the fact is the susan rice case unbelievable.e ambassador to the united nations is even worse to susan rice. more of whom aberdeen's emails came out and there are direct quotes of this person gave a million dollars to the clinton foundation, we need to take care of them. how can you not be indicting these people for playing out corruption? >> sean: wears robert mueller on this. if he's hired all of his obama clinton democratic donors and even hillary clinton's attorney. where are the investigations into these matters that i keep talking about every night? >> some movement on the house and senate judiciary committees, i think the republicans should be dramatically more aggressive in taking all of this on. for one thing, there ought to be subpoenas that expose all of financing of the clinton foundation back to its beginning that allow us to find the floor for money and will be stunned as to how much foreign money will be financing the clintons and their activities. i look at the effort to distort what the family has done. and then

this revelation emerged just weeks after it was revealed that susan rice had been unmasking members of the trump team who happened to be mentioned in classified intelligence reports by default the names are redacted but susan rice had been making sure that the names and information was readily available to anyone with a clearance to see classified government documents and potentially leak this information to the media susan rice's actions were flagged by as i recall one watt nick a member of the trumpet ministration since january apparently his revelation struck the wrong chord with mcmaster who has now dismissed him and it appears that's how it works with the general if he doesn't like you you go these people laid the very foundation of trump's foreign policy promises as a candidate we've been moving from one wrecked was intervention to another cut in libya syria iraq iran this destructive cycle bad decisions we cannot be the policeman of the world america first america first now that most of those who shape trumps foreign policy have gone we have this my attitude toward syria and ass

new york well according to reports the security clearance given to susan rice was a regular procedure issued for every living former presidential adviser rice says she never requested the identities of trump's team members to be revealed for political purposes. well former u.s. congressman michael family again thinks that mcmaster is pursuing a different us foreign policy strategy than the president and that's what's putting his future as the national security adviser at risk i think general mcmaster views his own views of the national security the united states his job and the foreign policy of this noted stays as superior to that of the president just like master was a mistake he's going to go to factors whatever is that he will even take over as commanding general in afghanistan put a uniform back on and he will be replaced with someone who can actually execute the trump administration's foreign policy goals still to come this hour bahrain's most prominent human rights campaign a face is prison again for tweeting but this time it's about a foreign war we'll explain why after the br

new york according to reports the security clearance given to susan rice was a regular procedure for every living former presidential adviser rice says she's never requested the identities of trump's team members to be revealed for political purposes only u.s. congressman michael flanagan thinks the mcmaster is pursuing a different us foreign policy strategy than the president announced was putting his future as the national security adviser at risk. i think general with master views his own views of the national security the united states his job in the foreign policy of this noted stays as superior to that of the president but master was a mistake he's going to go. and take over is clearly general in afghanistan where the uniform back up and he will be replaced with someone who can actually execute the trumpet ministrations foreign policy goals. now the leading bahraini human rights activist maybe what his job is facing up to fifteen years in prison this is trial resumes today for tweeting about the war in yemen the jab is the co-founder of the bahrain center for human rights and h

well according to reports the security clearance given to susan rice was a regular procedure issued for every living former presidential adviser rice say she's never requested the identities of team members be revealed for political purposes. interactive online campaign aimed at raising awareness about a right wing hate crime is being widely ridiculed in the u k. crossing the line it's called asks you to make several choices throughout the game depending on how you respond the story play out with your caracter becoming involved in far right activities it can even end with them killing a person or witnessing others commit murder through hate the project was created with the help of but for chirp police be endorsed by a number of other police forces right or wrong in britain to gain suggests that it doesn't take much to trigger someone to become violent or even radicalized the campaign is part of a wider one aimed at preventing terrorism well to debate the story we're not joined by a number of guests including my ahmed shah from the ramadan foundation and. political satirist you're both v

