility with the north,

in terms of whether they would enter into a deal where they think we might renegotiate from later -- i am less compelled by that. i think it applies too much rationality both to comes on and -- i think that is less of a concern than what it does to our credibility with our allies. so i am more concerned about with the germans, the brits, the french are seeing in terms of their efforts to work with us, to continue to impose sanctions. all of those things are going to crumble. and it is just one more change in the armor of our transit. >> there are examples out there -- taking 2-3 trips to europe to affirm our commitment to article five and pulling out of the paris accord gleefully

and talking joyfully about caring more about pittsburgh than paris -- as though the great united states of america cannot do both. the message to our allies. and something that a former intelligence official -- said -- that the real loss of pulling out of the deal is that we have never known or had the potential to know so much about what iran was doing as we did during the period during the obama deal. >> the iran nuclear agreement was blessed by the un security council. i think it is just -- mr. trump following up on it. in a campaign promise. although it was based on a very flawed understanding of the deal. an intentional misrepresentation of what the deal did. i feel jim, i and lisa were involved in that engagement. i am surprised at how much the iranians gave up. in terms of giving -- getting rid of two thirds -- of the stockpile and an invasive inspection regime. the other signatories to the deal -- -- i am hoping that

the iranians are not going to start to violate the terms of the agreement. a lot of the european firms -- are wondering whether the secondary sanctions will come in -- or penalize them for working with iran. so it sets off a chain of events -- as lisa pointed out -- and what it does to our credibility around the world. the commitment to one illustration to the next. this emphasis on bilateral deals. and dismissing the utility -- the importance in this globalized world of multilateral arrangements. whether it is the climate accord -- the paris accord -- whether it is the tpp, the transpacific partnership. even looking at things like nafta. and just dismissing that. and this mantra of america first, is being heard around

the world by a lot of our partners and allies in countries that the united states will use its muscularity to advance itself at the expense of others. ever since world war ii, the united states has had a very well-deserved reputation of helping all boats rise. we are doing it for national security interest advancement and -- but we are not doing it at the expense of others. mr. trump, i think, is sending a clear signal that -- all these deals are awful. why are they awful? because they were negotiated by his predecessors that came before him. he doesn't understand them. he misrepresents them. and in his usual way of these rhetorical broadsides, he is convinced a lot of people around the world -- giving him his due -- he is -- as the movie says, the world's greatest showman. signifying nothing in my mind. >> the danger -- what john

says is true. this retreat from any multilateral work -- any cooperation -- when you look at the major threat that we all spent our time and government dealing with -- from 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 time again on the global responses. and if you have an agenda that says america operates in isolation -- it doesn't have the confidence of the former partners to address those threats. i think that is a huge concern. >> one issue is -- in light of this, what is the plan b? >> plan b is a better deal. presumably, that means -- we want to -- not only induce

iran to moderate its nuclear behavior, but stop all the other activities in the region. but yet we are going to do that with less than what we brought there -- for the one dimension -- which was nuclear only. there was never the objective to create -- making iran the shiny city on the hill. that was not in the cards at all. so they only agreed to do the one narrow thing. to this point -- we are dropping out of our alliances. no one is going to join us, to reassemble the international coalition of people -- witches what really brought -- i ran to the negotiating table in the first place. so we will be trying to induce and even broader reform than the last of ministry should try

to do with just nuclear. and for me -- which would you rather have? state-sponsored terrorism with nuclear capability or without nuclear weapons capability. i think i would pick the latter. the agreement is flawed. what i would prefer is to use that as a building block and leverage to get after this nefarious behavior. the other thing that is bad about it, in terms of iran -- what this does is pleased to the hardliner narrative. it is a big upheaval in iran as exemplified by the nationwide demonstration. frustration particularly on the part of the young people in iran that want reform. they are tired of the corruption of the regime. what we do here is play to that narrative of opposition to engaging with the united states. >> someone said that this does just that. that the strengthens the hardliners. this furthers the impression that america and israel do not

