Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Patrick Eddington Discusses Trump Campaign Contact with...  CSPAN  February 17, 2017 8:34am-9:07am EST

8:34 am
the national museum of african asrican history and culture welcomed thousands. sunday on c-span 3, we take you inside the museum for an exclusive after-hours tour. it tells the story of african-american history from slavery to the first african-american president. throughout the program, guests will be talking to you and hearing your input through phone calls and tweets. join us for an exclusive live visit to the african american museum of history and culture. live sunday beginning at 6 p.m. eastern. on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. joining us now is patrick eddington, who is a homeland security and the liberties policy analyst at the cato institute. to explainsk you
8:35 am
what you are writing when you wrote this memo to congress on alleged russian hacking. "put up or shut up." guest: we have had this controversy brewing in the last six or seven months. it started in october when dan president obama basically said the russians were engaging in this activity and trying to influence our election. the last six months, we have had a number of revelations. but the problem remains, which putinentially vladimir putin directed this operation, which was designed to subvert our process. we do not have the classified information to truly substantiate it. in the report intelligence january,released in they made a good case for traditional russian or soviet propaganda type efforts, which go back 100 years. did was provide the
8:36 am
goods in terms of saying here is the human intelligence sources which told us x, y, and z. a lot of my former colleagues would say you would not want to give that up, because you may need those sources in the future. but the allegation is that our country was attacked. when we were attacked on 9/11, we declassified and enormous amount of information in order to help the american public understand this is what happened and why it happened. we need to do the same. host: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for patrick eddington of cato. we are talking about campaign surveillance. phone numbers at the bottom of the screen. we will take your calls as soon as they start coming in. our guest is homeland security and civil liberties policy analyst for cato. you mentioned you work in the
8:37 am
intel field. what were you doing? washington toto become a military analyst with the central intelligence agency at what was known as the national photographic intelligence agency. a log of famous exports i cannot talk about. my judgment, one of the greatest intelligence organizations in the united states' history. it was a shame that it was subsumed. host: our guest was educated at a keytown and worked as mutations director and senior policy advisor for congressman holt, a democrat from new jersey. -- how would commit occasions between trump staff and -- how would communications between trump staff and russians
8:38 am
be possible? pitcher -- the patr amendmentd the fisa allows for these intercepts. so you have the fires of amendments act, which allows the government and the national security agency to collect the communications of foreign officials, even if there is a u.s. person at the other end of that communication. that is done for foreign intelligence purposes. that is one of the ways general flynn was ensnared. the other is executive order that governsan era the day-to-day operations in the intelligence community. former state official john a beer time wrote a piece a couple years ago talking about -- drawn
8:39 am
tie wrote aier piece about this a couple years ago. that is why the complaints of ,olks really ring hollow because they knew what they were voting for when they did that. host: take us deeper. what would have triggered the monitoring of general flynn and the phone calls to the russians? guest: the national security agency especially is tasked with monitoring communications of foreign officials, whether military or civilian. without question, if they picked in whichications someone asked senior as general that willinvolved, get flagged for top level attention. just in the routine course of business in terms of going against the russian target, you would pick up the sky. host: john, first call, from
8:40 am
indiana. democratic caller. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine. caller: thank you, c-span. you are doing a good job. let the president do his job. he is doing a great job. i love him. bravo. with the executive order order, he is doing his job. i lived in africa. i know how destructive muslims are. you cannot trust them. the immigrants that came from
8:41 am
the middle east, they are all accepted. isill tell you why there islamic state. host: c-span.org we hear the comment, you have a question -- we hear the comments, the you have a question? was there anything you want to respond to? guest: our caller is expressing a fear that has become endemic in the population of the united states. fear ishere to say the not justified, in terms of potential terrorist attacks. what i think is important to understand is that the idea that any particular race or religion is necessarily more prone to acts of violence in this fashion is without substantiation,
8:42 am