susan rice spent four years as president obama's national security advisor. during that time the threat from north korea only grew. now susan rice is criticizing the trump administration for trying a different strategy while warning that a preemptive attack would be a terrible idea. >> what i worry about is this discussion and preparation potentially for what the administration has called preventive war, or preemptive war. envision the united states potentially attacking north korea in the absence of an imminent or actual threat against the united states. deterence makes good sense, that's very essential for us to maintain, and obviously we don't take off the table the threat of the use of force. but preemptive war if one were thinking of executing that, would be catastrophic. >> oh, susan. so san , susan. i nearly walked out of the room. the great tabby bruce is with us. i've got to say this, tabby. you know, susan rice is, and people like her, are the reason we're at this point. for. 4 years, the susan rices of the world have told us there's nothing to worr

the susan rice case is unbelievable. ambassador to the united nations was worse than susan rice and there is case after case after case. and the story today or yesterday, when more of uman aberdeen's e-mails came out. a million to clinton foundation, we need to take care of them. how can you not indict them for plain outright corruption. >> robert mueller is involved in investigative creep and hired the attorneys. and where are the investigations to the matters i keep talking about every night? >> i think some movement in the house and senate judary committees. i think the republicans should be dramatically more aggressive in taking it on. and for one thing, they ought to be subpeona to expose all of the financing of the clinton foundation to allow us to find the flow of foreign money and we'll be stunned how much foreign money was financing the clinton and their activities and i look at the effort to distort what the trump family has done. and then the open public record done by bill and hillary clinton and tla allies d

already neck deep in it caleb artsy new york according to reports the security clearance given to susan rice was a regular procedure issued for every living former presidential adviser rice say she's never requested the identities of trump's team members to be revealed for political purposes. well if you'd like to have your say in any of those stories join the debates on r t v dot com always who i believe there are many big see you again at the top of the hour. in case you're new to the game this is how. the economy is built around corners corporations from washington to washington media the media the voters elected the businessman to run this country business equals power you must it's not business as usual it's business like it's never been done before. seemed wrong why don't we all just don't all. get to shape out these days comes to educate and in. equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground. oh. you're so you'll. join us as you know. the i mean. this is. just. getting worse but those that you have they speak. with. whiskey and he. just

>> well, i don't agree with that statement by susan rice. but that was not the policy of president obama. look at the policies of president bush and president clinton, they're all not that different. they're pretty much the same. it's a mix of military, keeping the military options on the table and using diplomacy. it's appropriate. and now we need to have stronger language but need to do it appropriately and be creative about it. >> mark: no, no, we don't need stronger language. we need to stop basket case psycho states nuclearizing. north korea has shared their nuclear technology with iran. iran said they want to share it's nuclear technology with sudan. i don't know where you go below sudan, but when sudan is nuclear, i guess they'll be sharing with it somalia and somalis with machetes be with somalis with nukes. where is this going to go, rebecca? >> susan rice essentially says that we can deal with a nuclear north korea. certainly explains why the obama policy was to look the other way. remember, in 2013 in an open hearing in the house

mcmaster say this to susan rice, juliette?ld be actually he's sort of saying the normal thing, which would be that the preld sesor at such a high level would continue to have their security clearance because of legacy issues, potential to write a memoire, assisting the new team even if the new team is of a different party. the natural transitions of national security occur amongst personnel because our threats do not end on inauguration day. in some ways this letter is more significant -- or is not significant because it is telling her she gets to keep the security clearance. it is significant because it undermines everything that donald trump -- h.r. mcmaster's boss -- has been saying about susan rice. >> steve, let's speak to that part. if h.r. mcmaster is saying, you keep it, it means you didn't do anything wrong, it means this unmasking talk must not be substantiated? >> well, that's exactly the interesting point and i would agree with juliette here. it is sort of a breath of fresh air in the sense this is how government u

for intelligence, and in march, after providing information to representative devon nunez accused susan rice in exposing identities with trump transition officials. and sent packing, lots of

