2019 LEON PANETTA LECTURE SERIES Live Stream


>>THE LEON PANETTA 2019 LECTURE SERIES, “CHECKS AND BALANCES — THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, THE LAW AND THE PRESIDENCY” — “CHECKS AND BALANCES, WILL OUR DEMOCRACY SURVIVE? THIS LECTURE INVESTIGATES COMPLEX AND BALANCES, THE MUELLER INVESTIGATES, THE LAW AND THE PRESIDENT SILL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE WELCOME SILVIA PANETTA. [APPLAUSE]>>GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, AND WELCOME. WHAT A PLEASURE IT IS TO SEE A FULL HOUSE AND MANY, MANY FAMILIAR FACES AND EVEN SOME NEW FACES. IT’S WONDERFUL TO RETURN TO OUR SEASON OF LEON PANETTA LECTURE SERIES AND TO BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST LECTURE THIS EVENING. FOR 22 YEARS, LEON AND I CONSIDERED THE CHALLENGES FACING OUR NATION AND THEN INVITED SOME OF THE MOST RESPECTED AND PARTISAN SPEAKERS TO JOIN US FOR THESE CIVIL AND FRANK DISCUSSIONS. WE’VE — WE’VE DONE THIS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR DEMOCRACY ARE BEST SERVED WHEN WE’RE WILLING TO LISTENTO ALL VIEWS. OUR REPUBLIC WAS BUILT ON THE PRINCIL OF WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND CONSENSUS. THIS IS HOW WE SOLVE PROBLEMS IN THIS DEMOCRACY. AT THIS POINT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION, IT’S MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. OUR CONSTITUTION MAKES CLEAR THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHECKS IN OUR DEMOCRACY. IT’S OUR DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED BY OUR FOREFATHERS ARE WORKING TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS, OUR RIGHTS, AND OUR NATION. THEY CREATED A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO MAKE SURE THAT POWER WOULD NEVER BE CENTRALIZED IN ANY ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS WHY LEON CHOSE THE THEME CHECKS AND BALANCES. WILL OUR DEMOCRACY SURVIVE? WE THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONGRESS, THE JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE ARE FUNCTIONING WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. LEON AND I ARE THANKFUL THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO JOIN US THIS YEAR AS WE CONSIDER THE CHALLENGES TESTING THE INSTITUTIONS OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. TONIGHT, WE APPLY THE THEME OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND THE LAW ON THE PRESIDENCY. PRESIDENTS SWEAR AN OATH OF OFFICE TO PRESERVE, TO PROTECT, AND TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. NONE OF US, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, ARE ABOVE THE LAW. OUR DEMOCRACY SURVIVES BECAUSE WE ALL FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. THOSE WHO ENFORCE THE LAW HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE FAIR AND JUST APPLICATION OF RULES THAT DETERMINE HOW OUR NATION IS GOVERNED. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THE F.B.I., OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESS. TO MAKE SURE OUR LAWS ARE FOLLOWED AND OUR NATION IS PROTECTED. TONIGHT WE’LL TALK WITH THREE EXPERTS ABOUT WHETHER OUR LAWS ARE BEING FOLLOWED. ONE OF THE NATION’S LEADING EXPERTS ON INTELLIGENCE, A NONPARTISAN PROFESSIONAL, WELL VERSED ON THE WORKINGS OF THE F.B.I., ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ONE OF THE MOST SAVVY POLITICAL REPORTERS WORKING TODAY. WE ALL KNOW THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND. BUT WHO INTERPRETS IT, WHO PROTECTS IT, WHO APPLIES IT AND TO WHAT END. OUR FIRST GUEST IS A RETIRED AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT GENERAL WHO SERVED TWO TOURS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND WENT ON TO SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FROM 2010 TO 2017. HIS CAREER BEGAN AS A RIFLEMAN IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE AND CULMINATED AS A LIEUTENANT GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. HE ASSUMED LEADERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN 2010, BECOMING THE NATION’S TOP INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL. HE PROVIDED THE PRESIDENT DAILY MORNING BRIEFS AND HELD ONE OF THE BROADEST PORTFOLIOS ON THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, OVERSEEING 200,000 INTELLIGENCE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONALLY, ALONG WITH A $52 BILLION BUDGETS AND HIGH-PROFILE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE C.I.A., THE N.S.A., AND THE F.B.I. HE’S CREDITED WITH IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AMONG — AMONGST DOMESTIC AGENCIES, BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, PROCUREMENT REFORM AND SWEEPING IMPLETS T. UPGRADES. HE WAS IN THE SITUATION ROOM DURING THE FAMOUS RAID ON OSAMA BIN LADEN AND BEHIND THE WORKINGS BEHIND THE 2016 HACK OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. REIS THE AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK — “FACTS AND FEARS: HARD TRUTHS FROM A LIFE OF INTELLIGENCE.” SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE WELCOME JAMES CLAPPER. [APPLAUSE]>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.>>OUR SECOND-GUESS IS ONE OF THE MOST HIGH-PROFILE POLITICAL JOURNALISTS WORKING TODAY. SHE IS THE NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO AND A CONTRIBUTOR TO FOX NEWS CHANNEL. SHE JOINED NPR IN 1985 AS A GENERAL ASSIGNMENT REPORTER AND NEWSCASTER. AS PART OF HER WORK, SHE HAS COVERED CONGRESS AND SERVED AS THE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT DURING ALL EIGHT YEARS OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. NOW, AS THE NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, HER REPORTS CAN BE HEARD ON THE AWARD-WINNING NEWS MAGAZINES “ALL THINGS CONSIDERED” AND “MORNING EDITION.” DURING HER TENURE, SHE HAS COVERED ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS SINCE 1992 AND SHE REPORTS ON SENATE AND HOUSE RACES EVERY ELECTION YEAR. SHE’S AN EXPERT ON ELECTIONS, NATIONAL POLICY, AND ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS. SHE JOINS FOX IN 1997 AND SERVES AS A PANELIST ON “SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRET BAIER” AND “FOX NEWS SUNDAY.” PLEASE WELCOME MARA LIASSON. [APPLAUSE] OUR THIRD GUEST IS THE ONLY PERSON TO SERVE ON THE STAFFS OF BOTH F.B.I. DIRECTORS ROBERT MUELLER AND JAMES COMEY BEFORE RUNNING THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON. EXCUSE ME, OBAMA. A CAREER NONPARTISAN PROFESSIONAL, HE ALSO SERVED AS COUNSELOR TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, WHERE HE HANDLED NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS. HE SERVED AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. ONE OF THE LARGEST DISTRICTS IN THE NATION WITH SIX OFFICES, INCLUDING ONE IN HOUSTON AND THREE ON THE BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO. — UNITED STATES AND MEXICO. PRESIDENT BUSH THEN NOMINATED HIM TO SERVE AS THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ONE OF THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL POSTS IN THE NATION. AS THAT DISTRICT’S CHIEF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HE SUPERVISED THE PROSECUTION OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMES AND THE LITIGATION OF ALL CIVIL MATTERS INVOLVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HELP ME WELCOME CHUCK ROSENBERG. [APPLAUSE] AND, OF COURSE, MODERATING OUR DISCUSSION IS THE MAN WHO CREATED THIS LECTURE SERIES, FORMER CONGRESSMAN FOR THIS DISTRICT, THEN THE 16TH, NOW THE 209 AND REPRESENTED BY HIS SON JIMMY PANETTA — [APPLAUSE] I HAD TO ADD THAT. HE WAS ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT BUDGET. HE WAS THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR BILL CLINTON. HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE C.I.A. AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. HE HAS A VERY DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE OF LAW, INTELLIGENCE, AND THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE PRESIDENCY. PLEASE WELCOME LEON PANETTA. [APPLAUSE]>>THANK YOU. >>GOOD EVENIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO OUR 2019 PANETTA LECTURE SERIES. THE THEME THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS LECTURE SERIES IS BOTH TIMELY AND IN THE HEADLINES. CHECKS AND BALANCES, WILL OUR DEMOCRACY SURVIVE? DURING THE COURSE OF THIS LECTURE SERIES, WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONS THAT REPRESENT OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES IN OUR DEMOCRACY. WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE CONGRESS, THE COURTS, THE PRESS, THE INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND WE’LL ALSO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. BUT TONIGHT, WE REALLY FOCUS ON THE RULE OF LAW. THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, OUR CONSTITUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PRESIDENCY. PRESIDENTS SWEAR AN OATH TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. BUT THE CONSTITUTION NOT ONLY PROVIDES LIMITS ON THE PRESIDENCY, IT ALSO EMPOWERS THE PRESIDENCY. THERE’S PROBABLY NO GREATER POWER A PRESIDENT HAS THAN AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THE BALANCE, THE ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION AND PRESENTING THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE. ULTIMATELY IT IS WE THE PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THE MOST IMPORTANT CHECK IN OUR DEMOCRACY AND THAT’S WHAT BRINGS US TOGETHER TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THESE CHALLENGES WITH MY THREE VERY DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS. SO LET ME BEGIN BY ASKING EACH OF YOU, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, JIM, YOU SPENT A LONG TIME IN THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES IN GOVERNMENT. MARA HAS BEEN COVERING THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A LONG TIME AND CHUCK HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE F.B.I. AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU’VE SEEN OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVER THESE LAST TWO YEARS, THERE’S NO QUESTION THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS OF OUR DEMOCRACY HAVE BEEN TESTED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LIMITS PROVIDED IN OUR CONSTITUTION ARE GOING TO STICK. GIVE ME YOUR IMPRESSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IS WORKING OR ARE WE CEDING TOO MUCH POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE, JIM?