the anniversary. a different time, different presidency and different kind of war fare. are you continually amazed that despite the proof that we are under attack from russia it is electronic. there is no bombs and missiles. we re not covering the windows or cutting wattage in the head lights of our cars. it is different and on a rolling basis. it is different and it is why we should be more vigilant because it s no longer as you say a matter of the cold war being worried about the russian bombers coming over to the north pole or icbms. now it is an invasion of the kind of our democracy and choosing presidents last year. that is why this investigation is so important. yes it does involve donald trump and his entourage but involves something much larger. when you hear people invoke saturday night massacre as nearest parallel in modern
fellow at the foreign policy research institute. he joins me now in studio. thank you for coming in. thanks for having me. for folks that didn t see the hearing, briefly if you could, explain the active measures that the russians are using. ur what they want to do is use information as a weapon of war fare to undermine u.s. democracy such that when we crumble from the inside out, we can t take aggressive foreign policy or stop their foreign policy around the world. so the way they do that is by using what s called a state to people and a people to people strategy.pl they re going to bypass the u.s. government. go straight to our democratic electorate and try to undermine trust, and fomate chaos. you said it was the same way in a way that the campaign might microtarget to talk to a specific voting group. you seem to indication they were so sophisticated they went state by state. they made sure that people in michigan or wisconsin or pennsylvania were seeing certain things. how d
perspective, strode out to the podium with two things in mind. two act. first act was a pheupb city state of the union address pushing against an unaeurbl negative media narrative ab how his administration has begun. he said here s how i see things talking directly to millions watching tv. the second part of it was the q&a. it was striking. open rhetorical war fare with the press throughout most of it. and the people who love him, the people who elected him, they re watching that and they ate every minute of it up. people in the press, of course, i think are gonna say it was a frightening performance. melissa: bernard, on one hand, you have to give him credit because he let people ask questions. they responded. he responded. they responded. no one was standing on ceremony. there were a lot of lobs going back and forth in every direction. that press conference was a long rambling hot mess, just like his presidency has been,
i m not talking about you. harold s bigger point is not about elizabeth warren but the democratic party. what is your strategy doing it having that war fare with betsy devos and you lose and having all-out war fare against sessions when you know you re going to lose when you got to deal with this guy for four years? i think it s important to put out in hearings that are for the public record exactly what the concerns are, leading into working with these people. you can do that. i don t disagree with you. i think it would be horrible we lost and we go home, you guys do your nomination thing. bye. that s not what i m suggesting. i think a different strategy well, you are. no, i am not suggesting that and you know i m not suggesting that. there is a way to do it without basically suggesting he s a racist. i think elizabeth warren had a wonderful strategy. she was reading letters invoking history and showing people what the concerns were in a very measured and elegant f
he has such high numbers. you have, obviously, followed both bill clinton and barack obama very closely. written a book about both of these democratic presidents and i must say, it is somewhat remarkable in these divisive times that both of these democratic presidents have left office after eight years of just brutal political war fare with very high, very strong, very impressive approval numbers. well, one was impeached and the other was, in some ways, tempted to be delegitimatize with the whole birther notion and everything else. polls are one thing. legacy is another. as a historian, i m more interested in the long term than what somebody leaves office with. because that will diminish with time. and i think what is what is barack obama s long-term legacy? you know, i think that, to some extent, we have all looked