Newsmaker Interview – PBS NewsHour

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: Recep Tayyip Erdogan has led Turkey since 2003, first as prime minister, and since 2014 as president, an office he has remade into the nation’s preeminent leader. Turkey has been an ally of the U.S. for decades, but that alliance is now tense. A main source of division, U.S. support for Syrian Kurdish militia known as the YPG, and its related organization, the PYD, which the U.S. is helping fight ISIS in Syria. Both groups are allies of Erdogan’s sworn enemy in Turkey, the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group. There are also concerns about the state of Turkish democracy, in the wake of last year’s coup attempt. Erdogan says the FETO organization orchestrated it. That’s his term for a group run by a former ally, Fethullah Gulen. He lives in Pennsylvania, another source of tension with the U.S. Erdogan spoke today at the U.N., and he will meet President Trump on Thursday. I sat down late yesterday afternoon with him in New York for an exclusive interview. President Erdogan, thank you very much for talking with us. You’re here to speak to the United Nations and to an American audience. What should the American people know about the state of Turkey-United States relations right now? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkey (through interpreter): Of course, Turkey’s relations with the United States date back to a long time in history. We have been enjoying very serious relations throughout history within the framework of this strategic partnership. And all throughout the years, this process successfully sustained our strategic partnership, peaking within NATO. We are together. We’re allies within NATO. And Turkey is one of the founding members of NATO. And the strategic partnership was then converted into a model partnership. And we have been enjoying the cooperation in that regard. JUDY WOODRUFF: I ask this because there is some tension in the relationship right now. Just today, it’s reported that the Trump administration has decided not to allow the sale of guns and other weapons to your presidential guards. Is this a problem? What does it say about the relationship between Turkey and the U.S.? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter): This is a question that I will be talking about when I get together with President Trump on the 21st, and these are all rumors. There are no statements. And these rumors are not very healthy rumors. I just want to address the audience and state the following openly. In Syria, the PYD terrorist organization is present, and the YPG is there as well. And they are extensions of the PKK separatist organization in Turkey. And we are all fighting these extensions of the PKK. I know that the United States officially recognized the PKK as a terrorist organization. However, as long as that is the case, the PYD or YPG, which are extensions of the PKK, I don’t think it is the right move to fight Da’esh in Raqqa with those groups. That fight can be conducted with us. But I think it’s wrong for the United States to fight terrorism with the YPG or PYD. This is something I have shared with the higher echelons of the United States. We need the fight these terrorists with the United States. And we are not able to acquire those weapons from the United States. Why are you giving weapons to those terrorists, is the question that we ask our friends in the United States. JUDY WOODRUFF: The United States, as you know very well, has been saying it depends on the Syrian Kurds to lead the fight, be an important part of the fight against ISIS. So, are you saying, unless the U.S. stops working with the Syrian Kurds, that is a deal-breaker in the relationship between Turkey and the U.S., or is there some accommodation here possible? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter): Well, we shouldn’t mix one thing with another. First and foremost, this issue has got nothing to do with Kurds. We’re just talking about terrorist organizations. Some of the Kurds in the northern parts of Syria are involved in terrorism. And they are to be called terrorists. And some of them are moderate, and they have positive relations with Turkey, and they defend to maintain those positive relations via Turkey. Both of them shouldn’t be confused with another, or else we will have different interpretations of the issue in Turkey. I want to highlight this fact, because we’re not against the Kurds. We are against the terrorist organization, and Kurds are our friends. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you are saying that there is an accommodation possible. After Raqqa falls, which many expect it to do, after ISIS is driven out of Raqqa, is there an agreement, an understanding between Turkey and the United States about who will be in charge and what role will the YPG play, will other groups play in that area, the Syrian Democratic Forces? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter): Whatever the stance we had embraced via the terrorist organizations on a global scale will be exactly the same views of the YPG. And especially the name Da’esh shouldn’t be confused with the others. We are fighting Da’esh in a very committed fashion and very seriously. We have killed more than 3,000 Da’esh terrorists. But we are very saddened to see the following. We’re trying to eradicate one terrorist organization using another terrorist organization as a vessel. Right now, the United States is working with the YPG in order to eradicate Da’esh. The United States is using YPG as the land forces to fight Da’esh. But, instead, we said we could be of help there. We are Turkey, and we could do that. Let’s walk hand in hand. JUDY WOODRUFF: While we’re talking about the Kurds, next door, in Iraq, there could be a time in the near future when there is a separate Kurdish state. There will be a referendum, it appears. Can Turkey live with an independent Kurdish state in Iraq? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter): Well, let me be very clear in my remarks. First and foremost, since day one, we have always defended the territorial integrity of Iraq, even though nobody else seems to be doing the same. This referendum shouldn’t be conducted. How can we accept a referendum, as Turkey, when we have a border line of 350 kilometers of Iraq? Iran doesn’t seem to agree. The federal state doesn’t seem to agree with the referendum, so how can you make a decision all by yourself as the northern part of Iraq? We do not accept this decision. JUDY WOODRUFF: Syria. We were talking about Russia is a major player in Syria. Just last week, you announced a multibillion-dollar deal to buy surface-to-air missiles from Russia. Why? And is this a contravention of your commitment to NATO, which you’re a longtime member of? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter):We have asked for those weapons from many NATO allies, primarily the United States, but we were turned down. That’s why we have to resort to other means, because these systems are very important in terms of our defense. We have had discussions and deliberations with Russia, and Russia is willing to support us all the way to a possible joint manufacturing of these missiles. It’s quite natural for us to take decisions on our own self-defense mechanisms. The secretary-general of NATO officially declared that every country had the discretion to make up their own mind and take the necessary measures. JUDY WOODRUFF: Does this mean that you cannot rely on NATO for your defense? And NATO was partly created to defend against Russia, in opposition to Russia. So, is Turkey now closer to Russia or closer to NATO? Where do you place Turkey in that divide? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter): Turkey is a very powerful member of NATO. And why are you standing against such a member of NATO as Turkey? We’re going to pay for these weapons and acquire them. But terrorists are being supplied these weapons free of charge; 3,000 trucks carrying these weapons were provided for these terrorists, and we, as a legitimate member, failed to acquire those weapons, and we had requested to acquire Predators or drones from the United States. And, for many years, we have never received them. We were not supplied drones, but terrorists are being supplied all those drones and all those weapons. This is unacceptable, and we have to take care of ourselves. JUDY WOODRUFF: Turkey has for many years sought membership in the European Union. Are you still interested in joining? And I say so because there has been a dispute recently. Chancellor Merkel of Germany has said this shouldn’t happen. Is Turkey still interested in being part of the E.U.? PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN (through interpreter): Has the E.U. decided to admit Turkey as a full member? They should come up with a statement. Are they going to take us in or not? We are ready for everything and anything, so long as they tell us what they’re going to do. We are very sincere, and we expect the exact same from the E.U., to be sincere. But I don’t know to what extent we will be able to tolerate this lingering on. But I think this can only be tolerated to a certain level, and after that threshold, I think Turkey will come to the point where we have to make our own decision. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the sources of tension, a great source of the tension between Turkey and the E.U., Turkey and the United States, has been the strength of the democracy in Turkey. Your moves before and especially after the coup attempt in the summer of last year, many people in Turkey, in the government, in the military, in the journalism field, reporters, and others have either been — have either lost their jobs or have been imprisoned, in jail. The question from the United States, from many in the U.S. and in Europe, is, is this the permanent course for Turkey, or is this temporary? You have said these people are terrorists, they were attempting to overthrow your government. But many of them are schoolteachers, low-level government workers, new