>>I, ALWAYS AN OPTIMIST, I THINK IT IS WORKING. IN FACT, IN CONTEMPLATING THIS THIS AFTERNOON WITH STUDENTS, THE VERY FACT THAT WE HAVE A MUELLER AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION IS, IN MY VIEW, A MANIFESTATION OF THE STRENGTH OF OUR CHECKS AND BALANCE SYSTEM. YES, IT’S TRUE THAT OUR INSTITUTIONINGS AND OUR VALUES HAVE TAKEN SOME HITS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, BUT IN SOME WAYS WE’RE THE BETTER FOR IT. AND I THINK THAT WE’VE SHOWN THAT THE GENIUS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS IN SETTING — IN ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES HAS STOOD US IN PRETTY GOOD STEAD. MORROW — MARA WILL SPEAK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT’S COVERED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THAT IS A FREE PRESS, ALSO ANOTHER INSTITUTION THAT’S TAKEN SOME ASSAULTS, BUT I THINK BY AND LARGE WE’VE DONE PRETTY WELL. THAT’S NOT TO SAY THAT WE CAN ENDURE INDEFINITELY THOSE ASSAULTS BUT TO THIS POINT, I THINK WE’RE DOING OK. >>MARA?>>I BASICALLY, SINCE DONALD TRUMP WAS ELECTED, I’VE THOUGHT OF HIM AS A STRESS TEST ON DEMOCRATICINSTITUTIONS AND IT’S USEFUL TO TICK THROUGH THEM AND SEE HOW THEY’RE DOING. FIRST OF ALL, THE CITIZENRY VOTERS WHO I THINK ROSE TO THE OCCASION, DECIDED THEY WANTED A REAL CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE PRESIDENT AND RETURNED THE CONGRESS TO DIVIDED GOVERNMENT IN NOVEMBER. I THINK THAT THE JUDCIARY IS ACTING INDEPENDENTLY, AS THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO. BOB MUELLER HAS NOT BEEN FIRED. THE PRESIDENT’S — IN A SOCIETY WHERE THERE WERE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND HIS FORMER LAWYER/FIXER WOULD NOT BE GOING TO JAIL AND IN TERMS OF CONGRESS, CONGRESS, I THINK, HAS GOT MIXED GRADES AS A CHECKS AND BALANCE IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS BUT NOW THE HOUSE, AT LEAST, WILL BE CONDUCTING ITS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES AND AS FAR AS THE PRESS, WE HAVE BEEN UNDER ATTACK PRETTY REGULARLY. THE PRESIDENT CALLS US ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE, FAKE NEWS. AT RALLIES YOU CAN SOMETIMES SEE SOMEBODY WEARING A T THIRD — T-SHIRT — AT TRUMP RALLIES YOU CAN SOMEBODY SEE SOMEBODY WEARING A T-SHIRT THAT SAYS ROPE, TREE, JOURNALIST, SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED. ALL OF THAT IS DISHEARTENING. WHAT’S EVEN MORE DISHEARTENING IS NOT SO MUCH THAT HE DEN GRATES US FROM THE STAGE AT THESE RALLIES BUT THAT THE CROWD EATS IT UP AND CHANTS ALL OF THE EXPLETIVE DELETED THINGS ABOUT US BUT WE ARE DOING OUR JOB. NOSE OF US WHO STILL EXIST IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SPECTRUM, MAIN SFREEM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WHO TRY TO BE REALITY BASED AND FACT BASED, WE ARE STILL DOING A GOOD JOB AND I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IN SOME WAYS THIS HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE PERIOD FOR JOURNALISM. NOT FOR THE NEWS BUSINESS BUT THERE’S GREAT JOURNALISM BEING COMMITTED BY MY COLLEAGUES EVERY SINGLE DAY. [APPLAUSE] SO I WOULD SAY THAT ALL OF THE KIND OF FRUSTRATING CHECKS AND BALANCES AND COUNTER VAILING INSTITUTIONS THAT THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED ARE DOING THEIR JOB. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN’T BE WORRIED ABOUT THEM. I THINK IT’S VERY DISCOB CERTIFICATING WHERE YOU HAVE A CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO EVERY DAY UNDERMINES LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND ATTACKS THE PRESS BUT WE’RE ALL DOING THE BEST WE CAN AND WE’RE STILL INTACT. >>CHUCK? >>SO YOU ASKED TWO QUESTIONS — ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES WORKING? I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, THOUGH I AGREE WITH BOTH MARA AND JIM, THEY ARE UNDER ENORMOUS STRESS, AND ARE WE CED ING TOO MUCH AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES AS WELL. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT. LINCOLN SUSPENDED THE WHERE IT OF HAS BEEN USE CORP PULSE. TRUMAN SEIZED THE STEEL MILLS DURING THE KOREAN WAR AND F.D.R. AND SOME OF THE THINGS HE DID DURING THE NEW DEAL. I DON’T MEAN THAT AS A CRITICISM, JUST AN OBSERVATION. THERE’S ALSO A TREMENDOUS UNDERPERFORMANCE BY THE CONGRESS AS AN INSTITUTION RIGHT NOW. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JIMMY. BUT HERE’S THE THING AND THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE FEATURES OF OUR GOVERNMENT. I’M A PRODUCT OF OUR FEDERAL COURTS. I WAS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THAT’S THE REASON I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, TO BE A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LOSES IN ITS OWN COURTS. THINK ABOUT THAT. CHINA DOES NOT LOSE IN CHINESE COURTS. RUSSIA DOES NOT LOSE IN RUSSIA COIMPLETS BUT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN LOSE IN ITS OWN COURTS. I TRIED NOT TO MAKE A HABIT OF IT BUT TO ME, THAT IS EMBLEMATIC OF OUR — HOW STRONG OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE AND THOUGH THEY ARE UNDER GREAT STRESS THAT THEY WILL SURVIVE THIS >>WE HAVE A REAL TEST OF CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO END UP IN THE COURTS. IT HAPPENED LAST WEEK WHEN THE PRESIDENT DECLARED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. HE DID NOT GET FROM CONGRESS CONTROL OF THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS. CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE HIM ALL THE MONEY THAT HE WANTED FOR THE WALL SO HE DECLARED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. IN ORDER TO DO IT HE ACTUALLY IN SOME WAYS UNDERCUT HIS OWN ARGUMENT BY SAYING I REALLY DON’T HAVE TO DO THIS BUT THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT WHAT HE DIDIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN GOING AGAINST THE POWER OF THE PURSE AND SEPARATION OF POWERS OR DID HE SIMPLY IMPLEMENT A POWER THAT CONGRESS HANDED TO HIM TO DECLARE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY?>>YES. >>CHUCK? >>YEAH. SO, IN 1976, I BELIEVE, CONGRESS PASSED THE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT, WHICH GAVE PRESIDENTS, ANY PRESIDENT, GREAT AUTHORITY WITHOUT DEFINING THE WORD “EMERGENCY.” SO COUPLE THAT FACT, AND IT IS A FACT WITH ANOTHER FACT — TRADITIONALLY HISTORICALLY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE QUITE RELUCTANT TO SECOND GUESS ANY PRESIDENT IN A COUPLE OF AREAS. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY. SO WAS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL? TO BE DETERMINED. WAS IT A — IN MY VIEW, AN INAPPROPRIATE INVOCATION OF THE NARGE — NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT? ABSOLUTELY. BUT WHETHER OR NOT A COURT — THE COURT, THE SUPREME COURT, WILL ULTIMATELY SEE IT THAT WAY — YOU HAVE THESE TWO THINGS RUNNING AGAINST YOU. BOTH THE DEFENSE TO PRESIDENTS IN THIS ARENA OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE FACT THAT CONGRESS GAVE AWAY A GOOD BIT OF ITS AUTHORITY 40 YEARS AGO.>>THE THING THAT’S INTERESTING TO ME, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT’S OPERATING ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS, BOTH LEGAL AND POLITICAL. ONE, THE COURTS WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF HE OVERSTEPPED HIS POUNDS. AFTER ALL, LOTS OF NATIONAL EMERGENCIES HAVE BEEN CALLED BY PRESIDENTS BUT I DON’T THINK THERE’S EVER BEEN ONE RIGHT AFTER THE CONGRESS REBUFF IT WOULD PRESIDENT FOR DOING WHAT WE NOW IS DECLARING AN EMERGENCY FOR. INNING THAT THERE WILL BE SOME FACT FINDING IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS LIKE IS THIS REALLY AN EMERGENCY? AND WE’RE GOING TO LEARN THAT THE ILLEGAL CROSSINGS AT THE BORDER ARE AT THEIR LOWEST LEVELS SINCE 2000 OR EVEN YEARS BEFORE. BUT I AGREE WITH CHUCK. THIS ISN’T JUST EXECUTIVE OVERREACH, THIS IS CONGRESSIONAL UNDERREACH. CONGRESS HAS EMASCULATED ITSELF AND BASICALLY WRITTEN A LAW THAT PRETTY MUCH SAYS AN EMERGENCY IS WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT IS AND CONGRESS COULD FIX THAT IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES IF THEY WANTED TO AMEND THE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT AND DEFINE WHAT AN EMERGENCY IS. SO THAT’S GOING TO BE THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRASH THAT WILL WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURTS. I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT DID THIS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE. HE DID IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND I THINK POLITICALLY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COURTS, HE MIGHT COME OUT ON TOP, BECAUSE WHAT HE WANTED TO DO WAS SHOW HIS BASE THAT HE WAS FIGHTING FOR THE WALL WITH WHATEVER TOOLS HE COULD GET HIS HANDS ON AND THAT HE WASN’T GOING TO GIVE UP AND EVEN IF HE CLUSES — LOSES IN THE COURTS. HE WOULD HAVE KEPT BASE WITH HIS STRONGEST SUPPORTERS. THE WALL IS KIND OF THE BE ALL AND END ALL OF HIS PRESIDENCY RIGHT NOW. IT’S BECOME THE BIGGEST SYMBOL OF IT.