your first step is to pick up the telephone and call the f.b.i. . well absolutely or particularly if you're working with a good majority if you have some knowledge. it is of interest to a foreign service particularly for russian seems to be trying to print you seems unusual to say the least russians trying to befriend you seems unusual to say to say the least but i'm rushing and i work for a state funded channel i'm seeking knowledge from you clearly you used to work for the american government for the treasury department or you devised them at least in some capacity i'm trying to be friendly as well i have planning on calling the f.b.i. after this encounter. one of the great things about academia is that we believe in transparency and since i believe this is going to be on television i don't think i need to alert the f.b.i. about the fact that i've had a conversation with you all so. much more you know then will simply work for the intelligence agencies to be fair i think brennan's advice is an accurate one for

a certain subset of americans i think i'm fortunate as an academic the those rules don't necessarily apply today that's have said of americans would already know that i mean somebody working for the intelligence agencies they would be more suspicious of interacting with the russians but here they are giving an advise to the american public and it's specifically about having random interactions with the russian i mean as a russian i'm sure if any russian channel broadcast it something like that saying that you know russians should report them that american equation says to the f. is be up with cars and. don't you see how screwed it is i'm in the way i think you have to put this in the proper context which is as you well know one american was arrested here in america and with four passports who had a track rather a record of trying to engage russian people with military background on social media absolutely but nonetheless an american was seized and i would say it's not just the fact that an american was arrested we're also seeing in some ways to for.

when the united states and china and united states and canada and china in terms of arrests there in this case is that again it's not their random interaction that here they are talking specifically about americans being approached by russians who seem to be friendly reach into the boards of mr brennan is most unusual it's good it's not surprising to me that someone coming from an intelligence background has that kind of perspective on russians just randomly interacting with them that said i agree with you that if you're an ordinary american who doesn't have any affiliations with the united states government who doesn't have any affiliation with what would be considered aspects of the national security sector no that's a guy that's concluded that is somewhat exaggerated i'm perfectly happy to agree i heard you say that that while you yourself dislike conspiracy theories there is just too much smoke around trump for there to be no fire how much of that smoke is genuine and how much of that is created by segments like this the last time we talked was two was twenty sixteen i believe in its worst case or the

election just before the election and i think it was the one week we both thought hillary clinton is going to win it's worth considering what's come out since that and there's been enough to come out in terms of interactions between the trump campaign and elements of russian government and russian society to i agree with you not say that there is a master conspiracy work we don't know that we obviously don't know that you mentioned above mentioned interactions between the elements of the russian government that has never been established at all i mean there are some assertions that. you know some members of the trauma campaign passed some polls to people who work for the ukrainian government and who therefore may have had. god knows of a lot of connections with the russian security services there's also the meeting in trump tower in july there's that in there i did see representatives of the russian government come on but no no the me grant you that obviously there's you have to connect the dots a little bit on the other hand you also have to recall that the trump campaign in the trump ministration. flatly denied for

a long period of time any kind of interaction with any elements of russian society or any elements that would be concerned somewhat connected to the putin administration and that also turns out to have been a lie so you cannot blame americans for looking at the trump of ministration and wondering what exactly they're trying to hide the trouble ministration keeps and the trump white house in particular keeps denying things that wind up keep being true but nonetheless you're correct that there is no smoking gun at present that says trump is clearly a winning agent of lot of important that would be an exaggeration i grant you that but the truth is what's disturbing is we don't know the answers to these questions well but the lack of knowledge. i would suppose. people to act within the legal procedures at least and i'm sure you've seen this recent article in the new york times reporting that the f.b.i. has indeed opened a contrary intelligence probe to tromp on the suspicion of him being

a russian agent based solely on his public statements about the kind of policies he would live to perceive including his statement that he would want to have a more ephram clear relationship with russia why we need to rescue wasn't based just on that it was based on the fact that he fired james komi as the head of the f.b.i. was based on the fact that part of the reason he fired james comey was a stand simply because of coleman's investigation into the russia question and it was also presumably about the fact that he doesn't read it out shows i mean he wasn't hiding that but he isn't even within the mandate of the f.b.i. and i'm asking you as a foreign policy expert isn't even the beginning to mandate within the field of expertise all of the f.b.i. to make judgments what kind of policy is against for u.s. national security interests or i would say that one of the mandates of the f.b.i. is to engage in counterintelligence i grant you this is an unusual thing you normally don't have to ask where the president of the united states is compromising the national security of united states i would. also point out however that in some