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio‘What Happened,’ according to Hillary Clinton (full interview) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On Friday: Judy Woodruff sat down with Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate, to discuss her new book titled “What Happened.” We return now to that interview, when Judy asked about Clinton’s campaign against Donald Trump and mistakes she might’ve made in certain key states. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think your campaign was negligent, or whatever word you want to use, in not raising enough warning signs about the perils that could lie ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan? Those states, of course, turned out to be crucial to the outcome. HILLARY CLINTON, Author, “What Happened”: Well, when you’re in a campaign you — you look at the best information you have. And our best information from polling, from what’s called data analytics, from people on the ground didn’t indicate that we faced what eventually happened in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania. We campaigned hard. We had more people on the ground working for my campaign than President Obama had had. We were in constant communication: What do you hear? What do you see? Wisconsin’s a particularly interesting example, because Russ Feingold, someone I served with, was running again for the Senate. His polling and the polling done by the Senate Democrats showed he was going to win. I ended up doing better than he did. There were all kinds of factors. And one of the biggest problems in Wisconsin has been the well-executed effort to suppress voters, African-American voters in Milwaukee, young voters, particularly in Madison and elsewhere. It proved to be very effective. And we campaigned hard in Pennsylvania. We campaigned hard in Michigan. I was there the day before the election. So, I — I just don’t believe that those were the determining factors about how many visits how many people made. I just don’t buy that. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Judy also asked Secretary Clinton about the criticism of her campaign from within her own party, specifically from former Vice President Joe Biden. JUDY WOODRUFF: You also had some comments about former Vice President Joe Biden. And I want to ask you about that, because he said after the election that he thought your campaign and Democrats in general didn’t adequately communicate to Americans who were economically strapped what Democrats were prepared to do for them. Isn’t that very similar, if not the same thing, your husband, President Clinton, was telling your campaign before the election? HILLARY CLINTON: No. And, look, I’m a friend of and a big admirer of Joe Biden. He and I have worked together. We served together. And I point out in the book, you know, every day, we were talking about jobs and the economy. Post-election analyses said I talked about jobs more than anything else and more than anybody else. We had really specific plans. I was talking about them endlessly. But they weren’t covered. When you get 32 minutes in a whole year to cover every issue, and 100 minutes on e-mails, I don’t fault voters for not knowing what we were saying. Joe campaigned for me. He talked about jobs. Everybody else talked about jobs and what we were intending to do. But, you know, it was — it turned out not to be enough in that particular environment. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, finally, they turned to health care, which, if you remember, was one of the major sticking points during the Democratic primary contest. Judy asked Secretary Clinton about her former opponent Senator Bernie Sanders and his recent health care proposal. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the campaign, you, on a number of occasions, argued with Bernie Sanders, because he argued there should be more of a government-run health care system, rather than expanding Obamacare. Now he has this new plan out to expand Medicare, cover more people in the direction of single-payer. And dozens of Democrats are behind it. Are they making a mistake? HILLARY CLINTON: No. It’s an aspirational goal. I believe in universal health care coverage that is affordable and high-quality. There are a number of ways to get there. I think some are more likely than others. During the primary campaign, I did defend the Affordable Care Act, because, for the first time in our history, we had 90 percent of Americans covered. And as I said over and over again, it’s a lot easier to get from 90 to 100 percent than ripping it up and starting all over again. But as someone who’s worked on health care to try to get to universal coverage for 25 years, it matters how much it costs. It matters what people feel about giving up what they already have. And half of America gets health care from their employers. It matters what kind of standards are going to be expected in whatever benefits there are. You know, the devil is always in the details when it comes to universal health care coverage. So, I think having a debate about the best way we get there and having people really lay their cards on the table, so that it can be examined, is important. JUDY WOODRUFF: I ask because some Democrats are saying it is a mistake, that this takes the focus. It, in essence, cedes the fact that Obamacare hasn’t worked and that there needs to be another way. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, that would be unfortunate. And I — it would only — that would only be true if Democrats in large numbers in the House and Senate stopped working to make sure the Affordable Care Act continues. I think there still is a lot of energy behind that, because the likelihood of us getting — you know, getting to a single-payer system starting from where we are is — is quite difficult. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath. Let’s stay focused on how we’re going to deliver the highest-quality, most affordable health care right now. And then you want to have a debate about something better and different, go ahead and have the debate. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You can watch the entire interview with Secretary Clinton online at PBS.org/NewsHour. The post Hillary Clinton on losing in Wisconsin, getting universal health care appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio‘What Happened,’ according to Hillary Clinton HARI SREENIVASAN: Hillary Clinton, she is one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in modern American history. This week, she is back in the spotlight promoting a new book. She opens up tonight to Judy Woodruff, revealing where she gives President Trump credit, but also her fears that he is dangerous for the world. Judy sat down with the former presidential candidate, secretary of state and first lady at the CORE: club in New York City, and began by asking about the premise of the book: What happened in the 2016 election? WATCH PART 2: Hillary Clinton on losing in Wisconsin, getting universal health care HILLARY CLINTON, Author, “What Happened”: I really was not ready or equipped to run for president against a reality TV candidate. I take running for president and being president really seriously. It’s a — maybe the toughest job in the world, right? And I knew that there was unfinished business from the successful two terms of President Obama, whom I had served, but that we needed to go further on the economy, on health care, and so much else. I really prepared, and I prepared what I wanted to say, how I would defend what I wanted to do. It turned out that was very hard to communicate. It was a time when an empty podium got more broadcast minutes than all of the policies that I was putting forth. And now that there’s been a lot of analysis coming from all sorts of independent observers, I think it was clear that the kind of campaign I was running, and the seriousness with which I looked at the agenda I wanted to represent and then execute, was just out of sync with the anger that a lot of the electorate felt, or the disappointment that another part of the electorate felt, so that my brand of leadership, which is very