come to worlds apart from the darkest day in the history of the american presidency to national treason there is no shortage of dramatic terms to describe the outrage some of the united states feel in the aftermath of the pollutant trump meeting in helsinki regardless of the leader's intentions indeed adding insult to injury and further crippled the u.s. russia relationship by driving critics of the wall well to discuss that i'm now joined by graham allison professor at the john f. kennedy school of government at harvard university and former u.s. assistant secretary of defense professor alison it's a great honor talking to you thank you very much for your time pleasure to be here well professor allison as i was following the news out of helsinki i thought that the united states ought to declare a june sixteenth as the national outrage day because i honestly don't remember so much spite of the venom over in policy terms at least nothing there and the agreement signed in helsinki trying didn't hand the keys from the white house to put in and yet the coverage of this meeting was as if he solved he's entire country

to an enemy where do you stand on these do you think trump indeed committed treason by engaging putin. well obviously that's an exaggeration but in the world of trope most everything is exaggerated so you are correct in saying that. his antics. think he has driven his critics up the wall or led them to you know excesses of all sorts so they say almost as if they deserve each other so trump is the most unusual idiosyncratic leader that we've seen he's in the midst of a very serious struggle at home with people who are hoping to impeach him and this is for trying to interpret it from moscow you've got to realize this is a reflection of a fundamental struggle that's going on within the u.s.

as you listen to the noises well we certainly understand that but i think that the domestic struggle also has major implications for the rest of the world including russia and i heard you say in an earlier interview that the reason why the soviet union and the united states in gazed in a dialogue wasn't because they liked each other it was for the exact opposite reason they disliked each other they saw our chances of conflict as high and they sought to diminish those chances by reducing a possibility for misunderstanding and the up trumps critics whom you mentioned apparently what they don't want him to engage in any sort of a dialogue or a perhaps they one pm to be extremely rude to put ten is that because they don't believe a war with russia is possible do they consider that as a as a concern at all. very good your two three good questions right there and i almost agree with all of them so first the extent to which the trump disorder

so a lot of trouble critics are so. if. there's something p.t.s.d. post-traumatic stress disorder which people come back from the battlefield with the for a lot of americans there's troop. disorder so. by trump whatever he does that he does a lot of it raising things so that's part of the confusion of what's going on and in being enraged about him even when when trump has a good idea which is communicating with your adversaries even your enemies even your didley is for the mix is a good idea because what you don't want to do is have two parties that are competitors or adversaries or even enemies stumbling into a war they don't want i often say that to russian friends and to american friends

at the defense department we should understand both americans and russians in. either president decides to kill everybody in the other country he can do it that's a hard fact so mr putin if he decides can erase the u.s. from the map of course in doing that he'll be committing suicide for russia so if somebody was to choose that that's a sad fact but they can do it but what they shouldn't do is stumble into a war and i think a lot of americans misunderstand the extent to which the ways in which failures to communicate for example where there are military operations in syria or even about the baltics could lead as they did in one nine hundred fourteen to a bunch of misunderstandings at the end of which you could be in a catastrophic war which would be crazy for russia would be crazy for the us well absolutely anything on that exact point both britain and trump agree they both stress that it would be wrong to make the us russia relationship hostage to

domestic politics in the united states but i think the argument could also be made by having such a core deal meeting they actually add it up making it even worse given the very negative coverage in the united states isn't it going to be even more difficult for the trumpet ministration to do anything remotely constructive on the issue of russia. it's a very very good point and i think unfortunately the issue of russia and russia gate and russia interference in the american election and the allegations of russia putin trump collusion which is a separate point have all got so in ten gold in the imagery that they're handicapping a relationship which is vital for both parties so the two separate issues one is. the russian government interfere in the twenty sixteen presidential election the

answer to that is yes almost certainly i've talked to jim clapper who was the head of national intelligence at the time he said ninety nine percent plus yes and that's this indictment is separate issue whether there's any evidence of collusion between putin and trump or the russian government and trump and that there's no evidence of that to date that's what miller is investigating but unfortunately these two issues could tangled up together and trump has not been very good at separating him and the consequence is just what you said that they leave they leave a relationship which is vital for our survival hostage to a domestic political debate while a professor ellison let's assume that what. you're saying is correct that those russian military intelligence officers are guilty as charged they had big clinton campaign they released these compromising though truthful information about one of