>>JIM? >>FOR ME, I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS THE AND THAT SPECIFICALLY IS, THE JUSTIFICATION HE TRIED TO JEWS — USE IS SUCH A PERVERSION OF THE TRUTH, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY HAS BECOME A STATE OF NORMAL AND IT’S A REASON THAT, I THINK, LEON AND I WERE ONE OF THE — ACTUALLY 60 FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS THAT SIGNED A DOCUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, TAKING ISSUE WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ACTION ON THIS NATIONAL — SO-CALLED NATIONAL EMERGENCY. IT ISN’T A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. NOW, WE’RE VERY USED TO, YOU KNOW, DISTORTIONS, MISREPRESENTATION, LIES. BUT IN, I THINK, IS SO BAD THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT AND I CERTAINLY WAS FOR THAT REASON AND THAT’S ONE OF THE OVERARCHING CONCERNS I HAVE ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON TODAY AND NOT ONLY THE EFFECT ON CHECKS AND BALANCES BUT JUST IN GENERAL THE ASSAULT ON TRUTH AND THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT CENTER ON TRUTH. AND I REFER SPECIFICALLY TO ACADEMICS, SCIENCE, CLIMATE CHANGE, THE MEDIA, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE, LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE ASSAULT THAT THE F.B.I. HAS BEEN UNDER AND MY CONSTITUENCY, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. AND THAT’S DANGEROUS FOR IN DEMOCRACY OR ANY DEMOCRACY IS ASSAULT ON TRUTH AND THIS IS SUCH AN AGREE, EXAMPLE OF IT — EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE OF IT THAT THAT’S WHY I SIGNED UP. [APPLAUSE]>>LET ME ASK YOU. I THINK WE TAKE THE POSITION THAT NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. AND THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A PROCESS TO ULTIMATELY REMOVE A PRESIDENT UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE. AND THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE DEALS WITH TREASON, IT DEALS WITH HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. IT DEALS WITH BRIBERY. AND YET THE REALITY IS THAT IN OUR OVER 200 YEARS OF HISTORY, NO PRESIDENT HAS REALLY EVER BEEN REMOVED BY AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN WHICH THEY’VE BEEN CONVICTED IN THE SENATE. TWO CAME CLOSE. ANDREW JOHNSON WAS IMPEACHED BY THE HOW’S HOW’S BUT THE SENATE DID NOT VOTE TO CONVICT HIM AND BILL CLINTON, WHO WAS ALSO IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE DID NOT CONVICT HIM. NOW, THE ONE PRESIDENT WHO PROBABLY CAME THE CLOSEST TO IMPEACHMENT WAS RICHARD NIXON BUT HE RESIGNED BEFORE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDED. SO IT’S A HIGH BAR, PARTICULARLY IF THE PRESIDENT HAS HIS PARTY IN CHARGE OF ONE OF THE HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS. NOW, AT THE SAME TIME, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT NO SITTING PRESIDENT CAN BE INDICTED. SO, MY QUESTION IS, IF A PRESIDENT VIOLATES THE LAW AND IT’S DIFFICULT TO IMPEACH THAT PRESIDENT, AND THE POSITION IS THAT HE CAN’T BE INDICTED WHILE HE’S IN THE PRESIDENCY, THEN WHAT THE HELL DO YOU DO WITH A PRESIDENT WHO VIOLATES THE LAW? [APPLAUSE]>>SO THE FIRST AND MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER, IF YOU PUT ASIDE IMPEACHMENT, IS THAT YOU VOTE. I MEAN, THE WAY WE RIGHT THESE WRONGS IS BY VOTING. TO MARA’S POINTS, THAT HAPPENED IN 2018 IN THE MID TERMS. PEOPLE EXPRESSED THEIR DISPLEASURE AT THE BALLOT BOX BUT YOU USED A REALLY IMPORTANT WORD — NO SITTING PRESIDENT CAN BE INDICTED BUT EVERY SITTING PRESIDENT BECOMES A FORM EARLY PRESIDENT AND THERE’S NO BAN, NO PROHIBITION WHATSOEVER ON A FORMER PRESIDENT BEING CHARGED IF THAT PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. THERE ARE SOME REALLY INTERESTING LEGAL ISSUES THERE, INCLUDING WHETHER, IF A PRESIDENT IS RE-ELECTED, THE STATUE UTE OF LIMITATIONS COULD RUN ON CERTAIN TIMES THAT WERE COMMITTED EITHER BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE OR EARLY IN HIS TERM. FASCINATING QUESTION. SOMETHING I’VE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT BUT I’M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO SOLVE. IMPEACHMENT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. IMPEACHMENT IS JUST REALLY, REALLY HARD AND I THINK IT TURNS IN PART OF WHAT THE REPORTS SAY. I THINK THAT’S GOING TO BE A — I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S GOING TO BE DETERMINATIVE. YOU’RE RIGHT. IT MAY NOT MATTER IN THE END IF THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE, BUT IT MIGHT BE. SO YOU DO HAVE REMEDIES BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY AS IT STANDS — IT’S JUST POLICY. IT’S NOT LAW, NOT BEEN LIT GATED OR AJEWELED INDICATED IS THAT YOU CANNOT CHARGE A SITTING PRESIDENT.>>SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO TRY TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT, THEN WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT DECISION REALLY HASN’T BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COURTS?>>CORRECT. IT’S BEEN NEITHER LITIGATED NOR AJEWELED INDICATED AND BY THE WAY, I DON’T THINK — BOB MUELLER IS THE STRAIGHTEST STRAIGHT ARROW I’VE EVER MEMORY. I DON’T THINK TEST — HE’S GOING TO SAY TO HELL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY AND CHARGE A PRESIDENT. THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THAT AND I BELIEVE BILL BARR SAID DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS THAT HE DIDN’T INTEND TO REVISIT THE POLICY. >>AND I CAN TELL YOU WILL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WILL BE INDICTED. THEY SEE THIS PROBLEM AS MORE OF A POLITICAL PROBLEM THAN A LEGAL PROBLEM, AND THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY TRUMP HAS WORKED SO HARD OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS TO UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF MULLER AND HIS INVESTIGATION BECAUSE WHAT THEY’RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER MUELLER COMES UP WITH TRUMP CAN DISMISS IT AS A PARTISAN SMEAR, BECAUSE WHAT HE THINKS — THE BAT HE’S LOOKING FORWARD TO FIGHTING IS ABOUT PROGRAMS IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE, NOT GOING BEFORE A COURT OF LAW. SO IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL DECISION. THIS IS WHY IT WAS LEFT TO CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT A LAW-BREAKING PRESIDENT. AND IT’S NOT ONLY A POLITICAL PROCESS, IT’S A DEEPLY POLITICAL DECISION FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE TO MAKE. SHOULD THEY TRY TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO THEY KNOW WILL NOT BE, IN EFFECT, CONVICTED AND REMOVED BY THE SENATE IN THERE ARE DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE EVEN SAID — JARED MEDDLER, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULD IMPEACH HIM. IMPEACHMENT CAN LEAD TO A POLITICAL BACKLASH. THE LAST PRESIDENT WHO WAS IMPEACHED, BILL CLINTON, ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND E. MAKING HIS OPPONENTS LOOK LIKE THEY WERE ON A PARTISAN WITCH-HUNT AGAINST HIM AND IT WORKED AND THERE WAS A BACKLASH AGAINST THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND HIS APPROVAL RATING WENT UP, I DON’T KNOW, 10 POINTS OR SO. LEON WAS THERE. DEMOCRATS ARE CONCERNED THAT THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN WITH TRUMP. SO IT COMES BACK TO MAYBE THE MOST LEGITIMATE REMEDY — THAT DOESN’T MEAN THE DEMOCRATS SHOULDN’T HAVE HEARINGS AND AIR ALL THESE THINGS BUT MAYBE THE MOST LEGITIMATE REMEDY IS VOTERS VOTING TO GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE. >>AS APPEALING AS IMPEACHMENT AND/OR CONVICTION MIGT BE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT WOULD BE A VERY TRAUMATIC THING AND IT WOULD, I THINK, EVEN AMPLIFY MORE THE POLE RIZATION AND 2005NESS THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE KIFFIN — DIVISIVENESS THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE COUNTRY. SO THE MOST REALISTIC REMEDY IS THE POLLING BOOTH.>>LET’S TURN TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND I GUESS FIRST I WANT TO ASK EACH OF YOU. YOU OBVIOUSLY WORK WITH BOB MUELLER. JIM KNOWS HIM. I WORKED WITH HIM WHEN I WAS C.I.A. DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. TELL ME — TELL ME, YOU KNOW, YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THE GUY. BOB MUELLER. AND THE REPORT THAT MUELLER SUBMITS, IS IT GOING TO BE SIMPLY A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW OR DO YOU THINK THERE’S GOING TO BE MORE TO IT? AND WILL THAT REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC? THAT’S A LOT BUT — >>LET ME TAKE THE FIRST PART FIRST. BOB MUELLER — WORKING FOR BOB MUELLER WAS PROBABLY THE GREATEST PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OF MY LIFE. AT THE F.B.I., POST 9/11, I MENTIONED EARLIER I WOULD GET IN EVERY MORNING AT 4:30, WHICH WAS SIMPLY TO BEAT HIM IN BY A FEW MINUTES. CAN I SHARE ONE STORY?>>YEAH.