Hey folks. I hope you find this conversation between LISA and ten valuable, as always right to us, with your questions and comments at letters CAFE. Dotcom from CAFE this is United Security. I'm LISA Monica IRAN can Wednesday it can great to be back with the various groups. Year and were here in an official full fledged way now with our new podcast. Yet this is our official launch episode of our new podcast United Security. I still wish we could be doing this in the studio, but you and I are- in our remote locations. So one of these days will get back to having that fuzzy microphone between our two heads, but but for now it's great be back with you and I'm really excited to launch this birds set it to and bake bearded home has its advantages. Shore, some four flouts, will more comfortable than a suit at the studio.

But it's really it's exciting- to be be part of this effort to have a hard task to be doing this by weekly basis and to be doing it with you and there's a lot to talk about. First, let me just ask you what you been up to since we last podcast together, while I've been like you, I've been going lots of different things filling my days in home confinement. Here I a partner in a law firm at O, Melvin admires, I'm teaching it and why you, but lately I've been spending a bunch of time on efforts both as a member of former Vice President Biden, public Health Advisory Committee, I helping with a few other public health and homeland security Bertz advise him on the corona virus, and I am also helping to leave the vetting process for the vice presidential nominee. How about you? What are you been up to peace makes you want to ask you some good inside baseball questions, but I suspect we will get any answers now. So what even try but egg

are you doing at work? Sometimes it's hard to remember that this is actually an election year, what it's twenty four slash: seven Covid nineteen coverage, but always important to play an important part in the presidential elections. So I have also had been no John to maintain my wife Practice, but also keep up with the dizzying parade of national security events. We bits which I think is a good led into today, because we have now a few important wants to talk about today. Now we got a lot of things to break down and,

we're gonna, try and do now. Every two weeks on this pipe gases, breakdown, national security issues, explain what's going on what the significance of these issues is trying to pass the polemics get past. The talking points and talk about things from a fact based perspective also provide some historical perspective to some of the events that were seeing so today I think we ve got a pretty full agenda can, as far as I can tell what I want to talk about the latest reporting on this intelligence. That's emerged about Russians, Russia, paying bounties to Taliban linked militias to kill our service members in Afghanistan. One

talk about the latest Sunday Bolton book saga and, of course, the latest updates on what's going on with the corona virus, so we got a full plates was jump right into what are we start with the russian valleys and just a quick snapshot of of what's happened? Over the last few weeks, it's been publicly disclose. The intelligence was received earlier in the year that the russian Miller, Their intelligence was paying bounties to members the Taliban specifically to kill relation forces in? U S, forces soldiers bodies to be paid for the debts of american soldiers, pretty shocking intel. since intelligence and short as reported publicly is that there was a detail He reporting, in other words, Taliban fight who were captured. Who said that bounties had been paid by the e g? Are you by the russian intelligence and those are intelligence and some indication that money had been transferred from the russian government.

HU, the Taliban and this intelligence. Lease the CIA and the National Monitoring Centre judged that with medium confidence that these species were being paid theirs and some opinion among some of the agencies as to the strength of the evidence, but distinctly intelligence. But that's the intelligence, That was learned earlier this year, barely and ass. Soon, ass, a security council had a meeting to talk about the internal and what to do, but ultimately, there was no public policy response to the Russians. And then it got leaked and publicly disclosed and since that public disclosure, the whole debate has been about whether there should be a response and why there was no response. So that's the stage that were out right now- and I guess my first question to you is this- sounds terrible- a Ford government member, the world order actually paying money, to irregular troops, to ask you specifically to kill soldiers of another, another government

That is that compared to the kind of back and forth efforts that different powers make China benefit themselves and to the detriment of other countries followed. Can I think, may look you and I both now we we spent our life and government, certainly the last decade of our lives and government consuming intelligence right being a customer of the intelligence community for reports, sometimes that come in and evolve over time. There's always going to be, I think, differing assessments from different members of the intelligence community. Nothing is ever a hundred percent, so I think there's a few issues we should unpack on this. One is what you look just laid out. Right has significant. Is this? How should be thinking about this question of paying of bounties the question about what did the president? No, and when did he know it? That was the kind of the first issue that can consume

the media on this in the public debate and based on what is known, what should be done about and how should the policy makers and how should the White House and the? U S, government find something like this you and I can agree- I do limit. Is there a big issues here against the first I'm asking myself as well: Downy sound terrible you know we have a history of providing arms to irregular, groups that are fighting other powers. For instance, you know watch the movie Charlie Wilson's war. That's all about how we provided Stingray misses the mujahideen that really broke the back. the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan and resulted in the deaths of countless russian soldiers, so we weren't paying bounties, but we were taking act. I e providing arms that resulted in the death of russian soldiers I'll. Tell you what I hope I can give the money, ten million- is a joke found wanting to do what she had done. Helicopters shoot them how we can