focused on bringing people together, solving problems — it’s what I have always tried to do — just had a hard time being as powerfully compelling in that campaign as I think it has been in previous years for other candidates. JUDY WOODRUFF: You single out James Comey, the former FBI director. HILLARY CLINTON: Yes, I do. JUDY WOODRUFF: My question, though, is, he was in the role he was in because the then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had pulled back and essentially turned over the leading role in overseeing the FBI — or the investigation into your e-mails because of that meeting on the airport tarmac with your husband, former President Bill Clinton. So, my question is, to what extent did Loretta Lynch and President Clinton make a costly mistake? HILLARY CLINTON: Judy, I just don’t buy that. I honestly reject that premise, partly because there’s a chain of command in the Justice Department. There’s a deputy attorney general. We all now know who it was, Sally Yates, a woman of experience and integrity. We knew at the time, after it was reported that, you know, both my husband and Loretta Lynch said they didn’t say a word about this. The optics were not good. I admit that. But in this chain of command, if the attorney general is recused, you know, the deputy attorney general. And what we know happened is that the investigation was getting nowhere. There was nothing to find. And he was in a position of having to accept the evidence that there was no case. I think what he did, against the advice of people around him in the FBI and the Justice Department, was in large measure due to political pressures that he was under from people that he had worked with before in the FBI and outside the FBI. And so, when you’re a prosecutor or you’re an FBI director, if there’s no case, there’s no case. And, instead, he had a press conference and really, you know, went after, not just me, the entire State Department. OK, that was over on July 5. Right. That — you know, that, I thought, was a breach of professional ethics and responsibility and a rejection of the protocols within the Justice Department. It was over. And we were doing fine going forward. What really was costly, and what I believe was the proximate cause of my defeat, was his October 28 letter, which has never been adequately explained or defended, had nothing to do with what happened, you know, months before. JUDY WOODRUFF: But my point is, he wouldn’t have been in that position had Loretta Lynch not pulled back after that meeting with President Clinton. HILLARY CLINTON: I just don’t — Judy, I don’t believe that. I mean, he was in a position that was subordinate to the chain of command in the Justice Department. So, Loretta Lynch recuses. It’s like when Sessions recused. The deputy attorney general steps forward and starts, you know, running the investigation. There was — there were plenty of people who were in the chain of command who were telling him, I’m told, you know, OK, nothing there, end it. And that’s not — that’s not what he did. JUDY WOODRUFF: You also write about the role of gender, the fact that women are treated differently in politics, held to a higher standard. You quote your friend Sheryl Sandberg talking about how women, the more successful they are, the less they are liked. HILLARY CLINTON: People all the time say, oh, if you only knew Hillary Clinton the way I know Hillary Clinton. Well, it’s really hard to get to know me, or any candidate. And I would be asked questions like, well, why are you really running for president? I didn’t hear Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders asked that question, as though there was something hidden or — or so unusual about a woman stepping forward and saying, you know, I think I could be a good president, I hope you will support me. So, I do believe, and in this chapter called “On Being a Woman in Politics,” that we have to come to grips with the endemic sexism and misogyny. Of course, it’s not just in politics. It’s in business. We have seen a lot of that coming out of Silicon Valley, and it’s in the media, it’s in culture. We know that. But, in politics in particular, where now some of my former colleagues and friends in the Senate are being attacked, and they’re being attacked in very sexist ways, you know, Elizabeth Warren told to, you know, sit down and basically shut up, don’t persist, Kamala Harris being attacked. Kirsten Gillibrand talks about being manhandled by fellow members of Congress in the gym. You know, I want to blow this up, so that people have to confront it. And then maybe whoever comes next won’t have to face it as much. JUDY WOODRUFF: The Trump campaign. You think Trump operatives cooperated, colluded with the Russians in order to prevent you from winning this election. You’re a good lawyer. Do you think that meeting in New York last year between a Russian lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner was illegal, that laws were broken by that meeting? HILLARY CLINTON: We — I don’t know enough about whether that’s the case. I mean, this investigation that’s going on is necessary and incredibly important, because what happened, certainly so far, proves there was communication between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives that they have gone to great lengths to try to hide and not disclose. There were meetings like the one you’re talking about. There were others as well. There were, now we know, Russian paid ads that played into the Trump campaign. We now know that some of the placement of ads and the weaponization of information by the Russians was very skillfully injected into our campaign, which suggests that they were getting advice from someone and somewhere. We know that the WikiLeaks drop within one hour of the “Hollywood Access” tape on October 7th was meant to do exactly what it did, divert from Trump’s admission on tape that he was a — a sexual assaulter. So, you can add all of this up, and you can just say it’s all coincidence, but were campaign finance laws broken? Were foreign agency laws broken? Were financial dealings irregular or illegal? We don’t yet know, but I have a lot of confidence in the work that is going on in the Senate to delve into these issues. And I have a lot of confidence in, you know, Robert Mueller and his investigation to tell us whether there’s something there or not. But my point is bigger than that. Let’s put what happened to one side. If I had been elected president, and the intelligence community came to me and said, well, you won, but Putin was trying to defeat you, even though I won, I would still say, we have got to get to the bottom of this. Right now, we don’t have any leadership from this White House to try to understand what our principal foreign adversary was doing to interfere with our elections, to, in effect, destabilize our democracy. So, I think this is — this should be of interest to any American. JUDY WOODRUFF: You are very tough in the book, and now, on President Trump. After the birther issue he raised over President Obama, his campaign rhetoric, and now, as president, his comments on Charlottesville — and he repeated some of those yesterday — do you believe the president is racist? HILLARY CLINTON: Here’s what I believe. I believe that he has given a lot of encouragement and rhetorical support to the Ku Klux Klan. He accepted the support of David Duke. I believe that he has not condemned the neo-Nazis and the self-proclaimed white supremacists in Charlottesville and other settings. I believe that the Congress had to, on a bipartisan basis, pass a resolution asking that white supremacy be condemned by this president, which he then signed. And we will wait and see what he does. So, I can’t tell you what’s in his heart, Judy. I don’t know. It could be total rank, cynical opportunism. He’s got a hard-core base that believes these things, and he’s going to keep feeding it. He took advantage of some of the conspiracy theories that these people propagate, like birtherism. So, I can’t tell you what’s in his heart. I know that he was sued for racial discrimination in his business. So I think that what’s important is that, as a leader, he

