on this intelligence because of what was leaked to the new york times and you have noting what and nsc damage this does, not just to the safety of our troops but to the ability of the united states to aggregate information from our allies and have assets and get this valuable information. is going after trump, is that what you are saying? >> it very much could be. is the trump administration taking any action like an auto set -- an audit of the -- >> make no mistake, the doj has ,one several criminal referrals 104 on average per year under president trump. so we do take those steps. and we do have a president who ultimately, when it comes down to the safety of our troops, he doesn't take impulsive action, he takes deliberate action. we saw that in the protecting of our troops, and at the same time, when you had a rat, who shot down a drone, he chose not to strike back in that instance. it was a measured, proportionate response. the ultimate way to protect american troops is to not get into useless foreign wars. this president is on record for decades and decades of opposing foreign war

lots of prepublication review experience because she had done it for lots of former nsc people and by april 27th ellen knight had cleared the book. bolton had made all the changes she had asked for and on the 27th of april, government admits this, she told bolton, your book is clear. it doesn't have classified information and it's at that point that the white house brought in a new guy and this is where it gets kind of fiduciariy and this is what john bolton's lawyers are arguing in courtment they bring in a guy with no prepublication review experience. he's a former congressional aide michael ellis, he had been working in the white house's counsel office and sent over there effectively to second-guess the senior person who cleared the manuscript and he according to his affidavit to the judge found 6 examples of classified information that were still in there that were still in the bolton manuscript and he said, and then they went -- the government went to the judge and said you can't let this out, judge holds secret hearing, this is the strangest part of the whole prepublication revi

you have to understand the nsc, this is where everything happened. kennedy said, yeah, yeah, whatever i'm going to have bobby. he didn't pay attention to the nsc, and didn't used it the same way, end and bobius cutler was the man who implemented it. >> real quickly, george marshall, the relationship? >> that's a lecture in itself. marshall made eisenhower. we owe eisenhower to general r marshall. of course, marshall brought ike up, promoted him, gave him the biggest jobs of the war from war plans to running the european theater, to the command in normandy, which marshall probably wanted and said, mr. president it's not up to me, and roosevelt said, i'm going with ike. george marshall had been criticized for many, many months by senator joseph mccarthy, who said, hey, that marshall guy, he was over in china when it went communist, there must be a connection. believe it or not, of all the people. well, you would think that marshall's greatest, most successful protege, who had the platform would have said up and says any bad word about marshall, you're

one thing i will say is routine is when there is intelligence, and we spoke with folks over at the nsc and at the white house, when we get intelligence, verified or unverified, deemed credible or not credible, consensus or no consensus, that information if it in any way compromises the safety of the troops, that information goes to the troops on the ground and allies so they can take the appropriate measures. it is up to the president, in this case it was never briefed the president of the united states because there was no consensus. when it is, there's a strategic position to be made. so in this case, if there were a decision to be made on russia, those are the kind of things that are briefed when they are deemed credible. but in this case it wasn't briefed to the president. there is no consensus, but make no mistake this president will always protect the american troops. >> to follow-u follow up on thae are two points. one, [inaudible] this is a relevant issue. he might not know that there are policy decisions to be made if the president were presented with this information is unver

so was the performance of his twin brother who was in a different capacity at the nsc. you know, it was just as unacceptable for vindman i think to be singled out, for alex vindman to be singled out, even worse in a sense for his brother whose only sin, as far as i can tell, is that he was his twin. we don't know what his brother's fate is, but for alex vindman to retire from the military after it must have been 21, 22 years now, is really a loss for the country. and i'm sure that congress is going to be very interested over the coming weeks as to exactly what factored into his decision, his lawyer's letter highly critical of the white house. was there pressure from the white house? did the president's comments for shadow this. there is a lot we don't know. obviously we've just learned of this within the past hour or so. so as i say, i'm sure this is going to provoke a lot of questions, and it should. >> and he has himself tweeted, we've confirmed this is his tweet, "today i officially requested retirement from the u.s. army, an organization i love. my family and i look