mcmaster say this to susan rice?ying the normal thing, which would be that the predecessor would continue to have their security clearance because of legacy issues, the potential to write a memoir, assisting the new team, even if it's of a different party. the natural transitions occur amungs personnel because our national security threats do not end on inauguration day. it's more significant -- or not because it's telling her she can keep the security clearance. but because it undermines everything donald trump has been saying about susan rice. >> so, steve, let's speak to that part. is this if h.r. mcmaster is saying this unmasking talk must not be substanshiated. >> well, that's exactly the interesting point and i would agree with julia here. it's sort of a breath of fresh air in that this is how government usually works. the real issue is by implication, what is mcmaster saying? if he's believing what his boss is saying about susan rice, that there's a horrible problem with unmasking and so forth, you would think

i wanted to hold this for its own unique segment, it's susan rice. article about james clapper, then we have the article about ben rhodes, more leaks. seven times the amount of leaks than the previous two administrations, unless people go to jail for the felonies they're committing, were never going to see the end of this, i'm not saying anyone's guilty but it's got to be gone to the bottom of. >> section seven 702 could havn the back door that has been used for this unmasking. if it was done, in any way for political motives without going to the proper channels, this is a felony. you can't do this for political purposes. that happens in a police state, that doesn't happen in the united states of america. last time i checked we weren't a police state and you're not supposed to be able to spy on your political enemies, you're supposed to defeat them at the ballot box. ben rhodes of the national security advisor and others are going to have to answer these questions. i know he met with the senate intelligence committee last week. we don't know if the i

cheryl: susan rice says we should. whose side is china really on on all of this with latest on the threat, let's bring former military offer and former adviser to george w. bush brad blakeman. we have to start with the comments from susan rice saying that we should tolerate a nuclear north korea, should we? >> we should not and keep in mind that at after 40 years after failed diplomacy, 40 years of failed sanctions president trump did what he had to do to get china engaged and it worked. those messages oh coming out of china a clear message to north korea, don't launch the missiles. the president kept the word with his team in the country, america first, he's looking after our national security and doing exactly what he had to do, i have to tell you, a very strategic move on his part he knows as well as everyone in the intelligence community that no one wants a war here and in the end of the day, the president is preventing a war. cheryl: brad, you to wonder what china wants in all of this and the people's daily this m

we've been listening to people like susan rice, susan rices of this world have said trust in us for 24ears and as a result a one man psycho state that has a gdp of $12 billion, which is approximately half of what mark sucker wearing has personally made this year so far, seriously, has become a nuclear power. and susan rice, everything she says sounds measured and reasonable. but it is in fact i yacht tick. it is precisely the fact that the five great powers had nuclear weapons. and did have huge arsenals that meant they had no pressure on them to use them. the smaller number of missiles you have the more likelihood there is, because it's a simple use them or lose them situation. there's more chance of pakistan for example using its nuclear arsenal than france. the idea of north korea having nuclear weapons is comparable to the soviet union having nuclear weapons is absurd. who is next? yemen, somalia? a couple of tribes on the african border. >> lisa: mark you're so subtle sometimes. i'm joking. i want to get you in here pete. obviously as a veteran and someone who served this country.

even if susan rice is given this you know, what is a courtesy from mcmaster she is under investigation and she can continue to get classifyified information. >> sean: makings no sense and i would like an explanation from the white house on that. gregg, my experience is what we are seeing. starting with russia and now finances and then to obstruction and maybe then three years later like scooter libby on a perjury

susan rice, brennan about the unmasking and don't forget comey can be in trouble and starra carter reporting that the fbi general council, he's under investigation for leaking classified information to the press. what is going on here? and in the hills john solomon former director of national intelligence james clapper made it easier for the branch to unmask congress and the staffers. this is not in a bubble. all of hillary clinton's crime and bleaching and hammering devices we don't have a special counsel for that and uranium, 20s for of the american uranium and 145 million in kick backs. and what about the ukrainian