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: It was five years ago this fall when Hurricane Sandy slammed into the Northeastern United States, leaving a death toll in the U.S. alone of more than 150 people. By the end, 24 states were affected, damages totaled over $70 billion, and it all happened at the height of the 2012 presidential election. New Jersey was the site of landfall for what became known as Superstorm Sandy and what developed into a defining moment for that state’s governor, Chris Christie. Today, Governor Christie is also leading the response to a different national emergency, as head of the White House Commission on Combating Drug Addiction in the opioid crisis. And Governor Christie joins me now. Governor, welcome to the NewsHour. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, R-N.J.: Hi, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, thank you for being here. We know that Irma, the storm, is still wreaking havoc on the Southeastern U.S., but based on what you have seen, your own experience, do you believe that government at all levels have done everything they could have to prepare for that storm? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE: Yes, it looks like Governor Scott worked well with the feral government and his local authorities to get millions of people evacuated, which is the first challenge for a governor, then to have the shelters ready to be able to house people, as many as need that type of housing. And now the next challenges are going to come as the storm dissipates and they see what it’s wrought and how to recover. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe that there is going to be aid for Florida and other states that need it in a way that aid wasn’t necessarily there timely after Sandy? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE: Well, I hope that they learned their lesson in Congress. It appears they did by how quickly they moved to vote for Hurricane Harvey aid for Texas, even though those folks were not nearly as quick to get that aid to the Northeast in the result of Superstorm Sandy. So, I think they have learned that lesson. That mistake was made. I hope it will never be repeated, because it really set back recovery here much more than it ever would have had to. And it caused anxiety among people that is completely unnecessary. As a nation, when we have a national emergency like this one, we need to stand together and help each other, regardless of what region of the country we come from, what political party we’re in, or what philosophy we follow. JUDY WOODRUFF: We know federal dollars are scarce, Governor. Is there a formula for how much after a natural disaster like this is the federal government’s responsibility, the state’s responsibility, private citizens’ responsibility? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE: Well, listen, I think most of it is the federal government’s responsibility. Now, those who have private insurance and other means will not necessarily be able to access government programs, which are meant for those who are most truly in need. But there’s infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt and other things that, regardless of your economic level, you need to have there for your state to be able to operate. I think this has always been predominantly a federal government responsibility. States will contribute to it, but a lot of these states like Florida and Texas now, their economies will be damaged by this storm and, as a result, their tax revenues will be lower at the local and the state level. And so all this moves us towards the need for a federal response. And there’s no doubt that this is one of the things the federal government is there for, to deal with the health, safety and welfare of the American people. And so I don’t think Congress will hesitate to be able to put the funds in place that are necessary to rebuild what’s been destroyed in Houston and in Florida. JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to ask you about the other crisis that you’re very much involved in now, and that’s, of course, the opioid crisis that has been gripping this country, chairing the president’s commission. You urged the president to declare a national emergency back in the middle of the summer. He eventually did that. It took a while for it to happen, but he did. But it’s now been over a month. I think a number of people are starting to ask, where are the results? What is going to happen as a result of declaring this emergency? Where is the action? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE: Well, Judy, I know from — I was just at the White House last week to discuss this with the president’s senior staff. I know they are focused on putting a number of the recommendations that the commission has made in their interim report into place. I’m anxious to see that happen, like everyone else, because I think what we’re going to hear pretty soon, Judy, is that, in 2016, we had over 60,000 Americans die of a drug overdose. This is much greater than the AIDS epidemic in terms of numbers. This is more than automobile accidents kill folks every year. This is an extraordinary crisis in our country’s history, and I’m anxious to have those interim report recommendations implemented. And I know the White House is working very hard now to make sure it’s done in a way that’s most efficient and most effective. I know the president and I know his heart on this. And I know that he’s ready to do what needs to be done to get this implemented the right way. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, my question is, what’s the holdup? The reporting is that there’s disagreement inside the Trump administration about how much resources, how many funds to put into this. What is the holdup? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE: Well, there always will be debate and discussion among the president’s staff, depending upon their point of view and what areas they’re responsible for. Here’s where there is no indecision the president of the United States has said very clearly that we’re going to spend substantial resources to deal with this problem. He has said it to me personally. He’s said it to other members of the commission. And most importantly, he’s said it publicly to the American people in August. And so I think what they’re doing now is twofold. One is to make sure, as I said before, it’s done efficiently and effectively, so that we do see some lessening of the human loss as quickly as we possibly can. And, secondly, to be fair, Judy, we have had two major national emergencies intervene since August with Hurricane Harvey and now Hurricane Irma. And so, you know, the administration is focused on making sure that’s dealt with, and they’re also on a parallel track working on making sure that we efficiently and effectively implement the recommendations in the interim report of the commission. I’m absolutely committed to that. I’m committed to urging the president to move as quickly as possible. And he’s told me that’s exactly what he’s instructed his staff to do. JUDY WOODRUFF: Two other quick things I want to ask you about, Governor. One is, we know you were, as you mentioned, at the White House last week. You were there meeting with the president the day after he cut — struck that deal with Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi over the debt limit, spending on Hurricane Harvey. You were there to talk about this project, this tunnel between New York and New Jersey, among other things. There were Democrats in that meeting. Is it your sense the president is going to be doing more deals like that with Democrats? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE: It is my sense, Judy, that what the president wants is to get things done for the American people. And I don’t think he, quite frankly, cares whether he gets those things done with Republican members of Congress, Democratic members of Congress, or both. But what I believe he wants to see happen is accomplishments on major issues on behalf of the American people. And whether that’s on infrastructure, as we were discussing with him on Thursday and the Gateway Tunnel project, whether that’s on tax reform, which we need to do to further grow this economy, or whether it’s on health care, the president will work hard with anyone of good will to get something done. He showed that with Hurricane Harvey by working with Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi and other Republicans to get that done. And, listen, I have always known Donald Trump — I have known him for 15 years — to be a person who cares most about results. And I think that’s what the actions of last week showed the American people. And my guess is, they’re encouraged by it. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Governor, you’re talking about the president. You know him well. You played a big role in his campaign. You were not asked to be part of the administration. I want to ask you about something Steve Bannon, who was the president’s former chief strategist, said in an interview over the weekend with Charlie Rose. Charlie asked him about the “Access Hollywood” tape involving its former anchor Billy Bush, when the president made some comments that were interpreted by many to be beyond inappropriate. You were critical of those. But here’s what Steve Bannon had to say. Here’s just a quick bit of that exchange. STEPHEN BANNON, Former Chief White House Strategist: Billy Bush, Saturday, to me, is a litmus test. It is a litmus test. When you side with him, you have to side with him. And that’s what Billy Bush weekend showed me. CHARLIE ROSE: You took names on Billy Bush Sunday, didn’t you? STEPHEN BANNON: I did. I got a — I got — I’m Irish. I got to get my black book, and I got them. Christie, because of Billy Bush weekend, wasn’t looked at for a Cabinet position. CHARLIE ROSE: He wasn’t there for you on Billy Bush weekend, so, therefore, he doesn’t get a Cabinet position? STEPHEN BANNON: I told him, the plane leaves at 11:00 in the morning. If you’re on the plane, you’re on the team. Didn’t make the plane. JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor, was it your — what you said, your unwillingness to stand up for the president after that “Access Hollywood” tape, do you think that’s what shut you out of the Trump adminis