want the best future for the iranian youth. this is what put the harshest critics of the deal -- many on the republican side -- on the corner of staying in the deal. you think it is possible -- is there a better deal to be had? >> why on earth what they want to engage with us now at all? in particular, since -- this was not -- this was not a bilateral deal between the united states and iran. there were other countries involved in they are not dropping out. and so okay, u.s., good luck. and the thought -- the prospect of trying to induce water and behavior change on the part of the iranians -- with less leverage to induce it -- i don't get it. >> jim said it was only scene as a building block. but it was going to give us breathing room on the nuclear front. and it would also help to

encourage along that path. while we simultaneously try to attack. all the troublemaking and nefarious activities. to try to do it all in one swoop -- i thing we all agreed that that would have been a bridge too far. let's make sure we can put the nuclear program in a box for a period of time, it will give us an opportunity to build upon it in the dimension and also in the other dimension. now you have taken away the building block. maybe they have a great and wise plan out there. >> you think they do? >> no. >> i don't. >> i want to keep whizzing around the world and ask you about russia. do you believe now that much of what you knew when you testified about a year ago -- about -- do we know, is it public -- or is there still

more that we don't understand about what you all were dealing with in the summer and fall of 2016? in terms of russian meddling? >> like other folks here, i have learned a lot since inauguration day of 2017. a lot of things. also, about the extent and the nature of what the russians were doing. how they were able to adopt all of these personas in the social media environment and present themselves to be american citizens. i have to give the russians credit for this sophistication in that environment. the sophistication -- in terms of how they took full advantage of the liberties that make this country great. in order to present their case and to try to undermine the election. so i think there is a lot more out there. given that jim and i were involved in intelligence collection. any incidental collection that we may have picked up something

about an american person, we would immediately follow that over to the fbi. and it was the responsibility. but knowing the russians the way we do and also with great experience here that a half- dozen years ago, there were about a dozen russian illegals that barreled into this country and became basically american americans. and they were then tapped by the russians to be able to facilitate russian intelligence -- i have no doubt whatsoever that the russians, during this whole run-up to the campaign or the election, were utilizing individuals who were both witting and unwitting. and some people who are just ignoring what the standards -- what the norms and what the laws are about consorting with foreigners. so i think bob mueller, who is a national treasure, will continue to uncover it. i'm sure a lot of stuff lobular's team -- they know what we don't know. we are all eager to see what it is. but the russians are

unfortunately, very good as 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 unfortunate manner. >> that includes people in the trump campaign? >> i would not exclude anybody from that category. >> i would also like to add to the conversation -- john mccain's excerpt today from his book. he said -- it is not just war with one political party, president but vladimir putin is at war with the west. >> that is true. and we will have at least six more years of him. >> who? >> vladimir putin. >> or maybe the other one too. >> -- i did not appreciate what we learned --

the details of what we learned on how they exploited social media. which is a big difference. the history of russian interference -- certainly going back to the 60s -- they involve themselves in one way or another -- but never as direct and multidimensional as what they did in 2016. and you have to think -- they exceeded beyond our wildest expectations. first the discontent -- they had messages for everybody. white supremacists, program rights, anti- gun rights. doesn't matter. they had messages to exploit everybody. and the russians deliver the target to the three states. so -- you know, we have since learned a lot about what has come out -- of the details of all of this.

>> another thing about the russians, we have a tendency to forget -- they are sort of waging war against us. waging an active war. the campaign going on right now -- they are preparing for a kinetic war. and the strategic mission or -- strategic nuclear arsenal is impressive and scary. and vladimir putin's speech on the 1st of march -- with weapons and the sort of thing -- the russians only have one adversary in mind when they build those things. it is us. and putin, strong animus toward the west and what this country means. -- and our system and our standards and all of that, he is utterly opposed to that. he thought the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest

geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. so he is not a friend. >> if you look at the indictment that was unsealed on figure 16th from the mueller team, the russian individuals and entities, the sheer scope of that effort -- i urge if you have not read it, it is a page turner. as a former prosecutor, we would call it a speaking indictment. it really lays out a very thorough conspiracy there. i think that is something obviously that we have learned. and the 3500 facebook ads that were released in the last day or two -- exposing exactly what jim said -- going after every schism and our society. i think -- senator mccain is exactly right. putin is that were with the west, its leadership, its role in the world. it's vision of itself is a