them shoot down the goddamn helicopters ever theirs. Don't go away was a different when the Russians reportedly offer bounties for the deaths of american soldiers. yeah, and you see Lena the russian officials now responding to these reports, pointing exactly to what you just said can of two to the history of the EU are supporting the measure dean, but look from my perspective. I think bounties is different in kind right. First and foremost, this is involves direct, a direct impact on our service members right in a conflict in a place that we ve been now for for two decades and having expended on told your blood and treasure, and so this is a direct link by foreign adversary against our service members. So that point one point two is

it is an escalation that different in kind. We know that the Russians have long supported the Taliban. We know that they have also overtime tried to undermine the. U S led coalition in Afghanistan, but I think it is a new. Escalation and also a new low in terms of their past efforts to actually provide an incentive and payment for Taliban linked militias to go after and kill. You know paying for those results to kill our service members, so I think it is different in kind and its yet another example of of Russia pushing the boundaries in terms of what it will do if unchecked yard. I totally If you add, is completely different kind, and you know you gotta, remember that wars pour boiling point of wars to

the other side before they kill you, and so it's by nature brutal, but we have rules by which we conduct war, the Geneva conventions and alike. So this sort of beyond the pale and dumb and its it shocking, and they guessed question and that your alluding two's, why did Russia do it swimming the reporting correct. Why would they do something that would they would possibly be publicly disclose and they would then be seen as doing something this renders and I know there's been a good bit a commentary about both what his motivations work as a country, but also Putin's motivations and how he still resents Our role in the fall of Soviet Union specifically are helping diminish idea to feed them in Afghanistan, which I think led freely directly to the fall of the collapse of the Soviet Union but also his resentment of the roles we played.

Ukraine and Syria, where we ve been supporting forces that our position against Russia and then also you know, I think what you about a new low. I mean it is a new low, though there have been some pre lows before this and when you think about them, poisoning the russian spy and his daughter in the United Kingdom in London in a way that, ultimately, it was bound to be traced back to Russia. today. There are willing to do that there really into the outer publicly for assassinating a russian spy in the United Kingdom? and did it nonetheless and

as though there is almost a desire to be seen. As being that extreme look, I think the other Russia Watchers and their Russia analyse the experts on this would say and have provided this analysis that there's a an effort to continue to push the envelope if left. If left on czech rioting supply the Taliban provide financial support, have efforts to undermine our coalition in Afghanistan and they're going to continue to push to push and push, and yes in an effort to kind of foment discord there and keep things unstable in that region. So I think, there's the its unsurprisingly, you know that you and I would agree that, having bounties on our soldiers

is a new low, but you know there's a there's a bunch of other issues here that have kind of captivated. The discussion in this whole thing started is, as you said, before, ten with a disclosure, I think the first reported within the New York Times about this intelligence. You know there's some reporting that the intelligence dates back to his early as March two thousand and nineteen, and that it also appeared in the president's daily brief in February of this year February, two thousand and twenty, but the whole the first couple days story was all about, you know to use the old Watergate phrase: what did the president no, and when did he know it, and so we had a a series of discussions about you know was the present a brief, I think the White House. The first statement on this is that the president wasn't quota quote, briefed but unclear what that means. You know was orally breed to be read something in the president's daily brief should we, Focusing on that can what do you think? Do you think

the matter has been used to consume this information every day. Yes, if your question the kind of question that you always get in the aftermath of some sort of bad news, and I remember after nine eleven there had been century and the peasants daily bread, the pity, be that back in August, two thousand one that Al Qaeda considering using aeroplanes to attack the homeland or something to that effect? And there is a lot of questioning after the fact as to whether the President read that why he and his top policy and on his top advisers didn't do something about it, I think it's a fair question here as well, when were hearing about a somewhat read his conduct by the Russians and no apparent risk by our government to trotted stop that conduct and deter Russia from doing it again in the future and look, Yeah PDP process and in the whole process is designed to take the intelligence that's collected throughout the intelligence community and on a guy basis. Synthesize

information, get it to appoint words. to prioritize the threats that are out there. And then get that briefed to the president and the top level Fizzles within the government, so it They can then make decisions about what action should be taken to protect our national security and that those briefings, don't happen, then those protective measures don't take ICE and then we end up being more vulnerable, That seems to be what happened here. So I think it's a perfectly fair question asked: did the present get briefed on this. Did he digest the importance of this? and did he and others in the White House make an offer. The decision, whether to take action or not, and apparently that didn't happen. Ghana and the other thing I think we should. We should cut a break down a little bit for folks is. There has been discussion and about well, you know this information was quote unverified. Some of the discussion has been well, it wasn't a hundred percent verified, and all that

