Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:00]
A
Donald Trump got torn to shreds at the Munich Security Conference. I think the superstar of this conference was the European Union foreign affairs chief Kahakalas. She was given just jab after jab, knockout punch after knockout punch, and Donald Trump. And she's like, do not lecture us about free speech. I don't need to hear that from the United States, which is like, 58th on the list of, like, countries that are free. Like, you don't lecture the East. Here, watch this. Let's play it.
- [00:34]
B
You know, coming from a country that is number two in the Press Freedom index, hearing criticism regarding press freedom, coming from a country that is 58 on this list, it's interesting.
- [00:49]
A
And then she says, let's be very clear what we're going to be doing in the European Union. We're going to be supporting Ukraine. If Trump and the US Is doing whatever the heck it's doing and supporting Russia, we're standing firm here. Play this clip.
- [01:05]
B
How I see it is very simple. Russia's maximalist demands cannot be met with minimalist response. Think about it. If Ukraine's military is to be limited in size, Russia should be, too. Where Russia has caused damage in Ukraine, Russia should pay no amnesty for war crimes. Return of the Ukrainian deported children. This is really the very least. Russia should agree. If peace is Russia's goal, then you.
- [01:39]
A
Got to hear from Denmark's Prime Minister, Mette Fredriksen. And she's drawing clear, clear bright lines, clear red lines. Look, you're going to go after NATO nations. Say goodbye to NATO. Enough is enough. Stop this crap. Say goodbye to NATO.
- [01:55]
C
Here, play this clip talking about defense. How likely is it that you're going to have to defend Greenland?
- [02:04]
B
So nice to be on stage with you. Thank you. And nice to be with my allies and my friends and my partners. Well, let me put it this way. I mean, if one NATO country attacks another NATO country, then NATO ends. It's game over. Then it's game over. So I hope I answer, I answer your question.
- [02:24]
A
Yeah, these women leaders at, at this Munich security conference were crushing it. That's why we need more women leaders of countries out there. Also you have Polish Prime Minister Tusk was mocking Donald Trump's desire for Nobel Peace Prizes. Trump's like, he's like, I'm not really sure the Nobel Peace Prize is going to even be enough right now. Here, play this clip.
- [02:52]
C
When it comes to this special war for the Ukrainian nation, frankly speaking.
- [03:00]
A
For.
- [03:01]
C
Ukraine, there's no prize, you know, good enough prize. I think even the Nobel Peace Prize would be not enough. I'm absolutely sure that you deserve something more. And, you know, just one remark. Some say that Ukraine should be grateful for everything. The truth is exactly the opposite. The rest of us should be grateful to Ukraine.
- [03:34]
A
And Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez was out there, I thought, very strong. Here's what he had to say. Let's play it.
- [03:43]
D
We need to stop Putin. We need to strengthen our deterrence capabilities, but let us do it in a coordinated and targeted way that we can control. Let's build a true European army. Not in 10 years, but now. Spain will join with all the resources that are needed. Let's strengthen our multilateral system, reforming and empowering those institutions that, despite their flaws, have succeeded in maintaining peace in the west for decades. And also let's invest in the values of solidarity and empathy and cooperation that have brought us this far, because the rearmament that we most urgently need in the world is immoral.
- [04:29]
A
And Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski says, look, if the US Is going to abandon Ukraine, we're not going. We're not going anywhere. And if anything, we'll increase our role, but we ain't going anywhere. Here, play this clip. What we should say is that if the U.S. forces Ukraine into an unfair deal, we will continue with our commitment to Ukraine, and it is Ukraine that will decide when to make a deal. And then we will not be able to be ignored by Putin because we will then become the main provider. I want to bring in right now Democratic Senator Mark Warner, over from Virginia. He sits as the vice chair, basically the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I want to speak with him. He's in Munich right now, and I want to talk to him about the Munich conference, and I want to speak with him as well about just all of the intelligence breaches that are taking place within the United States and how our intelligence agencies cannot be trusted. I'll start by talking about what went on in Fulton county, because you've got Americans sending Tulsi Gabbard to take look straight out of, like Orban or Putin sending her to be there to seize 2020 voter data as part of unhinged conspiracies to try to rig the midterms here. This is a great interview, and we go deep into foreign policy, which, you know, I love, especially with everything that went on in the Munich conference here. Let's bring in that interview. Senator, great to see you. I want to talk about what's going on right now. As the, as many suspect, what a lot of this, you know, ice surge is about Also, what we're seeing in Fulton county, you know, with this affidavit of very curious propriety where they were able to raid the facilities where the 2020 ballots were being held, you know, is a broader plan here as we approach the midterms. Trump's polling right now is in the gutter, like the worst in history. And he's doing what desperate despots do. And he's starting to see, you know, he's saying things like, you know, I don't know about these midterms, or, you know, I'm not. I'm going to think about putting ice around it. And then you start to see these actions, like, unfolding and people are really worried. I mean, you sit on the Intelligence Committee, you know, you've got a great deal of perspective around here. What do you make of all of this and how do we stop it?