shining city on the hill. i think putin wanted nothing more than to say -- the americans -- they are not all that. and i am going to show that. >> and the indictment -- not mentioning the russian government. that was just individual private russian citizens. i am expecting one of the next shoes to drop will be the russian officials that are actually engaged in that type of attack against our election. that would serve as the basis for conspiracy. because you cannot conspire with a foreign citizen but you can conspire with a foreign government. so i do think that what we have seen so far is the tip of the iceberg. but clearly, -- this was directed by mr. putin and it is something that the russian government -- had as a matter of policy. >> you taken a turn to the

russia investigation. i want to stay there. there is a debate that is probably more robust -- about special counsel in general. one of the debates i had often with them was -- it is not bob mueller -- shouldn't the trump administration been after the 13 people bob mueller had to indict? i want to speak to the role bob mueller is playing in terms of our justice system and punishing the people? when you look at what bob mueller is doing and you look at what the current national security officials have testified to, did christopher wray testify under oath that the president never directed him to do anything to protect us from russia in the next election. that we are doing nothing to dis- incentivize putin from

doing what he did again. you have had other intelligence 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. so speak to that fact and the predicament they are in with the president and the importance of bob mueller right now. >> i agree with john brennan. bob mueller is a national treasure. having served as the chief of staff. i think there is 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 lead a platoon and earn a bronze star. he served his country and the justice department as a prosecutor and led the fbi through the most tumultuous times up until now in the recent history. so we are very fortunate indeed

that he is leading this investigation. and he will be driven -- and his team will be driven by the fact and the law. the white house -- it ought to be -- ought to be rooting for his conclusion -- whatever it is. because i still believe that it has the best chance of having any legitimacy in our very written politics. >> do you agree? >> absolutely. >> what is a danger -- with the firing of bob mueller? >> i hope he doesn't do that. >> it would set off a firestorm. i think there would be -- not only on the hill but in the streets. i really think that would be a bad thing to happen. >> i think rod rosenstein is probably more vulnerable. i think that is what devin

nunes is trying to do -- to find a pretext. refusing to provide information about sources -- very sensitive intelligence -- to the oversight committees. something we would never do -- you protect them jealously. and vigorously. i think devin nunes is looking for a reason to hire -- fire rod rosenstein. and constrained bob mueller. i really am concerned about what is going to happen in the coming weeks and months. because i do think that mr. trump and others see that the circle is tightening a bit. and bob mueller's investigation will move forward. mike pence just said in an interview that he hopes this thing will be brought to a conclusion very soon. that is not going to phase bob mueller one iota. he is not going to move any faster or any slower than the

situation requires. so i think -- we are 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. checks and balances in the system. i am confident that the country is strong and we will be able to get through it. but it is going to be -- no pun intended, stormy weather before we get there. >> i will leave that right there. the last time we were together -- we were with general hayden and the topic was -- an assault on the truth. before there was a war on the department of justice and the fbi just before the trump appointed director of the fbi was -- when paul ryan said he had grave concerns about a fisa application being shared with devin nunes -- ryan said, the white house released it. but before that, before the were on the justice department

and the fbi, the president -- before he became president, -- with the intelligence community, can you talk about what has transpired and how they have had to adjust? layers -- that is the chief client. the intelligence report is delivered to the president. we understand the white house has never pushed back -- i guess they go through things verbally with him. but they don't brief anything orally about russia so it is just the written version he doesn't read. talk to me about serving under donald trump in the intelligence committee. >> i think before -- the brief at trump tower -- on the assessment on the 6th of january of 2017 -- it was pretty clear then. he was cordial and professional for the most part and all of that. but i think it is very clear that -- the great difficulty -- he has great difficulty

accepting any evidence that indicates that a question of legitimacy on the election. i think that is at the root of -- there may be other things at root. and he has been very consistent about that ever since. and of course -- we sort of got off to a bad start. 10 days left in office -- and characterizing -- the -- community as nazis. i cannot sit still with that. michael -- amazingly took the call -- with only 10 days left. i tried -- at the time, in part to him what a national treasury he was -- what a national treasure he was inheriting in forms of intelligence. dedicated people who serve in bad places and with great risk to their lives -- to support

policymakers -- and include him as policymaker number one. and i wrote him a note -- about -- i hope he will embrace the notion -- because it is fundamental of the intelligence committee. it is my belief -- i have said this repeatedly -- i believe that the intelligence community will continue to serve with the truth -- and not serving the truth puts a nation at peril. >> do you agree? >> absolutely. the job of the intelligence community is to give rigorous analysis based on fact, based on all sorts of intelligence, to present it -- look, i was at many hours of meetings when these guys delivered -- analysis that sometimes they thought the rest of the table did not want to hear. they did not shaded one bit.