I think folks should just no since unite again consume this information. We were recipients of the President's daily brief information is always going to be coming from. Resources. Those sources are going to have different levels of credibility attached to them. The intelligence community is gonna, assess with different levels of confidence, and here at the outset can. Mentioned that the CIA and the National Counter Terrorism Centre assessed with moderate confidence. We should explain for people what that means, what it means from an intelligence. Discipline. Point of view is that the information that the intelligence community had was from crew. double sources and that the community assessed it as plausible. That's that's what it means to have moderate confidence. Now, it's not it's not a hundred percent right and it's your very rarely if ever gonna have the kind of snow

Gun definitive proof of something, this is constantly a practice of pulling together different sources of information and providing the best expert analytical judgments to that information written we see this over and over. In fact, the example that came up are too long ago. Was the you tell community assessment into the russian interference in between sixteen election. You know one of the findings of intelligence community assessment that was finished up in January We seventeen was that the Russians in Putin undertook the interference being specifically to help Hillary Clinton, the Odeon, I and the CIA and the FBI. as I recall, high confidence that that, in that finding the honest

apart from that and said they had, I think, those medium confidence and so that's fairly common source, not surprising that happened here as well. I think that's also because these different intelligence agencies has have different expertise. So the national security agency that you just mentioned, that had moderate compounds are medium confidence. They specialise in what called signals tell agents right electronic intercepts, whereas the CIA specializes in human intelligence rate information provided by informants and the like. So you know they ve got different agencies have different disciplines different sources of expertise, so their naturally going to assess information differently. You know the other thing can there's been this question out there, which I think people rightly ask well look walk into the oval office with unverified information to bring every rumour to the president and the my answer to that is absolutely no.

You don't do that ever even bring in every rumour, but something like this, in my view, in my experience, the bearers on the safety of our service members in a place that we have spent a lot of time and money and effort and have significant interests with the actions of a avowed adversary of ours. Absolutely I would bring that into the president. I think it's something that he needs to know. I walk into the oval office in and say this is what the intelligence community is telling us, but importantly, you one also be bringing the president options. to deal with that information. Yeah, I think, did I just have canvas some of the commentary about so it seems I just really universal among other people who served as advisers ness. True vice presidents that they ve been saying that this is the kind of thing give. The severity of the allegation and given what it says about Russia. and what Russia is willing to do, it's the kind of and tell it

that would have been taken to the president and The question would be, as you said, what, The present do about it and in the typical scenario, if the alarm had been wrong and the National Security Council, to see process had gotten cranked up an apparently, there was one meeting, but that didn't resulting me. Any policy output, but if that had happened, You would typically have a lower level meeting within the National Security Council to look at the various options and literally go through a checklist of here. The things we can do that, the objective effect in objective of stock. in his conduct condemned. His conduct. during this conduct in the future and those the different sub objectives of whatever you response policy response you come up those are be refined, with input from all parts of the government from defence

sign. Obviously they have a strong equity in this, because there are people who are targeted by these bounties from state department who had look whatever options or are from a diplomatic perspective and balance the interests of meat? diplomacy against sending a strong message and all parts government when we were then formulate a set of options which would then be presented to the president. and the present would then decide which of those options to pursue and in terms of auctions, will you can lay out some of them sanctions to Europeans diplomats to going on the effort to shudder. Let Russia

join me to seven years so that we are quite right. Canyon present a range of options to the president from what called a diplomatic demarche right. That's diplomacy speak for sending a stern message having our diplomats go to their counterparts in and say you know, this is what we understand to be happening and it needs to stop and we understand. What's what's going on to letting letting them know that you know to efforts to respond and deter things like not inviting the Russians, to an upcoming summit right. So there's there's been a lot of reporting about the fact that President Trump had a number of phone calls with President Putin in between the time that this intelligence came in and when it became publicly known and in those series of phone calls, he talked about inviting President Putin to the night

AIDS inviting them back to the g7. You know these are all things that are carrots. If you will there all of branches, they are rewards on the world stage from one leader to another, and so one of the many reasons why you wanna be briefing the president and have him aware of this very concerning intelligence is so that in those discussions you taken into account- and you don't extend, rewards or Positive steps at a time when you ve got this very concerning intelligence, about what Russians do you think that's why this issue has some legs and probably some staying power, because what you have as you have carrots being offered at a time. This stick was really called for and there were number six it could have been used, as I mentioned, could have gone back on the presence offered a NED rushing at the g7. He could have