- [07:13]
C
Well, first of all, Ben, you know, a year ago, when people said, hey, Warner, do you think there's going to be problems with the midterms? I said, no. I mean, I didn't take it as seriously at that point. And then all of a sudden, you see Trump come in and throw everything possible at the wall. A year later, I am more terrified than ever that this guy who can't get over the fact he lost in 2020 is terrified again with his name not on the ballot, losing in 26. And I think we gotta be on full guard. And let's. Let me just take two minutes and say what happened in Fulton County. First of all, to go way back in history, the last president that tried to mess this much in electoral process was Richard Nixon. And after Watergate, there were all these rules, regulations, norms put in place that said, you know, the president shouldn't be involved in domestic activities, he shouldn't be involved in criminal activities of the Department of Justice. Our intelligence services ought to be outward looking and not inward looking at Americans. So we put a whole bunch of rules and laws in place. Almost all of those are being violated. Let's talk about the first one, which I think folks haven't really focused on that much. How in the hell did Donald Trump even know that this search warrant was going to be issued? You know, that's not appropriate for a president to intervene in a Department of Justice. We all know this. You know, Pam Bondi is the opposite of Department of Justice. But there's foul number one, foul number two. He then calls Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard is the Director of National Intelligence. She has no responsibility at all for election security, other than trying to prevent foreigners from interfering in our elections. And she sure as hell doesn't care about that because she has helped oversee the dismantling of all of the election security foreign influence centers at her office. At the FBI, they've cut the cybersecurity agency by a third on election security. So here's somebody who then calms down, shows up, creeping around this effort to pick up these court records, kind of furtively wearing a hat, kind of looking like she's super spy. And she then says, oh, I got asked by the President. Then the president throws her under the bus and says, no, he didn't ask her. And she's scrambling. She then says, well, I've got this statutory authority, which, by the way, is only outward facing. We finally get the. The underlying request for the search warrant opened, and you're right, man. It's some crazy guy, Ken Oden, who is a election denier. He's already been sanctioned by the courts from his malfeasance in 2020. And now he's been brought in somehow in this mysterious position inside the intelligence community to go out and try to go after folks or try to recreate the 2020 election scam or misinformation. I mean, remember, this was the kind of guy who thought about Venezuela, Italian satellites and Venezuelans and, you know, Iranians. It was, it was, it has been totally debunked. So you have this. I think they've got egg on their face right now about how inept that was. And then to make matters worse with Gabbard, you know, she also went down to Puerto Rico and grab election machines. Never told her oversight committee, never told the Gang of Eight, which is the highest group that's supposed to look at this stuff. So we have this rogue effort going around trying to spread, I believe, misinformation. The second piece, and I'll be brief and then happy for any follow up, is we got the issue around these roving ICE patrols. I absolutely believe in the ICE reforms. You got to say, ICE can't show up at polling stations. Obviously it doesn't take much to intimidate or get Americans not to vote. And I will get pushback from the MAGA crowd saying, well, Warner, why do you care if ICE is showing up? If you are a registered voter and an American citizen, you have to worry about that bullshit. We do know ICE discriminates hugely, particularly against Latinos. We know as well that there are many families that may have some people legal, some people undocumented, but even more Importantly, ICE is starting to collect information, personal information about American citizens. There was a person in Minnesota, she was up for a global entry pass. DHS denied her that pass because she showed up at a protest. So the hypothetical I gave is, if ICE knows, Ben, that you have an unpaid parking ticket and they know your name and they know your face from some of this technology, data sweeps, are you going to go out and vote? If there might be the possibility of a nice person there, you're just not going to put up with the hassle. So we have this effort to try to potentially spread misinformation or regurgitate these old theories we have the potential threat of ICE doesn't even have to show up, but the idea of a threat of there that I believe will intimidate voters. And I think I'm going through right now with election experts, what are the other things we've gotta be on guard for? Because I think this is a real threat unlike anything in the past. In the past, we've mostly seen foreign interference. And I think the foreign interference, the Russians could amplify the bad stuff. But my bigger fear now is domestic interference, some of that potentially originating inside the administration.