scientifically or otherwise. that is what we have to keep our eye on. host: margie, republican line. caller: good morning. my question was there are many companies from the united states doing business in russia, and they have had to deal with the russian government. abouts all the brouhaha one person talking to the russian government? guest: i think a lot of folks are asking that. this is how i look at it. i am not nearly as concerned about any conversations general flynn might have had after the election with his russian counterparts. he was a member of the president's transition team, he was a national security advisor designee. what i am more concerned about, and what i think a lot of folks
8:43 am
are concerned about, is whether or not there were folks in the trump campaign actually involved in trying to help the russians essentially manipulate the outcome. on the basis of what we have seen from outlets in the last week for hours, the fbi does not have evidence to support that. largerings me back to the concern overall all about russians trying to manipulate the election through other means. that is what our attention ought to be focused on. host: here is a tweet -- ask the guest if it was proper to leak and how it was leaked. guest: this was washington. mark the 26th anniversary of the pentagon papers case. i am a government whistleblower. that is how i became known to a lot of folks. my wife and i were a front-page
8:44 am
story in the "new york times" over 20 years ago. we approach things differently in terms of how we did it. but when you have a system like ours, in which the classification system has been fraud andnceal misconduct, if you are inside the system, you have to make a choice. do you go along with that, do you try to use internal control mechanisms to deal with it, or do you go public? is internal control mechanisms are compromised, which they are in the department of defense, that really puts someone with a conscience in government in a difficult position. they have to make those kind of choices. in an ideal world, we would have less secrecy so there is less appeal for a week, but that is not where we are. host: general flynn told the fbi he did not discuss sanctions. denied to fbi agents last
8:45 am
month that he discussed sanctions with the russian ambassador before trump took office, contradicting evidence collected. they are saying this puts the general in legal jeopardy. guest: the fbi supposedly reached the conclusion that they do not have evidence to go forward with a prosecution. we will have to see if that holds up. getting someone on a perjury charge is often difficult. someone says, "i simply do not recall." transcript,find a can you find one juror who will find benefit of the doubt? i think it is a possibility. i come back to this issue of what are we going to do to help the american public understand what happened in the course of this election? secondly, what will we do to try
8:46 am
to ensure we are insulated from that kind of thing? that is where congress' attention needs to be focused. host: let's go to david, caller from maryland. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a new listener to c-span. i am 27. i voted for obama the first time around. ont like i got more educated the particular issues i am most concerned about, with national security. and concerned about dead facts released to make the public become more secure or more convinced about what happened on 9/11. one of the reasons why a lot of my generation and people who have similar views to mine supported trump was because there was something that came out that he was going to release the 28 cages and similar documents that talked about tower seven and the conspiracy
8:47 am
that not everyone is completely sold on what happened on 9/11. i want to get your thoughts on that. trump has been keeping his campaign promises. if he thinks it is right for the american public to find out that that there was something else happening on 9/11 with the third tower that no one talks about, if that would be good for the american public, or if you -- if it would bring more unrest. guest: the 28 pages the caller refers to our 28 pages with help 2002 onlic release in the 9/11 attacks. to his great credit, representative walter jones, republican from north carolina, spent a great deal of time working to get that information out. 9/11 arabia's role in the attacks is something that is
8:48 am
still fair game and should be fair game, should be investigated more thoroughly. a former "new york times" reporter wrote a book which outlined what the 9/11 commission did not have time to get to. ofs issue you raised is one them. i certainly think it ought to be revisited. host: on to marry from california -- on to mary from california. caller: i want to ask about this surveillance stuff that started. all ofhey are monitoring the foreigners and all of the americans foreigners speak to, when is this going to stop? job on anto ease american, you had to have a warrant. secondly, you are touching on this 9/11 business, what got us into the iran-iraq war. when are we going to get out of there? embassy is 12ur
8:49 am
huge buildings over there. we have no intention of leaving. but i believe the american people want us to leave. we afford tos can spend this kind of money on military and spying? the people need relief. grow, ourr economy to civilized interactions to grow. we do not need spying and all of this russian -- i do not know if issues in russia or is talking to them or not. guest: thank you. this is essentially the longest war in american history, the so-called war on terror. we produced cato, an online timeline of domestic surveillance.