and questions that come with single course reporting, that doesn't rise to the briefing of level of nscut frankly calling hoax. the press is pouncing on that and saying this is standard operating procedure from this administration when the white house is essentially under heat, what they do is redirect back to the media's voracity. howie: philippe, the president and the white house continue to insist that the president was not briefed on this matter by which they mean not verbally informed in the oval office but they have been careful not to deny that the times subsequently reported that the information was included in the written presidential brief. >> howie, i'm hearing you very choppy, i'm not saying it's a message of voidance but following up on emily, i would say the president keeps calling things hoaxes that his own administration, his own white house acknowledged are in existence, so whether he wants a debate about what was told to him or not, the media is correctly covering the parts of his administration including own white house press secretary, the underlying intelligence doe

knight with decades of experience the security clearance lots of prepublication she's done it for other nsc people. by april 27, ellen knight had cleared the book. bolton had made all of the changes she had asked for it on the 27th of april the government admits this, she told bolton your book is cleared. it does not have classified information. it's at that point the white house brought in a new guy. this is where it gets kind of fishy. this is what john bolton's lawyers are arguing in court. they bring in a guy with no prepublication review experienc experience. he'd been working in the white house counsel's office. set over there effectively to second-guess the senior person who cleared the manuscript. and he according to the affidavit to the judge found six examples of classified information that were still in there. there were still in the bolton manuscript. he said and the government went to the judge and said you cannot let this out the judge holds a secret hearing this is the strangest part of this whole review talks to the judge in private without the other counsel that any other p

they don't get discussed in the white house nsc. maybe the top three do. so the allegation as reported by "new york times" and corroborated by other media sources, said this went to a full nsc meeting in march. there is absolutely no way that the president wouldn't have been told about these emerging concerns. he had five phone calls with mr. putin. i've been present when the president of the united states makes a head-of-state phone call or meets a head of state in his office. we go in and brief him, everything about the background of the phone call. nobody told the president, hey, you got to tell mr. putin we believe they're trying to kill our soldiers in afghanistan? so i think it's shocking. mr. esper's statement is profoundly disappointing. this is an interagency conclusion. by the way, this isn't eight guys. these are men and women all over washington, cia, department of treasury, state department, department of defense, jcs, all of them trying to hammer out conclusions about a threat to u.s. forces. this is utter nonsense. a national security proces

it would appear based on the first "new york times" report that a meeting, an nsc meeting, was to dot. if you convened this meeting, doing nothing probably isn't on the list of things you'll take to the president. you'll probably break it to him gently that putin is killing american soldiers in afghanistan. "the new york times" is reporting that three are believed to be killed in connection to this program. we don't know they were going to take that to the president. would doing nothing except trying to squeeze him into the g-8 be on that list? >> doing nothing would be on that list. inviting him to the g-8 would not be on that list. calling the reports on this a hoax would not be on that list. all of those things contribute to, i think, a sense of superiority in putin's case over the president, an ability to manipulate this president in a way that fundamentally, whether it's meddling in elections or targeting u.s. troops, that putin has the upper hand. that's a tragedy for the country. >> it is a tragedy for the country, director brennan. to see him use the same smear for a russian

, because the nsc has coordination leverage. i think you need both. a coordinator at the state department with a restored global health security director and empowered senior director at the white house is probably the best structure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. panel.k you to our i think we have all learned a lot that will help us down the and make the world a better place. thank you, all. q&a, a pulitzer prize winner on the response to the covid-19 pandemic and medical science used to combat it. ofi have not seen a level collaborative spirit within the science fiction community -- science community of the stature in my life. that is encouraging news. hopefully we will have this by the end of the month, too, to three, to for drugs, including anybody's -- four, including antibodies. about 4, 5, orve six new owed alateen to see the inflammatory. >> monday night on the communicators, u.s. telecom president and ceo talks about the effect the coronavirus is having on telecommunications. despite the billions of dollars invested every

i did told others on the nsc staff, to talk to the lawyers, i told other white house advisers of my concernt i tried to focus on my job. it's easy from the outside to say that was wrong and maybe it was a mistake. i can only tell you what i did. it was for the purpose of trying to move the country and the white house in the right direction in terms of policy. >> so maybe it was a mistake as you reflect back? >> well, it -- it could be. i'm certainly aware i made mistakes. i tried to discuss some of them in the book. it was hardly perfect. there were probably things i could have done better. i'm not sure on this score it would have shifted the president's view on all this in part because he was hearing from so many people from the outside who didn't understand how the government was actually run that were influencing him. and it's not always clear as events go on that something is verging on the illegal, it may simply be unacceptable, unprofessional, unpresidential, so knowing at this time ukraine is a good example, exactly what was happening on a wide variety of areas that i or others might