said that were rethinking the reduction of yours. Forces in Germany could have talked about upping sanctions against us, as we ve done in the past, we could have talked about increasing our military assistance to Ukraine, in their confrontation with Russia, so that a number of things that could have been done, which would have been are consistent with the kind of message that was called for back, as those are all things that are going to bite Russia right, they're, not gonna, they're, not gonna, like that, and that's what they listen to right. It's exactly Putin only responds to a forceful measures, we're not gonna talk being a nice guy? So I guess then I guess last question about this. Is What is the? What is that

asked of inaction here? What is it that we can expect to come down from the fact that had Putin has apparently done this outrageous thing, offered bounties further deaths of american soldiers and got nothing but silence response will look first at most importantly, it continues to put our service members at risk right, fluffed, unchecked, that's obviously most important thing, and it continues to send a signal that there aren't gonna be cause for learning about this and other. There won't be deterrent measures taken in one of the other things as well as I think we talk about this, can that we could do, and it is something I think we should. We would consider, is working with our allies and partners to respond. In other words, you now is there a way that we would go out and

explain to our allies and partner strictly those who are in the coalition in Afghanistan, working with us to say, here's the intelligence we have. This is the picture that we're seeing work with us to isolate Russia to impose sanctions. You know so we get some of our partners also on board, who of course have a stake in making sure that this is going on in Afghanistan. So those things are measures. I think we we could and should be considering its some in any bilateral relationship with any foreign government, but in particular, when it comes to Russia. Is critical to do to make sure that when

they step over the line that they get smack back and TAT really didn't happen here, apparently didn't happen, doesn't seem to happen at least forceful enough in response to the Russia Interference with twenty sixteen election and as a result, the fear is that this kind of conduct is only going to continue in maybe even get worse in the future there, no luckier apps. I read even I know this debate all too well right. There was a lot of there's been criticism of how the Obama administration handled the russian attack on our election and in how did the United States respond for

we enough soon enough, and that's that's a debate that continues to this day, but he was never considered appropriate to do nothing. You can argue about. The timing can argue about the degree, but do not respond at all when Russia bears its teeth in this way, and particularly when it involves the lives of service members. That's when we absolutely need to be formulating response options and acting on those and hopefully acting with our partners. So look, I think, there's gonna be a lot more to come on this issue. Congress has now been briefed, although in a kind of departure from the norm, the White House summoned separately democratic members and an republican members to the White House to receive briefings, and there have been questions about whether the intelligence community was sufficiently involved in those,

but I am very confident that the intelligence committees, the armed services committees, will get the experts up to the hill to give them classified briefings about what more we know about their so we're gonna. We're gonna, hear more on this story as it develops and will be talking about it. So can I think we ve got a little bit of a worlds colliding situation here, which is no there's been some reporting that the intelligence on this russian bounties issue dates back to March two thousand and nineteen, when of course, John Bolton was still the national security adviser and he's been somebody very much in the news these days, I think you'd be living under a rock. If you hadn't heard he's got a book out called the room where it happened, I'm guessing that the folks Hamilton and the music there are, however, have a view on that title, but you know there have been lost,

revelations that have come out about that book. Lots of interesting to bits about important observations, while he's been in in the White House, but I think there's two particularly interesting issues around this controversy over the publication of this book. To my mind, the issues really boil down to the unusual example he setting of seeing the national security adviser pending a book about the President who appointed him while their president is still in office and then, of course, the controversy around the whole process of reviewing that book.

Forgets published- and we now know that the government is- has tried to stop unsuccessfully his publication of that look long. But you know people are learning more and more about you. What used to be kind of a dorky and byzantine process called the Pre publication review process that only people like when me really had to worry about, but now a lot more people have learned about it and since you and I both are subject to it, maybe you could talk a little bit can about what is the pre publicity? review process yeah. This is a fascinating controversy with a hole through a nest of issues and tied. It once again goes back John Bolton. He was he's a long time. Foreign policy expert has been around DC for decades became the necessary visor for President Trump. They worked there for a while, and then he left on bad terms, Scott Crosswise with the president. He then popped up again in the context. Peaceful preceding, where there are some talk about

impossibly testifying as too there was a quid pro quo between the president. Releasing aid to the Ukraine in return for the Ukraine conducting an investigation that might result in digging up hopeful dirt on Vice President Biden. Open ended up not testify during the impatient proceeding? But now he is has published his book and the other key, That's been raised, you broke down appropriate Linda's or two questions. One is kind of The goal, moral decision as to whether this kind of book is appropriate by somebody in our high level advisory, the present and then a question of whether what done by releasing his book is legal, starting with the first look, I think, there's a the real question here and I think they will there's been some interesting dialogue among people who have served in these kind of positions like you and I have as well is really not putting aside legal weathers

two for somebody, to be invited. The president turn right around and then do a kiss and tell book and there are very real life concerns there. You know we want peace and to be able to ruminate and beat their mind and think through all options behind closed doors with their advisers. And not worry that six months later there you know their ill formed her. It's her nation thoughts about an issue might be chronicled out there for the whole world to see. I'm so they're real There are concerns that these kind of kiss and tell books can chill very vital candle deliberative process that we want go through when their dealing with crises in and critical issues like this. Why you're gonna say? Can I