ways this is been overtaken by events while everyone has been obsessed with a fact that the f.b.i. launched the investigation clearly that part of the investigation was handed over to robert muller when muller was named special counsel so the very fact that muller now clearly has this part of it his bailiwick suggests that all the accusations of f.b.i. bias either in either direction i don't think really apply anymore because clearly they were only engaging in this investigation for two to three weeks before there was name special counsel the most persuasive argument are heard for on this side supporting trump is that. in order to launch that investigation you still have to meet a certain legal standard don't you think that it's easier for security agencies and other groups to bypass that standard when it comes to trump no no i don't because the problem the basic problem i would argue these agents agencies have had to deal with with trump and again as you pointed out in the opening don't trump has not been like his predecessors he's violated all kinds of norms in terms of his dealing

with the intelligence agencies so the very fact that that happened i think in some ways probably instilled suspicions among elements of the f.b.i. and that is another issue that enough i mean in normal circumstances is it would not be enough that you would have not done that or better intelligence and no again this is the distinction between counterintelligence versus criminal i grant you that with a criminal investigation you would presumably need some body of evidence before you want to proceed with an indictment or some sort of legal action counter-intelligence is an entirely different thing in some ways the very nature of this mission is in the eyes to behold the do you thing intelligence agencies should be allowed to launch any kind of investigation against any sitting president simply because they have some suspicions based on his statements i think again the very fact that donald trump is such an unusual president is what prompted this the fact that the president as you say said a lot of things on the record that were somewhat disturbing the fact that he you know passed classified information on to the russian ambassador inside the oval office traditionally presidents don't do. so it does raise suspicions and i would

argue it raises valid suspicions furthermore and this is the most important point just because you have suspicions doesn't mean they're substantiated that's the whole reason you have an investigation in the first place the whole discourse and rochelle over the past two years is based on suspicions and as you know i merican like to say perception is a reality at one point all those suspicions become a reality that the bill clearly. has not only mr trump but any other president succeeding him to conduct any sensible paula foreign policy over the anyone else i guess i would say by that logic russia is more compromised in the united states since as we know the chicago council of global affairs has conducted polling of both american attitudes about whether russia has interfered with the u.s. to domestic policy and the levada center is conducted polls in russia it turns out more russians believe that the united states has interfered with russian domestic i mean that's on the record the americans bill is opposed to the internet but wait a minute we're going to say that this twenty five years ago that's twenty five years ago and god knows these until you're married but there's also been documented

records of russian government interference in the united states as well so i'm not it's not entirely clear to me why the russian perspective of u.s. interference is valid whereas the u.s. perception of russian interference is involved now but i think the the russian perception of the united states interfering in affairs of this country and pretty much every other country around the world doesn't stop the russians from pursuing a policy a foreign policy that would allow for constructive engagement with the united states that's the difference to i would argue that the problem there has been the trump of ministrations incompetent handling of foreign policy in combination with the sort of polling that you're talking about because it's worth pointing out it's not just the american people that have suspicions here it's the united states congress and last i checked in terms of the constitution there are a co-equal branch of government and so if you try to run a foreign policy that is expressly against the will of congress you will eventually run into political problems you said on many occasions that trump is unique in terms of how he breaks conventions isn't that also true about the congress and the opposition to him. that they are willing to break any no arms that existed up until

now to resist him and isn't that going to be a let legitimized for the president who will succeed and i would do it so it's interesting that you say that because in my country there's probably more complaints that congress isn't doing enough rather than congress is doing too much i don't think the and i think the answer is no in fact actually if you take a look at the history of congressional you know role over foreign policy in some ways what looks new now is that congress is actually taking an active voice this is the anomaly you can argue was actually the past twenty five years when congress did not take that much of an active role in foreign policy but if you go back to the cold war if you go back to you know before that congress used to assert a much greater you know a much larger voice in foreign policy but for a variety of reasons both justifiable and i would argue unjustifiably they ceded that control to the executive branch and so in some ways i think what you're seeing now is an attempt to sort of go back to an equilibrium in which congress has a greater role well press address and we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just