- [13:00]
A
Look, I think what you just said coming from any senator would be concerning, but especially your role as the Vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and sitting on the Gang of Eight and seeing, or at least in the past when presidents would show, would show things to the Gang of Eight, you know, you have rare access to this type of data and this type of information and to assess threats from a place of a very kind of, you know, sober, you know, you know, top level analysis. And you're seeing, you know, you're seeing this, I guess, more broadly sitting on the Gang of Eight and being a part of this group. You know, I know obviously there's much you can share that's the purpose of the Gang of Eight. But also this Trump regime is not sharing things with the Gang of Eight anymore. And often you're learning about things on the news where you would normally be briefed. How has it changed the Gang of Eight process, you know, with Trump versus in the past in terms of just getting the basic information that's needed because this was supposed to be a bipartisan thing when it comes to national intelligence.
- [14:14]
C
Well, a case in point was, you know, Gabbard going after the voting machines in Puerto Rico. If there was a foreign nexus, it is not her choice. It is her legal duty to report that to the Intelligence Committee or her Oversight Committee. The good news, if there is Any good news is that they have been so outrageous and kind of blowing off that, for example, on this whole other issue which we've not talked about yet about the whistleblower, there was a whistleblower, which I can't talk about the substance of the complaint. It was greatly redacted by the time we finally saw it. The whistleblower brought a complaint in May. She knew about it and was briefed on it in June. It gets pretty technical about when our obligation to report it to us would be and the legal guidance in terms of how the whistleblower would talk to us. But you cut it all through the details and we didn't find out about it, the Gang of Eight, until November. We didn't get the document until February. And on that case, every one of the Gang of Eight, including Johnson, including Thune and Tom Cotton, we all said, this is bullshit. You can't do it this way. So there are still times when we're seeing the excesses get called into question. But I'm, maybe it's the most kind of personally disappointing thing I've seen in my whole time in the Senate and I've been here for a while, is I thought around national security, the bipartisan group would hold, and it's not as much. And as you said, I'm, you know, I get criticized a lot by Democrats because I've been too bipartisan, because I'm, you know, I'm, I try to take this job in a sober and serious manner. But when I'm starting to freak out, and I am now, and I'm trying to put together a much more organized plan on how we fight back. But it's so weird, Ben. It's like in the past, we spent a lot of time trying to get state and local electoral electing groups to take the, for example, the cyber protections, it's called the ALBERT system, that cisa, the Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, which would put in place now state and local electors, I'm trying to say, well, I'm not sure you should talk to CISA because I'm not sure they're going to come in with clean hands. That is, that's a stunning statement.
- [16:49]
A
You know, it reminds me of, you know, I teach law over at usc, and I would normally recommend whether it was a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, perhaps even the very first Trump administration, whether working at the Department of Justice. I would always say it's such an honorable profession to work at the doj. It puts you on a career path to become a judge or you could work in a big firm. And I have to look at the law students in the eyes and I have to say I want to work at the doj. And I don't want you to think that I'm coming at this from a partisan lens like they're out there getting sanctioned. Pam Bondi's testimony was one of the most disgraceful things. Just setting aside politics of just leadership and human behavior, I've never seen anything. And there's just some things though that because the media gamifies politics and talks about things Democrats, Republicans and independents, we often don't take a step back and just look at things like that was just awful. Like objectively. And so maybe as you were watching that, have you seen the clips from that here? You've seen her testify before the Senate. So you know, she comes with a burn book and she starts yelling at people. What I saw there was like in any context humiliating and atrocious.
