President and ceo of the Treatment Center and the Truman National security project. Welcome. Lets start with the big picture. This is a president that breaks with tradition. He ran on an antiglobalist message. What is notable in his style and substance of this trip . Caller i would make three broad points. The first i would say, not exactly on topic but headed into memorial day weekend i want to say this is a complicated weekend for many veterans and military members. We are thinking about you and remembering your sacrifice. With respect to the trip, to me there are kind of three big takeaways. The first is, when i think is a disappointing nato meeting, i think there was a real need for the president to confirm an amendment to a commitment to article five. One of the most controversial foreignpolicy decisions of the Previous Administration was the red line question around syria, and it raised all of these questions around american commitment to follow through on what we said we would do in the National Security and Global Security space. That redline was something both of us had an issue with. I remember being asked by European Partners in the wake of that decision, what does this mean for us . Are we still committed . If there is one thing the United States is ironclad committed to, is article five, nato. The president raised a lot of questions and made a conscious decision before the meeting in paperwork, and at the meeting not to confirm that commitment. I think that was a mistake. The second point is, in the middle east, it was certainly an interesting trip from an optics perspective, but i think it may tell us a few things about the president s approach to the middle east that should give us pause. Where he thinks americas strongest relationships are, and im concerned about the choices he made going into that trip. The third piece is the value of a professional National Security apparatus in government, things like the glowing orb photo op that the internet have a lot of fun with. That is funny stuff, but things like that happen in the absence of careful staff work and preparation. A lot of indications, who was with him in the meetings, leaving h. R. Mcmaster in the hallway but bringing some others. Out for theat cry return of a professional National SecurityCouncil Staff that is really supporting the president on these trips, and i do not think that was h. R. Mcmaster have been trying to get people into those positions, but it is very clear the president is in need of foreign and National Policy help. Host what was your impression . Caller i agree with michael, particularly on his last point. The administration has not done a good job, or any job, of putting people in place i can provide the kind of expertise necessary to make sure the trip goes well. The trip, some parts of it went well and from their perspective, i think they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. The stops in saudi arabia and israel signaling basically they were not obama or bush. In the case of saudi arabia and israel, the main issue is the problem posed by iran. I think the Administration Made it clear that they were going to have a coherent policy, or aggressive policy toward iran. That satisfied saudi arabia and the gulf states. The funny thing about the nato stop was in fact they actually did accomplish quite a bit from the meeting, but the administration, because of this kind of lack of professionalism and the president s personality, they stepped on their own lines. At the meeting, they got agreements about moving forward on having nato more involved in the fight against isis. They got more agreement about defense spending. Some other things having to do with afghanistan and iraq, but , on theicle five flap way to brussels, it is clear that administrative officials are saying that the article five commitment would be made public. By not saying anything, they actually accomplished at the meeting with they wanted. Host the white house said after the fact that his support of article five was inherent in his support of nato. We have some sound of the President Trump speaking at the nato headquarters. Spentall nato members had just 2 of their gdp on defense last year, we would have had billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional nato reserves. We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 of gdp is insufficient to close the readinessdernizing and the size of forces. We have to make up for the many years lost. 2 is the bare minimum for confronting todays very real and very vicious threats. Made theirntries full and complete contributions, then nato would be Even Stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorists. Host you can couple that with a tweet from the president many nato countries have agreed to step up payments considerably as they should. Money is beginning to pour in. Nader will be much stronger. The president has a bull in a china shop approach. Is that such a bad thing . President obama also made the bed the same point. Caller i think it is a good point. The irony is that president s and advisers, secretary mattis and others have made the point forcefully that moving to 2 is the thing to do. Most countries in nato have already made a 2 commitment and there has been discussion about accelerating those. The irony has made it very persuasively, our allies in nato , especially the larger countries and Eastern European countries came to the conclusion that they need to spend. The reason is they are facing a very clear threat. It is not afghanistan or iraq, it is russia. The activities russia is conducting, interfering with our allies elections including ours. , cybernch election attacks and links to an full instead election in favor of an extremist candidate, that has been a reality in europe for quite some time. They are feeds facing russian they know exactly what they are facing, they are on the front lines, they have been spending more. This ironically is where politics comes into play. What the european leaders needed from this meeting, in addition to pushing their public to make more contributions to nato, was a firm confirmation and statement from the president of the United States that we are as committed to the alliance as they are, and we are fully committed to their defense against primarily russia. Two places where the administration would not come down were an article five and on russian policy. It is now possible to say coming out of this meeting that nato has no unified policy on russia, which is in many ways the reason for the alliance to exist at all. I think the administration has got to grapple with the russia question, not even with respect to the investigation domestically, to our foreign commitment to our allies. We have got to very quickly patch up the damage done to the alliance by not reaffirming our commitment. Whether that is the product of intention or bad staff work, we could debate that. Caller the problem with the 2 guest the problem with the 2 , there is no question europeans need to spend more on defense, but the gap as michael is suggesting, all you are talking about is fighting isis and you do not need to raise defense spending. This lack of actual discussion about russia as a threat by the Trump Administration does not fit very easily, but the man does spend more but you need to spend more because of the russian threat, there is that disconnect. The other thing i would like to say, this was not the place to make the argument that he did. This is an event where they were , ceremonial vent where they will putting event where they were putting into place the berlin wall and remnants from the 9 11 attack, so this was a memorial the reading the allies at this erating theler ba allies of this particular event, the president got it wrong. Post it seems like there is some confusion between what u. N. Representatives are saying and what trumps policies are. Is looking for an isolationist sort of policy, America First and all of that, and i do not know how you handle the conflict. If theresupport nato was some russian movement, or do you think he will have to face that at some place. How you think you will handle it . I think if was an overt conflict, the president would react appropriately. The difficulty is if you are not confident or certain about it, you are inviting problems you do not need to invite. So that is problematic, not just because we turn our back on our but somebody like a russian or like the russians or chinese think they can get away with something. Key point here is there is uncertainty. The uncertainty is one of the main ways word wars get started. Bar not going to get into a fight with john sina because i am sure i would lose. When there is uncertainty, there is question about whether the guy will run away or not, or maybe he will not stand up for himself. That is where the value of an Alliance Commitment like nato, like article five, comes from. Everybody in the world needs to know if you mess with a member of nato, the most powerful military alliance in the history of the world, we will collectively fight you as a reflex action. People are very unlikely to mess with nato. That is what has made nato both the most peaceful and most peaceful and a successful military alliance in World History to this point. So creating a crack in that commitment is a dangerous thing. It makes war more likely. Even if it speaks the language of isolationism in some ways, even though he has been all over the map with that, that lack of clarity is a serious issue when we are talking about questions of war and peace. Ast the president sparked germany, bynt on saying the germans were very bad on trade. Do you see a problem with that approach . I do, because he is not the ceo of a car company. He is the president of the United States. I think it fits into a pattern that is, to me, disturbing. He seems to have a very chummy likeionships with people president of the philippines, who is responsible for the extra killing extrajudicial of thousands of citizens and has openly bragged about it. Germany, the linchpin in many ways of our work nato alliance, in this way. Excused for not really knowing that if you look at President Trumps statements are the campaign trail, who are allies and enemies are and getting it completely backwards. These all fit into a context. Summit, that was the absolute last place for somebody to do that. If you didnt want to make a point to the germans about export import balance and cars, do not do it at the nato summit. That is just not the right forum. The president has some facts wrong as well. Manufacturing is quite extensive in the United States, bmw and mercedesbenz have very large factories. In fact, if i have my facts right, bmw actually has the largest exporter from the United States, so the trade question is far more complex than this black and white discussion of the president seems to engage in quite a bit. Back to the phones, george is from ocala, florida. Host this is it are trashing President Trump with vague generalities. Hee me things that you think did that was wrong. And neither one of you should be president s because your international, but having said that, why would you consider all andhese manipulations diplomatic contrivances and defenses . Very much for any president , on any side of the political fence, to simply speak the truth. Why dont you just wrap it up by saying that . Thank you very much. Well, let me begin. I really would like to be the ambassador to the bahamas. Wouldnt we all . [laughter] look, the point i made earlier, i do think, for example, the meeting in brussels at nato, they did accomplish, the ministration did accomplish quite a bit. My complaint is that they stepped on their own lines, which is to say the accomplishments that they did , defense spending, war effort in afghanistan, having nato take a greater role in the fight against isis, those are all important and they should take credit for helping push those agendas along. The problem is the president s lackior in the president s of saying whatever would expected him to say about article five resulted in the headlines being about that and not be accomplishments. I think it has been a mixed bag on this trip. I agree with gary. I want to be clear with the standpoint here, which is that i will always root for the president of the United States, especially when he is on foreign soil, but my concerns come from places, having been on the sharp end of u. S. Military and foreign policies, there are consequences when you get the diplomacy wrong. Guys have to go fight in cases that places where they might places they might not have to go fight. And her stand this can seem nuanced and contrived, but historically this has had masses, millions of people have died because leaders have gotten this diplomatic dance wrong. I do not want any of those people in the americans over the next this to be americans over the next four years. The other thing i can say that i think all of us have benefited in ways that we do not often she ate them a bipartisan can sense his. Consensus. Ipartisan wen like the u. N. , which like to beat up for its inadequacies. To create a world war conflicts like world war i and world war ii, massive, hundred million casualty bloodletting do not happen as often or at all, especially in world with nuclear weapons. All of us live our lives in some ways supported and protected by. I think we have to be very respectful of the danger of messing with that too much. President trump ran on the idea that he was going to question a lot of that, and it is ok to question and up dated, but it is a system that is fragile. You cannot just disrupted and assume it will bounce back. You have to take care of it and invest in it, and that takes leadership. And the president of the United States is the old one who can provide that leadership. Gary the europeans have not spent enough on defense, and that has been true for any number of decades. But the reason why we put up with it is the very basics that the cost of instability in europe has resulted in two wars, and that has resulted in more costs between what the europeans should be doing on their own defense and what we put into it. So, as michael has suggested, there is an International Order that underlies all of this that we have put great deal of time and effort into that has brought us to the peace and stability we want. But the access of that is extremely costly if we let it go. Calls thisking your hours, as always. By probably know the numbers heart. Lets go to boston, massachusetts with the independent line. Caller thank you for taking the call. I was wanted to say that very proud of the president s trip there. I watch body language quite a bit and i noticed the body language when he was in saudi saw the relationship there, i can see that he is really changing the dynamics in that relationship to get saudi arabia to back away from the support of isis that has destroyed things, and that will really help and change them out. Effort in syria, so i think some good things came out of going to europe. Some things were not so good. , drawne these childlike macrongiggling, there, sitting there giggling. I think he stood up to the bully elitist in europe. And he did not being bring becauses to the summit it is pretty well and that mcmaster is one of the leak sources. The other thing i want to mention is the whole russian story they are trying to overthrow him. Bs. Is absolute exposed to be somehow as the absolutely worst witchhunt ever. Michael i think body language is important. They get to the middle east. I think your read on the way the saudis felt about the trip is probably accurate. I think they are very, very happy. The question is should we be as happy as they are . They have a huge weapons deal out of this, they got a pretty strong signal that will have a freer hand to execute what i would argue is a deeply misguided war they are fighting in yemen that is not likely to end soon or well and is costing a lot in terms of civilian casualties. Their justification for that is iranian involvement in yemen, which there is, but that is more of a justification of what is actually going on there. I do not think that serves you as a centrist particularly well. I think the scene of the trip, that iran is a major threat in the region and that the saudis and israelis were very happy to hear that constantly from the administration. Threat, iran is a major in the region. I also wonder about such an s embrace of a secretary of a conflict like this in the region. Gulf and bloc in the not really doing the same with shia allies we have an places like iraq. Just because the people he was talking to are happy, but the question is why. The point of the Russian Investigation we will see. Is letse separate out a couple of things. This has been a unanimous our entirer Intelligence Community that russia made an effort to interfere in our election, and if you follow russias actions, this should not surprise you. The question is what are russias in democratic elections in europe a lot . They did them here for the first time, and they were effective. That is something that i think that is not conspiracy. Stuff. The question is the collusion of the members of the administration or Trumps Campaign and the russians definitely matter is Serious Investigation that needs to be nonpartisan, and i do not think this should be on the front end of that. It is incredibly important to protect the key institutions that are conducting the investigation, like the fbi, from interference from white house that is worried what they might find. That is extremely worrying and we need to make sure this investigation happens in a way that it needs to, not because we need to know what happened, but because we have another election coming in 2018 and 2020, and so far there is no good reason to stop what russia has been doing. They are doing it now still, spreading propaganda through twitter and all of the things they do. They have not stopped these. We need to use these investigations is a bipartisan matter of National Security. The story first reported by the Washington Post that was first reported by the new york times, that kushner and russias ambassador to washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure Communications Channel between the trunk Transition Team and the kremlin. This all turns out to be true, what do you think are the applications of it . Implications of it . From a could range mr. Kushner not knowing what hes doing to complicity. We do not know. Im sure the russians were shocked by the proposal, the idea that they would let any americans into their communications system. That is something that no one would have ever thought. You never thought it would be a road you would go down. So i am not surprised at the surprise about that. I have worked on president ial campaigns and i, like many folks, when your candidate