what we have seen, first, it was susan rice. national security advisor susan rice. then we saw ambassador at samantha power. then it became cia director john brennan. w now, it has expanded to ben rhodes, who worked closely with obama and susan rice. this is important. what they are asking for is the full year, from january 2016 up, until january 20th, 2017, they want to know how many times ben rhodes unmask americans, what was he looking at, and for what purpose, and why. if it wasn't dealing with specific national security issues, that becomes a very serious problem, and it also shows what they have been discovering, apparently and allegedly, that they weren't just looking at this national security -- >> sean: if they eased those rules. >> what we have seen since 2011, a 320% increase in unmasking. specifically after the election, that increased exponentially.ft the increased exponentially without explanation. remember, when those rules were relaxed, they could basically sign off. they did not have to file 80 pages like an analyst would at the cia. it was just a n

now unmasking on top of susan rice on top of the clapper story last week?s is huge. >> obviously the mainstream media is not necessarily wanting to focus on these very big issues associated with the obama administration as we know with the unmasking of trump campaignt officials, whether it be samantha powers or susan rice i think there's something that's happening here. we can call it celebrity media if you want to talk about that way, you have these individuals out there in the media it's not about fairness or objectivity, it's about doing what they can to continue to beat that drum on the president and this idea of impeaching the president. the president being dishonest, everything that's negative associate to the president. the american people are becoming numb. they get the joke. they understand there is too much negative media coverage against this president and i think at the end they look at this and say you guys are spinning yourselves in circlesth here while what we need to talk about are the kitchen table issues that matter, unemployment is the lo

>> i don't agree with that statement by susan rice.ut also it was not the policy of president obama. if you look at the policy of president clinton, a democrat, president bush, republican, president obama, a democrat, now, president trump, they are not all that different, they are pretty much the same. it's a mix of military options and using diplomacy. that is appropriate. it's appropriate now given that north korea is getting closer to up and icing its nuclear weapons,di that we need to have stronger language. we need to do it in an appropriate way and be creative about it. weab need -- >> mark: we don't need stronger language. we need to stop basket case psycho states nuclear rising. north korea has shared its nuclear technology with iran. iran has said it wants to share its nuclear technology with sudan. know where you go below sudan but when sudan becomes nuclear, i guess they will be sharing it with somalia, and somalis with machetes will instead be somalis with nukes. where is this going to go, rebecca? >> susan rice's op-ed in

susan rice and james clapper and john brennan can go away. go away. they're no longer in power.heir opinions are no longer required. they can go away. they're not helping. how would president obama like it if louis freeh and john as john ashcroft were slapping out their happy tunes. >> for susan rice, who has very little credibility at this point to come out and criticize president trump for mishandling a threat that her administration dumped in his lap is ir responsible. >> everybody has a right to their opinion. >> i disagree. [laughter] >> a lot of people didn't support president obama that were clear about his opinion while he was in office. she has a right to voice hers. i have mine, right? and my opinion is that this president with the way he's escalating the rhetoric, makes me a little bit nervous. i disagree with rush. north korea is a zit on a pig that has a nuclear weapon now. we can talk about how -- >> or maybe 60 of them. >> we can talk about how we got there, right? and i think every administration leading up to this one bears responsibility for that, democrat and

susan rice wrote a piece in "the new york times" that described his language as colorful, kim jong-unerous. it is an interesting thing. they have to settle down and get used to the fact that this is how he operates. this is how he negotiates. this is the language that hee uses. relax. russia is right. you're talking about 25 people in a a dark prison. that is north korea. a very tiny. >> dana: 2,080,000 people and prison crimes. >> can i say that susan rice, james clapper, and john brennan can go away. absolutely go right. they are no longer in power. their opinions are no longer acquired. they can go away. they are not helping. how would president obama would like it if john ashcroft was floating around their ideas and slapping of diplomatic tunes on sunday talk shows? go away. >> jesse: the obama people did not have a lot of success all over the world. specifically with north korea. for susan rice, who has very little credibility at this point to come out and criticize president trump for mishandlingm a threat that her administration dumped in his lap is a little irresponsible. >> m