investigator, and plenty of other things to do and i referred this to the lawyers and i told others on the nsc to talk to the lawyers and i told other white house advisors of my concern. but i try to focus on my job, it is easy from the outside to say that was wrong and maybe it was a mistake. i can only tell you what i did, for the purpose of trying to move the country and the white house in the right direction in terms of politics. >> maybe it was a mistake as you reflect back? >> it could be. i'm certainly aware i made mistakes and i try to discuss some of them in the book, it was hardly perfect and there were things that i could've done better, i'm not sure on this score that it would've shifted the president's view on all of this in part because he's hearing from 70 people from the outside who did not understand how the government was actually run that were influencing him. it is not always clear as events go on that something is merging on illegal, it may simply be unacceptable, unprofessional, presidential. knowing at the time ukraine is a good example, exactly what was happening in a w

director director of natiol intelligence of the joint -- chairman of the joint chiefs are advisors to the nsc but they are the only members. there's no one that has a guaranteed place at the table, if you will, that has anything to do with economics, international economics. not to mention the other problems we're facing and why shouldn't should jeff and more flexible national security council that allows not only the permanent presence of the secretary of the treasury, but perhaps others in the economic arena, but also the ability in people is on the environment? because the truth of the matter is, the national security apparatus, as long as it is in 2020, is still far more effective than the domestic policy side of the white house, and it has been that way almost forever. part of it is that the president has so much more authority in the national security arena to be able to get things done than he does in the domestic arena. so in the gulf war, the deputies committee that we had under the first president bush ended up handling a whole array of problems that were not strictly national secur

>> look, based on not just his service but his twin brother's service at the nsc. both of whom were pushed out of their assignments early, i think they certainly deserve promotion based on what i saw. they shouldn't be discriminated against. i hope there's nobody in the white house who's holding this up or putting bureaucratic obstacles in the way. i think it would be a terrible signal. i think this is something, this kind of corruption of this promotion process unfortunately typical of a number of things that have happened in the administration. i think it's a bad signal to all of our military. >> ambassador john bolton, thank you for your time. the book, again, is "the room where it happened" about his time in the trump white house. ambassador john bolton thank you for your time. >>> more than 10,000, you heard me, 10,000 new coronavirus cases reported in one state in a single day, and it's far from alone. the surges going into the holiday weekend is next. >>> then, a police officer punch as woman in the face at an airport, but the officer the union says the woma

believes more and more the russians are not doing anything bad from someone that served on trump's nscdirect off of national intelligence told cnn. this is totally false. radcliffe took his job in may of this year. >> more news just ahead. stop struggling to clean tough messes with sprays. try clean freak! it has three times the cleaning power to dissolve kitchen grease on contact. it works great on bathtubs. and even stainless steel. try clean freak from mr. clean. ♪ the open road is open again. and wherever you're headed, choice hotels is there. book direct at choicehotels.com. >>> finally tonight we share more stories from people that died of the coronavirus. maria, 89 years old. a strong work ethic that she instilled in her family. her daughter said the family was preparing to celebrate her 90th birthday last month. timothy worked as a photographer and artist. may they rest in peace and may their memories be a blessing. ♪ >>> as coronavirus cases surge the president claims he is fine with masks and said his administration has done everything right in the pandemic and the virus will

several of the top nsc staffers said they found out in the media that their boss tested positive for covid-19. and some people in the west wing were even surprised to learn about the diagnosis, which is notable given that he mostly works out of his office, which is in the west wing, not too far from the chief of staff's office and of course not too far from the oval office. >> is the president still essentially in this biological bunker, where everybody who comes to him has to be tested? i mean, is that still happening? or people around him still wearing masks? >> people in the west wing are not wearing masks. i had a meeting back there a few weeks ago. i went back there. i was the only one wearing a mask. so you don't often see staffers there wearing a mask. you have started to see a few more doing it today. larry kudlow is one person, who when he speaks with reporters after he did a tv hit, he doesn't normally wear a mask. and today, he was wearing one, improperly. but he was wearing a mask, which he said was because we were wearing them. and even saw some staffers getting on the p