the candidates to the public i understand that that would be unpleasant but does it rise to you to a level of a capital offense in the day and age when everybody is spying on everybody let me remind everybody that it was the obama administration that was bugging go america's phones you know and everybody both in the obama administration and i seem in the term of ministration is leaking confidential information for political effect so is that relieved. big of a deal well it's a that's a very good question and so a fair question to ask from a russian perspective because from a russian perspective it looks like americans meddle in other elections maybe even in russia relations but certainly in the case of ukraine i think president putin believes that the americans participated in the overthrow of yannick of rich a democratically elected government and participated in the election of the government that's there now and there's some evidence for that so i think. that the

unfortunately from the american perspective the idea of anybody meddling in our election is absolutely unacceptable even if we should do things similar to that in other elections and i think what would have been a good outcome which was not achieved and helpful he but would have been a good outcome would have been to have the beginning of a very candid conversation about what each of us will do to each other and what we will do that's what we used to do in or was control with president reagan president reagan whom i worked for apple he thought the soviet union was the evil empire so he had no doubt this was his enemy but at the same time he was happy to reach arms control agreements to constrain things americans would otherwise do in order to get the soviet union to constrain itself in ways that would be dangerous so i think

there's an opportunity in this space for the two countries to try to do that professor allison i'm sure president putin would totally agree with you on one because he was the one who is has been talking about a cyber security treaty and i think it's the united states that he's not really eager to add to those negotiations bits russia but do you think that would actually satisfy outruns critics because they keep telling that. didn't stand up forcefully enough to put in. and i cannot help wondering what the what they actually like trying to do to put it to spit in his face to beat him up i mean what kind of position that would constitute a strong enough response for the. part of the political class in the united states about is so hateful of both putin and trump. the critics or the stream from critics are not going to be satisfied by anything but the impeachment and humiliation of trump that's their agenda and every day when they get up in the

morning that's what they try to advance and whatever happens in the world they tell that story from that point of view so this is essentially like traditional propaganda and i think there's a lot of that in what's going on that actually because these two issues have got tangled up together if it were the case that trump actually colluded with putin or the russian government and they helped him and it was a coordinated effort he would that would be an impeachable offense and if that were discovered to be the fact by mueller has not been discovered and i think it's not likely to be but if it were that would be a huge if it in american the recent politics there's a separate question which is of russian print meddling in the election those two things get tangled together sometimes deliberately by the critics but unfortunately they get to tangled in tropes mind so he defends one when he's really meaning to the from the other and i think makes his own situation more difficult now

a lot of their merican have lines in the aftermath of this meeting man siding with putin over the intelligent assessment of russian interference and to me that's hardly news because champ has been arguing that the miller probably has been partisan driven for quite some time but he has long been complaining that he and hillary clinton are not being given the same. so i wonder if accusing champ of siding with putin is just another way of expressing an outrage at trump simply being trump with the extreme critics what trump impeached whatever and whatever happens that's their agenda and trump gets up every day worrying about them and he's got a very substantial number of so-called resisters whose objective is to have him impeached and it's possible to happen if you go to lead brooke the betting site they would bet it's about a fifty fifty chance before the end of his term so it could happen and so that's

very agenda what i think the the what we're trying made a big mistake i believe in this healthy comet's inciting with putin or giving him the benefit of the doubt whether then the intelligence community is on russian participation in the election not when claims about. collusion so that's a be a separate matter but the two things have gotten tangled as i say in trouble spying and in the public so that in appearing to side with trump so i would side with putin or over the intelligence analysts who came to the conclusion that there was collusion so that there was interference and that was the basis for this indictment he managed to. sort of basically torah himself well professor allison we have to take a short break now but we will be back in just a few moments states. somewhere

there may not be any kind of time and maybe bacterial life. but i think it's. probably the toughest life out there and certainly from now we can we can send him off the road want to interact with some other species out there. it's hard to imagine decades after the war a nazi don't it was still active branch in the nineteen seventies criminal had as the chair of its board a man convicted of mass murder and slavery at auschwitz the german company develops in the demise a drug that was promoted as completely safe even during pregnancy it turned out to

have terrible side effects what has happened to my baby is anything but. he's just got choked up many so they don't mind victims i have to this day received no compensation and never apologized for the suffering that i not only want the money i want the revenge. welcome back to worlds apart but graham allison professor at their john have can they be school of government at harvard professor ellison just before the break we talked about what you see as mistakes on trump's part let's. shift our attention to by president putin and many analysts noted that he for the first time

probably a rhetorical inserted himself in the midst of the domestic american politics on the side of trump and i mean i understand that for some of our american viewers that you know that supposedly was the case before with all those collusion allegations but up until monday the kremlin's line official line was that of neutrality and nonpartizanship which has changed and the reach some say may be associated with certain risks for russia do you agree with that. well i think i probably do that i think that it is a better for presidents of countries. not to vote quote or to favor one or another of candidates in a democratic election in fact that's not the first person to do that in the breasts that the president obama offered his view in the debate even between

the conservatives and. labor president obama offered a view there's no question that president clinton voted for yeltsin over the communists so there's a history of that but i would say in this case it was unnecessary and i found it surprising that putin took that much liberty in this situation i don't think there was any doubt that he even like hillary. even though initially he and hillary have had a very you know good relationship but either i don't know why he took it upon himself to say that and i don't think it helped him well i don't think it's i don't think it's a huge issue i just think it's a negative well you don't think it's a huge issue but some believe that there are potential risks there is a concern for example that put in voicing his support for trump more vocal lee will exacerbate the tensions between the american president and his intelligence community which would make this kind of coverage tug of war between the two even

more pronounced and which can spill over into a potential war theatres for example in ukraine or in syria is that do you exaggerate it. especially because this because the reaction was to the summit. because the subject was. so many surprises and because the reactions have been so exaggerated there's a temptation to. think up to too high a level of exaggeration so i would say that's overly exaggerated but i personally don't think that was just a random statement on the part of britain because he also took an aim at hillary clinton and he specifically sad that her campaign may have benefited from funds that have been transferred to the united states illegally with the help of some intelligence officer so he was actually you know how being the point that trump was

making all along that the intelligence community is biased against him pursuing his angle of investigation while not pursuing any investigation against hillary said the two did seem to a play a little bit in concert don't you think. it's a good it's a fair point but if if he has evidence that some russian actor transferred money to an american whatever sort and intelligence officer or anybody else and that that money with the campaign he should be talking about this he should simply provide the evidence and that would be subject to the investigation because the mueller investigation is investigating all of this and it would include that and it will i think put in may the exactly. in response to the indictment of twelve russian military intelligence officers he said that miller investigators would be welcome to come to russia in charge gave those suspects but in greece in

return he would expect a certain accommodation from the american officials from the american prosecution with regard to that charge do you think the american side is like. to take up on that all for a because i'm sure try to trump actually said that it was a good idea but do you think the bureaucracy is likely to welcome something like that well i'm sure the bureaucracy won't welcome it and i think from an american point of view the temptation is to say well we'll go investigate your. folks but you cannot come here and investigate ours so i suspect it'll bogged down over reciprocity with whether in fact. such an investigation would likely produce anything i'm i'm not so sure i think that from what i can gather i've seen the indictment but i haven't seen it in the material that underpins it but i have talked to some of the people who are involved in the process and i think they have

evidence that's pretty conclusive you know so if you had a tape of a phone conversation between a and b. who say we have got that the e-mails from the d.n.c. headquarters and we are proposing to release them on this schedule and then somebody else says no don't use that schedule here's a different schedule then there's not a lot of investigation for that's required that's pretty conclusive evidence i don't know and i have no idea about what the evidence basis is but it could be that but that's and that's exactly the point because so far this case how these case has been adjudicated in the court of public opinion and everybody refers to the end to the evidence that he or she did actually have firsthand access to said do you think it would actually benefit the relationship between both countries to preserve all

those evidence into court of law that will well will now happen after the indictment in the american legal process will be in trial so an indictment only means that there's enough evidence. that a jury agrees this person deserves to be indicted then they have to be tried and many people who are indicted are found innocent so it's not for sure just because you're indicted doesn't mean you're guilty so i think bush should be a process for a trial and at the trial the evidence has to be a douche you can't simply say you heard or you saw or you think you have to show what is the evidence and then a jury. jury has a listen to this and. i don't agree so i think we're several steps away from that but i think we should do that now professor allison we talked before about how a dialogue with russia is becoming an anathema in its own right and i think

president trump seems to understand that otherwise he would have spent so much time on monday making the case talking to russia is ok other presidents did that too and that's interesting to me because as you said he's like no other president before him and yet he now tries to do exactly what many of his predecessors did how do you conceptualize president trump what i ask you stand in this long line of american leaders. unfortunately would just have to say he's a. huge part. so there's no question that in the as you say in the recycle of others who have had communications with russia he was trying to demonstrate that the problem that the claims that says simply by sitting and down and talking to the russian leader he was doing something unusual is a false claim so there's a lot of that noise he was trying to address the noise but if you ask about the way

in which he approached this meeting as similarly to the way that he approached the meeting with the north korean leader kim jong un is very different than any of his predecessors so i remember when ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev sat down and the process for that and reagan was also a very strange and unusual president who thought he had a feeling for what was going on there russia better than the intelligence community did and this it turned out he did he turned out to be more successful in understanding gorbachev than the consensus you know among among the talking heads so i think that in the in the trouble case. there's a there's a v.c. here in the u.s. who says the problem with the press is that they take trump literally he and not seriously and that's just backwards you should take him seriously and not literally

i know that trump likes to compare himself to reagan a lot and you obviously advised the president the reagan we can confidently say change the course of history for the better i had a chance to talk to many people the russian people here yesterday who had an experience of seeing reagan engage with gorbachev for example and many of them noted that he was a very very likable man regardless of what you thought about the policy issues what he thought about the united states you can relate to that person just in the human level do you think it's too late for president trump to try to be a little bit like legan of reagan in this regard. well i think he would wish that he could care where you know as you say they had this natural ability to both the appear to be relating to people and actually to relate to them and i think unfortunately for the american russian relationship i think this is something we'll

both suffer with the certain set of circumstances that have trumped tao trying to even when he's trying to do something that's absolutely right with respect to russia all caught up in so much domestic opposition i think it means that the relationship will continue to be very uneven. and troubled and i think that. that's just something that we have to survive so i think it's very important for example that now we have better military to military communications and i think trumps willingness to understand that obama's decision to quote punish russia by not talking to it and by stopping communication at multiple levels was a mistake so to so trump is changing that that's a good thing but still when he's the agent for the conversation everything that he

does will to a large part of the american population and especially to his words have very avid critics look suspicious. we have to leave it there i really appreciate your time today today and i encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to syria same place same time here on the part. of. our. possible. look

a still it's still you. must. know that. you could feel it's doing a little cool walk. this is. the thing to do it is really not. all for school it's only about the looking. forward to one of the nineteen well college. boys. cut. you up. in a world of big partisan lot and conspiracies it's time to wake up to

dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bats and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks. the new global economic war is unfolding in the realm of education the right to education as being supplanted by the right to access education loans higher education is becoming just another product that can be born and sold and it's not just a magic. it's also about running a business where you could. take an image. which is the place of students in this business model before college i was

born now i'm running stream high education for the new global economic rules. there may not be any kind of maybe bacterial life. but i think it's probably there's some intelligent life out there and certainly from now we can you can send a robot to interact with some other species out there. had

lunch for this hour here on the. bridge in the media at the white house analysis that the russian president is invited to the us later this year. three years the rebels see thousands of residents of through syria and they were moved to government controlled territory in a prisoner exchange. and. that video showing the dutch foreign minister saying that there's no such thing as a peaceful multicultural society triggers a wave of criticism that he claims he only made those comments and ordered the start of the fight guests followed his cue. ball to cultures has made europe as well.