here is susan rice talking about leadership. >> all of our allies and partners need to play a commensurate role, but there's a reason why they call the united states and the state department on 911 is because there isn't a country that matches our military, economic, and moral might. isther the challenge gathering a coalition to impose sanctions on russia after they invade crimea and ukraine, whether it is rallying the world to deal with the ebola epidemic come a whether it's building a coalition to go after isis, a requires the united states to be front and center. it doesn't mean others don't contribute or shouldn't pull their weight. obviously they can and they must and they don't always do so, but when we step back, nothing seems to work and that has clearly been our collective experience. rice and other former national security advisers joining the conversation at the aspen institute. watch that conversation on c-span and also available on the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on "the communicators" -- >> hackers don't attack computers, hackers hack humans. >> we are at the black cat

let's talk about all of this, the north korean crisis and more with susan rice. thank you very joining us. >> good to be with you, wolf. >> he just said that if he does do something to guam, it will be an event to the likes of which no one has ever seen before. he said that's not a dare, it's a statement of fact. do you see that as a direct threat? >> wolf, we have to be careful, the rhetoric and hot language is itself a challenge. on the korean side, the north korean side, we run the risk that they fiscmi miscalculate t message from the u.s. incorrectly and act. who president trump said today is that if north korea was to attack the united states, we would respond with the full force of our capabilities. that is common sense. what i worry about is this discussion and preparation potentially for what the administration called preventive war or preeven pre-emptive war. deterrents makes good sense nap is very essential for us to maintain and for us we don't take off of the table the threat of the use of force, but pre-emptive war, if one was thinking of executing t

i heard -- i've heard some say -- i think susan rice said we need to learn to live with. president trump finds that unacceptable. this is not a leader for whom containment is a policy that makes sense for american national security. >> dickerson: let me ask you about that leader. you said on the one hand, the most important thing we can do is separate these two, meaning the north korea nuclear program from the leader, but secretary of state tillerson said we do not accept regime change. >> two men using different words. i was getting to the exact policy that secretaryll tin.er h capacity have nuclear arms. add to that, ballistic missile defense, and that is the mission that the president has demanded that his team deliver to him. >> dickerson: mr. director,

so, we have the former director of national intelligence, and we have the issue of susan rice, then we learn from your friend sara carter that the general counsel of the fbi is being investigated for also leaking intelligence information, why is this unmasking story so important? >> he goes to a very important issue, the founding fathers created the separation of powers. they said that the congress and the executive branch, and the judiciary were supposed to be independent coequals. if the executive branch could on its own begin unmasking information about neighbors of congress, it opens the door for them to spy on things that are being set about them, or things that they themselves were talking about when they are intercepted overseas. i think the standard is change. back in 1992, cia director for george h.w. bush, he put out a standard that made unmasking a last resort. you only unmask a member of congress if there is no other way to get foreign intelligence. james clapper, may be leading up to the point where he issued this memo. a change to a standard of convenience. if it helps yo

am hearing, and my sources are telling me, that huge names in the obama administration, we have susan rice, now we are looking into james clapper, but names that everyone will know, are going to also be revealed in the scandal. that this was widespread at the top. are you hearing that? >> yes, in fact, if you look at the rules, one of the things that he did, he widened the circle of people that could unmask a name without any written permission. it used to be the secretary of state, the vice present, then national security advisor, only five people had special access to unmask information. when he put out the rules in 2013, it expanded to all of the deputies and all of their advisors. i think that is going to be an interesting area for us to look at in the weeks ahead. >> sean: monica, let me ask you this. the republican party, they are not accomplish in their promises, and on i was very happy to see the president say do your job. don't quit. but they have subpoena powers, they are in charge of these committees, and only now are they finally beginning to realize that the democrats and the