I think it's a valid question, but you know him and criticism. The one thing I think may have been a bit over done is you know. People said: oh, it's unprecedented for somebody to Tino to write who held the position that he did and that type of position to write this book, while the present still in office- and I went back and looked at this- goes out- didn't sound write to me. I remember park gates, former secretary of defence, six president's and has the last present he served with President Obama, who can famously asked him to stay on after the Bush administration? As secretary of defense, he published a book in twenty fifty when, of course, the last present he served, Obama was stolen off and Leon Panada published a memoir and twenty forty. He also, of course, served both as President Obama's Secretary of Defence and as director of the CIA. So I think there's plenty of precedent for people to go out and right

books about the President's that they served under while that president is still in office. I think there's it there's a slightly different thing at issue here, which is those other books today. Mentioned were kind of broad memoirs about their government service, and this bold book is very pointed very specifically about the the Trump presidency hee hee hee, calls in the book trumpet stunningly uninformed. I think that's, that's a court. That's got a lot of a lot of attention, so, while I don't think it's completely unprecedented for this to happen, this book does seem to be different in kind in its focus in its very very pointed and tough tough criticism

the president that he served under right, but then so the matter with you like that or not you grew the kiss until book or not in our first amendment, protects ones, ability and right to speak about our own experiences and that they cannot be censored ab concerns about classified information and another privileges. But in this case were now in litigation and were ordered the governess in litigation with Bolton, because contend that Bolton did not go through Called the dorky process, a P2P publication review, which it is dark, but it's actually really important- that grows out of the process has developed over the last few decades where people who take on these jobs it required clearances in the government as you and I did agree at the outset in writing that we will obviously

TAT, classified information and if we right after all, are either during after our departure from current position bout matters that might be classified, that will submit those writings to whatever agency we belong to. For that. seed review those writings to ensure that there is nothing classified in them and also memoirs editorials, this kind of thing I'll have to be submitted to The agency is worth a former govern official who has a clearance used to work and that it is, he has had to sign off in this case, both did exactly that submitted his manuscript to denounce the security council that perfectly clear person, food as the reviews that person and her staff reviewed the lengthy manuscript and there is a multi month effort process of going back and forth to too sanitized the book of classified information, Ultimately, he never

even though he believed the process was done according to his lawyers, account, me never got a final letters from and a sea saying that that the manuscript was free of cost. What information can be published and He and his publisher went ahead and announced a publication date at the end of the end of June. The government hearing that then filed a lawsuit to prevent him from publishing on the twenty. third as scheduled, but also to say that die if he does publish than any revenue from publication. That book would be sequestered and go to the government and that's an interesting remedy, but it's actually one. It's in the law that says that if a former government official violates their agreement to go through the public, pre publication review process before publishing anything, then the government there

has the right to take all their proceeds, obviously designed to deter people from circumventing the Pre publication review process, and I don't know about you can buy. I remember both the first time I signed all those documents right to sign up to this commitment, along with getting your security clearance, and also remember and have experience submitting several things net never of book by several up ads for the Pre publication review process means that we should just gonna break that down, for people a mean when you get a security clearance, one of the things Sign up to is this commitment right? You sign a non disclosure agreement. You tell the government,

You are obviously not going to disclose classified information to those who don't have both a need to know and have a security clearance themselves, and you sign up to this commitment that you're going to submit any thing that you right in the future, touching on your experience in Europe and that could potential have classified information in it. You agree that you're gonna submit that to the government, and I remember the first time I did this I remember going into a scare Freitas would called a sensitive compartment it information facility at this time in the Justice Department. and I remember signing a whole host of of documents. It is like an it too. You know when your closing on a house, your constantly exciting dozens of different pieces of paper,

I remember signing kind of on the dotted line, and I was just signing up to this to this commitment, and it is something that you agree to it. So, basically a contract right that, because of the privileged to receive this classified information and get the security clearance you're going to agree not to disclose it, and this ass, though I think, has sometimes suffered both. On the one hand, of course, over classification is a big problem. You- and I have- I have seen that in practice, but this what this whole Bolton episode has exposed is sometimes the the lack of unit

formerly around some of the processes, so the whole issue with Bolton. As I understand it. Looking at this litigation is, he did goes through the process, but he didn't ultimately get that piece of paper or that final piece of writing to tell him. He was done with the process and he was clear and that that's what the whole debate has It is now a kind of kind of turning on yeah. That's exactly! He didn't get sort of the final green light government is Sir harking back to this process has been in place. In fact, dates back to guess the nineteen seventies there's a famous case involving a CIA officer named Frank Snap who was with yea working in Vietnam, he I, after his experience in Vietnam, where he saw what he thought was you know grossing competence by the CIA and various. Shenanigans that were unsavory, he wrote a book.