a few moments. and . reflect there's someone else living inside of me controlling my body. the byproduct. is the cause like severe depression. because it literally need him into a zombie it's crazy. you know we don't have to do anything it's not our fault. she

was crazy and all that. years traumatic because of. geysers financial survival guide liquid assets not those that you can convert into caste quite easily. to keep in mind no assets mean to a place of. record. because you know provision of my bike when i want to. get. there so you'll hide away lost his boss because i just got the. resources you know . anybody among my fellow those in prison but the best honest i didn't believe about. joining us is you know what i was you're not. you know that i'm your mother almost bought it i'm already but it was really difficult to go easy. on the lord

we're going to. give it up as well i must. get off on getting worse but those were the. one of those but it was just this weather this one of these i'm with. my body and we've got a bomb i just got that already yes equestrian in the thought of getting up there calling with you you're simply meant to carry out my thought aloud problem you just got to go you. are. welcome back to an apartment daniel drezner professor of international politics at tufts university professor address there you run it bad and we cheer reference your president trump as told larry in chief. and i have a toddler at home he is

a bit massive like all children that age but i think told there's. unique in challenging and sometimes appending. assumptions about life isn't that trumps historic mission to up or at least challenge long held sometimes faulty assumptions about america's role in the world and its policy so the generous wave of answering that question the way that would be most generous to trump is to say that you're correct that trump when he was running in two thousand and sixteen articulated a vision of foreign policy that was clearly at odds with what you would consider the sort of post-war liberal international consensus the american foreign policy is filled and there might be some claim that there are elements of that critique that have some validity here's the problem though it's not enough to offer a critique you can say that there are problems with the existing foreign policy and then you have to offer something that's better or sapir alternative and this is where i think trump is as failed miserably which is to say that his attitude with

respect to trade his attitude respect to great power relations is either wrong or internally logically inconsistent healthy debate about american foreign policy is essential not just globally but i think within the united states but you can't just tell me the status quo didn't work you have to tell me what's going to work but that i think he's pursuing certain policies in syria as well as with regards to you actually have a definition of what his policy is in syria i would love to think about a definition that they want a lecture in chief used to have and that lecture in chief if you remember it came to office with the promise of changing american relationship with the world i'm sure he fell for the same regime change folly as his predecessor trump hasn't done that he has he i know i would disagree strongly in fact no that's entirely correct that has changed the country you know if you want to talk about regime change ask about the u.s. administration's approach towards a wrong. clearly wants to have regime change in iran which i would assume would

disturb the russians more ones in the national interest and if there is a difference there and if we underestimated. how even then how even the regime would regime change in syria because i don't think you did what i think you should pursue the regime change in libya for sure and you have ruined the country totally for no good reason i would say that he wanted to send the case no i would disagree so that was not a stupid thing that he promised not to do you think libya was indeed a good policy i think it's worth remembering the context again with libya in which he wasn't the one who made the decision and it was you. know it was his nato allies and great britain that i don't don't play the influence of the american president obama had and not just say yes i can probably agree with you but if you recall when he actually mounts that he made it very clear the goal was prevent humanitarian catastrophe and so the question you always have to ask is i'm not saying that libya's worked out well you're obviously right about that but the other question to ask is if he doesn't intervene you have five hundred thousand people dead

a big ozzy because you have condoning this regime there i was in because the in february and march of two thousand and eleven and i can tell you for sure that there wouldn't be any blood that because the way the american and western media were reporting that they found they were showing crowds cheering on the streets but they weren't showing those same militants and rebels hanging policeman the lamp post and you know looting whole neighborhoods killing people raping people on the streets so that was not. you know ideally a democratic uprising as the americans claim we know everything we know it has turned out the way of what i'm trying to say is that you can't it's always easy to say in retrospect oh we should have intervened there we should have intervened there because of how things worked out you can argue there is a case to be made that in syria in fact that the obama nutrition was far too reticent terms of intervening given that the bloodbath that has happened since two thousand and eleven that he. directly are not contributed to that bloodbath by