is possibly going to win, you get a lot of foreign dignitaries and ambassadors reaching out to you to talk to you about the propriety of things. But the very fact that they are talking to russians does not surprise me. What is surprising is the degree to which they wanted to take it offline. Reasons thatad to wanted to set up a new relationship with russia, so he thought we would keep this out of the new cycle, or something deeper. We still do not know. That is the issue, with this was this aicy mishandled policy effort or complicity in meddling in the election . The white house did not respond to requests for their comments on the report. Lets go to new york on the democratic line. Caller good morning. Lets talk a bit about nato again. For those who remember, nato was ofated because of the danger the soviet union. Soviet union ceased to exist, and nato splashed around, trying to figure out a reason to be. That is notecord too good. For example, in libya when gadhafi was operating in libya, there was a Global Movement and gadhafi made some pretty strong assertions that he would wipe thesee Rebel Movement un securityto the council and the un Security Council gave them permission to create a nofly zone. However, nato once they have that crack in the dike, without authorization from the u. N. , they decided they would go about regime change. , andassassinated gadhafi look at the mess that we have in libya today. Nato does not have an excellent conclude myi would remarks, gentlemen, with the fact that anybody that thinks russia is going to start invading other parts of europe needs to have their heads examined. What the biggest danger in i doe is is terrorism and not see nato being qualified in many respects to combat that. Your comments . A number of things. First, nato was not simply created as meeting the threat of the soviet union. Obviously, that was a primary purpose but connected to that was the fact that you wanted to save the western european democracies. Nato has always been both dealing with threats but also a democratic space of our allies. I think we have to keep that in mind. We need to think about natos role as the world changes. It is not about the threats, it is about preserving the deliverable liberal democratic order that we have benefited from. Also, i think you are underestimating what nato had actually accomplished. Our nato allies provided tens of thousands of troops in afghanistan when we did not have those troops available to fight, and we were able to stabilize the situation in afghanistan for a number of years precisely because our nato allies took up that fight, and we would have been very hardpressed to stabilize afghanistan as it was without that contribution. I do think that libya was mishandled, but it was mishandled for reasons that happened in the aftermath of the iraq war, which means no one wanted to go in. They were up for removing the dauphin from power, but were not gadhafi from power, but were not up for what it would take to stabilize the situation after that. Thatinally, you said russia is not interested in dating across europe well, it has already invaded europe. It invaded georgia in 2008, it invaded ukraine and annexed crimea. All the chances of a war with russia might be small, i do know deterrent a real where we are inviting real problem more problems, not less. The independent line, with kathleen who has been waiting patiently. Good morning. I really appreciate the two intellectuals this morning. I would love to hear a comment from both of them about the x italian president , so he oversaw the former italian president. I saw many similarities to donald trump. They were both billionaires who put their family in positions in the administration. He was very charismatic and eventually he did lose the hisn because reelection, i should say, because of his tax evasion. The second question, i would like both of you to comment on what do you think has gripped our country with the paranoia of . Ot trusting the u. S. Media saying tired of people stuff about the mainstream media. The whole world record set respects the New York Post and the washington times. I guess the Washington Post and the new york times. I traveled to europe a lot, but to tell would like you the American People a little bit about this. I think they are Kindred Spirits , these two billionaires that were populist. I think people could learn a lot if you look at comment on that. I am really anxious to hear what both of you have to say, and thank you for coming on. I appreciate the stimulating conversation this morning. Thank you. I think those are both great questions. The formert to italian president , you can make comparisons between donald trump and passed and present leaders around the world. I think he was a cautionary tale and what happens to democracy that does not maintain a High Standard for its leadership ethically, a High Standard for its leadership in terms of conduct in office and the lines of personal enrichment and enriching the country and public benefits. When you laugh off the conduct of your leader when it is disturbing. To me, this situation and other worldions around the speak most powerfully to our citizens to defend these is to shoes these institutions in and like theates, free press, which is your second point. I am very disturbed by what has been a concerted attack on the andgrity of the free press encouragement, including by the president , unfortunately, encouraging his supporters not to believe what they read and the incredible media sources. Believe that as an attack on the fabric of a functioning democracy. That is also the reason why actors like russia use proxies like wikileaks and others, to try and underwrite trust. Considered a is geopolitical strategy by an adversary. It is paid for in ways that look like scam artistry in other things, but it is very intentionally seated and distributed. These stories we hear come up on russia propaganda website, but that is done on purpose, and the purpose is to undermine our ability the to have a discussion based on rational facts. The sense that we are all americans debating a tough issue that is gone. By news fake news and an attack on the media are an attempt to make that impossible because we are unable to get to what is true. But when we start throwing up our hands, not