and he initially agreed to. He asked greed with the see CIA to go through publication review and then, after he wrote the book, he ought not to anyone. Hadn't published the government sued in. They got the proceeds of his book and the Supreme Court upheld that remedy unfounded. It is appropriate that he'd entry into a contract boy. Can you really out nerdy me with this reference to the to the snap he's right was, I think, was a nineteen eighty Supreme Court ruling and and think, as this issue got discussed later, snap himself has been known to have reflected on this issue in some media interviews, my personal experience with the sea, I was sir, a lawsuit. The! U s and so May for during the recent and are for without the c I a approval. Even though Nobody ever accused me of publishing any secrets in the book

the last issue, when all the way to the Supreme Court Supreme word, came down with a decision which is historic and its implications. The Bring court decided that every government worker in a position of asked whether in the Sky State Department, National Security Council as an implicit obligation to submit what he says, all rights, about his work, from four censorship. If he doesn't is liable to monitor penalties forfeiture of out of this problem. all of the profits from nation another my profits were for effort into the government. subject to two or lifelong gag water, which means Eddie continue to some met his statements to the government for again, even if there are no secrets involved and eat If he is, I know, secrecy agreement with the government does indeed an implicit obligation, one of the better

other. The Vietnam WAR was was the first amendment and my case was one of the few cases they came out of the Vietnam WAR, just like John Bull then like you and me, and everybody else who served in those positions. That's a binding contract was us even after we leave government service, The question here is in this litigation is whether he, and even though he what you start on the process, whether he completed the process and therefore head was entitled to go forward and right in other government is basically asked the court to issue. Lunar injunction to enjoying the publication of the book, but the judge had a hearing and then decided that you know it was, as he said, what was the horse is already out of the barn and there is no way to stop the publication books it already, preposition all around the world for distribution. So is a done deal but deal nation seeking the proceeds of the book is still going forward and so will be able to

monitored that as it goes forward and that'll and up dissecting the publication review process in this case and I think I'll be. There will be a good bit of discussion about The balancing between the first man right to tell your experiences to to share you're insights, about the highest the government, which, of course, to critical piece of our democracy. That transparency is his key against them events legitimate need to protect secrets and to bind people to keep those secrets if they're gonna be entrusted with his high level positions and government had just that. Just an aside here can I mean I don't know what you thought about that, but when I read that peace in the opinion from Judge Laboratory, he'll kill you and I know a little bit where he said the horse is out of the barn in this litigation. Already I heard his texas roots come

through in that it, in that opinion of that was your reaction to use a Texas man through and through, and he also knows about what he ruled on hear him he's got deep experience with intelligence matters. He was the chief judge, Pfizer Court for Intelligence Valancourt and has worked in it. You ve been in the nest screw transferred decades, and so he knows this area while that- and that also came Sir, when he said, is, as you rightly laid out, can he acknowledged kind of the practical reality right? The horse is out of the bar in the book and been published. It was already distributed. There's no gettin that back, but he also had some strong words in that opinion. For for John Bull, he said that he thought he had called gambled with: U S national security by pursuing the process the way he did so, no, not an entire win here for boldness in in large measure. Yes, in terms of that opinion, but definitely

strong words from Judge Lambert's in some of that opinion will the instinct to monitor how the litigation goes and it'll be sir, the ongoing calibration between protection of government secrets and first amendment that place. Many ways and will probably contained a play out, as I'm sure, to see more kiss until books in the future. Let's move on to another topic, debts in the headlines and justifiably so, nets where we are and covered. Nineteen. I think last time we parted Certainly Sir there's might well have been some hope that there's gonna be a flattening of a curve in survivor, diminution of new cases. It looks like that hasn't come to pass and instead work seeing spikes all over the United States and in some ways, more troubling scene, that were away outpacing most of the rest of the world in new cases and, sadly enough in new deaths from cloven. Nineteen. So I guess my question to you harking back to Europe

in dealing with a bowler end. Just your observations since coded came to Shores earlier this year. Why do you think foreseen this uptake and new cases? It makes sense tat to talk about this now because it continues to be very much with us. Quite obviously were worse, surpassing three million cases in the United States, and a hundred and thirty thousand deaths, and it's just continues to be incredibly sobering numbers confronting and, as you said, were experiencing a surge. Yet again, there's been what's a debate, as I'm sure you ve been following that are we in a second wave? Well, as Tony Falco has recently said, we are still need deep in the first wave. We are still need deep in the first wave of this, and I would This would not be considered a wave, it was a surge or resurgence of infections. Superimposed upon a baseline, Frances

