are already overwhelmed and believe removing title 42 which quickly expelled many migrants during the pandemic could create even more problems for so many different states. still, the white house says it believes the president and it is well believed the immigration law is a matter for congress. not the cdc. is the president really wanting title 42 to go away because it was a trump era policy. the president has never felt that title 42 was an effective immigration policy and he talked about that during the campaign. while some democrats want title 42 lifted, others are urging the white house to think of the political security ramifications. telling jon ossoff it s congress that needs to find a solution. here s what a lot of folks in congress, whether they are democrats or republicans refuse to acknowledge. democrats are afraid to talk about border security. and republicans are afraid to talk about establishing a path to legal status.
bidens and ukraine or just investigations with his ambassador to the eu isn t just the potentially incriminating things that may have been said. again, we don t know exactly what was said to gordon sondland, we ll hear it next week. it is also the manner in which the phone call occurred. the phone call between the president of the united states and a top diplomat didn t occur in a secure setting, it was in the open in a restaurant in a country teeming with russian intelligence and could potentially be heard by anyone around. my next guest calls the security ramifications inside. larry pfiffer served as chief of staff to cia director michael hayden. larry, thanks for being with us. when you first heard that gordon sondland, ambassador to the eu, had a phone conversation with the president apparently on a cell phone at a restaurant in ukraine, were you surprised? yes and no. i mean you saw my reaction. i described it as insane to a certain extent. insane, because why?
things that may have been said. again, we don t know exactly what was said to gordon sondland, we ll hear it next week. it is also the manner in which the phone call reportedly occurred. the phone call between the president of the united states and a top diplomat didn t occur in a secure setting, it was in the open in a restaurant in a country teeming with russian intelligence and could potentially be heard by anyone around. at least some of the people at the table heard it apparently. my next guest calls the security ramifications insane. larry pfiffer served as chief of staff to cia director michael hayden. larry, thanks for being with us. when you first heard that gordon sondland, ambassador to the eu, had a phone conversation with the president apparently on a cell phone at a restaurant in ukraine, were you surprised? yes and no. i mean you saw my reaction. i described it as insane to a certain extent. insane, because why?
with his ambassador about foreign policy issues? very unusual, joy. number one, normally an ambassador doesn t talk to the president of the united states on any kind of telephone call on a routine basis. number two, you have this being done over a nonsecured device that could be readily intercepted by a number of foreign governments but in this case particularly russia given how wired the country of ukraine is by russian intelligence. now, you did write in you said to the washington post you quoted by saying the security ramifications are insane. using an open cellphone to communicate with the president of the united states in a country you can almost take it to bank that the russians were listening in on the call. would you presume that the russians have a recording of the call, a transcript of the call? basically information they now hold over the held of the president of the united states? that s absolutely a clear possibility. and i d be almost embarrassed for them if t
that could be readily interseptded by a number of foreign governments but in this case particularly russia given how wired the country of ukraine is by russian intelligence. now, you did write in you said to the washington post you quoted by saying the security ramifications are insane. using an open cellphone to communicate with the president of the united states in a country you can almost take it to bank that the russians were listening in on the call. would you presume that the russians have a recording of the call, a transcript of the call? basically information they now hold over the held of the president of the united states? that s absolutely a clear possibility. and i d be almost embarrassed for them if they weren t targeting ambassador sondland, the people at the embassy either through electronic means, through some kind of sensitive means or just having people walking around in the restaurant or sitting near them in the