Director brennan, thank you for sitting down with me today. Your book provides really interesting background and detail, not just about your career and on intelligence debates of the past but very much the news of our current days. Its four years later, were style fighting about russian interference in 2016. The republican and democrats are still debating whether the investigations were handled properly four years ago, whether you and Intelligence Leaders of 2016 drew the right conclusions about russian action. Your book opens with a scene after the election before the inauguration, youre briefing first congressional leaders and then go to new york to brief the trump and his team. A sharp partisan divide when you brief congress. Describe that and talk pout whether that was inevitable given the politics of the moment or could something have been done differently . Well, julien, i was asked to brief the gang of eight when we learned about what the russias were doing, the full extent of i
Foreign correspondent Kylie Kobe Reporting on the ground in jerusalem. Kylie, you are on the ground in jerusalem, as i just said. The deadline to evacuate gaza ends in less than an hour. What are you hearing from israeli officials . Well, they are not saying that there is any sort of imminent ground offensive but then you wouldnt expect them to announce it. They have made it very clear that that will be the next step. This is going to intensify. They have not said whether political leaders have made it official have actually ordered it but that is the direction we are heading can you hear me okay . So, the first 24hour deadline did approach and then pass. People are still being allowed to leave. In fact, the idf opened those o corridors from the north of gaza down to the south. Seeing evacuees would be allowed to pass safely along those two corridors. That came after an israeli airstrike Hit A Convoy Of Palestinian Evacuees on friday. 70 people were killed, many of them women and child
Committee will come to order. Today were holding a hearing to discuss a timely topic. Theres been numerous hearings on Cyber Security and how to stop the bad guys. Whats not been discussed in great detail is what the consequence will be from a massive cyber attack that brings down for example a large portion of the electrical grid for an amount of time. The purpose is to answer an important question. With respect to suber threats to the electrical power system, what consequences should the federal government tell states and local governments to prepare for . In other words, for how many people and for how long should states plan on being without power . The federal government does this now for every significant hazard that we face. Whether its a category five hurricane hitting miami or an 8. 0 earthquake in los angeles. The federal government has realist scenarios for states and cities to plan. The federal government does not have this basic planning scenario for a cyber threat to the
The iranians to allow a few americans, staff people, to staff the intersections in a question of engagement. There is a sub question, that says what happened in 2008 with the Bush Administration . Why didnt they ask them . This is a question about more context, but also stepping the intersection in terror on with americans. I take my advice from Yitzhak Rabin when he was Prime Minister, when he was explaining that in the early 1990s why arafats shake her hands on the lawn of the white house. As a former diplomat, and i teach diplomacy, i firmly believe we have to be talking to our adversaries and enemies, that the worst thing you can do from your own perspective, from your own national interest, is to shut yourself off. Ispite we agree the regime odious, we have to have a conversation with them, because and ia powerful regime, think the idea that the united establish iran would a consistent channel for our national interests, we do not do them a ferriter, we do ourselves a favor by hav
One flaw with your argument is t makes the words it may happen superfluous, that the clause would mean exactly what you say it means if you took those words out. And your response, the only one i could see on the reply, your reply brief, page 13, is that those words were put in there to, quote, confine the president to filling vacancies that actually exist at the time of appointment. Now, is that did you really think they put that language in there because they were afraid the president would fill appointments that dont exist . I dont know why they put the language in there, mr. Chief justice, but it doesnt it isnt superfluous because it does serve that function one reason is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and theyve had a big fight in congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didnt want to happen. I dont