funding overtly and covertly the training of and the funding and the arming all i'm sure. there is the ultimate culpability for the bloodbath in syria because he did not respond to the peaceful protests by his people to actually have a better life there and as a result you wind up having what was originally a peaceful protest in the spirit of the arab spring suddenly becoming rather violent and leading to the well you know that foreign policy is far more complicated than that and there are plenty of occasions when the americans were all very willing to turn a blind eye just told me you were in benghazi in two thousand and eleven and it was very simple so i'm sorry i think the narrow but i'm saying that they i was in syria as well and i think it was there was a very deliberate effort to. a war on the country and they had the united states very actively participated in that but rather than really getting a yes exactly i do want to ask you about trying to decision to pull troops from that country and how do you think it's going to change not only of the balance

within the country but do you think it changes anything in terms of larger broader geopolitics oh i think without question the fact that you had my pump a zero going through the you know the middle east who are trying to reassure you know u.s. allies in the region that we're committed to staying there and the fact that it's not clear that our allies really believe that at this point again not necessarily because there's no you know the instinct to get out of syria isn't the wrong instinct the question is the execution has been so god awful that you know the question becomes whether or not you can trust the u.s. to credibly commit to anything at least whether you can trust this administration to and in some ways the very fact that trump has been all over the map in terms of when these troops are going withdraw first announcing it's going to happen within i believe a month now saying it's going to be within four months of them potentially being a year these are the kinds of things and it's worth remembering that when trump ran for the president presidency he blasted as you called him the lecture in chief president obama for announcing a withdraw. all day from afghanistan thinking that that was

a really stupid way of conducting war fighting it is interesting to me how even donald trump the most unorthodox president winds of doing something very similar to what barack obama did. you know for some people in russia and they are not very vocal about it but i think it represents the first case when russia managed to. prevented the united states from executing its ill will if you will when american intervention to change the regime in any particular country was actually sabotaged is that the right way of interpreting it that and do you think russia could be successful in carrying out that strategy into the future. i would say it's not the first time russia has done this i mean remember when russian troops were sent to pristina airport back during the serbian conflict in one thousand and nine and also you know frankly there's ukraine as well which is an instance in which again russia you know managed to support its proxies in the east i think you can argue these are

instances in which yes russia's probably succeeded in thwarting what worries us preferences but again i would say i would put two caveats to this the first is that we don't know what the u.s. goal was in terms of regime change in syria's we've said before we don't really know i mean. i know the record and we know that barack obama wanted. to know that you know we know that the united states wanted assad gone we didn't know what was going to replace that and that's the point that i mean by that but i think the second thing to realize is that russia has had success in these areas in for the way i would put it it's home turf it's not surprising that russia cares more about ukraine it's not surprising that russia cares more about syria given that syria's always been russia's strongest ally in the arab middle east whether or not these things are going to work further afield i think is another question i think this question of war and peace is the ultimate contention between russia and the united states it's not you know that disagreements primarily another bout of trade they're not about values they're not even about the form of governance it's about the

america's ability and they believe in the united states that it can launch wars you know laterally if that is put aside if that is kept in chad by i would challenge the premise i don't think that's actually the fundamental dispute but i think the fundamental dispute is whether or not the united states where. acknowledges russia's a great power and i think the fact is that the two countries still don't agree on that perhaps outside of the trump white house and that's in some ways the front is what they are saying is that russia wants to be a mini united states yes i strongly disagree with that and russia doesn't want to unilaterally intervene militarily in other countries has been home because they're getting really good at it i have to tell you so are you entirely sure you come from with that statement well i well i'm totally sure that i would not want my country to take on that role and i work for a state funded channel so right here in the u.s. in the last ten years in georgia ukraine and syria russia clearly has done this you know and i recent and the reason i bring this up is that you say the united states wants to be able to do this this is where i think no i'm actually not saying that

and this is a question i wanted to ask you about because i heard you say recently that there's a growing number of americans who take positions opposite to trumps on trade on immigration what have you but what about this issue of war and peace do you think more americans want the united states to continue engaging militarily abroad even though the trump is pulling troops back home so actually this polling that just came out that shows that you're right that americans do want would prefer the u.s. to have a smaller military footprint in the greater middle east that said i don't think that americans are opposed in general to the idea of the united states having troops abroad i think the middle east is the exception for the united states the middle east has been the graveyard of god knows how many military missions over the last twenty years that have not turned out terribly well it's not surprising that that americans are growing weary of that particular intervention but that said i do i think it would be dangerous to infer from that the americans more generally have