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: On this day when the White House is unveiling the outline of a tax system overhaul, and negotiating down to the wire over a federal spending plan to fund the government through September, I sat down with Mick Mulvaney, the head of the Office of Management and Budget. I spoke with him at his office this afternoon, before there were reports of a deal on health care subsidies. Director Mick Mulvaney, thank you very much for talking with us. MICK MULVANEY, Director, Office of Management and Budget: Judy, thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: I do want to start by asking you about taxes. That’s the big announcement coming from the administration today. MICK MULVANEY: Sure. JUDY WOODRUFF: The proposal, among other things, calls for increases in the standard deductions, individuals and families. MICK MULVANEY: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Big cuts in corporate business taxes. What is the administration trying to accomplish with this proposal? MICK MULVANEY: Getting economic growth back where it’s supposed to be. I think what we have forgotten for the last decade is that America used to be a fast-growing economy. If you look over the course of our 200-plus years, we’re supposed to grow at about 3 percent, on average, and that’s where we have been since World War II, at the very least, even further back than that. But, for the last decade, we have been growing at less than 2 percent. That doesn’t sound like much, but if you think about it in terms of the power of compound interest, when you take an economy our size that only grows 2 percent a year for a decade, instead of 3 percent a year, the difference between those things are tremendous. Folks who are 30 years old have never had a job during a time when the economy was growing at 3 percent. And it’s entirely different. When I was a young person, if you got fired, you could find another job. If you wanted to quit, you could go start your own company. We haven’t had that for 10 years now. And we’re trying to get back to that. And that is what is driving not only everything we do at the White House, but specifically this tax plan. JUDY WOODRUFF: A number of the analysts who have looked at say, when you put together the proposed business tax cuts, some of the individual cuts, and when you look at the proposal to do away with some of the taxes that are now in the Affordable Care Act, in essence, it’s the top 1 percent of Americans, 1 percent of American, high-income level, who are going to benefit the most from this. How do you answer that? MICK MULVANEY: I’m not sure how could they could come to that conclusion. I would be curious to know what assumptions they’re making regarding the value of deductions. For example, we get rid of all the deductions on the personal side, except, I think, let’s see, charity and some of the home interest deduction. So, I’m not sure how you could make that conclusion, unless you’re making some wild assumptions about the nature of those deductions. JUDY WOODRUFF: Where do you see the benefits falling, what income? MICK MULVANEY: Middle class. Middle class and business, writ large, both large business and small business. In fact, it should be one of the largest reductions on small business, what we call S Corporations, in the history of S Corporations. So, we’re trying to drive the economic benefit here to the taxpayers in the middle, the folks who are in the middle class, who are paying the taxes, and the places where they work. JUDY WOODRUFF: We know the tax cuts for these so-called pass-through businesses, owner-owned businesses, are going to be among the beneficiaries. We know President Trump, it’s the kind of business he has. How much does he stand to benefit? And I ask people of because people are saying, we don’t know what his tax income situation is. He has said he’s not going to release that. How does the public know that he doesn’t stand to benefit significantly? MICK MULVANEY: Well, I actually don’t care about whether or not someone else benefits. I care about whether I benefit, I being just anybody. Right? As long as I’m better off, why should I care if somebody is as well? What I look at through is the lens of the business I used to run. I owned a restaurant. It was a fast, fresh Mexican restaurant. In fact, I rolled burritos the day that I announced I was running for Congress. And this would be a huge benefit to us, to the point where S Corporations right now pay tax at the pass-through rate, which is typically the highest individual rate of the owners of the business. You take that number to 15 percent, it allows me to keep a lot more money in my business. And what I would have done, had I still been in that line of work, is start preparing to open another restaurant. JUDY WOODRUFF: I also want to ask you about the revenue loss that comes from all these tax cuts. The administration at one point was talking about a border tax, some kind of adjustable tax at the border. That doesn’t appear to be part of the proposal right now. How do you address significant drop in revenue, at a time when the country is — has deficits that are historic? MICK MULVANEY: Sure. And we can talk about deficits more. And I want to. But let’s talk about — you asked a couple different things, which is the border tax. Keep in mind that this is the first round of discussions. It’s not a pre-cooked bill. It’s not prepackaged. This is sort of our principles, so just because it’s not in this first round of principles doesn’t mean it won’t be in a final version of the bill. The president is interested in trying to figure out a way to tax imports, especially from countries that tax our exports. Regarding the revenue loss, keep in mind that the corporate income tax only generates, I think, about only $300 billion a year. So, you can do a fairly good bit within the corporate tax, and not cost a lot of revenue. And, finally — and you have heard Secretary Mnuchin talk about this today — we’re hoping for really, really good growth from these numbers, from this tax reform. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, as you know, when big tax cuts instituted during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, that growth didn’t materialize. They ended up having to raise taxes again by the end of his administration. MICK MULVANEY: Actually, that’s not true. We did get really good growth from the Reagan years. You saw GDP grow at very high rates as we came out of the recession, something that didn’t happen at the end of the recession in 2007-2008. President Obama chose to deal with his recession by increasing regulations and getting government more involved in the economy. President Reagan decided to do the exact opposite. President Reagan got a tremendous result in terms of economic growth. President Obama gave us eight years without 3 percent growth. So, I do think history shows us, if we do the tax reform right, that we can put people back to work and grow the economy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to move on to the budget. MICK MULVANEY: Sure. JUDY WOODRUFF: You finish up the fiscal year later on. Right now, we don’t know if there’s an agreement on a spending — on a spending plan for the rest of this year. Where does that stand right now? MICK MULVANEY: That is a really, really good question, and I don’t know either, which bothers me a little bit, because I’m the budget director. But we had thought we had a deal on Monday. The Democrats had objected to our inclusion of the bricks-and-mortar portion of the border wall. They said that that was a poison pill. And to sort of drive home their point, they said, well, now we want these cost-sharing payments, cost — the CSR payments, cost-sharing reduction payments to the insurance industry as part of the Obamacare. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. MICK MULVANEY: And they said — they put that on after they found out our request for the wall. Well, we took the wall request away on Monday. And we’re still waiting for the Democrats to let us know where they stand. So, we thought we had a deal on Monday, almost 48 hours ago now, and we have no idea where the Democrats are. We don’t know if they’re doing internal polling that maybe says they’re going to benefit from a shutdown. We’re really — we’re not concerned yet, but I’m a little surprised that we haven’t buttoned this up. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is the administration, are you, the president, prepared to go ahead with a spending arrangement that doesn’t include these payments to — subsidy payments to insurance companies that help low-income Americans? MICK MULVANEY: Well, that’s the whole idea, is that the bipartisan bill that is being — that I think has been negotiated now for three months, two months, on the Hill never included those payments until about two weeks ago. So, we just assumed when we gave up on our immediate demands for the bricks-and-mortar wall that the Democrats would do the same thing. And for some reason, they’re not being straightforward yet about what they want to do on those payments. JUDY WOODRUFF: The White House, you mentioned the wall, the fact that the president initially said this was something he felt very strongly about. It had to be — there had to be money in there to pay for a bricks-and-mortar wall. What signal that does it send, though, that he — that was a centerpiece of his campaign. MICK MULVANEY: Yes. The day after we sign the bill that keeps the government open for the last five months of the fiscal year — our fiscal year ends the end of September — the discussions begin immediately for the larger budget for the full 2018 fiscal year. In fact, that’s the budget we happen to be working on today as well. We’re doing ’17 and ’18 at the same time. Those conversations will have actually already started in terms of what wall funding will be in 2018. So, I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s dropped anything. We simply said, look, this is the last five months of the fiscal year. There’s very little we can get built in five months anyway, so let’s focus instead