. >> barack obama's former national security adviser susan rice admitting america's past policy with north korea was a failure. >> the north korean regime has been able to succeed and progressing with its program both nuclear and missile. that is very unfortunate outcome. you can call it a failure. i accept that characterization of the united states over the last two decades. >> all right. reaction from republican house armed services committee member, trent franks. good to have you here. >> thank you. >> what is your reaction to that? she's admitting effectively that the last administration and frankly the administrations before it all failed because here we are now. >> well, i don't think she had in choice but to admit that. what probably should be even more clarified is that the capability of north korea now to target u.s. citizens with nuclear warheads was facilitated by the deals that bill clinton and barack obama made with the north koreans. yet, i hear a lot of my friends on the left attacking president trump almost more than they do the north korean leaders and the reality is

the fact that susan rice keeps her security clearance can we conclude that h.r.r decides she did nothing wrong. >> i should clarify he did not do any kind of internal investigation and cleared her or nic like that. his view was that this was not anything that was improper. which is also the view, i should say of many democrat the who have vocally sort of said nothing to see here. that's not the view the chaerm house nelg committee or the president. the i have since been told that the letter that gave her these experiences was foet related in any way to his personal view he shared with colleagues and people who have talked to me. >> do you think that he would have allowed for this security clearance had he had direct concerns that she had willy-nilly unmasked all kinds of people. >> i it's really hard to say and i don't want to go that far. i spoke to someone this morning that said the two things were not reit laed but i can tell you it was something that caused consternation inside the white house and people who believed he shouldn't done that. trum of h we haven

that was susan rice today in the new york times. donald in sanm antonio. donald?ho is's go on to linda in arkansas, a republican. caller: hi. host: good morning. you are on the air. caller: thank you very much for letting me be on the air. i want to tell you that i support donald trump in everything. i voted for him, i have prayed for him daily, i believe him. i believe people will quit messing with him and he will be able to do all the things he promised he would do. i am not worried about korea. not at all. south korea is beside north korea, and if there is any way that god can possibly let the north koreans have a taste of the freedom that the south landns have, this will quickly, or he will be removed. because people want to be free, free to move and free to have their businesses and stuff like that. and these poor people have been under the bondage of people like this young man, i do not want to call his name, i think he is pitiful. he has been raised in an environment he thinks he is right. maybe that is what makes him dangerous. but he is not dangerous to m

ia director mike mom pe owe, rex tillerson and susan rice all believe that jong-un is rational.ormer homeland security secretary and current white house chief of staff john kelly says he's unsure but thinks the korean leader is probably rational. others warn that trying to decipher the behavior of such an enigmatic figure is like reading tea leaves. >> president says he's locked and loaded but can he take action without congress? chris, what does the constitution tell us about the president's war powers? i understand they're quite broad. >> the president has the constitutional authority to do anything, really, when it comes to an exigent threat, emerging threat on the united states. now, what the founders didn't foresee was that there would be so many people in congress for so long who would refuse the power that's granted them to declare war. they have devolved their power to the executive branch. over the past seven years presidents have taken -- 70 years the presidents have taken more and more pow where they can act on their own. >> austin, democrats will they be in a coopera

you even had sin and tell you even had senate and tell chairman say that they had susan rice come outing improper, but we have not seen it yet. he could be trying to push this theory and there is nothing behind it. >> dana: maybe there wasn't a crime committed, but the question is, why then are all of these people asking for requests for unmasking all across the board? does it seem suspicious to you? >> i think it does, and i think it raises questions. i think that's exactly what devon is bringing out. you have one government official that we know of with no intelligence background or function, yet he easily got access to this information of what we call a u.s. person. easy access, and the ability these government officials to gain access to this information. secondly, you also have the fact of justification. meaning, these government officials, like samantha powers, like a susan rice, they are supposed to provide a justification as to why they are unmasking. they did not do it. they did not give adequate information based on the information that we know. normally, analysts, intellige

. >> your predecessor susan rice wrote this week that the u.s. could tolerate nuclear weapons in north korea the same way we did with nuclear weapons in the sovi union in the cold war. is she right? >> i think she's not right. how does that apply to a regime like that in north korea? a regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people. a regime that poses a continuous threat to neighbors in the region and may now pose a direct threat to the united states with weapons of mass destruction. a regime that imprisons and rs anyone who seems to oppose that regime, including members of his own family, using saran nerve gas in an airport. >> we are locked and loaded? >> the united states military is locked and loaded every day. especially those on the front lines of freedom, such as those stationed in south korea. and those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in southeast asia or who rotate there. we have a tremendous amount of capabilities.d d unloe thaded s.it the purpose of capable, ready forces, is to preserve peace. and prevent w