8:50 am
merican big "cato a brother." back toivity goes william mckinley, when the secret service became the first element of the united states government to monitor folks on a consistent basis. it has continued to the present. if you look at history, the only time we really had anyway corrective action taken was in the wake of these scandals in the 1970's, which began at the pennsylvania fbi office, went on to the pentagon papers. led to committees and reforms that came about. but that is the only time the congress in the last 100 years has really sad down and looked -- sat down and looked at the
8:51 am
activities of the intelligence community. not 10 years ago, i had a chance to ask the intelligence community's top lawyer whether or not there had been any serious look at all of these post-9/11 programs, surveillance programs and the like. he said no. that is a travesty. congress, in that respect, is not doing its job. host: remind us what is the process to get wiretap authorization. how does it work or supposed to work? guest: let's talk about the context in foreign surveillance. the fbi and other analysts have to develop a believe a particular individual is in contact with a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. they then go through a process that has to be vetted throughout the fbi and department of justice, which is taken to the fisa court. they determine if it meets the
8:52 am
statutory specifications to allow wiretapping to go forward. i should make it clear that it is not just wiretapping that the patriot act authorizes. that, in essence, is the process. you will hear a lot of folks in the intelligence community and justice department claim this is a burdensome process and takes a long time. the reality is the fisa court almost never denies an application. if there is a problem, it is technical. it gets fixed. under the emergency authorities they have, they can use surveillance on someone for up to seven days without using a court -- without needing a court order. moving on to toledo, ohio. j.d. that theyu indicated
8:53 am
did not have enough time to analyze -- why do you say that? two, are you aware that bruce w arren spent more than $2 billion on securities on september 12, 1991? which became due september 12, 2001. can you give us some indication, you being an analyst, into the relationship between the issues of those bonds and the due date, please. guest: thank you paid i cannot actually speak to the second question, because i am not
8:54 am
familiar with the specifics of the bonds and the circumstances in which they were issued. what i can speak to is your first question, which is due the 9/11 commission really have enough time? the answer is no. at least oneave extension in the 2000 four timeframe, simply because they did not have the report and is and did not have the opportunity to look at as much material as they would have liked. i think that rush to judgment compromised the final reporting in the end. recommend the book looking into the commission and what they did not get to. int: let's hear from dawn new york, republican. caller: good morning. why is it different from what obama did in giving taxpayer dollars to interfere in other
8:55 am
-- other countries' elections. what russia supposedly did was tell the truth about hillary clinton. is there a difference? guest: great question. there is absolutely a measure of hypocrisy in terms of folks complaining about the russians engaging in what they have done. that said, it does not make what the russians allegedly did right, any more than our interference in the el toro --cess of other countries the electoral process of other countries. my favorite story is my former boss interfering in the democratic elections of iran in the 1950's. i work at a think tank. we do not believe the united states should go around and engage in these type of
8:56 am
activities, not just because it makes a mockery for ourselves but because of this blowback problem. this wants us over and over. there are a lot of folks in this country who feel the way you do, that this is, in some respects, the chicken coming home to roost. but that still does not justify what the russians did. host: what you make of this comment on twitter -- every country spies. if we did not do it, we would be in trouble. that is probably true for a lot of our history. but there is a difference between collecting intelligence for the purpose of informing policymaking and engaging in self-destructive actions that and up causing is more grief and harm down the road. that is where i draw the line. president truman made the mistake of creating the central intelligence agency the way that end of world the war ii. his original expectation was that it would essentially be a government think tank.
8:57 am
it would gather intelligence and the rest of that. but the office of strategic services' related arm, which is manifest an hour directorate of operations, remains dominant. so the desire to try to get involved in these kinds of things is suffused in the agency. a teams a president and around a president who is strong and cognizant of this history to take that institution and move it in a direction, channel it in a direction that is productive from a national security standpoint. host: last caller from missouri, tamara. caller: it is my opinion that the biggest crisis we have right now facing us is the fact that our government, at the highest level, has been infiltrated by russia. if you look at all of the links cabinet andnd his
8:58 am
the people closest to him. they all have some relation or former relations with russia, with business ties. it's come out that trump himself has business relations now. he's very careful when he words press conferences and his wording of this. but he does have businesses in russia. andtrump family, and eric, junior, came out in 2008 and said their assets are coming from russia. this is dangerous. regardless whether people voted for him or the actual outcome of the election was effective, i think that is the biggest problem we have now.
8:59 am
a dangerous person to be sitting in our white house. guest: thank you. you just made the case for the investigation. everything you said is what a lot of folks have been arguing. and i have been saying since december. we need to have a full accounting. i am especially concerned about what the intelligence community allegedly knew and when it knew it. i am also concerned about what former president obama and his people in you. if they had exposed this prior to party conventions, we may have been able to staunch this, and the russians having any kind of impact. a broadthat is why ranging investigation, which i believe should be done by congress -- i do not believe congress should be outsourcing this.