That really never got down to where we wanted to go and we're heading in seeing daily records for new cases. I think I took this morning up. Seventy two percent and, of course, Florida Texas. Arizona are now hitting daily Daily records in their new cases. So why are we experience saying or having such a different experience than other countries? I think it boils down to a few things. One is we have not had really, I think, it's fair to say, a national strategy. We ve had kind of a patchwork of

ouch, with some guidelines being issued by the federal government and certainly some resources being provided, although I think there's a fair argument to be made that it is absolutely not been sufficient with type of four can about the failure to fully embrace and fully activate the defence production act. The failures in testing starting at the very beginning of all this, and that proving to continue to be a problem. But at the end of the game, it's been kind of a philosophical approach. I think that this is gonna, be a kind of court left to the states, and so, as a consequence, we ve seen a very piecemeal and patchwork approach and what we are seeing now, I believe, is a result of that patchwork approach. So really the states that moved quickly and aggressively and shut down

on early and moved off of those restrictions in a gradual way, driven by very specific metrics. Those states by and large, are keeping a handle on new cases and a surgeon cases. In contrast, those states that delayed shutting down, delayed, putting in place mitigation measures and then moved very rapidly and quickly to move off of any restrictions that were put in place and to quote reopened

and took this is kind of a light switch approach as opposed to a gradual approach. Those are the places that by and large, are seeing the surges there were that were seen now, so I think it comes down to not having a national strategy and not having very clear, consistent messaging on the things that we as a citizen. We need to be doing and, unfortunately, having these issues that really should be public health areas of consensus. Things like wearing a mask having those now just become culture, war items right and becoming very polarized young. That's actually thing this been frankly surprising for me and look I'm a cynical and realistic about Polaroid the polarized time were living in, but look in the past public health issues have not or natural disasters have not been politicized least not when you're going through them and

It's you know, you can see the pet far the present bushes effort against AIDS in Africa and dealings malaria? These four issues it there's been generally by partisan support here However, it seems like everything's looked at through the lens politics, and so you now have what is a public health, scientific issue being dealt with politically and and if you look around the world, are you pointed out where the hut That's arnwood how they correspond to states that did or didn't Take the necessary measures are shown enough. Discipline were seen that with other governments, other countries, the South Korea's of the world- that really were disciplined about this there dealing with the covered nineteen very effectively but these countries are not seeing the debate, what measures should be taken that seen them play? That debate play out politically

there's a balancing, no question, but it's not a long political lines. In hue we ve seen that we serve automatically shifted from it. Scutcheon of of what eggs, most sense and theirs of legitimate debate to be had about. You know how much, risk we should take on in order to open up the economy to a certain amount in there is a balance there. Everybody can have their views about it. for some reason. That's now shifted in into political terrain and therefore you have people taking positions, political reasons that might actually beef, the best for public health, and I think that's what's they wishing us from other countries around the world that are handling this. Much better luck, I think and boil down to the following: where the action has come early, it's been

massive and has been driven by science and public health expertise. I think you ve seen better results than those places where the interventions late there were halting and they have resulted in a kind of a polarized and politicized approach. I think that's the those are the fault lines really that that we're dealing with, but one thing I I we should just mentioned. Can is the news that is just in the last day or so that the Eu it states, is now making good on its previous pledge to pull out of the World Health Organization and in that is that's a big, feel in my view, as somebody who worked on the bowler epidemic when I was in the homeland security adviser role for President Obama, we were dealing

with their bola, leaves a lot to be said about some of the failings of the World Health organization. Why? To have the United States pulling out of it? At a time in the middle of this global pandemic, that's it's a move that is being met with pretty widespread derision, and it's it's really concerning when you, when you think bout, likened it to pull in the fire. goes out from from the hands of the firemen in the middle of the fire right in I agree- I think everybody recognizes that may be. The debate show didn't handle things perfectly throughout, and there were some mister especially early on, and especially its willingness to accept the explanations who is right in from China early on in the pandemic. No question, but It is the organisation that we have a few reservations we have for decades. That has played a vital role in dealing with international public health issues,

and in the middle of a pandemic we don't wanna, be distancing ourselves from the rest of the world and their public health efforts at all it raises the larger question about you know hard to say a number of ways to scale back our involvement in multi national organizations, which I think is unfortunate. I think there's much room, reform letters and our role and NATO in their respective. burdens entered borne by different countries in NATO. The debate show any these national relations, but I think the first effort when we see a problem like that should be reform. This situation reform the organisation fixes situation, not withdraw

Really, that's the that isn't what we ve done since to earth and swelled or to end our involvement in these organisations has really had international security and fundamental ways. Yeah mean we should just mention enemy. I totally agree with you that there is plenty of work to do and there, Sir there's fair criticism to be had about how the debate show the World Health Organisation has handled the corona virus, hand dynamic. It was slow, I think, to respond on Ebola, but at the end of the day this is a international. Motivation is created? I think in nineteen forty eight, if I'm not mistaken at at the at the UN, and it does have a track record of really making a difference, most notably in eradicating smallpox between one thousand nine hundred and fifty eight and one thousand nine hundred and seventy eight.

today, the debate show is larger, credited with creating a campaign to eradicate smallpox first time or something like that. What was done so I think it's it's really worth having United States. Involved and using its influence using its funding using its power to influence and improve and reform and organization that needs it not not walking away being on the outside. Looking in so much more to come, sadly, about this pandemic is not when any time soon, and I think we need to be looking at what's been done in the past and then what were hopefully building toward for the future, because this is not the last pandemic that we're gonna deal with so will keep monitoring the situation. I know tat before

we go. I know where we're running out of time here. I know something that you and I both really want to do on this. Podcast is try and highlight the people and the functions in national security that sometimes don't get the attention that they deserve in, particularly in a world that is constantly responding to shifting headlines in and tweets and pop ups on newsboy. What's on your phone, I think it's it's important to highlight and do frankly, I'm a bit of a shared out to the roles in national security that are working and the people who are working to keep us safe and doing so, sometimes under under considerable strain, my nominee for for our first, shout out. If you will of calling out what I would call- unsung heroes in the national security apparatus? I

and we we mention this earlier in the podcast- the function of the president's daily brief. I think we should recognise the staff that puts that briefing together that puts that product together, not just for the president. What for the national security adviser, the homeland Security adviser, the rule that you and I had as well as a host of other national security officials across the government, and they do it twenty four seven and our working overnight literally overnight, to to put that intelligence product together, and these are people who are getting headlines and are getting at should at least not usually- and I think it's worth acknowledging the work that they do. and I think, just the general idea of doing this on a regular basis. Every time you have a pike, s is important because the government is full of unsung heroes, people that we take for granted, who do except for work and sex. By salon and because it is their civil serve,

They don't go out and tell what they do. The rest Durban doesn't tat what they do and so there on four There's contributions are often overlooked so I love doing that. I can't think of a better first candidate in the PD, be staff just keep in mind, What they do I mean every day they run an incredible process. They gets the intelligence from all over the intelligence community collected from. All over the world through all different types of collection. Human intelligence signals intelligence thing under the sun, it all brought in and synthesized. It then guest hold down into a briefing document, concise, breathing down He meant that lays out the highest priority threats, the most important intelligence and is laid out in a concise, informative way, the very The policy makers, like the president the homeland Security adviser, NASCAR adviser and heads of agencies can digest and understand the policy implications of that intelligence, and that's done

twenty four hour cycle every day and it's done overnight because that's when it's all collected and has produced food thing in the morning to be read by the consumers and it's incredible exercises. raising enterprise and the fact that is done. Done so well and you- and I can both speak too- that having I consider that intelligence document for many years it's real testament to the quality and caliber the people on that PDP staff so shut out to them and I'd just like to, hopefully their lessening, but the entire, in brief, I had assigned to me over my many years of service just like to thank them for the work that they did and the fact that they Greeted me with a smile every morning when they handed me that book or that tablet later on, which didn't always have good news. Very rarely had good news, but they were always exceptionally professional, capable and answering questions and following up so thank you to my intelligence,

first over the years while that's all the time we have heard today can, I know, will be back in two weeks yet met in the meantime. Just reminder listeners, please send us a questions you might have to letters at CAFE: dot, com and wool. Our very best to answer them in the next episode till next time. that's it for this week's United Security Podcast, your certainly Sir Monaco and can wasting the executive producer is tomorrow's up. The editorial producer is Jennifer into the audio producer is not winner. The associate producer is David curl Andor, and the cafe team is David TAT, ashore,

Matthew, Billy, Sambo, statin Noah, as Alai Calvin Lord justifies, and then Chris boiling Sean walls and Margo. Molly our music is by Alison Layton Brown. Thank you for being part of the CAFE insider command. I hope you, families in Cannes conversation Formative, LISA and can continued to break down politically charged national security news making the headlines- and we hope you will follow along- try the cafe insider membership now free for two weeks to join, had to cafe dot com slash insider. That's cafe, dot com, slash insider two other insiders. Thank you for supporting our work