that was in fact even in susan rice's op-ed of "new york times."one agrees if north korea steps that far out of line, military response would be overwhelming. we're trying to avoid getting to that phase. that is why discussion going on in the policy community, white house across the country is so essential. we need new thinking new approach. trish: thank you so much good to have you both here today. new he thinking new approach for sure. the president sounding a very different tone than we have heard from at least the previous administrations. we'll continue watching this story throughout this afternoon as we watch the market off better than 100 points. lauren simonetti in for liz claman today. >> thank you, trish regan. breaking news this hour, tensions over north korea. president trump says his criticism of north korea was not tough enough. speaking with his national security advisors president trump says the previous administration had done moving to suppress the threat from north korea that was effective. that it is time someone stuck up for ou

paul: you raised the question susan rice, appeared in new york times saying, you know, we might just have to live with a nuclear north korea and, you know what, that's something we can't do, look at what we did with russia, if they were going to attack us, they knew they would be destroyed and we can just send that message to kim and that's fine, what's wrong with that argument? >> everything. look, number one, these are the same people who assured us in the obama, bush and clinton administrations, we can talk north korea out of its nuclear weapon's program, carrots and sticks, we will figure it out. 25 years of failure. the notion that we would happily go back to cold war days of mutually ensured destruction, i just find dilutional at any event it will not be the same as i may say -- paul: why is that? is that because both of them are either more irrational actors than the old soviet leadership was or because they're simply -- have vision for what they are trying to do? >> i think both factor in. we were in the unique situation cold war, two super powers standing off with one anothe

david: do you think it's possible you may be able to find an email discussing the stuff that susan rice we know is not true that this was started not by radicals in the country and terrorists in the country, but by this video. is that what you are looking for? >> we found it. our work-up covered the email that shows hillary clinton emailing her daughter and the egyptian foreign minister saying quote we know it's not a video. that it wasn't sparked by a protest. it was a planned terrorist attack. uncovering of that email is the work of judicial watch. david: how soon before you find the other state department emails? >> it will be months. there is a lot of stone wall. the trump administration has adopted essentially the same legal position as the obama administration. there is a lot of foot dragging and double talk and it's discouraging. david: i remember the reagan years and it took a long time before they could get the carter syndrome out of their bloodstream. maybe they are going through that process right now. be sure to vote in tonight's poll. do you believe virginia's democrat gove

burns: susan rice. ms. rice. hi. rice: i call her my little sister. just returned to this liberal order, it is important to know what they were trying to avoid. so they hated the fact that had been competition over resources that was violent. then the important fact, they were going to try to create the democratic peace where they could so they could rebuild germany into a jamal, to pan into a democracy, and was going to be protected by american military power. that was the liberal or. china,eing challenged by although china has one foot in and one foot out. it is being challenged by russia because russia unfortunately does not really have a foot in the economic side, and, therefore, uses its military power for its respect. but it is also being challenged by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, populism, nativism, isolation, and protectionism, and they tend to run together. arene of the questions we to be asking is not just the challenge to the liberal order from transnational terrorism or cyber warfare or from the powers like russia or china, but how

a chinese artificial island, challenging china' claims in the area since trump took office. >> susan rice president trump to put an end to what she calls reckless rhetoric. think about this. the woman who lied to americans about benghazi. this -- anyway. rice's solution is to accept north korea as a nuclear power, which she said as a member of obama administration was not happening. history shows that we can if we must tolerate nuclear weapons in north korea, the same way we tolerated far greater threat of thousands of soviet nuclear weapons during the cold war. we didn't tolerate it, we didn't have a choice. our next guest points out obama administration received intelligence that north korea was capable of miniaturizing nuclear weapons 4 years ago. but then president obama downplayed and tried to discredit the assessment. joining me tonight, former cia analyst, fred flights, and good on you, great work 4 years ago. this president, could not have imagined he would be president, relying on a legacy of a man who apieced, and -- appeased who threw away every opportunity to contain north kor