even a republic meaningfully run by its own citizens is possible. This is an attack on democracy and we have to read it that way, and it is one of the most disturbing things were seeing. I think it is one of the reason our nato allies there are other ways to attack a democracy that our nato allies have been facing and we now face together. There are alliances to stop attacks. This is about fundamentally defending them democracies in europe and the United States, and these are coming through things like fake news and interference. Trump and the time president , i think it is worth noting that the irony of the situation is in a lot of countries, both the United States and elsewhere, we have opened up our system in such a way that the oldfashioned toitical partys ability control the candidates were is or gone down, and you get politicians who are not politicians. We can make fun of politicians, but they do have some advantages, which is that they used to be in government, they are used to dealing with others in a certain way. When you invite people who are not politicians sometimes that is a good thing, but you are also bringing in a lot of withxperience and problems government leadership when you do so. Side, on the republican we saw 16 candidates run in the primary. Why is that . We opened up the primary system in such a way that it is not the partys nominee, it is more than nominee capturing the party. I will say that is true for both parties. Voting ine 45 people the primaries for a person that is not even a member of the primary, bernies party, bernie sanders, and President Trump and the republican party, we need to rethink the place of hearties in our political system. There is a good reason why we play the political parties, and i think we have forgotten that. This is a tweet coming in im the president , saying will make my decision on the paris accord next week. His decision on whether or not to stay in the paris climate agreement. Here is a story from the Washington Post, saying trumps views are appalling on climate. Further down, the second graph trump is considering remaining in the 2015 paris environmental court, a striking turnabout for a president who, during his campaign, has routinely labeled time a change hoax. How boxed and you think the president is by what he said on the campaign trail, and what are the stakes year as it relates to this climate deal . I think he never thinks he is boxed in. I think he has made a number of bold promises during the campaign, and a number of those have gone by the side. I think the real issue is whether he thinks the totheir political downsides that. Basically, it will not be decided on the basis of whether he believes Climate Change is good or bad, it will be based on politics. Cost pulling huge out at the paris agreement. I happen to share the view that Climate Change is a real thing and that human activity is substantially causing it. Itwould be bad, to put mildly. That for us, bad for the world, that for National Security. Paris represents something that is in the best tradition of american leadership. Which is rallying the world. To confront something that threatens all of us. This is one of the major values the u. S. Has provided for the world. We are able to pull people to the table and salt problems and solve problems like this. If we pull out of paris, it is not like france pulling out, the leader of the agreement with china is pulling out. China assumes the leadership role. We do not want to do that. Tocripples our ability confront a problem that is a serious problem for us and our kids. In the future of our country. He is not boxed in by his statements, a lot of these issues are issues that are matters of First Impression for the president. Campaign rhetoric, it is easy to see attack your enemies. When you get the keys to the car and you have to drive it, you realize maybe you do need the carburetor. Now you aret driving the car. We are seeing this over and over again. Saying, i guess this was done for reason. I welcome that. I will not sit here and attack the president for hypocrisy. It will take he will take the political hits. Cspans washington journal live every day. U. S. Justice Action Network holly harris discusses new Justice Department sentencing guidelines. Politicos Michael Strafford will discuss u. S. Education policy and funding. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal, live at 7 a. M. Sunday. Join the discussion. [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] msnbc discovers how the criminal Justice System is dividing the country. He is interviewed by elizabeth. It seems like ferguson is really an anchor in the book. Im wondering how your experience reporting illuminated what you are talking about growing up in the bronx. The thing about ferguson that blew my mind was if you grow up and a city in the bronx, you have a conception. There are these racial frictions, bad neighborhoods in all kinds ofhoods, loaded ways in which Police Police communities. In the neighborhoods said atop each other and overlap and create a sandpaper friction. Intof that was tied deeply the bronx, new york, or cities. Chicago, d. C. The thing that blew my mind about ferguson was it is a medusa palette he 20,000 people. Municipality of 20,000 people. You drive through it. It looks like anywhere. Industry malls and parking lots and houses. It is strip malls. The level of exportation and the level of racial oppression and friction, the level of the invasiveness of policing. Place that wasa hereto for a anonymous. That blew my mind. Watch at 9 p. M. Eastern on cspan two. Resulted in a naval victory for the u. S. Over japan, six months after the attack on pearl harbor. On june 2, American History tv will be live all day from the for the 75 mick martha anniversary. The five star admirals who won the war at sea. Elliott carlson with his book. Tully and timothy orr. Watch the battle of midways 75th Anniversary Special live from the Macarthur Center in norfolk, virginia. Next, a look at the recent iranian president ial election which resulted in president a second termg with more than a 7 of the vote. This discussion focused on President Trumps visit to the middle east and future Relations Relations between the u. S. And middle east. This is just over an hour. [indiscernible]