it helped inform policy decisions with rigorous analysis. nobody thought for one minute that these guys or the men and women that they lead would tolerate such shading. if you don't have the trust from the political leaders with the men and women of the intelligence community, that is a real danger for a policy decision. >> i will say -- that period may have been the high watermark of the bond between the director of the cia -- nobody could be more proud to have -- john brennan. >> the three of us spend a lot of time talking to young americans, students at schools. the ones who want to enter

those very noble professions -- intelligence and law enforcement. and what we do is spend a lot of time telling them -- don't listen to all this craziness in washington. all of these clinical commentary -- whatever. what the men and women of the cia -- fbi do on a daily basis is so vital to this country's security into the future. and so the people who are in the trenches right now are used to this stuff. they will continue to do the mission. the two constituencies i worry about is the up-and-coming generation. the ones we have to rely on for the future and also the families of cia officers, fbi agents and others. the one to keep the home fires burning. the one to make the sacrifices. the want to have to juggle things when their loved one goes off to a place far away -- for an extended period of time and they are not there. those husbands and wives, mothers, fathers and others are the ones that must say to their

loved ones when they come home -- why are you doing this, honey? the united states is disparaging your work in your profession -- as they are trying to make ends meet in a high-cost area like washington dc. despicable. >> adding to john's point towards the young people -- we both spent a lot of time making the rounds at colleges and universities. we were in erie pennsylvania yesterday -- i spoke at the county bar association in observance of law day, which i thought was very impressive. before this, i spoke to about 125 high school and college students in erie county. i will tell you that it restores your faith. these kids are wonderful. smart, thoughtful -- asking great questions. and are interested in public service. not surprisingly. i am pushing the intelligence

community -- trying to recruit. a geezer responsibility i guess. it is really quite inspiring and uplifting. and i think that is important for people to reach out to them. that is the lifeblood of the intelligence community. >> it is harder to recruit when you have got -- a president making the words "career civil servant" a set of dirty words. that is really dispiriting -- we all spent our careers in public service. and to have career civil servants be seen as a nasty set of words or something to be critical of -- i mean -- i have spent a lot of time in erie, pennsylvania. we can swap notes.

one of the counties that flipped for trump for the first time -- a lot of visitors. one thing that i get asked all the time is -- can you imagine that if when you are working in government, making $125,000 a year as a white house communications -- are senior staff or something like that -- if the president had targeted you on twitter -- influenced your employment and resulted in a situation where you either had to hear a defense attorney to represent you in a special counsel probe -- and most people that have had to become witnesses don't make $125,000 a year. this is -- i hear you. young people will save us. but from what? what will be left? he is leaving so much carnage. is firing people on twitter.

nobody wants to go in there and have a reputation. i just don't want to sugarcoat the current state of affairs. i grapple with young people -- yes, do those jobs but will they ever be the same? i don't know. >> i think the question is -- the extent to which we are resilient. the resilience of our institution. >> 40% of what he is selling -- how many of us need to bounce-back? >> that is precisely the issue. and how are we going to come out of it? my book is coming out on the 22nd of this month. >> get that book. >> i had to write it with a collaborator. >> do want to mention the title? >> that's all right. >> i'm not supposed to talk about it. >> sorry. >> the only argument my collaborator and i had was on the last three pages. we had a pretty heated argument

on how to end the book. so we did a happy face version and we did a dark version. >> we ended up by saying, the united states has lived through trauma before. the civil war -- vietnam -- in the end, we came out in both cases better for it. that is where i stopped. >> it is a very large and painful -- the relief we feel afterwards. >> i am not going to let you go on that. this is what we do to the colleagues on tv. when it is gone, what does the body look like? doesn't believe the truth? is there a truth? or before you present -- in erie -- saying, i don't know

what to believe anymore. you seem nice but i don't want your network. i watch fox. and they say the fbi has been taken over by the deep states. they don't believe the fbi. so if the fbi knocks on their door, i think a lot of people are scared. so what does the body look like after? >> great question. what they want is people to doubt that there is -- that the facts cannot be known. and whether they just cast out -- the people are skeptical or cynical -- it could be this or it could be that. what we have done is -- progress into reality bubbles where people have their own sets of the facts. it is very scary. the question on if we will survive this -- i would like

to think so. >> to answer your question, i think potentially we are less safe. right down to brass tacks. the fbi, when they stand up and the agent raises his or her hand in court to swear to tell the truth in an investigation or a case where they have to be believed by the jury or judge -- if somebody is not willing to report a crime to cooperate, that has real public safety consequences, i believe. so i'm hopeful we are resilient. the data points that we are as follows -- i think the courts are stepping up. i think the press is stepping up. and we have to continue to have faith in those institutions and to be engaged -- whether it is young people or -- others who are engaged in public service and political work and running for office because they are so concerned. >> i will give you the last

word. >> mr. trump has been feeling partisanship in this country. that is very much i think undermining what this country really is all about -- to confront these challenges overseas and domestically. and we really do need to have the people who are in either elected positions or others or appointed positions, be able to speak openly, honestly the world? we need people like john mccain and jeff flake and others who have had the fortitude to speak out. but too many of those, i think

-- speaking of myself, i have friends and enemies on both sides of the aisle. the friends on both sides of the aisle. but i think if republican par -- if the republican party is going to salvage itself from the trauma of mrs. trump, and that's what i think it is, then they really need to be able to reach deep inside themselves and find their north star and say are they republicans, partisans first and trump loyalists first? they will do what's right for the country. this country could get through this, but it is going to take some good living to be able to stand up and to be able to do what's right on behalf of this country and the future generation of americans. >> we have time for questions. who wants to go first? [ inaudible ] >> could everybody hear the question? >> i can be much louder. i'm wondering how talking about

national security to non- experts has changed in the last year, whether it's on twitter or going to erie, pennsylvania, or wherever. are the questions changing or how people are receiving the information changing? is it totally different? >> well i think first of all, in general, and this started before this administration. there is a lot more transparency. we sort of have been driven to that, but that's a good thing. and with the consequences, there is a lot more information out there. and a lot of people, they do pay attention to it. i guess the quick answer to your question is, i think it has raised a level of sophistication to the questions that i get, and i've been to a number of big colleges, universities, and small ones to all those areas. i'm always impressed with the level, it's the general rule i

think on the higher point. >> i would just add that as a tv viewer, you know, foreign policy used to not be this sort of thing that you keep an audience from going outside to play with their kid. these guys are coming up next. i mean that's a tease. he's going to speak on there. i mean people -- i worry that it comes from this place. i'm not saying it's a good thing. but people do have an intense interest in what people like all three of these public servants know. and poem are more interested. they are asking the questions. they're desperate for information and reassurance. >> that's one of the best anchors. you really are for sure, knowledgeable, balanced, and i think i said to you, sensible on these issues. thank goodness for the state of the media and this country, being able to get things out there. but i must say on the right and the left, who misrepresents the facts in order to advance

political agendas to a disservice. i think we have to have more honest representation of what's going on out there and less of the ideological fervor that is driving people on the political side of the spectrum to become more convinced about the rightness to the left and right. we need people in the middle who are really going to talk about what this country needs to do together. >> yes, sir? >> i think someone has a microphone for you that might help. >> i'm a crew member with the air force here in washington. in terms of what provoked -- hillary, you know, the obama administration had a reset with russia. and they had this big plan for technological transfers and joint ventures, what have you. it didn't work out.