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: For more on these political battles we have been talking about and the challenges facing Democrats, I spoke this afternoon with Senator Bernie Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. And I started by asking whether he thinks an agreement will be reached to avert a government shutdown. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-Vt.: Well, I certainly hope there’s going to be an agreement, not a short-term, but a long-term agreement. I do not and will not support billions of dollars going to a border wall at the same time as the Trump administration wants to throw 24 million people off of health insurance, cut back on education, cut back on the needs of working people. That is not something that I will support. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, today at the White House, the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, announced with regard the trade that the White House, the president wants to slap in essence a tariff on Canadian lumber. You and the president often were at least in the same — or what appeared to be on the same page when it came the trade during the campaign. What do you think of this move today? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I don’t know enough about it to comment intelligently. But what I do know is that, when we have had trade policies for decades now that have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs, as profitable corporations shut down in America, they go to China and they go to Mexico. We have to fundamentally rethink our trade policy and make them work not for the CEOs of large corporations, but for working people. So, if Trump wants to develop a rational trade policy which demands that corporations start investing in this country, rather than China, that’s something that we can work on. But, right now, I just don’t know enough about the specifics of the lumber situation. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, is there a specific move you would like to see the president make on trade? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, as I have said, I want to see a trade policy which works for American workers. Right now, what we have seen for a very long time is large corporations shutting down plants in this country, plants that are often profitable, in order to get cheap labor all over the world. And that is one of the reasons why the middle class in this country is disappearing. We have lost our manufacturing base, and that’s an issue that has got to be dealt with. JUDY WOODRUFF: In that connection, Senator, you’re reintroducing legislation to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, I believe, by 2024. This is something that’s had a tough time getting through Congress in the past. You now have the Republican-controlled Senate, House, a Republican White House. Is this realistic? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Of course it’s realistic. It’s what the American people want. It is an outrage that we have a $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage. And when we talk about why the middle class is in decline, why people are working two or three jobs, working 50, 60 hours a week, it’s because wages in this country are much too low. So, we have got to raise the minimum wage over a period of years to the year 2024 to $15 an hour. When people — Judy, it is not a radical idea to say that, when you have massive income and wealth inequality, the very rich becoming much richer, it is not a radical idea that to say that, in America, if you work 40 hours a week, you shouldn’t be living in poverty. That’s what the American people want, and that’s what we are going to introduce. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, and I think this is in connection with that, you said in an interview two days ago, the Democratic Party — you said this as an independent, that the Democratic Party is failing, that it needs the change. Are you saying there should be a litmus test to be a Democrat? What does one have to believe to be a Democrat? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Judy, here is the reality. And I don’t think it’s just me saying it. Right now, you have the Republicans controlling the White House, right-wing extremist Republicans controlling the White House, the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, two-thirds of the governors chairs, and in the last eight years, Democrats have lost 900 legislative seats all over this country. That is a failed approach toward politics. So, in my view, the Democrats need to do several things. Number one, Democrats need to become a 50-state party. You can’t have a great party on the West Coast and the East Coast. You need to have a party in all 50 states. That’s not the case right now. And that’s why I have been running around the country to Republican states to galvanize people to get involved in the political process. Second of all, you need a Democratic Party which is a grassroots party, which makes decisions from the bottom on up, not just from the top on down. In my view, it is not a question of Trump having won the election, it’s a question of Democrats having lost the election. Democrats need a strong progressive agenda which says to the working class of this country, we are going the stand and fight for you, we’re going to raise the minimum wage, pay equity for women, we’re going to rebuild the infrastructure, and we’re going to guarantee health care to all people as a right. We’re going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. We understand that there is enormous pain in this country. We’re going to stand with working people. We’re going to take on the billionaire class. We’re going the take on the drug companies and the insurance companies. We’re going the take on Wall Street. That’s where I think the future of the Democratic Party lies. JUDY WOODRUFF: And my question is, does that mean that some Democrats are not acceptable? For example, the special congressional election in Georgia last week, you initially didn’t endorse the Democrat, Jon Ossoff. And you said he wasn’t a progressive. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Judy, don’t believe everything you read in the corporate media. Jon Ossoff never asked me for an endorsement, never asked me. Of course I want him to win the election, and of course I want the Democrats to gain control of the U.S. House. Just so happened he never asked me for an endorsement. JUDY WOODRUFF: And I guess the broader question is, does a Democrat have to toe a certain line? You have said Democrats have to do well in red states. So, for example, a Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, Joe Manchin in West Virginia, are these Democrats, you consider under the tent that you would like to see, under the umbrella of the Democratic … (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I think those decisions are going to be made by the people in North Dakota, where I think Heidi is quite popular. They will be made by the people in West Virginia. It is not my job to tell the people in 435 congressional districts or in 50 states who they should be supporting. What a grassroots party is about is people getting excited, getting involved in the local political process, saying, we want her to run for office, we want him to run for office, and we’re going to get involved and make sure that he or she wins. That’s what I think the future of the Democratic Party is, not a few people in Washington saying, sorry, no good, or that’s OK. JUDY WOODRUFF: So you’re saying it’s all right with you that the Democratic Party has elected members who, for example, disagree with you on trade, who may disagree with you on the corporate tax rate, on issues like abortion? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Right. Look, this is America. Between you and me, Judy, I would wish — I would love it if everybody in America agreed with me on every issue. I can’t get my wife to agree with me on every issue, let alone the American people. It’s called democracy. That’s what it’s about. So, I think — you know, I have supported candidates whose views are very different than mine on the need the break up Wall Street banks, on the war in Iraq, on trade issues. Of course I have supported those people. My hope is that we’re going to see — and I believe it is the case — we’re going to see more and more strong progressives running for office. That’s my hope. That’s my desire. But that is up to — that decision is going to be made by people in 50 states and 435 congressional districts. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Bernie Sanders, very good to talk with you. Thank you. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you, Judy. The post Bernie Sanders on making Democrats a 50-state party appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioEditor’s Note: Watch the full, first question asked of Ambassador Rice in this interview here. JUDY WOODRUFF: In this morning’s Washington Post, some tough words for President Trump and his administration led the opinion pages. We spoke earlier this evening with former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, the author of that piece. It was her first interview since leaving the White House. I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration. SUSAN RICE, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. And let’s back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we have heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen. That can only come from the Justice Department, with the approval of a FISA court. So, today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. SUSAN RICE: And I think it’s important for people to understand what incidental means. That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation, and that the Americans who were talking to those targets may have been picked up. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I wanted to ask you about this, because, as you also know, in the last few weeks, The New York Times has reported that, in the final days of the Obama administration, individuals went out of their way to spread information throughout the government about what they knew about intelligence that the Russians had interfered in the election last year, and that there may have been a connection with Trump campaign officials. So, that story has now been out there for several weeks. Could there be a connection here? SUSAN RICE: I’m not aware of any connection. I read The New York Times story. I must say, Judy, as one of the most senior White House officials and the most senior responsible for national security, I found that report a bit perplexing. I wasn’t aware of any orders given to disseminate that kind of information. (CROSSTALK) SUSAN RICE: So, I have no idea whether that was the case. But the fact is that the president did request back in December that the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had on what had transpired during the campaign with respect to the Russians involving themselves in the presidential campaign. And that report was provided to the American people in unclassified form and to Congress in classified form in early January. JUDY WOODRUFF: And was there a concern, though, inside the Obama administration, inside the White House that the new Trump administration might not follow up on that intelligence that had been gathered? SUSAN RICE: I don’t think that was the concern, because, to the extent that there was any need to follow up, it wouldn’t be done necessarily by the White House, but by the intelligence community, and by the Justice Department, if appropriate. I think our interest was, and the president’s direction was, let us make sure that we have compiled and put together in one place all the information that we have, so that it is there for the new administration, it’s there for the American people, and there for Congress to utilize as they see fit. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s — that brings us to the opinion piece that you wrote that appeared today in The Washington Post, Ambassador Rice, in which you — what you describe as a pattern of false statements from this president could jeopardize the national security of this country. That’s a serious charge. What did you mean by that? SUSAN RICE: Well, let me explain, Judy. I think the American people know that, over the last weeks of the administration, it’s now been almost — almost exactly two months — we have heard a number of striking and actually patently misleading statements from not only the president, but also from his principal spokespersons. And those statements are heard and digested by the rest of the world, whether they are our friends or our adversaries. The Wall Street Journal made a very similar point today on its editorial page. And the point is this: The United States of America is the leading power in the world. Our friends and our adversaries respect us in large measure because they know that we are steady. We are fact-based. We are serious. And when we have the White House of the United States putting out information that everybody can see to be inaccurate, if not deliberately false, it shakes the credibility and the confidence of our allies, and it lends doubt to our adversaries who may miscalculate. And it undermines the confidence of the American people in what comes out of the White House, which is very detrimental in the event we have a national crisis and we need to rally around the flag. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, how do you or how does anyone else know, though, that this is just not the rough beginning, rocky beginning of a new administration, and that other countries can see through mistakes, whatever you want to call them, statements, and they’re looking at the overall picture and U.S. national security is not really in jeopardy? SUSAN RICE: Well, Judy, I think if it were one or two such statements, and then the — they were corrected when the facts were plain, that would be one thing. But we have had statements ranging from the allegation that three million to five million illegal immigrants voted in our elections, which has been debunked on a bipartisan basis by members of Congress, to this allegation that we have already discussed, which was quite shocking, that the president’s predecessor, President Obama, had illegally wiretapped his office building during the campaign. And we have heard from bipartisan leaders of Congress, as well as from the director of the FBI, that there’s no information to support that allegation. And yet there’s been no correction, no apology. And I think the world is not impervious to what happens here in the United States. And, on the contrary, they watch it very, very carefully. And they wonder and worry, what does this mean? Can we trust the word of the White House? JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, in the meantime, different subject. Today, the Trump administration convened a meet hearing in Washington of the leaders from 68 countries to talk about the fight against ISIS, the path forward. And, among other things, officials of this administration are saying the reason ISIS is still the threat that it is to the world is in part because of the failed policies of the Obama administration. SUSAN RICE: Well, I think the facts don’t bear that out. The strategy that the Trump administration is pursuing, at the behest of the very same military leaders who advised the Obama administration, is virtually unchanged. The fundamentals of the strategy, which are to work with partners, in the case of Iraq, the Iraqi government, in the case of Syria, with the Syrian democratic forces, a mixture of Kurds and Arabs, to take back territory, remains the thrust of our strategies, as it should be. JUDY WOODRUFF: The last thing I want to ask you about is a decision that was announced or that appears to have been made by this administration to shift more authority over military operations to the Pentagon, in the context of criticism that under President Obama there was too micromanaging out of the White House about everything that happened that the military did. SUSAN RICE: Well, I think that criticism is a well-trodden line. I have heard it many times. And I think the fact is this. President Obama took very, very seriously his role as commander in chief. Now, you know, when things go wrong, as, unfortunately, tragically, they did in Yemen recently during the first military raid of this administration, or when we’re trying to figure out what just happened in Syria with respect to a bombing that caused a number of civilian casualties — some say it was a mosque — we say it wasn’t — it’s very important that the commander in chief own responsibility for decisions such as that and is willing to say to the men and women in uniform, that was my choice, and not blame it on others, whether the commanders or people below him. JUDY WOODRUFF: Former National Security Adviser to President Obama Susan Rice, thank