having a security clearance. or you wouldn t be able to come back into the government and assume a role with an intelligence function, which is very much what he did. it s also one of the most basic tenants of intelligence, which is you don t accept money from a foreign government, particularly one that s an adversary. that sets up the russian government to compromise a person that s very well-known, known in the intelligence community and someone who can influence back into the u.s. population. it is a basic thing you learn any time you enter into government, especially federal service with an intel agency. to see the head of one of the intel agencies go accept money from a foreign government, being russia, and to try and either disclose it not disclose it or mask it, it is very curious why he d do that. it d be curious why anybody would do that. on two levels, michael flynn would have known this because now we have documents showing the defense intelligence agency said they told
respect him says going to the white house and yet we re supposed to have oversight. that s the executive branch of government. the executive branch has intelligence function that congress has to get information from in order to still do that stuff so the idea of going to the executive branch does not violate the idea that we re not practicing oversight over the administration. i think i think you can do both, because, again, the administration is where a lot of the intelligence is collected and disseminated from. we need bipartisan answers from this. there s multiple investigations going on in both the house and senate intel committee. the thing i worry about though is the more that this is brought into the public sphere and the media has a responsibility to talk about this, but the more everybody kind of comes out and starts to make this a partisan issue, it actually takes away from the nature of the investigation. so congressman, white house senior advisers jared curb mer, who ha
intelligence, everybody knows that we have to reform this function, there s got to be some changes made in the intelligence function. we are bringing in here a very experienced person with a deep background in national security. he was nearly the secretary of defense during the george w. bush administration, but secretary rumsfeld was, obviously, selected for that position. he s highly respected and highly regarded. and given his years of experience, i think he s being brought in there no one told me this, i m just surmising it to really reform that whole dni operation because most of us who look at it know it s badly in need of it. arthel: okay. as you know under president george w. bush, senator coats served as the u.s. ambassador to germany. general jack keane, it s always a pleasure to speak with you, sir, and we will leave it there. thank you. good talking to you, arthel. eric: coming up later tonight on justice with jeanine pirro
senator bayh? i think the congressman raises a good point. these practices, enhanced interrogation techniques were stopped five or six years ago. there s a national consensus that we don t do this sort of thing anymore. what you have here is the committee and the staff understandably feeling the institutional role of the intelligence function and the senate intelligence committee is important and needs to be robust. on the other hand, john brennan has an agency he s got to run. you have to be considered about work product, preliminary work product. how do they function if all that can be made public? it s difficult. there s some legitimacy on both parts. if the president s council can serve to mediate this and get it off the front page of the newspaper, we d all be better off. former senator evan bayh, congressman hoekstra, great to see you both. well into the week of the international mystery, police search the homes of two pilots and take special interest in the flight simula
the big brother aspect to all of that? i wouldn t go that far. i mean i think the government needs to have intelligence function that help to protect the country but of course any function like that, any programs have got to comply with the constitution of the united states of america. so i think that you know these revelations raise a lot of questions that you said anmentioned, this is going to be debated an torn open between capitol hill and the white house and other places. it s the start of a very parent national dialogue and we ve got to take it siriusry in terms of how a proper balance can be perceived that supports the u.s. constitution. jim, i have a couple of questions for you. i want to ask both of you gentlemen this question. jim, first to you. i think many americans have already assumed that their information at least had the possibility of being looked at if you worked for any corporation if they can read your e-mails, they can look at