9:00 am
i believe we need a select committee, along the lines of iran contra or watergate. host: final call from phoenix city, annette. caller: good morning. i think the biggest problem is surveillance by the u.s. government on u.s. citizens. i personally have been repeatedly surveillanced and nce the edward snoweden -- snowden episode, and he wept to russia, they are very angry with russia for him being there. however our attorney general, eric holder, said that snowden did the united states citizens a service. how do people who are being surveillanced by our government, and why is this not the top concern in our country that our
9:01 am
own country -- host: let's get a reply. annette, explain to us. you say you think you have been under surveillance in the past. how do you know? caller: i have filed into the federal court in las vegas for domestic terrorism. again the local government, like donald trump, i agree with him. they move to attack people, to slander their names, to pull them down, to have them falsely and wrongly arrested. martin they did with luther king and malcolm x. these are tactics by the united states government that have been in place. it's just been with new technology, it has actually been on steroids. host: one more question, and we will get back to our guest. but why you? caller: excuse me? host: you said you're being-duve under surveillance. why do you think that's the
9:02 am
case? why you? caller: with dianne feinstein, i lived in sacramento, california. it was more -- it is one of the super fund sites. my husband worked at the state of california tax board where there was discriminatory practices that we filed a lawsuit. and we have been repeatedly wrongfully arrested, even the united states government have even had our marriage and our divorce as a political football. when you actually see the evidence that is going to come out how we have been attacked by the united states government and other entities, you are going to see how this has been one of our biggest problems in suppressing people who speak out against our government or speak up for the voiceless. host: annette, thank you for calling. final thought from our guest. guest: this issue of government,
9:03 am
domestic government surveillance, is a problem that as been with us for over 100 years. as i indicated we developed a project at cato over a year ago called american big brother. it's a timeline. can you go to our website catoamericanbigbrother, years. as i google that. you'll be able to walkthrough from 1908, all the way to the f.b.i. controversy. all these different episodes. some of these things are very familiar to americans. what the f.b.i. did to martin luther king jr. and the southern christian leadership conference, one example. but it is an endemic problem. the intercept just in the last couple weeks had an enterprise investigation talking about how the f.b.i. goes about recruiting informants. it's an amazing process they go through. and the level of authority that they have to do this is frightening. that's why it's another area where the congress really needs to actually spend some serious time investigating. host: our guest has been patrick, an analyst in the area of homeland security and civil liberties at the cato institute.
9:04 am
of course cato.org is the place to go to read more about their work. thank you for joining us this morning. now we're left on this friday edition of the "washington journal," after a couple minutes' break, we'll talk with bronwen maddox, for a look at the future of transatlantic reengsreelingses, what's ahead for nato, and the rise of nationalism and populism in europe plus your calls. we'll be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern, two days after president lincoln's assassination and a week after robert e. lee's surrender in april of 1865, generals william sherman and joseph johnston met to discuss the union army's future. naval historian craig scion and history professor john look back on meeting. >> once they were inside sherman took out of his pocket the tell
9:05 am
gram that he had been hand -- telegram he had been handed just as he was leaving for the meeting and showed it to joe johnston. so far he had shown it to no one else. it stated that two days before abraham lincoln had been assassinated in washington, d.c. johnston looked up at sherman with horror and declared it was the greatest possible calamity for the south. >> at 6:50, lynn downy discusses her biography of the inventor of blue jeans, levi strauss. >> a lovely remnant. and the patent was awarded after three tries with the patent office on may 20, 1873. for an improvement in fastening pocket openings, which is really boring language for basically the invention of the blue jean. >> sunday at noon on oral histories, we begin a series of five interviews with prominent african-american women from the explorations and black
9:06 am
leadership, oral history collection. the late gwenn eiffel, discusses her life, including her experience with racism in the newsroom. >> getting in the door because i had survived this insult was one thing, when i got in i had to prove to them i could write, meet a deadline, that i could be a good colleague in the newsroom and newsroom environment where i was one of very few people of color. once getting in the door isn't enough. it's nice the door opens, but what do you do once you walkthrough it? >> for a complete american history tv schedule, go to -span.org. >> he "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is bronwen maddox, director of an organization known as the institute for government. thank you for joining us. before we get started in the news of the day, remind us what is the institute for government -- what kind of work do you do
9:07 am
and ar

45 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on