- [18:12]
C
Amen. And you know, and, and she was awful. But why? What also we got to take into consideration and this ties into election security, but it is at a more macro level. The one thing that happened post 911 and again back to Nixon times was, you know, the intelligence community's got to speak truth to power even if whoever's president doesn't want to hear it. And just as you're not encouraging your law students to go to doj, could anybody really encourage the young college grad to go work at the CIA right now? Takes a long time to get a security clearance and then are you going to have your analysis work corrupted? And we have seen this, Ben, that senior people in what's called one of the National Intelligence Councils got fired early in this administration because their analysis of the bad, bad gang in Venezuela trend. They were a bad gang. Maduro was a bad guy. But the president wanted a certain finding and they said it wasn't true, so they got fired. Or the case of the poor general who is head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who rightfully said our bombing of the Iranian reactors was really, really good, but he didn't use the term totally obliterated because it was not true because Iran is already trying to reconstitute. He got fired. Or the head of the general that was head of the nsa, three star general, incredible Tim Hawk, incredible reputation under Democrats. Republicans got fired because of that lunatic Laura Loomer went after him online. If we are corrupting our intelligence product to meet the will of this president or if people are holding back from telling the truth, this country is less safe and Again, don't take my word for it on this. The fact that some of our allies are not willing to share the same level of intelligence with us because they're not sure it will be kept secure. Remember signal gate, what seemed like a long, long time ago, that was just a tip of other malfeasance. This is making America less safe.
- [20:27]
A
That's where I was going to go. Because that doesn't get enough attention. How our allies view us in terms of intelligence sharing, whether it's Canada, Europe, elsewhere, Australia, what. Obviously, there's some aspects of it that you may not be able to share, but, you know, people don't talk about this enough, like, how bad is it getting out there internationally in terms of, you know, nations not trusting us? Because what I find interesting is, you know, you'll have Donald Trump say all of these things that are horrible and horrific about NATO. He'll praise Putin. He'll say all of these things that would seem to, at its core, totally undermine NATO in a way that you think, how the heck. Why would they give this guy information? How is, you know, and then I'll hear the top, you know, commander of the US For Europe say the normal things you'd expect the person to be saying in NATO and have this and almost pretend that Trump never said those things. But I have to. But I always think when I report on that, there's no way they could be given us all this information anymore. When he's out there having Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner meet in Miami hotels with Ushakov and Dmitriev and talk about fake $12 trillion deals to undermine Ukraine.
- [21:50]
C
Amen. And, you know, let me give you two examples. One is a number of the conversations. I can't relate, but the Dutch, who were, you know, they're not five eyes, not one of our Kiki partners, but they are a very strong intelligence partner. They said the quiet part out light out loud in the Dutch press, that they're not sharing as much as they used to because they're not sure of security. And that is awful. That American intelligence is the best. And all of our partners get a lot more from us than we get from them. So none of them are going to break off those relations. But if you look at the aggregate amount of information we get from all of our intelligence partners, in many cases, that's 50% of whatever item we're focused on. So you lose 10% from each of them. And net, net to us, we. We are less safe. And an example of a tangible example, that's Just in the recent past, remember, literally, it seems like it was a long time ago, was only a few weeks ago when the Iranian people were out in force on the streets and Trump said, don't worry, we got your back. And it might have been one of those teetering moments, dissimilar to Assad, where the awful regime in Iran might have been able to be gotten rid of. But part of the reason he was not able to use American power, and it was a real debatable whether a strike would have worked or not worked, but we didn't have that capacity because the normal aircraft carrier that is there was off the coast of Venezuela. We got 20% of the fleet blockading Venezuela to stop their oil getting out. And the normal way that we would put more pressure on Iran would be to say to the Europeans who still got, you know, embassy's there, hey, you guys gotta ratchet up as well. There might be ways we can help the opposition. But our Europeans were all focused because it was exactly the same time when he was on this crazy rant about Greenland. They were sending troops to Greenland to make sure that NATO didn't blow up. So we are less strong against our adversaries. And I think we would all agree that a better government in Iran that actually reflected the Iranian people would be good. But we don't have the ability to use our full tools, cyber kinetic or also our allies if we're pissing on them at the very same time, right?
- [24:20]
A
And then our allies or, you know, whether they still consider us allies, who knows. But like they're not even thinking about buying our military equipment anymore, or they're putting pauses on some of this stuff, not because it's not the best equipment out there, but they're worried. Well, if we buy, this is, I guess, Canada's review, right? If we buy the F35s, which is a better plane than the Gripen, you know, but we then have to go get the repairs and are you a reliable ally that's going to be able to do this? Or are you going to say, you know, just like, you know, some of the, those, the missiles that go in the Patriot systems in Ukraine? If Trump goes, we got a shortage, we got a shortage. And sometimes it just feels like it's a coincidental shortage, you know, And Denmark said, shit, we regret buying the F35s now because of what you've just said to us. We would have rather bought the work. That's not a good, it's not a.