>>TELL YOU WHAT KIND OF GUY HE IS. I DIDN’T KNOW HIM BEFORE I INTERVIEWED WITH HIM FOR THE JOB AND HE IS AN ICON IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND HE WAS IN AN ICONIC POSITION. SO A LITTLE NERVOUS GOING IN AND I DIDN’T TEND TO GET NERVOUS TYPICALLY. I WAS USUALED INTO HIS OFFICE AND HE CAME FROM BEHIND HIS DESK AND I HAD JUST ASSUMED WE WERE GOING TO DRIFT TO THE CORNER WHERE HE HAD CHAIRS AND A COUCH AND WE WERE GOING TO SIT AND CHAT. NO. TURNS UP WE HAD A STANDUP MEETING BECAUSE SITTING IS INEFFICIENT. HE HAD EXACTLY TWO QUESTIONS FOR ME. MY STORY TAKES LONGER THAN MY INTERVIEW. HE SAID WHY DO YOU WANT TO WORK HER AND — HERE AND I MUMBLED SOMETHING ABOUT SERVING MY COUNTRY AND THE DUTY AND MISSION OF THE F.B.I. AND HE SAID WHY DO YOU THINK YOU’D BE GOOD AT THIS? I TOLD HIM I WORKED HARD AND I WAS DILIGENT AND HE SAID OK, THANKS FOR COMING BY. AND OUT I GO. I LEFT THINKING THIS MAN THINKS ME. THIS IS THE WORST INTERVIEW OF MY LIFE. I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO SALVAGE THIS ON THE WAY OUT I NOTICED THERE WAS A BASEBALL ON ONE OF HIS SHELVES AND I LOVE BASEBALL. SO I GO OH, I SEE YOU’RE A BASEBALL FASTBALL. HE GOES NO, AND OUT THE DOOR I GO. [LAUGHTER] I WENT BACK TO MY OFFICE. I WAS MISERABLE, KNEW I HAD BLOWN IT. THE MAN DOESN’T EVEN LIKE BASEBALL. AND ABOUT AN HOUR LATER MY PHONE RINGS AND I PICK IT UP. HE SAYS CHUCK? I SAY YEAH, HE SAYS MUELLER HERE. HE DIDN’T SAY NICE TO MEET YOU — HE SAID LITERALLY, WHEN CAN YOU START? HE SAID SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS AND HE HUNG UP ON ME. THAT THE — IS MULL EARLY. HE IS THE MOST STRAIGHT-ARROWED DIRECTS, NO-NO SENSE, PRINCIPALED PERSON I HAVE EVER MELT AND I’VE MET A LOT OF VERY, VERY FINE MEN AND WOMEN IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. HE IS THE REAL DEAL. [APPLAUSE]>>MARA? TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE REPORTER IS — REPORT IS GOING TO — >>OK, I’VE NEVER MET BOB MUELLER BUT I’M REALLY INTERESTED IN ALL OF THESE STORIES. BECAUSE BOB MUELLER HAS CONDUCTED HIMSELF SO ETHICALLY AND NOT SAID A WORD, I ANY HE’S HELPED TO CREATE THIS INCREDIBLE PENT-UP DESIRE FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN ALL AND SOLVE EVERY MYSTERY AND ANSWER EVERY QUESTION ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION, WHICH BRINGS ME TO LEON’S QUESTION. I DON’T KNOW IF HE WILL DO IT. I THINK THAT HE’S NOT THE 911 COMMISSION 2018 STYLE. HE HAS BEEN TASKED TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CRIMES COMMITTED, WHETHER THERE WERE ANY CRIMES OF CONSPIRACY. THERE IS NO CRIME OF COLLUSION. BUT SEE IF THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT BOB MULLER IS GOING TO SOLVE ALL THEIR PROBLEMS FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE TRUMP, I THINK THEY’LL BE SORELY DISAPPOINTED. THERE MIGHT BE LESS OF A KIND OF FINAL RESOLUTION TYING EVERYTHING UP WITH A BOW WITH IN REPORT THAN PEOPLE THINK, BUT I DO THINK IT WILL PROVIDE A ROAD MAP FOR CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE, WHO ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIONS AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REPORT, TWO THINGS WILL HAPPEN. THERE’LL BE A BIG FIGHT OVER THE REPORT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT GETS PUBLIC. MAYBE MUELLER WILL TESTIFY ON THE HILL AND THEN THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF HOUSE INVESTIGATIONS BASED ON WHATEVER HE PRESENTS. >>JIM? >>WELL, FIRST, THE COUNTRY, I THINK, IS BLESSED, I THINK TO HAVE BOB MUELLER DOING WHAT HE’S DOING. IT WAS MY HOME AT THE OUTSET THAT THIS WOULD SOMEHOW, SOME WAY CAREER UP THE CLOUD THAT HAS HUNG OVER THE COUNTRY FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE CLOUD OVER THIS PRESIDENCY. BUT, LIKE MARA, I DON’T THINK IT’S GOING TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WILL BE A BIT MORE AMBIGUOUS. I THINK HE WILL STICK METICULOUSLY TO THE DIRECTION AND THE GUIDANCE THAT HE’S BEEN GIVEN AND WON’T GO BEYOND THAT. BUT I DON’T ANY THIS IS THE END OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, CONGRESS HAS — THE HOUSE HAS AT LEAST THREE INVESTIGATIONS GOING AND THEN THERE’S THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK AND EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALL HAVE VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS GOING ON SO THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL CHALLENGES WILL NOT BE OVER JUST BY VIRTUE OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE MUELLER REPORT. ONE OF THE F.A.Q.’S, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I GET ON CNN IS SO WHEN DO YOU THINK HE’S GOING TO FINISH HIS REPORT AND ALL I’D SAY IS I THINK HE’S CLOSER TO THE END THAN HE IS THE BEGINNING. WHICH IS, BOTTOM LINE IS THAT EVEN THOUGH HE GIVES HIS REPORT, CLOSES SHOP, THAT IN MANY WAYS, IT ISN’T THE END BUT IT MAY BE THE END OF THE BEGINNING BUT THERE’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF OTHER INVESTIGATIONS THAT WILL CONTINUE. JIM, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT — THERE WERE THREE AREAS HE’S GOT TO LOOK AT. ONE IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. TWO IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS. AND THIRDLY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LET ME JUST FOCUS ON THE INTERFERENCE BY THE RUSSIANS. THIS WAS A PRETTY BOLD ATTACK BY THE RUSSIANS. AND IT WAS VERY BROAD AND THE QUESTION THT I’VE HAD IS, ECAUSE THIS WAS SUCH A BROAD-BASED ATTACK, WHY DID PUTIN DO IT? WHAT WAS HIS OBJECTIVE? AND DID HE ACHIEVE HIS OBJECTIVE?>>WELL, FIRST, THE RUSSIANS HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF INTERFERING IN ELECTION. THEIRS AND OTHER PEOPLES AND WE HAVE RECORDS GOING BACK TO AT LEAST THE 1960’S WHERE THE RUSSIANS TRIED TO INFLUENCE OR ENGAGE, INTERFERE SOMEHOW IN EVERY ONE OF OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SINCE THEN. THE DIFFERENCE FOR THIS ONE WAS NEVER AS AGGRESSIVE, BROAD -GAUGED AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL AS WHAT THEY DID IN 2016. I’VE SEEN A LOT OF BAD STUFF IN MY 50-PLUS YEARS IN INTELLIGENCE BUT NOTHING THAT EVER DISTURBED ME SIS RALLY AS MUCH AS THIS INTERFERENCE AND WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING, WHICH WAS DELIBERATELY INTENDED TO UNDERMINE OUR FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM. AND THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS I WROTE A BOOK. BECAUSE I WANTED TO DO MY LITTLE PART TO HELP EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS DID. PUTIN’S OBJECTEST WERE BORNE OUT OF HIS DEEP RESENTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HE HOLDS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RUSSIA’S ILLS. HE CHARACTERIZED THE DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION AS THE GREATEST GEOPOLITICAL DISASTER OF THE 209 CENTURY. AND WE SAW THIS IN INTELLIGENCE. HE HAD VERY STRONG PERSONAL ANIMUS TOWARDS THE CLINTONS, PARTICULARLY HILLARY CLINTON FOR WHOM HE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSOURI FOMENTING WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A REVOLUTION IN 2011. A VERY, VERY STRONG PERSONAL ANIMUS TOWARDS HER. WHEN THE RUSSIANS STARTED THIS, AND THEIR OBJECTIVES EVOLVED OVER TIME. WE SAW THIS IN THE INTELLIGENCE. THE FIRST OBJECTIVE WAS TO SOW DOUBT, DISCORD AND DISCONTENT IN THIS COUNTRY AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY SUCCEEDED TO A FARE THEE WELL AND THEY DELIBERATELY EXTORTED THE POLARIZATION AND DESIGHSIVENESS IN THIS COUNTRY. THE SECOND WAS THE STRONG PERSONAL ANIMUS TO HILLARY CLINTON. THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T TAKE TRUMP SERIOUSLY EITHER IN THE EARLY PHASES OF THE CAMPAIGN. WHEN THE BECAME THE NOMINEE THEY CHANGED SO IN ADDITION TO DOING ALL THEY COULD TO HARM HILLARY CLINTON, THEY DECIDED TO DO ALL THEY COULD TO HELP HIM. THEY THOUGHT HE WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR THEM. HE WAS A BUSINESSMAN, DEAL MAKER AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY DIDN’T ANY HE’D BEAT THEM UP ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. AND SO THAT OBJECTIVE EVOLVED. IN MY BOOK I DEVOTE A GOOD BIT OF TIME TO CHARACTERIZING, DESCRIBING THE STRIKING PARALLELS AND LEGISLATORS BETWEEN WHAT THE RUSSIANS — SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING DURING THE CAMPAIGN AND WHAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS SAYING. PROBABLY THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL THING I SAID IN THE BOOK WAS I BELIEVE THE RUSSIANS HAD A PROFOUND IMPACT ON OUR ELECTION. THEY REACHED THROUGH MESSAGING SOME 126 MILLION PEOPLE AND THEY HAD MESSAGES FOR EVERYBODY. BLACK LIVES MATTER, WHITE SUPREMACISTS, PRO GUN CONTROL, ANTI-GUN CONTROL, IT DIDN’T MATTER AND WHAT WE’LL NEVER KNOW, OF COURSE, IS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT THEY JUST TURNED OFF WHO DIDN’T BOTHER TO GO VOTE. BEAR IN MIND THE ELECTION TURNED ON LESS THAN 80,000 VOTES IN THREE STATES, WHICH THE RUSSIANS TARGETED. IN MY VIEW IT STRETCHES CRED YOU WILLTY TO THINK THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T IMPACT THE ELECTION, IN FACT, TURN IT. >>IT WAS IN THE SUMMER OF 2016 THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAW THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE TRYING TO GET INVOLVED IN THE ELECTION PROCESS. WHY DIDN’T THE ADMINISTRATION TAKE STRONGER STRETCHES TO COUNTER IT AND TO INFORM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?>>FIRST POINT I NEED TO MAKE IS ALL INTELLIGENCE REVELATION DOESN’T OCCUR IN ONE DAY. SO IN — YOU KNOW, WE EXPECTED THE RUSSIANS, AS THEY ALWAYS DO, TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES TO, TO COLLECT AGAINST US AND ALL THAT. THERE’S CERTAIN AMBIENT LEVEL OF RUSSIAN ACTIVITY THAT WE EXPECTED. SO IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2016 WHEN WE BEGAN TO SEE MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE FROM MORE AND MORE SOURCES AND THEN WE PUT ALL THIS STORY TOGETHER, SO BY LATER SUMMER, EARLY FALL, IT WAS VERY, VERY ALARMING AND THAT SET OFF A WHOLE SERIES OF ENDLESS MEETINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM DEBATING ABOUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. BECAUSE WE DIDN’T REALLY HAVE A GOOD HISTORICAL TEMPLATE FOR WHAT’S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST ABOUT THIS. SO THE THINGS THAT INHICTED US, THE ADMINISTRATION, WAS ONE, IF THE PRESIDENT, FOR EXAMPLE, MADE A BIG THING OF IT. WENT ON NATIONAL TV IN PRIME TIME AND MADE A BIG SPEECH ABOUT IT, WOULD THAT ONLY SERVE TO AMPLYIFY OR MAGNIFY OR DIGNIFY WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING? MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK, HE WAS RETICENT ABOUT PUTTING HIS HAND ON THE SCALE IN FAVOR OF ONE CANDIDATE TO THE DISFAVOR OF THE OTHER AGAINST THE NARRATIVE OF TRUMP THAT THE ELECTION WAS GOING TO BE RIGGED SINCE HE, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ANTICIPATED HE’D LOSE AND PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS VERY RELUCTANT TO PLAY TO THAT NARRATIVE. AND, TO BE QUITE CAN DID, IN THE ATTEMPTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MADE TO COME UP WITH A BIPARTISAN STATEMENT THAT WOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WHICH WOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE WHITE PUSHBACK IN THE CONGRESS, T OF – PARTICULARLY FROM THE REPUBLICANS, WHO DIDN’T WANT TO SIGN UP TO THAT. SO YOU CAN DO THE COULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVES ALL DAY LONG ABOUT WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MORE AGGRESSIVE ACTION AND ALL THAT. PROBABLY JAY JOHNSON IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY DIVISION AND MYSELF WERE PROBABLY THE MOST VOCAL ABOUT SPEAKING UP AND DOING SOMETHING AND SAYING SOMETHING TO THE PUBLIC. FINALLY THROUGH A SERIES OF MEETINGS WE REACHED AGREEMENT THAT GENTLEMAN I AND I WOULD PUT OUT A STATEMENT LAYING OUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING. SO WE FINALLY GOT OUR STATEMENT WRITTEN AND COORDINATED THROUGH THE INTERAGENCY AND WE ISSUED IT ON THE SEVENTH OF OCTOBER, A MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION, WHICH COINCIDENTALLY WAS THE SAME DAME THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD AUDIOTAPE CAME OUT AND THE SAME DAY THAT JOHN PODESTA, ALSO AN INTERESTING COINCIDENCE. HIS EMAILS WERE SOUGHT. OUR MESSAGE GOT LOST IN THE SHUFF. — SHUFFLE. ON THE 29TH OF DECEMBER, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IMPOSED A SERIES OF SANCTIONS AGAINST THE RUSSIANS. CLOSED TWO OFFICES, ONE OF WHICH ON THE EASTERN SHORE OF MARYLAND WAS A HUGE INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION AGENCY. BUT THE PROBLEM IS — DECEMBER, AFTER THE ELECTION. >>I WANT TO ASK CHUCK ABOUT COLLUSION BEFORE WE GO TO FIRST BREAK. ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS — AND OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INITIAL DENIALS THAT CAME FROM DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN. BUT NOW THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE 100 CONTRACTS — CONTACTS BEFORE THE INAUGURATION WITH TRUMP ASSOCIATES AND THE RUSSIANS. THERE WAS A TRUMP TOWER MEETING WITH HIS SON. MANAFORT AND KUSHNER. THERE WAS A MANAFORT MEETING WITH THE RUSSIAN TIED INTELLIGENCE GIVING POLLING DATA. MICHAEL COHEN WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS ON THE TRUMP MOSCOW HOTEL. TRUMP PUBLICLY ASKING THE RUSSIANS TO GO AFTER THE CLINTON EMAIL SO THERE’S LOTS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HERE THAT THERE WERE TIES TO THE RUSSIANS. IS THERE A SMOKING GUN, THOUGH, THAT TIES ALL OF THIS TO TRUMP? >>NOT THAT I’VE SEEN AND IT DOESN’T MATTER AND HERE’S WHY. IN ALL OF MY TRIFLES AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR — TRIALS AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, I THINK QUITE LITERALLY, I NEVER HAD DIRECT EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRATORIAL AGREEMENT. LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. EVERY FEDERAL JUDGE AT THE END OF EVERY FEDERAL TRIAL WILL INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LAW AND ONE STANDARD INSTRUCTION IS THAT THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND DIRECT EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH WEIGHT YOU, THE JURY, MAY GIVE TO IT. THE PAR DIAL EXAMPLE IS ALWAYS YOU WALK OUT OF YOUR HOUSE IN THE MORNING AND THERE’S SNOW ON YOUR FRONT LAWN. DID IT SNOW? YES. DID YOU SEE IT SNOW? NO. IS IT POSSIBLE SOMEO DROVE UP A TRUCK AND DUMPED SNOW ON YOUR FRONT LAWN. IT’S POSSIBLE BUT IT’S PRETTY IMPLAUSIBLE AND ALMOST ANY RATIONAL FACT FINDER WOULD SAY IT SNOWED, I JUST DIDN’T SEE IT. THAT’S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IT IS ENTITLED TO JUST AS MUCH WEIGHT AS DIRECT EVIDENCE. AND SO YOU’RE NOT LIKELY, LEON, TO SEE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY AGREEMENT. I WISH THE CRIMINALS I PROSECUTED WERE THAT STUPID. I WISH THEY SAT DOWN AND DRAFTED TOGETHER A CONSPIRACY CONTRACT. YOU BUY THE SKI MASK, WE’LL GET THE GETAWAY CAR, WE’LL CASE THE BANK AND EVERYONE JUST SIGNS THEIR NAME TO IT. WE WOULD PROBABLY MAKE THAT EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE AND BLOW IT UP TO SEVEN FEET BY 10 FEET. BUT YOU DON’T SEE THAT AND SO THOSE THINGS THAW IT RATED ARE WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN A CONSPIRACY CASE. LOTS OF PIECES OF SCHEDULE THAT GOOD AGENTS COLLECT AND GOOD PROSECUTORS ARGUE TO A JURY.>>SO WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU ACTUALLY WENT TO TRIAL ON THOSE ISSUES YOU MIGHT HAVE A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE.>>BUT THE MORE THINGS YOU HAVE THE BETTER YOUR CASE BECOMES BUT I DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE THIS IMPRESSION THAT IT’S ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL. BECAUSE THE LAW MAKES NO DISTINCTION. YOU HEAR THIS TOO, WELL, IT’S JUST HERE SAY. FOR NOSE OF YOU WHO ARE PROSECUTORS OR DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THIS ROOM, YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME TWO DOZEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HERE SAY RULE IN FEDERAL COURT. HERE SAY IS ADMISSIBLE. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS COMPELLING. IT’S JUST NOT THE LAW TO REQUIRE A SMOKING GUN. THAT HAPPENS IN HOLLYWOOD, ON TELEVISION, IT DOESN’T TEND TO HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.>>ONE OF THE BIG MYSTERIES FOR ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT SO MANY OF TRUMP’S ASSOCIATES HAVE LIED ABOUT CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA. IT’S LIKE WHY? WHY DO THEY KEEP ON LYING ABOUT RUSSIA? ARE THE LIES ABOUT RUSSIA EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING? >>CERTAINLY. THEY CAN BE. THEY CAN BE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT AND THE JUDGE WILL TELL THE JURY, TOO, THAT THE PROSECUTORS HAVE ADDUCED THESE FALSE STATEMENTS. YOU CAN GIVE IT ANY WEIGHT YOU WANT BUT THIS IS A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT THAT CAN BE INFERRED FROM PEOPLE WHO CONTINUOUS LIES ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT OVER AND OVER AND OVER. SO CERTAINLY, THAT’S EVIDENCE TOO.>>LET ME STOP FOR A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE WE’RE AT THE MORE THAN HALFWAY POINT. OUR QUESTION REVIEW TEAM. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SELECT THE QUESTIONS THAT I’LL BE ASKING IN THE SECOND HALF OF OUR PROGRAM AND I’D ASK YOU TO HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE UNTIL I INTRODUCE THE ENTIRE GROUP. CHELSEA ADAM, A LOCAL NEWS EDITOR OF SALINAS, CALIFORNIA. NUTION DIRECTOR OF KAZU. DOUG MCKNIGHT, REPORTER FOR KAZ RADIO AND DOUGLAS TAYLOR, MODERATOR FOR THE MONTEREY HERALD. IF YOU WOULD THANK THEM, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. [APPLAUSE] WE ALSO HAVE WITH US A GROUP OF STUDENTS REPRESENTING THOSE WHO ATTENDED THE AFTERNOON STUDENT PROGRAM. WE MAD A GREAT STUDENT PROGRAM WITH STUDENTS FROM D.L.I. AND NAVY POST DEPART SCHOOL AND CLEFPBLGS, HIGH SCHOOLS. IT WAS WONDERFUL. AND I’D LIKE TO ASK ALL OF THOSE STUDENTS TO RISE, IF THEY COULD AT THE MOMENT. REMAIN STANDING. THERE ARE SEVEN SCHOOLS REPRESENTED TONIGHT. THE DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE, MIDDLEBURY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL SKIES. THE MONTEREY OFFICE OF EDUCATION. MONTEREY HIGH SCHOOL, THE NAVY POST GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. [APPLAUSE]>>THANK YOU. WE HAD A GREAT TURNOUT. THE PROGRAM IS POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF OUR LECTURE SERIES SPONSORS AND SYLVIA AND I, ALONG WITH OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE SPONSORSHIP THAT ALLOWS THESE STUDENTS TO COME FROM HIGH SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, UNIFORMS. , MILITARY INSULATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL COAST SO — INCITYLATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL DOAST SO THAT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO GIVE OUR SPONSORS A HAND AS WELL. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] BEFORE I GET TO THOSE QUESTIONS, I WANT TO TOUCH ON THIS LAST POINT OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AGAIN, WE’RE DEALING WITH THE SCHEDULE. SITUATION. — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SITUATION. YOU’VE GOT, OBVIOUSLY THE PRESIDENT WHO THROUGH A NUMBER OF ATTACKS, I THINK SOMETHING LIKE 1,100 TWEETS HAS GONE AFTER THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. HE ASKED COMEY TO BACK OFF THE INVESTIGATION OF MIKE FLYNN. HI FIRED COMEY AND TOLD INCOMES IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. HE’S CONSIDERED PARDONS FOR HIS ASSOCIATES AND FAMILY. THE DEFENSE WOULD ARGUE THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT SWEEPING POWER TO HIRE AND FIRE, STOP AND START PROCEEDINGS AND GRANTS PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS. THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO COME DOWN, TO IF THE PRESIDENT IS SO BRAZEN ABOUT HIS ATTACKS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO PROVE A CONSPIRACY OR PROVIDE THE CORRUPT INTENT FOR OBSTRUCTION, IS THAT RIGHT? >>LET ME USE AN EXAMPLE TO SORT OF ILLUSTRATE WHY I DON’T THINK IT’S RIGHT. IF THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE MARA THE AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE — >>I SEMI.>>THAT’S CERTAINLY WITHIN HIS ARTICLE II EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. NO PROBLEM, NO QUESTION, RIGHT? BUT WHAT IF HE DID IT IN RETURN FOR A $5 MILLION CASH BRIBE. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE DEEPLY TROUBLED BY THAT. YOU SHOULD BE. THAT’S A CRIME. I DON’T THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, HAS UNFETEERED EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IF THE INTENT OF HIS ACTIONS, AND INTENT IS BLAST SO IMPORTANT HERE, IS TO OBSTRUCT A FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. NOW, YOU DON’T HAVE TO SUCCEED IN OBSTRUCTING IT. UNDER THE OBSTRUCTION STATUE UTE, THE WORD IS WHOEVER ENDEAVORS SO IF I TRIED TO KILL A WITNESS AND I FAILED OR I TRIED TO INTIMIDATE A WITNESS AND THAT WITNESS STILL TESTIFIED AGAINST ME, I’M STILL GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO SUCCEED, YOU DO HAVE TO INTEND AND I DON’T BELIEVE YOU CAN READ ARTICLE II THAT BROADLY TO PROVIDE CORRUPT OBSTRUCTIVE ACTS TO BE OUTSIDE THE APPLE BUILT OF FEDERAL LAW. >>ONE THING FROM MY REPORTING AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT DONALD TRUMP DOES WHERE HE KNOWS WHAT HE’S DOING. WHEN HE REPEATEDLY ATTACKS MUELLER, HE HAS A GOAL IN MINE, HE WANTS TO UNDERMINE HIS CREDIBILITY. BUT IN TERMS OF THE OBSTRUCTION QUESTION, THE WAY IT’S BEEN EXPLAIN TOLD ME IS DONALD TRUMP MERELY BELIEVES HE IS DEFENDING HIMSELF. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GUY CAME AT ME WITH A KNIFE, I HAD TO BLOW HIS HEAD OFF. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE ATTACKING ME, I HAD TO GET RID OF TOME — COMEY. IN OTHER WORDS, IN HIS MIND HE WAS JUST GOING THE — DOING THE THING HE NEEDED TO DO TO SURVIVE. NOW, THAT’S NOT AN EXCUSE, TO NOT KNOW THE LAW, BUT THAT’S WHAT HE THOUGHT.>>INTERESTING. >>OK, LET ME TURN TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. [LAUGHTER]PWELL, WE LIVE IN INT TIMES. CAN A PRESIDENT — GWYNN, CONSTITUTION PROVIDES VERY BROAD POWERS OF THE ABILITY OF A PRESIDENT TO PARDON. AND INNING THE WORD IS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT. >>CORRECT. >>CAN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PARDON HIMSELF OR HERSELF?>>SO THE ANSWER I THINK MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WOULD GIVE YOU IS NO, THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT PARDON HIMSELF OR HERSELF. THAT PHRASE EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT IS INTENDED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ONLY REMEDY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT SHORT OF THE 25TH AMENDMENT OR THE BALLOT BOX IS IMPEACHMENT. IT WOULD SORT OF TURN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE ON ITS HEAD IF A PRESIDENT COULD PARDON HIMSELF. I HAVEN’T SEEN ANY SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR SAY THAT. I’VE SEEN SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT. I JUST HAVEN’T SEEN ANY SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS SAY THAT. [LAUGHTER]>>ALL RIGHT. WE THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND THE LAW SAYS WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEE IT. DO THE LAWS AROUND THIS NEED TO BE CHANGED? THIS IS A SPECIAL COUNSEL’S PROVISION.>>THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO THEN HAS TO BRIEF CONGRESS BUT ONLY ON SOME THINGS. SO NO, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNLIKE WHEN WE USED TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW, KEN STARR, IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO PRESENT A REPORT. OK, SO WE KNOW FROM POLLING THAT SOMETHING LIKE 83% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT IF THERE IS A MUELLER REPORT IT SHOULD BE RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE PUBLIC FOR EXACTLY THE REASON THAT THAT QUESTIONER — YOU KNOW, [APPLAUSE] SO I THINK THAT IF THERE IS A REPORT THERE WILL BE TREMENDOUS PRESSURE TO RELEASE IT. BILL BARR CAN REDACT COME — SOME OF IT BUT YOU’RE EVEN HEARD FROM PROMINENT REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE LIKE JOHN CORNYN AND CHUCK GRASSLEY WHO HAVE BOTH SAID THE MUELLER REPORT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC. >>I HOPE IT IS. I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO READING IT, FRANKLY. BUT THE JAWORSKI REPORT FILED WITH THE CONGRESS UNDER SEAL 40-SOME ODD YEARS AGO BECAME PUBLIC A FEW MONTHS AGO.>>THE FULL REPORT? >>THE FULL REPORT BECAME PUBLIC A FEW YEARS — MONTHS AGO.>>DID THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NOT ASK FOR A FULL COPY OF THAT REPORT? >>I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT I DO KNOW IT WAS PROVIDED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS STUFF IT IN THAT BY LAW CANNOT BE MADE PUBLIC AND GIVEN TO CONGRESS WHO MAINTAINED IT UNDER SEAL REMARKABLY FOR FOUR DECADES.>>OK, JIM, THIS IS FOR YOU, I THINK. WHAT ARE THE DANGEROUS OF A PRESIDENT IGNORING THE ADVICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND MILITARY LEADERS? LED — LET ME JUST ADD TO THAT, THE PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY HAD A CONFLICT WITH INTELLIGENCE — [LAUGHTER] I THINK YOU GOT HE DOUBLE MEANING HERE. HE — — [LAUGHTER] YOU KNOW, HE’S OBVIO QUESTIONED THE ASSESSMENTS BY THE INTELLIGENCE. AND INTELLIGENCE HAS COME OUT WITH VERY DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS ON NORTH KOREA, IRAN, ISIS AND HE RAISE IS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. WHAT ARE THE DANGEROUS OF A PRESIDENT WHO REJECTS THE INFORMATION THAT TEFPBLG IS PRESENTING AND WHAT — INTELLIGENCE IS PRESENTING AND WHAT DO THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS DO IN THAT SITUATION? >>FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SAID THAT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF — A PILES MAKER TO IMPROVE — POLICYMAKER NUMBER ONE ALWAYS THE ACCEPT, OBJECT OR IGNORE THE INTELLIGENCE THAT IS TEED UP TO HIM OR HER. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THAT PREROGATIVE. I WOULD OFFER, THOUGH, THAT DOING SO ON A REPRESENTATIVE, ROUTINE BASIS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME ON MULTIPLE ISSUES IS PRETTY DANGEROUS. DANGEROUS FOR THE COUNTRY AND DANGEROUS FOR HIS PRESIDENCY. YOU KNOW, WE’VE BEEN PRETTY FORTUNATE. WE REALLY HAVEN’T HAD, GOD FORBID, AN EVENT OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE 9/11 OR GOD FORBID A SERIOUS NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION WITH RUSSIA, FO EXAMPLE, JUST TO NAME TWO. AND IF WE DID, THE PRESIDENT WILLNEED NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION THE ASSESSMENTS, FACTS, THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ONLY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CAN GIVE HIM. AND HIS GUT WON’T BE ENOUGH. SO, AGAIN, I THINK OVER TIME — IT’S HIS PREROGATIVE BUT OVER TIME, IT’S NOT GOOD. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS, IS THERE COULD BE, UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A BOND OF TRUST BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND HIS OR HER INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND THAT BOND OF TRUST NEEDS TO WORK BOTH WAYS. AND WHEN THERE IS DISTRUST AND SUSPICION AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS GIVEN TO PERSONAL ATTACKS, PERSONAL ASSAULTS ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO SERVE HIM, THAT IS NOT GOOD.>>FOR YOU, JIM, AND FOR YOU, LEON. ISN’T IT ALSO THAT THE PRESIDENT’S REJECTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE HAS BEEN PUBLIC REJECTION? I’M SURE YOU’VE BOTH BREACHED PRESIDENTS WHO’VE QUESTIONED INTELLIGENCE OR DIDN’T DO IT PUBLICLY, OR DID THAT?>>I THINK THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE. I SUSPECT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PRESIDENTS WHO QUESTIONED SOME OF THE INTELLIGENCE THAT THEY GOT AND SOME OF IT, AS WE PRESENTED THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS, THE PRESIDENT WOULD SAY WAIT A MINUTE. I DON’T REALLY BELIEVE THERE’S A GOOD SEWERS OF INFORMATION HERE. GO BACK AND CHECK IT. OR HE WOULD ASK IS THIS REALLY THE CASE? SO HE WOULD QUESTION — MOST PRESIDENTS QUESTION THAT INFORMATION BUT THEY DO IT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE OVAL OFFICE. THEY DON’T DO IT ON TWEETER. AND THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY IS DISCONCERTING TO HAVE IT GO PUBLIC WHEN HE OBJECTS TO THAT KIND OF INFORMATION BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS ARE PRESENTING THE BEST INFORMATION THEY HAVE. LOOK, THE P.D.V., AND JIM CAN AGREE WITH THIS. THE P.D.V., WHICH IS THE PRESIDENTIAL DALEY BULLETIN. WE — DAILY BULLETIN. WE ALL GOT IT IN THE MOMBING AND WHEN I WAS AT THE C.I.A. OBVIOUSLY JUST GOT IT WHEN I WAS DRIVING IN. YOU READ THAT DAMN THING AND IT’S PRETTY DEPRESSING BECAUSE IT’S ABOUT ALL OF THE THREATS IN THE WORLD THAT ARE AIMED AT THE UNITED STATES. LOOK, SOME ARE SERIOUS, SOME ARE NOT. BUT THE DUTY OF A PRESIDENT IS TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT. BECAUSE THAT’S ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL THREATS TO THIS COUNTRY AND IF YOU IGNORE IT, IF YOU DON’T WANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT, THAT’S DANGEROUS. INTELLIGENCE IS IMPORTANT FOR MILITARY LEADERS AND IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.>>YOU KNOW, IT’S ACTUALLY A VERY HEALTHY THING WHEN A PRESIDENT OR ANYONE WHO’S RECEIVING INTELLIGENCE IS SKEPTICAL. OR QUESTIONS IT OR WANTS MORE — WANTS MORE CONFIRMATION OR AFFIRMATION OF WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO TELL THEM. THAT’S FINE BUT THERE’S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SKEPTICISM AND DISPARAGEMENT.>>MARA, THIS IS DOWN YOUR LINE. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE LONG-TERM EFFECTSOF THE ADMINISTRATION’S ATTACKS ON THE NEWS MEDIA?