mean, essentially what happens is ca has an analysis of these issues and this is within the purview of nsc at the time, and i think, you know, many administrations -- this is like they are 1 in 100 years lifetime event and many administrations in the past kind of ignored that. >> yeah. >> in terms of that. >> all right. >> in terms of that response being available. >> clearly, you guys did the homework and put it out there. before you go. you left. you're going to go back to being a professor at the university of chicago, but why did you leave the white house, toemmasz, becae some of the reporting is that you got pushed out. i believe you say it was because of the other economists around the president. >> well, i had a three-year leave, usually you only get a two-year leave and i had a three-year leave when i became acting chairman and basically i was going to go before august 2020 no matter what. i left a little bit early bus i did get frustrated with the process. i think when the president's process works correctly and the president likes this, there are several voices in the oval and yo

you worked on the nsc.ld officials in the white house not bring this to the president's attention? >> you know, if i have answer -- they have to answer for themselves. i know robert o'brien and i respect him. but trying to blame the briefer with no attention span, that is not -- we could not believe this is in the pdb. robert got the pdb and so does the chief of staff and all of the senior officials get the pdb and it shows a break down in the process. any threat to country, i just know from president bush, i used to go in the oval office and brief president bush regularly and josh bolton was the chief of staff and i said, josh, when i started doing this regularly, what is your advice? and he said it is easy. tell the president the truth, and in five minutes every morning. that is your job. and if there is information that russia is putting bounties on americans, and the president is about to talk to president putin, it is totally inconceivable that inside of the west wing nobody brought this to the preside

msnbc national security analyst ned price, a former special assistant to president obama and former nsc. ned, great to have you on. appreciate your time with us. let me first get your reaction to the trump administration maintaining that the president was not verbally briefed on the intelligence because there was no corroborating evidence. do you think that is a valid explanation? >> i spent over a decade in the cia, i have written pdbs, briefed pdbs, i've consumed them from the white house, i find that absolutely inconceivable, for two primary reasons. one, the nature of this intelligence. it had tactical import and geostrategic import. tactically, intelligence pertaining to force protection, protection of u.s. service members overseas is quickly and effectively briefed up the chain to include the president of the united states. when warranted. secondly, the geostrategic importance, this intelligence was blockbuster in claiming that russia was essentially paying bounties to afghan militants to target u.s. service members. that is something that the president of the united states needed

they had an nsc policy meeting to discuss options. of course they told the president of the united states. he had five phone calls with putin. i've been in the room when the president meets a foreign head of state or calls him on the phone and you prep the guy for what's coming up. and an, oh, by the way, putin put out a hit on u.s. troops, you would think, would be part of that background briefing. so the question, why is he doing this? it's a slap in the face to the u.s. armed forces who are suffering casualties in afghanistan. and by the way, it doesn't make a lot of sense. russia -- which i spent a lot of time in and out of -- brilliant people, good people, they deserve more than putin, a cleptocrat, a dictator. it's no longer a great power. the government is no longer -- besides nuclear weapons and oil, they have almost nothing that people are concerned about. what is he doing? the gdp of russia is less than that of california? something unusual is going on to have mr. putin have such an influence on the president of the united s

it was donald trump who stood up for the integrity of the election system by bringing in the nsc, the, the cia to work with states and locales to make sure every vote mattered and was counted. those are the facts of the case. after the election in 2016 it was the democrats who went on an attack against the president like we have never seen before. perpetrating an entire russia hoax, they were the ones who continue to say to this day that it was hillary clinton who won the election. they are still saying stacey abrams is the elected generator of georgia. they are the ones who have a problem standing up, but we won't take a lesson from them on that and we won't say right now that whatever happens, we are just going to say that's the way that it is, because we know now that democrats have a history of cheating and elections and we will not let them cheat on this one. if it is free and fair, donald trump will get four more years in the white house. >> harris: there is one thing that no one can guess, that's how covid-19 will play a role in how people choose to vote. we will cover it all.

in my experience from my time in the obama nsc, the u.s. can walk and chew gum at the same time. i think one of the unique features of the u.s./china relationship. i think the challenge that we face on north korea is that our interests are not perfectly aligned with the chinese interest. i think the chinese, as much as they don't like kim jong-un, i think they're willing to settle with a stable north korea that has a recessed nuclear capability as long as that north korea is basically aligned with china. and so we could go back to talks with the chinese on north korea, they would love that. the problem is, i think it would be very difficult to accomplish anything substantial at this stage because as long as north korea is not conducting provocative activities, the chinese are willing to live with that, albeit reluctantly. i would two recommendations for the president, number one, to launch a domestic revitalization initiative. the greatest step america could take to signal to china and american allies in asia and europe, that the united states has the wherewithal to compete with

we both know from -- asked you've met putin many times prior to 2017 but during your service on the nsceaches anything to change her evaluation of him or any changes in putin over that time that became evident in his meetings with u.s. representatives or his calls with president trump, et cetera? >> yeah, i mean, i think in some respect what you see somebody who's going much more comfortable in the kind of position that he's been in. heart of the obsession about putin and part of the explanation for what you're just kind of late out there but is that he is very consciously on up there too great a number of personas. the man without a facebook putin has decided that many faces on. we were trying to bring out in our book that we wrote was that he somebody was spent a lot of time thinking about his image and his brand and i was going to present himself beat bare chested riding around on horses the we haven't seen xi jinping doing that. this is a very studied role for putin, every single one of those defenses and all these different guises has been deliberate to make connection to a domesti

it has to tightly intergrate with the omb budget process and the nsc policy process or even eop it won't be effective. it has to have a big enough office to get the job done, but not so big that it is tempted to become operational. and it needs to have a clear relationship with a federal cio and federal cisa. at the end of the day, we need a position like the national cybersecurity director. cybersecurity is not just a technical problem. it is also an organizational problem. and so as a result we need to take some additional organizational steps to address it. we have taken the first few steps along that path and now it is time to create a position that can bring it all together. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. and i'm looking forward to your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. and now mr. yoran, you are now recognized. >> chairwoman, ranking member comer and member of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i would like to thank representatives langevin and gallagher for their leadership on the solarium commission and

my question is to you, if you were in your previous position as senior director of nsc, what steps would you be taking or advising this president to take to reduce our vulnerabilities? whether that be sabotage with medical supply chains or other supply chains important to our economy. why don't i go first and then i'll pass it on. things first i would say we are in the middle of the pandemic, it's getting worse in america, not better. time to gethe people to begin focusing on diversification. now is a time to make sure american citizens and health-care workers have access to the products they need into the extent ppe and ventilators are produced in china, i would focus on security and supply and i would not politicize this issue. either china in american politics with the covid issue, the president using racially motivated slurs, i wouldn't do that at a time in which americans still rely on access to basic medical supplies in order to fight the pandemic. second of all, i would initiate a study that looks at supply chain vulnerability for key medical devices when the time is right. at whe

white house, i think it was 2014 or 2015 covering the obama administration and i had sources inside nsc saying the exact time the chinese were making that agreement and shaking hand about it, they were launching new cyber attacks. so it seems the only thing the chinese do understand is a little bit of a poke in the eye. >> well, listen, president trump, i give president trump credit. he has poked them in the eye. he's put china back on its heels and the question, how do we best use that? china isn't going away. they've been around for 5,000 years. we are going to have to find ways to live with them. leland: an interesting point, live with them and figure out what they want. you look at chinese's bad acts of late. the south china sea, threatening the australian. fighting with the indians on the border, and poking the indians in the eye. they're harassing the japanese fishing fleets. what end? what do they want? >> china, i found i was there, they can be ham-handed. they doesn't have a way with diplomacy. they're blunt and trying to make a lot of enemies. we on the other hand are smarter,

brain and prepare for the hearing, he talked about the partnership that he had in his team with the nsc because nmc has coronation leverage that the state department does not have with the other agencies. i think you need both, the coordinator based at the state department with a restored global health security director in an empowered senior director at the white house is probably the best structure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, thank you torah panel, i think we have all learned a lot that will help us get to a place that will make the world a better place. thank you will and the hearing is injured. >> coming up a special additional book tv airing weeknights this week, tonight we focus on the presidency, university of virginia officer argues against the expanding powers of the presidency. then author kate anderson brower talks about her book team of size, the presidents club in the age of trump and later a presidential historian and former aid to president george w. bush and the internal sites that shape several pension under presidential ministrations. >> next the univers

providing the bounties at any level of confidence, that would kick off a policy process inside the nsc staff on how the u.s. should response -- respond. the analysts level of confidence would make a difference to that process. a medium to high level of confidence would lead to a policy decision i believe on how to respond, while a low level of confidence would result in a decision that more intelligence was necessary before a policy decision to be made. i will leave it to general nicholson to explain how the war fighters in afghanistan would have reacted to the information and to the analysis at any level of confidence. finally, a medium to high level confidence judgment that the russians were offering the bounties would in every administration that i worked in , and i worked in six, have resulted in some sort of policy action designed to deter the russians going forward. the safety of our troops would have required it. mr. chairman, let me stop there, and i look forward to answering the committee's questions thank -- questions. >> thank you. we will now go to dr. wallander. >> thank y

this accountable entity would not, , i repeat, would not reple the central of the nsc incorporated global security policy across the whole of government here in washington. alternatively it would ensure the effectiveness of global health security programs at the mission level. we put these ideas forward in this bipartisan bill, the global health secured in the policy act, and have invited all those who wish to participate to do so. this has to be a bipartisan effort. it's not too late to get back on track and to restore long-standing tradition of bipartisanship that is characterized every successful use global health program of the past 20 years. and it's not too late to focus our efforts on addressing the current covid-19 pandemic overseas in a manner that saves lives and protects the united states from future waves of infection. but let there be no mistake about it. this bill is designed to look at the future. there is no doubt this is going to happen again. we have been told that the bad population, particularly in the wuhan area in china, contains about 2000 viruses. this of course, t

think as you pointed out, president trump, vice president pence, secretary pompeo, robert o'brien, the nsccourt press to really -- to help the world come together, free market democracies come together to stand up to china. because of property theft, because of the militaryization, because of coronavirus and honk of kong. hong kong was the final straw, i think, hong kong and the pandemic. maria: i think you're right. i think at this point you are seeing allies across the world with the united states on this, knowing that this whole civil military fusion idea which is what you just talked about, the fact that everything first goes to the military and it is chinese law, you have to follow the ccp when it asks you to do something. but look what happened in the u.k., kt. huawei and 5g. the united kingdom has moved to ban the telecom company from its telecom companies from purchasing equipment made by huawei for their 5g networks, all existing huawei equipment must be removed by 2027. this move could increase pressure on other of countries i guess to enact similar rules. but secretary pompeo ca

might have been debate about this intelligence, but for someone who worked at the cia and the dni and nsc as she did, she finds it not credible that this information did not make its way to the president. so, how are democrats and also republicans on capitol hill reacting to this explosive story over the last couple of days? >> you're right, willie, that elissa slotkin in particular is somebody -- and there aren't a ton of them in congress -- she has worked with intelligence products. if she sees the product in front of her, she has a much better sense than the rest of us in terms of what that means. and she, essentially, came out, as you point out, and said, you know, you don't just throw something into the presidential daily brief. it is not necessarily common, but it's also not uncommon to have divisions between agencies, among agencies about this kind of intelligence, but it doesn't just show up in the president's briefing book out of nowhere or without being discussed. so, i think that that underscores the seriousness. and her assessment of that is one that we should believe in, beli

and so it is why we, for example, in 2017 established the nsc and endorsed russia strategy.ntleman i was very clear as to the weight on the importance of the independent scrutiny that the isc provides an y from my perspective on the government's perspective we will a lwa ys government's perspective we will always examine and reflect carefully on the incredibly important work and the importance of that being conducted in the independent way that the isc has always fulfilled its role in responsibility and i'm quite clear that that will continue into the future. the isc report suggests that the snp have questions to a nswer suggests that the snp have questions to answer about russian interference. does my right honourable friend agree that given how scotland and the independence referendum are at the centre of these allegations, it is right that these allegations, it is right that the snp explain what it knew about this issue and when. honourable friend has made her point i think very clearly and firmly and we will wait to see how the snp themselves respond to various points th