- [25:19]
C
Good deal for our country. Let me give you Another quick example. You know, for 40 years under Democrats, Republicans, including Trump, won. And by the way, in Trump won a lot of the election security protection, things were actually done during Trump. One, he had good people underneath him on that. But for 35, 40 years, we've been trying to move India away from Russia and China. I'm a big pro India guy. I'm chair of the India Caucus. We're making all this progress, and part of the way to kind of get India away from Russia is that exact thing. They bought a lot of Russian military equipment, and they can't break off total relations with Russia because they got to get the spare parts. But we're making all this huge process. And then Trump fricking puts an extra 25% tariff on India just because he's pissed at Modi for not giving him enough credit when there was the settlement of the India Pakistan conflict and all of that progress was reversed and suddenly got Modi hand in hand with Putin and going over to see Xi and even the Indian diaspora here in our countries going, what happened? I thought we are like, this is the new, best critical relationship. So I just pray that, like, my, my. This is the part again that just bumps me out so much. I know a lot of my Republican senators love our country and want to get it protected, but their unwillingness to say this is wrong. You know, I'm going to go later today, the Munich Security Conference, and try to reassure, you know, that we're not all completely out to lunch. But how do you, no matter what, reassurance. And I tell you, my Republicans will say all the right things when we're third Europeans and others. But if they don't come back and vote the right way, you know, private conversations are at some point become bullshit. If you're not willing to put your vote where you're. At least you say your heart is right.
- [27:10]
A
And before we go talk about India for a second, just because it's just a microcosm or a macrocosm of everything else. So Trump does all the, you know, starts trying to shake down India. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, she goes and does the mother of all trade deals with Modi. Then Donald Trump gets jealous of that, and then he's like, oh, look, they did a deal. So now all of a sudden, we do supposedly a deal, except, like, the European one is like, in writing. And it's written, it's been negotiated over the course of decades. It's like a real thing, like, on paper. And then Donald Trump does A tweet or a social media post, you know, with Modi. And he announces, well, guess what? India has agreed that it's no longer going to take, you know, Russian oil or whatever. And that gets reported here in the news as a thing, you know, and it's like, okay, so did you get that? Is that, is that a deal? Like, do we, do we have that on paper? And then we all just kind of move on, but it's not a thing. I think he made it up. I don't think Modi agreed to that. Frankly, I'm not even sure if we have a deal other than our kind of tariffs enforcement, just lowering the tariff rate to what it should, you know, it's still high, but what it should have been anyway. But there's nothing on paper. Same thing. I could go every country with that. But I think that's a perfect example.
- [28:29]
C
It is. And again, it's the most populous country in the world. They are still a democracy. You know, that is a, that's a strategic and cultural and long term positive alignment. And for this to be played because Donald Trump's ego was upset that Modi didn't think he should win the Nobel Prize. You can't make this up. You just can't make this up. And as you said, Ben, you could go through country after country when, when Canada says they think China may be a long term, more dependable partner. Canada, I'm a little biased. My grandparents came from Ontario. But I remember I would joke a year ago saying, can you imagine? You're a senior CIA agent and the new administration comes in and said, we got a new plan. Russia's our friend and Canada's the enemy. That's not a joke anymore. It's mind boggling. So we gotta kick out. We had this. You know, politicians always say it's the worst time. We're not lying this time. If we don't turn out in record numbers. I'm, you know, I'm bipartisan, but I can't count on my Republican friends. We have to kick ass this year.
- [29:38]
A
Well, Senator Mark Warner will be following your speech and your work at the Munich conference. We'd love to have you back and, you know, talk more about foreign policy as well because, you know, all of this stuff is connected. Foreign policy doesn't get enough attention. And you know, and frankly, the work the intelligence community is doing does not get enough attention either. So I'm glad we were able to talk about, about that and great to have you on, Ben.
- [30:03]
C
Thank you so much.
- [30:04]
A
Everybody hit subscribe let's get to 6 million subscribers. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our substack@midasplus.com you'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski ad free episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content only available@midasplus.com.