>>WELL, IT’S HARD TO MAKE PREDICTIONS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE FUTURE. BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS WILL BE BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON IS HE THE PRESIDENT FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, SIX. DON’T FORGET, THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER PRESSURES ON THE NEWS MEDIA THAT KIND OF AMPLIFY THE ATTACKS THAT TRUMP MAKES ABOUT FAKE NEWS, ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE, ETC. THE WHOLE IDEA OF FAKE NEWS, THERE WAS REAL FAKE NEWS OUT THERE. SOME OF IT WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE RUSSIANS. THE DANGER OF FAKE NEWS OR POP GANDA OR DISINFORMATION IS NOT JUST THAT PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT BUT THAT THEN THEY WON’T BELIEVE NEWS THAT IS FACT-BASED AND REALITY-BASED AND IT’S NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT, ALTHOUGH TO HAVE THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON THE PLANET CONSTANTLY TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE PRESS IS REALLY SCARY. IT’S BAD FOR DEMOCRACY, BUT THE BUSINESS MODEL OF SOCIAL MEDIA ALSO INCREASES POLARIZATION, DESTROYS TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS. I MEAN, WE ARE BECOMING A VERY LOW-TRUST SOCIETY, WHICH MEANS PEOPLE DON’T TRUST OUR BASIC INSTITUTIONS, THEY DON’T BELIEVE WHAT THEY READ IN THE PRESS. THEY BELIEVE WHAT COMES INTO THEIR FACEBOOK FRIENDS, OR WHATEVER IT’S CALLED. FRIENDS GROUP NEWS FEED AND THAT’S WHERE PEOPLE FIND OUT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION LIKE OBAMA IS A MUSLIM AND ADVANTAGE SCENES CAUSE AUTISM. THE — VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. THE BUSINESS MODEL OF SOCIAL MEDIA, WHICH IS KEEPING YOU ON LINE LONGER AND THEY DO THAT THROUGH EXTREME CONTENT. THAT DESTROYS TRUST AND MAKES IT HARD TO HAVE A KIND OF FACT-BASED SYSTEM. SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE REALLY SCARY TO ME. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I OPERATE IN THE SMALL — UNFORTUNATELY, GETTING SMALLER REALM OF MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT TRY TO BE REALITY BASED AND FACT BASED BUT IF WE’RE NOT A SOCIETY THAT STARTS WITH FACTS AND WORKS OUR WAY TO OPINIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHERE TOO MUCH NOW WE START WITH OPINIONS AND THEN BACK FILL A FEW CONVENIENT. FACTS WE FOUND Y SOMEWHERE, WE CAN’T HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION OR DETECTIVE ABOUT ANYTHING. AND THAT WORRIES ME. I THINK THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER PRESIDENT LIKE DONALD TRUMP IN TERMS OF THEIR DISTRUST OF THINGS, INCLUDING PRESS. WE JUST DON’T HAVE WALTER CON CITE AND TWO NETWORKS. THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE PRESS HAVE BEEN WELL-CHRONICLED AND THEY STARTED WELL BEFORE DONALD TRUMP. TOO MANY PEOPLE CONSUME THE MEDIA FOR AFFIRMATION, NOT INFORMATION. AND THE NEWS MEDIA IS INCREDIBLY POLARIZED AND THAT HAPPENED BEFORE DON’T TRUMP. THE JOKE IS THAT FOX AND MSNBC DON’T EVEN COVER THE SAME NATIONAL DISASTERS. THOSE THINGS ARE THE GENIES THAT CAN’T BE PUT BACK IN THE BOTTLE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL NOT ONLY NOT MAKE THOSE ATTACKS BUT GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO REAFFIRM THEIR COMMITMENT TO BASIC DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES, INLEWDING THE — INCLUDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THAT’S MY HOPEFUL PREDICTION ABOUT THE FUTURE. [APPLAUSE]>>I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE ROLE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ROLE OF THE A.G., JEFF SESSIONS OBVIOUSLY RECUSED HIMSELF. I THINK APPROPRIATELY.>>APPROPRIATELY SO I AGREE. SUFFERED FOR IT.>>THE PRESIDENT CRITICIZED HIM BECAUSE HE WANTED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WOULD PROTECT HIM ON THAT ISSUE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU KNOW, JOHN KENNEDY APPOINTED HIS BROTHER, BOBBY KENNEDY, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ERIC HOLDER, OBVIOUSLY, WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA. WHERE IS THAT LINE BETWEEN ENFORCING THE LAW AND LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT? >>THAT’S A REALLY, REALLY GOOD QUESTION, LEON. SO LET ME ANSWER IT IN TWO WAYS. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THA THE PRESIDENT GETS TO PICK HIS CABINET AND PART OF THE CABINET IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SO THERE’S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ROLE AS POLICYMAKER. THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO IMPOSE CERTAIN POLICIES AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVE, LET’S SAY PRISON REENTRY OR REHABILITATION OR SENTENCING REFORM. THAT’S AN APPROPRIATE POLICY ROLE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERALS. BUT ATTORNEYS GENERAL — THAT IS THE PLURAL, ATTORNEYS GENERAL, HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT HAT ON BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE, AS JIM COMEY WOULD SAY, AN OTHER IN AMERICAN LIFE, NOT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. WHEN I WAS IN THE F.B.I. AND I MAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON TWO OCCASIONS. THERE ARE 30,000 MEN AND WOMEN, AGENTS, FORENSIC SCIENTISTS. PROFESSIONALS IN THE F.B.I. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ARE POLITICALICALLY APPOINTED? ONE. THE ONE. THE DIRECTOR, THAT’S IT. NOBODY ELSE. WHEN I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN EASTERN VIRGINIA, WHEN I WAS IN THAT ROLE, I WAS THE ONLY POLITICAL APPOINTEE. THE POLITICAL LAYER AND THE ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE BY DESIGN EXTRAORDINARILY ANYONE SO IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT A.G. AS OLYMPICS MAKER, FINE. BUT IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT A.G. AS LAW ENFORCER, YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT INDEPENDENCE AND THAT’S HOW WE ARE BROUGHT UP IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WE DON’T TALK ABOUT POLITICS, WE DON’T THINK ABOUT POLITICS. WE TRY HARD AS A HELL TO NOT BE HUMAN BEINGS AND DISCUSS POLITICS LIKE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS DO. SO I THINK OF IT IN THOSE TWO SEPARATE WAYS. I HOPE IT MAKES SOME SENSE. >>JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. WHEN JAMES COMEY DID WHAT HE DID WITH REGARDS TO THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION, DO YOU THINK HE MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT FOLLOWING STANDARDS?>>SO I’M BIASED BECAUSE JIM IS MY FRIEND AND I THINK JIM DOES AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB — I’LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I THINK JIM DOES AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB OF EXPLAINING HIS RATIONALE IN HIS BOOK, THAT IT WAS ALMOST QUITE LITERALLY A UNIQUE SITUATION IN WHICH THERE WAS AN OPEN INVESTIGATION OF A MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT AND THAT IF HE DID NOT PUT IT TO REST, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LEAKED OR HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF COVERING UP THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION. HISS RATIONALE MEDICATION SENSE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT NOT TO TALK ABOUT CASES WE DON’T BRING AND THAT’S A DOUBLE NEGATIVE BUT IT’S APPROPRIATE HERE. WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THINGS WE DON’T BRING. WE TALK ABOUT CASES WE DO BRING AND WE TALK ABOUT THEM IN COURT AND YOU ALMOST CAN NEVER GO WRONG FALLING BACK ON POLICY SO I UNDERSTAND JIM’S ARGUE. HE’S AN INCREDIBLY THOUGHTFUL GUY, OF WHY HE THOUGHT THIS ONE WAS DIFFERENT. AND FRANKLY IN JULY WHEN HE ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND AGAINST CHARGING HILLARY CLINTON, PEOPLE WERE NOT AS UPSET AS THEY WERE LATER IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER WHEN HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAD REOPENED AND THEN CLOSED THE CASE. I THINK THE RATIONALE FOR THAT IS DIFFERENT BUT I THINK IF THERE IS A FAULTS — AND I TELL YOU, JIM IS A DEAR FRIEND OF MINE — IT’S THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO OUR POLICY. I DON’T MAKE ANY MONEY OFF HIS BOOK BUT READ IT BECAUSE HE HAS AN STOOD THEIR COMPELLING RATIONALE FOR WHAT HE DID. YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH IT.>>SO YOU’RE SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT HE DID IN JULY BUT NOT IN OCTOBER?>>NO, ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, HE HAD — HE HAD TOLD CONGRESS WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT THAT IF THINGS — IF THINGS CHANGED, THAT’S RIGHT.>>AND THEN THINGS CHANGED AND THEN HE TOLD THEM SO I THINK IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER HE WAS IN A BOX. THERE ARE, THERE’S MORE NUANCE TO IT THAN THAT BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK HE’S AN INCREDIBLY THOUGHTFUL GUY. NONE OF IT WAS POLITICAL BUT HE STRAYED FROM OUR POLICY.>>LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. ACCEPTING THE RATIONALE THAT HE PRESENTED, THE CONCERN I HAVE IS WHEN — AND IT’S ALWAYS A DAVERPBING WHEN F.B.I. DIRECTORS TRY TO — DANGER WHEN F.B.I. DIRECTORS TRY TO TOUCH POLITICAL ISSUES. BUT HAVING DONE WHAT HE DID WITH HILLARY CLINTON, WHEN THE F.B.I. FOUND OUT THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE INTERFERING WITH OUR ELECTION PROCESS AND THAT THERE WAS SOME CONTEXT WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WHY DID HE NOT THINK THAT WAS WORST REVEALING TO THE PUBLIC?>>I THINK THERE’S A SIMPLE BUT I HOPE NOT SIMPLISTIC ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. FROM JIM’S PERSPECTIVE, THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION WAS OVER AND HE WAS ANNOUNCING HIS RECOMMENDATION. RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS ONGOING. THAT’S ANOTHER POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT WITH RARE EXCEPTION THAT YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS SO THAT STRIKES ME AS A FAIR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. SOME PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THAT AND I GET IT BECAUSE THEY SEE THE TWO AS EQUIVALENTS BUT A CLOSED INVESTIGATION AND AN OPEN INVESTIGATION IN MY MIND ARE DIFFERENT ANIMALS.