a more isolationist position but they usually want to or the other i do simply asking you if the americans are more to continue launching more as a broad simply because trump opposes it and you say apparently not that's still there i don't believe isn't is because that launching way again the question is why are you doing it such as do you want to launch a war the question is. is there a reason why you think the use of u.s. force would make a difference and we're more in a situation were certainly as an articulated preference but for example you know as i said. clearly prefers the idea of regime change in iran we know from reporting terms the wall street journal the national security advisor both asked the military for options and they also know from their reporting in the american press that trump has so far resisted bolton's aggro and i would suggest that the american people would resist that as well can i bring us back to this issue of war and peace because i think that was the ultimate reason why the russians were most sympathetic of let's say hillary clinton and i think that's going to be with future

presidential candidates as well we have another this time democratic candidate who voiced a similar position to. the congresswoman from how why and she's already receiving a pretty favorable coverage is she in the russian media or the russian video fair fair enough ok absolutely but do you think there's any chance of if not russia then ten american people for saying that change of perspective that the military establishment most americans don't care about foreign policy this is the dirty truth about the united states the reason is that america is a very large country we are separated from the rest of the world by two large oceans and we are friendly neighbors to the north of the self most americans when they vote for president do not think about foreign policy it's not the issue that affects their pocketbook they care about the economy they care about other things it would take a u.s. military engagement on the scale of vietnam and on the losses comparable to vietnam

to generate that kind of american public response and it's telling the fact that we've had wars in iraq and afghanistan that have head dead but not nearly the number of casualties as we had in vietnam and it hasn't led to that sort of public blowback i mean you could argue that obama. barack obama beat hillary clinton in the in the two thousand primary i think foreign policy did play a role. there i don't think foreign policy really played a large role in. defeating hillary clinton and i honestly don't think foreign policy will play that large role in the twenty twenty large as well i heard you clearly say before that this lack of interest on the part of the american public in foreign policy also allowed for these gradual transfer of more and more you know a lot of powers to the office of presidents because congress is used to be dysfunctional do you think trump may force that back or change i mean the simply because he's seen this dangerous do you think the office of american presidency will be a little bit more constrained from now on i think you could argue the answer is yes

i mean in some ways what trump represents the object lesson to americans of you know the assumption was you could have best all his power of the presidency because personally the presidency was a grown adult and trump is testing that assumption and so it wouldn't surprise me if trump is defeated in two thousand and twenty you actually might see bipartisan support in congress for constrain the role the presidency the democrats because of just having been exposed to trump and the republicans because they're going to want to constrain whoever trump successor is and that also by the way is one of the reasons why you're you're not seeing trump declared a national emergency with respect to the shutdown in order from the wall because it occurred to republicans there does that on the shutdown any democrat who replaces trump will be able to do that with respect to climate change or gun regulation professor there it's always a pleasure talking to you i think you are viewers within the f.b.i. if there are any of these conversation and lightning well absolutely i encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to see you again same place same time here when all the parties.

when i came back from iraq now whoa marijuana her was cocaine methamphetamine so anything that's altering trying to get us out of. that bad mindset using the chemical that would be self medicating. i want to be drinking and drinking just killing myself. out the whole links don't

drink to get drunk alcoholics drink to feel normal. that's why alcoholics that's why a drug addicts do what they do shop while still for the next right here star cool under which these guys are breakthrough to it it just means to a. need to be helped and not good pushed on by the v.a.'s are as drugs go and stuff they need to be helped. and they just really shouldn't be looked at like numbers they should be looked at like people if they go to a veteran center for health issues be considered as someone who really needs attention and. you know world of big partisan. loftus and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that made stream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smart we need to stop slamming the door on the back 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. and the toyota to get up off the ground to serve begins again. down. democrats on the sounds of kind of fighting into i mean grown man like wrestling essentially in your office or hurling. through his window. or individual twisted away from the office or the toilet out of his crib. the obvious or did they kind of lunge for the weapon once missed and then when it happened on trace one as i was just hands didn't hit him i never saw any contact between the two and any kind of went back to where they were so the officers back here there try again fifteen feet apart at this point and that's when the officer pulled out his gun and aimed it on tree.