and hillary launched a huge campaign in the ukraine to attack putin and the russians. now it got very personal between hillary and putin as you well know. putin decided it's what i gather, that it has a lot to do that wasn't reported in the press, going on in the ukraine. hillary with all her ngos, coming into the ukraine, it would be similar to russia going into mexico, trying to get evolved in the political situation there. >> which they're doing by the way. >> yeah, right. and we are probably going to react. and in any event, do you have

any insight into what is provoking the attack by russia, by putin on the united states. does this campaign in ukraine play into that at all? >> well let me chime in some sense here. yes, there is personal sides for both. he felt it was a cold revolution in 2011. intended to overturn his regime. ukraine for putin is a part of this, you know, i've always characterized him to throw back, not a communist, a grand vision of great russia. and it's unthinkable for putin not to have the total of some sort in ukraine, which they used to call little russia. you know, crimea was just an

injustice. it was some time ago when somebody gave crimea to ukraine. and so now he's in position to right that wrong. but it starts with what we talked about before. this general ominous with the united states and all the values we stand for. clearly we saw this focused on hatred of both the clintons and especially her for attempting the cold revolution. >> putin is pair node with some justification. what's not justified, he cease the united states behind everything, at least the an ma papers. disallowing of the russian olympias because of the drug scandal. there's so many things. and also the cold revolution. he sees them stand behind everything that goes wrong for russia, not true. but where the legitimate

paranoia is because he sees the continued march or had at least, the democracy that was going eastward and was encroaching upon. he .ed out ukraine, but they were right in the middle of that. he didn't want ukraine to gravitate towards europe. putin sees nato expansions continuing that way. and it's against the former soviet union and slaw. he interprets everything as a move against him and our efforts for the change regime in moscow. i think a lot of the statements about, you know, hillary were overstatements. yes, there were efforts to try to prop up what has made sense in the side of ukraine that putin saw as a direct effort to try to displace russians. but it goes back. >> nothing to add beyond, you know, to end where we began.

this is about towards the west, towards the idea of the united states as the global, you know, value day tores and the protector of the world order. and on that note, being that shining city on the hill and he wants nothing more than to knock us off that pedestal. there is no reassurance. other places to go, so thank you. [ applause ]

>> secretary of state mike pompeo is back on capitol hill in the morning to testify about his department's 2019 budget. we have live coverage at 10:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. testimony on wednesday on the house side of the capitol. pompeo was asked about a presidential tweet referring to a criminal deep state. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you secretary state pompeo for your civilian service as well as your military service. i also appreciate you being here today and agreeing to

testify. i'd like to ask you about a conflict in yemen. but before that, i just need to ask you a few questions about official statements, the president of the united states made this morning out of his twitter account. to sit there it is a criminal deep faith. as you know representative nunes has says he will investigate the state department. do you believe there's a criminal deep space at the state department? >> i haven't seen the comments from the president. i don't believe there's a deep state at the state department. >> thank you. you formerly served as cia director. do you believe your colleagues of cia are a part of the criminal deep state? >> the term deep state has been thrown around. it's a point that were aimed at achieving the president's objective and america's objective. >> thank you. that's your experience when you interact with the colleagues at the department of justice as well? >> yeah.

and there are always exceptions to every rule. i've never known an organization that has bad actors. no organization is exempt from having that as well. >> but in general you're confident that the members of the agencies are honoring their oaths to the united states constitution? >> yeah, yeah, in general, yes, sir. >> thank you. >> that was secretary pompeo testifying wednesday about the 2019 budget report before house members. he appears before the senate's foreign relations committee live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. commencement speeches next week in prime time, monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. oprah winfrey, representative steve scalise, rod rosenstein, and attorney joe cochan 2:00 p.m. eastern. clarence thomas, starbucks coo,

roselyn gates brewer, and nikki haley. wednesday 8:00 p.m. eastern, hillary clinton, rex tillerson, james mattis, and canadian prime minister, justin trudeau. thursday jim cook, governor john kasich, kate brown, and congressman luis gutierrez. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, jimmy carter, betsy devos, representative mark meadows, and atlanta mayor tisha lance-bottom. next week on c-span, c-span.org and on the c-span 3 radio app. two house oversight and government reform subcommittees held a joint hearing to review the effectiveness of a program using federal funds intended to help people with their home loans and debt. the hearings marked the 10th anniversary of the asset relief program known as tarp. this is about an hour and