>>JIM, YOU WENT TO NORTH KOREA. THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO NORTH KOREA AS WE SPEAK.>>HE’S GOING TO VIETNAM, I THINK.>>WELL, YOU’RE RIGHT.>>IF HE WAS GOING TO NORTH KOREA, WE’D BE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT — [LAUGHTER] WE’D HAVE TO PAY TO GET HIM RELEASED. [LAUGHTER] SO HE’S GOING TO VIETNAM AND HE’S GOING TO MEET WITH KIM JONGUN. THEY HAD THE INITIAL MEETING IN SINGAPORE AND ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SOME PERIPHERAL BENEFITS TO, THAT WE REALLY DIDN’T GET ANY STEPS TOWARDS DENUCLEARIZATION. SO HE’S GOING TO MEET IN VIETNAM NOW. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE NORTH KOREANS IS WHETHER OR NOT HE’S GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THEM TO TAKE VERY FINAL STEPS TO DENUCLEARIZE?>>I DOUBT IT. I SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF PRESIDENT TRUM MEETING WITH KIM JONG UN IN SINGAPORE IN YOU KNOW JACKSONVILLE. — JUNE. WHEN I WAS THERE AND I HAD QUITE A BIT OF DIALOGUE WITH SENIOR NORTH KOREANS AND I WAS STRUCK BY HOW STUCK THEY WERE ON THEIR THAT THEIR NARRATIVE AND HOW STUCK WE WERE ON OUR NARRATIVE. MY FIRST WHITE HOUSE ISSUED TALKING POINT I WAS SUPPOSED TO RECITE TO THE NORTH KOREANS IN NOVEMBER 2014 WAS YOU MUST DENUKE ORIZE BEFORE WE TALK TO YOU. I WAS THERE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AND I UNDERSTOOD RIGHT AWAY THAT WAS A LOST CAUSE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DE NUCLEARIZE AND WHY SHOULD THEY? TO THEIR VANTAGE POINTS, IT IS THEIR TICKET TO SURVIVAL. THEY NEGOTIATED WITH GADDAFI THEIR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND LOOK HOW IT TURNED OUT FOR THEM. THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR ECONOMIC STRAITS THEY’RE IN AND THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE WOULD PAY ANY ATTENTION TO NORTH KOREA IF NOT FOR THEIR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY. I WOULD OFFER THAT THE REASON FOR THEIR TEMP EFRLED BEHAVIOR OF LATE AS — HAS NOT MUCH TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE’VE DONE OR SAID OR ANY OF THE TWEETS. IT HAS MUCH MORE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE NORTH KOREANS HAVE ACHIEVED WHAT THEY DETERMINE AS NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, SO FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THEY CAN COME TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE NOT AS A SUPPLICANT, WHICH THEY’VE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE PAST. SO ANYWAY, I SUPPORTED IT. I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT SQUANDERED THE HUGE LEFRLING HE HAD JUST BY VIRTUE OF AGREEING TO MEET, WHICH IS SOMETHING THE NORTH KOREANS HAVE LUSTED FOR THE WHOLE EXISTENCE OF THE BPRK. THAT’S THEIR NAME. THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE OF NORTH KOREA. KIM JONG-IL DID AND NOW THE GANDSON KIM JONG UN AND THAT HAS A BIG DEAL TO DO WITH THEM MEETING AS CO-EQUALS. THE QUESTION I WISH THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED KIM JONG UN IS WHAT IS IT IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE YOU FEEL SQURE THEY DON’T KNEE ELLEDS — NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS? IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE’RE GOING TO DESIGN A NEGOTIATING STRATEGY IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW THAT AND RIGHT NOW WE DON’T. SO I DON’T HOLD OUT MUCH HOPE. IT’S A GOOD THING WE’RE NOT HAVING MISSILE TESTS AND UNDERGROUND EXPLOSIONS AND ALL THAT BUT I THINK IT HAS LESS TO DO WITH WHAT WE’RE DOING AND MUCH MORE THAN WHAT THE NORTH KOREANS THINK THEY’VE ACHIEVED. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE IN MY LIFETIME WHEN THEY DENUKE LARES.>>CHUCK, YOU’RE A LONGTIME MEMBER OF THE F.B.I. IT’S HAD A SERIES OF PROBLEMS OVER THESE LAST NUMBER OF MONTHS. THE I.G. OBVIOUSLY CRITICIZED COMEY ON THE WAY HE HANDLED THE CLINTON EMAILS. THAT SOME AGENTS HAD POLITICAL BIASES, THAT THE F.B.I. HANDLED CLINTON RETALIATED AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS, THAT THEY MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO PREVENT MASS SHOOTINGS. OBVIOUSLY THEY’VE BEEN IMPACTED. IF YOU READ “THE NEW YORK TIMES” TODAY, THEY’RE HAVING A HARD TIME ON RECRUITMENT. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT’S GOING ON? HOW BAD IS THE SITUATION AND CAN THE DAMAGE BE REPAIRED? >>LIKE ALL HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, THEY’RE FALLIBLE. I’VE NEVER BEEN IN A PLACE WHERE I SEE PEOPLE WORKING HARDER TO TRY AND GET IT RIGHT BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE FAME. AND, YOU KNOW, I’M SURE THE LIST IS ACTUALLY LONGER THAN THAT, LEON. BUT WHAT PAINS ME IS THAT WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THEIR LIST OF SUCCESSES. NOT JUST THE ATTACKS THAT ARE PREVENTED BY CHILDREN THAT ARE RECOVERED AND FRAUDS THAT ARE UNEARTHED. THEY HAVE A REMARKABLE LIST OF SUCCESSES TOO. THAT SAID, I UNDERSTAND THAT’S NOT AS INTERESTING, I GET THAT I REGRET THAT BUT I GET THAT HERE’S WHERE IT REALLY HURTS. WHEN THE RIOTS IN FERGUSON TOOK PLACE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THAT CITY WAS NOT TRUSTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED AND SO THE F.B.I. WENT, IN FORCE, AND KNOCKED ON DOORS AND I BELIEVE IN EVERY INSTANCE, CITIZENS WHO WERE VERY, VERY, VERY ANGRY AT THE FERGUSON P.D. TALKED TO THE F.B.I. FOR TO US SUCCEED WE NEED PEOPLE TO TRUST THAT THE F.B.I. REALLY IS THAT OTHER IN AMERICAN LIFE. WE DON’T JUST HAVE TO BE FAIR, WE ALSO HAVE TO BE PERCEIVED AS FAIR, AND SO WHEN YOU REFERENCED THOSE TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN TWO F.B.I. EMPLOYEES, WHAT PEOPLE LOST IN THE I.G. REPORT WAS THIS FINDING. THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE POLITICAL BIAS ES EXPRESSED IN THOSE TEXT MESSAGES OR ANYWHERE IN THE F.B.I. INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME OF THEIR WORK. PEOPLE DON’T REMEMBER THAT PART OF IT. PEOPLE REMEMBER THAT A COUPLE OF EMPLOYEES EXCHANGED HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE TEXT MESSAGES SO THERE’S THE FIELD TO BE FAIR AND THE NEED TO BE PERCEIVED AS FAIR AND THAT’S WHAT I THINK WORRIES ME RIGHT NOW AND IF RECRUITING TAKES A HIT, THAT’S A PROBLEM. IF THE F.B.I. CAN’T KNOCK ON DOORS AND GET HONEST ANSWERS TO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, THAT’S A PROBLEM. IF THEY STOP BEING THAT OTHER IN AMERICAN LIFE, THAT’S A PROBLEM. SO AM I WORRIED? NOT DRAMATICALLY SO. CAN IT BE REPAIRED? ABSOLUTELY — BUT IT’S HARD AND THESE ARE ALL SETBACKS AND THEY OUGHT TO CONCERN ALL OF US. >>JIM, WE’RE IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES HERE. I WANTED YOU TO TELL THE STORY ABOUT YOUR FAILURE TO — >>WHICH ONE? [LAUGHTER]>>YOUR FAILURE TO GET GOOD INTELLIGENCE WHEN YOU APPEARED AT AN EVENT AT THE C.I.A. >>WELL, THE EVENT THAT LEON IS TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN HE WAS LEAVING C.I.A. TO GO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. SO I WAS A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS THAT CAME TO PAY HOMAGE TO LEON AS HE WAS LEAVING AND HAD A BIG INTELLIGENT, CIRCUS TENT SET UP IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE C.I.A. SO WHEN I GOT UP, I DON’T KNOW, I WAS THE SIXTH OR SEVENTH PEEKER — SPEAKER AND I THINK JUST TO GET A RISE OUT OF THE CROWDIBILITIES I’M REMINDED OF THE LINE ASCRIBED TO SBHETH TAYLOR’S EIGHTH HUSBAND WHEN EBBS I KNOW WHAT I’M SUPPOSED TO DO BUT HOW DO I MAKE IT DIFFERENT? [LAUGHTER] YEAH, ANY ABOUT IT. SO IT GOT THE DESIRED EFFECT AND SO WE’RE ALL DONE AND TROUPING OFF OF STAGE AND TISH LONG, THE DIRECTOR OF THE N.G.A., BY THE WAY, THE FIRST WOMAN EVER TO BE DIRECTOR OF A MAJOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND TISH CAME UP TO ME AND SAYS HEY, GUESS WHO’S HERE? MY HEART TSENG. IN ATTENDANCE WAS SENATOR JOHN WARREN. [LAUGHTER]>>UH-OH. >>SENATOR WAURNINGS HE SPONSORED ME WHEN I WAS UNDER SECRETARY DEFENSE FOR THE INTELLIGENCE. Y HEART TSENG. I’M LOOKING AROUND THIS HUGE CROWD THAT TURNED OUT TO HONOR LEON AND HE WAS NOWHERE IN SIGHT SO I RAN OUT OF THE TENT, LOOKING FOR MY PROTECTIVE DETAIL TO PICK ME UP AND TAKE ME BACK TO THE OFFICE AND THERE STANDING WAS JOHN WARNER. I WAN OVER TO HIM AND ALMOST LITERALLY FELL ON ANY — MY KNEES. ORANGE, SENATOR WARNER, I APOLOGIZE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A LAUGH. I HOPE IT DEFEND OFFEND YOU. HE SAID NO, IT WAS A GREAT STORY, A GREAT LINE. BY THE WAY, I WAS NUMBER SIX. [LAUGHTER]>>KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE DEPARTMENT. >>THAT’S A GREAT STORY.>>THAT’S WHEN INTEL FAILED MEDICAL.>>LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF THIS PROGRAM. AGAIN, I REALLY DO WANT TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF WE THE PEOPLE. THAT’S THE BEGINNING — THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT BEGIN THE CONSTITUTION. WE THE PEOPLE AND I THINK ULTIMATELY IT REALLY IS UP TO WE THE PEOPLE TO BE THE ULTIMATE CHECK AND BALANCE. WE HAVE A LOT HAVE INSTITUTIONS. I THINK SOME OF NOSE INSTITUTIONS ARE PERFORMING WELL. SOME ARE NOT PERFORMING SO WELL BUT THE REALITY IS THAT IN THE END, IT REALLY IS WE THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT OUR DEMOCRACY WILL SURVIVE. I THINK WHAT THIS PROGRAM HAS SHOWN WITH THE BENEFIT OF OUR SPEAKERS IS THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH A NUMBER OF TOUGH ISSUES. THIS IS A DIFFICULT TIME. LET’S NOT KID ANYBODY. IN TERMS OF THE POLITICS IN WASHINGTON PLUS THE DANGEROUS WE’RE FACING IN THE WORLD. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO IS TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS, DEBATE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ULTIMATELY AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR DEMOCRACY IS SECURE FOR THE FUTURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE]