Met him why why do you want to do this. They larry come on. Dont ask me to question because youre eighty four yeah why are you still working well i dont want to get involved i dont want to go to war joe. On the sale. But since you asked me my age so what. You want to serve obviously you can just relax in phoenix and take it easy well this is a big sacrifice on my wife mary sixty years she came down with cancer doing my court trial. And all of us watching the president she loves trump i told trump hes called my wife several times to see how shes doing all these other president ial candidates so i campaigned for was there on a chairman they forgot how to spell my name once a campaign you know once its over joe always great talking to see an arizona next month thank you thank you were back with our Political Panel after the break stay right there. Yes so most losing them is but samantha. Just music to stay in the room with that which was written on the noises it. Was made up on the top for. A little bit so it isnt just from us trying. To put on play after on a spit to gather some are. Just for. The stakes couldnt be higher and its happening in syria the goal of destroying the Islamic State is largely complete now the syrian proxy war is in tree a new stage for the players and what are their aims and what is winning. Backed up politicking continuing the political discussion lets spend some time with our panel amy holmes political analyst former staffer to Senate Majority leader bill frist and nate lerner executive director of the Democratic Coalition and creator of the boy contract. Studios in new york and to start with you we just spoke with the form america hopefully county Sheriff Joe Arpaio whos running for the open seat in in arizona many in the republican establishment are worried that they might have another roy war situation where things going to happen you think trump would endorse him. Well i dont know if the president is going to endorse. The sheriff. Who is very controversial and certainly someone who has national mayme id i dont know if the folks of arizona necessarily like all the tactics tactics that hes taken i think were going to have to see and were going to have to see how he campaigns what kind of promises he makes to his constituents. Happy to welcome you to politicking a third white house official resigned after being told he wouldnt qualify for full clearance it was National EconomicCouncil George david banks what he and then of course you got the rub poor situation was your reaction to all thats going on in the white house in a its very indicative of the chaos that weve seen since day one this white house has been incredibly embarrassing a National Disgrace if you will if youve seen just the revolving door of individuals coming in and out who are woefully unqualified and borderline dangerous as we saw with porter i mean them you dont dont even qualify for security clearance which is incredibly disconcerting and its what happens when you elect a leader with no previous political or government experience whatsoever you get the trouble ministration any. Well we just heard a very partisan spin on the situation ignoring the fact that Hillary ClintonDonald Trumps competitor in two thousand and sixteen had her own problems with mishandling classified information if you want to talk about whats dangerous to the country shes not a president any of the voters decided that Hillary Clinton could not be trusted even her own Campaign Manager and then propel me aerie said during the course of that campaign that she had a big problem with trying to i dont mean it are as they mean that shes not so pleasant no but i was just responding to the very partisan take that we were hearing on the white house im very concerned that at the very least the chief of staff was aware that rob porter for example had a lot of problems in his background and it seems to me that when you work at the white house thats an enormous honor and the very first thing you should be thinking about is serving your fellow americans and the chief of staff mr general kelly im afraid to say seem to put his own interests in having a staffer that he liked ahead of the interests of the American People and im kind of maybe leaning toward the side that maybe hes got to go im not sure i need to know more about it. Vice president pence gave them a ringing endorsement i think i mean kelly i think needs to stay i dont agree with all of his policy stances but hes a strong leader hes organized hes you diminish the chaos a bit in the tribal ministration much more so than it was hes someone i trust a bit more to make reasonable decisions with regards to Foreign Policy or military i think hes you know really made sure the president is receiving more accurate news and reports as opposed to a lot of the the fake and misleading information he was getting before hand and again hes not my favorite person hes not who i would love to have there but hes a lot better than what weve seen previously in this administration which has been interesting larry because we just heard a say that the white house was a do that disaster and full of chaos and now hes praising the chief of staff. I think theres a lot of still in play off of Getting Better new i mean theres a lot of shake out that needs to go on and weirdly made there on the opposite sides when it comes to the chief of staff if the chief of staff is being told that he has a staffer who has not one not two but three people accusing one of his closest aides despicable behavior first of all i just think that should be disqualifying but also you would know that that would reflect poorly on the president and states as i say im not ready to say that i think that the chief of staff should go but im leaning in that direction and i may do you think the president should sit down youd rather mower absolutely i mean its what the majority of americans want its his responsibility as a Public Servant to answer for his potential crimes and it would really address a lot of the questions that are still up in the air in regards to investigation and he said he wants to so you know the president claims he made his words so he should follow through on that will he i doubt it but it would be very very nice to see and i think he owes it to the American Public do you think gamey he should. Larry youve talked with a lot of lawyers on your show all of them tell you that the president ited states should not be sitting down with miller that its a perjury trap that miller already has on record what he would want to then confront the president with and if the president s statements dont comport precisely with what he has then he can say the president was it wasnt being entirely forthcoming and we know this president we know donald trump we know that he is in exact in precise with his language and i just heard nate saying something about potential crimes well so far we havent seen any what we know to arrive to you had we also hold on a let me finish let me finish what we know is that Michael Flynn the National Security adviser was speaking with a russian agent during the time of the transition which all people agree was a completely appropriate and during those discussions that were taped he then was asked by Robert Mueller to explain them and discuss them and what he said to the f. B. I. I did not comport with what they had on tape so many people came to the conclusion that that interview was more of a perjury trap would you want to do that to the president ited states many lawyers including Alan Alan Dershowitz of harvard law says thats ridiculous and irresponsible and not good for democracy and certainly creates constitutional issues. So first of all weve had four indictments in the russian investigators and i know two guilty pleas from the f. B. I. So to say you know theres nothing there is completely inaccurate you know this is very clear miller has something and its for you to call a perjury trap you know that implies therefore that trump is then guilty of something so you know if hes coming in well thats what youre saying so we can settle it hes coming into this interview concerned about perjuring himself that hes likely guilty of something so you cant have it both ways either hes innocent or hes guilty. Amy guilty of what exactly nay thats what everyone keeps asking a good argument what and so far the investigation which was intended to investigate russian meddling meddling into the election what weve discovered is that the Clinton Campaign and the d. N. C. Hired fusion g. P. S. To hire Christopher Steele a british agent to get information from the russians to smear donald trump so if you want to talk about clues and it seemed to me having to be close to aggressively on the other side thats been thats been very well covered that Christopher Steele was never hired by republicans fusion g. P. S. Was republicans dropped it in the primary than democrats picked it up and in the course of that Christopher Steele was then hired to go and collect information which he did from russians who were very likely very unreliable spread disinformation the f. B. I. Got that big of a deal it f. B. I. Said it doesnt care who the information comes to them from they follow up so it doesnt matter who brings them the right so here here larry heres whats really interesting about that in the file is a Court Application the f. B. I. Did not make clear that this information was coming from Christopher Steele while giving out i added by an Opposition Campaign they did not make that clear id be very interested to see the file application and beat to know the opinion of the judge now that all of this all of this has been revealed or much of it the American People the f. B. I. Has said or at least bet most of said they relied very much on a dossier which we now know was a partisan document meant nothing here and undermined the internal look in part a little bit is nothing seems to. Trump with his base his personal lawyer announces the trump paid one hundred thirty thousand of his own money to a porn star who allegedly had a sexual encounter with him. How bad is this nate or why doesnt it blow up him as a as a as a public figure i mean this is very damaging is it not its incredibly damaging but i think it would more so during the election at this point people are numb to these kind of scandals which really tells you a lot about this president and the kind of man that he is its absolute disgraceful but i think at this point you know we have larger concerns to worry about we have you know a president in a stray ssion thats under investigation for collusion with a foreign adversary we have a president thats you know trying to tear down our Democratic Institutions while we have to stand on the sidelines and we have a huge election coming up in november where you know we have potentially can tremendous gains in the house and thats what democrats need to stay focused on the story is is unfortunate but its unfortunate its not going to blow it as much this should amy how do we solve the dhaka thing. Why do you know gosh i mean immigration wow well disney was all well thats a really interesting question that i worked for bill frist you know during the two thousand when they tried to do Immigration Reform unfortunately the other side was torpedoing torpedoing it because it seemed that they wanted an issue more than they wanted a solution the present the United States donald trump the one that seems to feel is you know illegitimate in some way despite an election the president has said hes happy to legalize to create legalization and a path to citizenship by the way for Daca Recipients and also for millions of people who would qualify for daca but didnt apply dollars for this of that but what he says that he wants in return is some Immigration Reform that the questionnaire really that democrats arent willing to pay me a lot of people dont know why the days leading including a lot of immigration activists came here gives why is it have to be let them go ill let them get a pass this is a ship if you give me a war a war is a war liza people why would i really want to know who i actually dont i agree with you one hundred percent but i dont think actually the point of debate is about the wall the point of debate is about chain migration that if you legalize this group of people that process then creates chain migration which donald trump the president has said he wants to reform democrats dont want to because that those are their future voters they want chain migration i think thats where the real battle is make. This is whats so unfortunate the immigration debate right now its such a more complicated issue than lets build a wall that will solve all our problems and its really unfortunate that the president wants to waste government money Government Resources on building a wall that our country does not need net immigration to from mexico right now is actually negative we are losing more immigrants to mexico than we are gaining its been steadily declining since two thousand and seven we have absolutely no use for this wall dock and needs to be put back in place we define protections for the one point six Million Immigrants who are here and a pathway to citizenship for them and then we should have a larger conversation afterwards about how we can improve our immigration system not just ban everybody as the president wants to do amy or president i just explained doesnt want to ban people in fact he wants to create a path to legalization both for dhaka recipients and also people who would qualify for daca what the president has said to the other side is and in return for that we should have Immigration Reform so this doesnt become a floodgate of chain migration which a lot of americans polling so disagree with by the way they dont agree that you should have all of your extended family members coming on the strength of one person whos gotten legalization. Made wonderful having both of you with a sad little man call on you again thank you nate great havent you have you back to thank so much thanks guys and thank you for joining me on this edition of politicking remember you can join the conversation on my Facebook Page or tweet me at kings things and dont forget to use the politicking hash tag and thats all for this edition of politicking. If north korea really believes were about to conduct a preemptive strike of its going to be significant in a serious preemptive strike that may. They may be motivated to make a point to try to be just the guys have their own fish but. I max kaiser one more of my guide to financial survival this is the hedge fund its a device used by professional scallywags to earn money. Thats right these has flaws are simply not accountable and were just getting more and more into them. Totally destabilize the Global Economy you need to protect yourself and get in for a while because were. Police say suspect Nicholas Cruz has confessed to the Florida High School shooting thats left seventeen people dead and around a dozen injured. The u. S. Secretary of state took his presidency as america begins to reach even its rhetoric on the conflict between ankara and the codes in syria also. Raise your hand if you would recommend that private american citizens use one way or see the products or services. Not of your generation. U. S. Intelligence warnings americans against using chinese made smartphones but the warning comes from those employed in want something in control. And you can get all the details on those headlines stories that are coming up a sign fico has the former u. S. Secretary of defense talking about russia north korea and will. All come to sophie and co im Sophie Shevardnadze as the new powers rise in the world a new multipolar global balance is shaping up but is stable enough to prevent a great power conflict in a nuclear age or hear secretary of defense william perry. Without the cold war era two centers of power the world has become leaderless and chaotic and his threat of nuclear war grows higher accidental or not tension is building when missions vying for power can new rules to for and improve in the global order from collapsing with Nuclear Weapons continue to service deterrent will lead to unthinkable catastrophe. Dr were. And perry its really great to have you on our program one more time thank you sir always good to be here lots to talk about dr perry so nato expansion to the east actually started during your tenure as defense secretary and you have sad that it was a mistake and it is probably the root cause of the current u. S. Russia confrontation now nato officials insist a. Was and is the number one and russia obviously sees it as a threat its always been very open and honest about seeing it at the threat was nato getting closer to russias borders do you think there could be a direct conflict is it on the cards i think its very unlikely i think both of our countries recognize that could lead to very Serious Problems and so i think we will see restraint on both the United States and russia so that we dont need them to conflict the danger is not the door leaders will plan a conflict but the fact that our troops are so close together it might be an accident we went blunder into some kind of a contact so thats the danger of the situation is not the intent on either side but sometimes events get out of control of the leaders so i do think theres a limit to nato expansion. Why in your opinion does need to need members like macedonia or montenegro does the alliance operate by the principle the more the better no i dont think so factor you can argue that. You dilute the effectiveness of the organization if you get too many countries so i think were probably either to end a very nearly the end of a two expansion and i think definitely nato has abandoned the idea of expanding into ukraine so that is not a realistic idea of ukraine becoming a member and i think thats not in the cards. I want to talk to you a bit about panta gaunts new strategy includes coming up with a low yields Nuclear Weapon for sake of to terence as de put it while low yield serve as a nuclear war unable or instead because its psychologically easier to actually drop below your old mom the people who favor the low yield power to Nuclear Weapons both in the United States and then russia argue that. It actually prevents a Large Nuclear war from the start of a imagine is a need to intermediate stage i dont agree with that i dont agree with either the russians or the americans who favor tactical Nuclear Weapons i think a Nuclear Weapon is a Nuclear Weapon and there ought to be a red line and the non use of Nuclear Weapons to me the while i have strived for eventually getting rid of Nuclear Weapons as long as they are used i like to see them limited to the t. G. Use. And not consider the tactic used i do not favor weapons that make new Nuclear Weapons easier to use i want to make them harder to use i want to make them impossible to use now u. S. Defense department is planning for a possible war was the china and russia i mean those are just military planners preparing for eventualities or do you really think that us military wants to fight well i have concerns with that with the doctrine is being evolved today but i do not believe it involves. Initiating a war with either china or russia their rationale which would be questioned but the rationale is that in case either china or russia precipitate a war for the with the United States we should be prepared for it so i see it is as a defensive rationale but i think what would be focused on instead is working to prevent that kind of a war from ever happening and thats to do with course as much with diplomacy and political actions as it has to do with military actions. Dr perry last time we spoke youve said a lot of complimentary things about the u. S. Defense secretary chu mattis yeah you know the man personally. Has blamed russia for actually trying to stick a wedge between america and its allies and promise to speak to moscow from a position of force i mean the times are really tense right now no need to emphasize on that how wise is it to be so confrontational at these times and also do you think hes maybe trying to be tough at home where he really thinks that he can actually get something out of russia by pressure. I dont interpret. As exaction should be meant to be being putting pressure on under russia for concessions or i dont see that at all and i think he believes that maybe not correctly but i think he believes that having is stronger defense posture will make it less likely that we ever have it ever have any confrontation with russia or china or any other country. My own view is that much more of the plans on diplomacy and political agreements and i think the office space the opportunity for for diplomacy and political agreements between United States or russia is very large today but is not being exploited by either country we have many areas of disagreement with ukraine for example. Crimea for example. And i understand why its difficult to have diplomacy to deal with those areas where you fundamentally disagree but there also are many issues which we have in common neither in nine states in russia want to nuclear war now the United States or russia want Nuclear Terrorism neither the United States or russia want a Nuclear Proliferation so we have areas where we have strong and important areas where we have important agreements we ought to be working together in those areas just to solidify our views in which we agree and they can come to agreements there so thats a thats a potential this open force that were not now its exporting so i fault both the russian government and the American Government for not taking advantage of those opportunities and moving in so that we Work Together through good effective creative diplomacy to make progress in those areas but then there are certain steps that the defense. Department takes i would like you to interpret them for me because maybe im not understanding i think according to the Defense Strategy the Great Power Competition with russia and china is outlined as number one concern for the United States not terrorism anymore and thats a thats a judgment today make and they stated i dont agree with that but it is i understand where theyre coming from what do you understand where theyre coming from yes they have convinced themselves that. The actions taken by china and russia and in terms of building up their own Nuclear Forces are seen as a threat to the United States. Thats a judgment they make which i dont share but its i dont understand why they do what theyre seeing and why they why they think they need to respond that way but is it not is not a difference in interpretation of facts its a difference in how you respond to those facts how you interpret the facts i dont see russia as posing a threat to the United States which is the threatening war with the United States i dont see china as threatening war the United States. And so i showed off for a different fundamental assumptions about what these facts mean yeah because russians are having a hard time interpret men over the past four years ever since the crisis with russia and the United States began. Us has lost Ground Troops to terrorists in iraq and syria and afghanistan have lost the lives of civilians on the american soil yet not one single russian bullet was shot an american soldier for some reason threat for the pentagon comes from moscow i mean what russians dont really get it why. Well. I dont share that view i dont believe that its a fact coming from russia today i believe we have to be vigilant about what might happen in the future in russia or china but i dont see a threat today and then theres the head of the british army cern Nicholas Carter and he says that cyber war with russia is a bigger threat to britain their security to British Security than terrorism the terror attacks happened on monthly bases in britain last year i mean what is it all ok under control now no terrorist threat anymore cyber attack is more dangerous scheiber attack is a real problem for all of our country to russia for britain but the cyber text