you very much. SUSAN RICE: Good to be with you, Judy. The post Susan Rice: The world wonders and worries if the White House can be trusted appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: Now: Has faith in the power of reason fallen victim to modern politics? Ten years after its original publication, former Vice President Al Gore has updated his book “The Assault on Reason.” Its new subtitle is telling: “Our Information Ecosystem: From the Age of Print to the Age of Trump.” I sat down with him this afternoon, and started by asking about the sharp criticisms he made in the original version against then President George W. Bush. AL GORE, Former Vice President of the United States: My criticisms were not mainly aimed at any individuals, including President George W. Bush or Vice President Cheney, but rather the way in which our democratic conversation has been degraded over the last several decades. And I would say the same thing about President Trump. For me, the most serious problem is how our nation became so vulnerable to the assertion of blatant falsehoods that drive policy and are not corrected by the so-called immune system of democracy, a free press and a free democratic discourse. And I think we have a huge systemic problem that we have largely ignored. When our founders created America, it was in the age of the printing press, when individuals could freely join the conversation. And that robust, democratic dialogue more often than not lifted up the best available evidence and asserted what was more likely to be true than not. Now we have things that are obviously false, leading us to war, leading us to deny people health care, leading us to ignore the climate crisis. We have to restore the integrity of the democratic conversation. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, back when you first wrote the book, you were pretty optimistic, you wrote, that the Internet would be an open — an opportunity for the kind of discourse that you would like to see. AL GORE: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Has it turned out that way? AL GORE: Not as quickly as I had hoped, that’s for sure. I still do have hope, however. If you look at the way all of the new reform movements dedicated to the public interest are living and thriving on the Internet, I do think there is still some considerable hope that the full participation of individuals in that conversation of democracy can once again restore the integrity of the way our democracy works. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you write about that in the book, in the update, but you also say that you think it’s wrong to go after President Trump as the principal cause of the. But, as you well know, there are others out there who are saying he is, because — a principal cause, because of the language we have heard from him about how many people showed up at the inauguration, about how many electoral votes that he had. AL GORE: Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, why is he not part of your focus, a main part of your focus? AL GORE: Well, he is, and I don’t defend any of that. I just think that a much more important part of the problem we face, which was evident 10 years ago and is even more evident now, is that the way we share information among ourselves as American citizens has been radically transformed. We don’t have — the line between news and entertainment has almost dissolved, where ratings now have a big impact on what kinds of stories are covered and not stories. And when you talk about President Trump, the cable networks turned over so many hours of prime time to him. Why? Because he was entertaining, but also because it drove ratings. And that is different from what the news media is supposed to focus on. JUDY WOODRUFF: But how much responsibility does he bear for what’s going on? AL GORE: Well, I mean, I think that asserting that former President Obama wasn’t born in the United States was just the height of irresponsibility, of course. And he corrected that one. There are others that have yet to be corrected. JUDY WOODRUFF: You met with President Trump during the transition in New York, and you have written about — you have said you have been in touch with him since then. What’s your take on him? AL GORE: Well, what is the Latin phrase, sui generis? He’s one of a kind. (LAUGHTER) AL GORE: I think — like a lot of people, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what he represents in American politics. But, if nothing else, he represents a way for tens of millions of people who were desperate for change to just turn the table over and say, we want to start over again. But it is a challenge for our democracy. It definitely is. But, again, the remedy has to be devoting enough attention to restoring the way we make collective decisions in this country. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying that can be done with a — even with a president like Donald Trump, who is as outspoken as he is and who makes the controversial statements that he does? AL GORE: I hope so. We’re less than two months into this experiment, and people are already reaching conclusions. But, you know, George Orwell once wrote that a false belief sooner or later collides with physical reality, usually on a battlefield. That’s what happened with the invasion of Iraq, and we’re still bogged down there. That is what would happen if the Congress passed this pending health care bill that would knock so many millions of people out of coverage and raise the expenses of so many others. That’s a physical reality that can’t be finessed with words and falsehoods. JUDY WOODRUFF: What is your take on the man the president chose to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who, by the way, just last week said he doesn’t agree that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change? (LAUGHTER) AL GORE: I know. And that’s a perfect example of the problem that I’m describing in “The Assault on Reason.” Again, at some point, a false belief collides with physical reality. We are seeing every night on the television news now a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. These climate-related extreme weather events have convinced the vast majority of people that the scientists have been right for a long time. We have to address this. But putting someone in the EPA who denies even the most basic scientific truth about this, you know, it’s — the old cliches are, you can say the Earth is flat, but it doesn’t mean you’re going to fall off the edge. JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re saying the news media can do its job and not be accused on a regular basis of being fake news, as this president does? AL GORE: Yes, fake news has been around as long as news has been around. But, again, the issue is, how vulnerable are we to it? How can the immune system of democracy, which is not only the news media, but also the free speech we all enjoy and the way we make decisions collectively, how can that better protect us against blatant untruths that are repeated over and over again? JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you continuing to have conversations with President Trump? AL GORE: Well, I’m not talking about any dialogue with him, direct or indirect. I hope that our country remains in the Paris agreement. But we face a climate crisis now that is the most serious challenge our civilization has ever confronted. And the greatest country in the world has to remain a part of this unprecedented global agreement to deal with it. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re telling him that? AL GORE: Well, again, I’m not commenting on my communications, because I want to have more. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, we will leave it there, former Vice President Al Gore. The book is “The Assault on Reason,” out with a 10-years-later update. AL GORE: I thank you, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you very much. The post Al Gore: We need to restore American democracy’s immunity to blatant falsehoods appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: Now to my interview with the speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan. We sat down at the Capitol. And I began by asking about his relationship with President Trump, after some tension during the campaign. REP. PAUL RYAN, R-Wis., Speaker of the House: We’re doing fine. We’re getting along very well, speak fairly frequently. Mike is coming up for lunch today. So, we have spent a lot of time together coordinating our strategy. JUDY WOODRUFF: The vice president. REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, the vice president. So, we get along very well. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you speak often, but do they consult you not just on the routine things like the legislative calendar, but, for example, did you know ahead of time about the immigration ban? REP. PAUL RYAN: On that one, I didn’t. But we have decided, on a go-forward basis, that we are going to have more consulting and make sure that no one’s caught by surprise on things. We have basically mapped out what 2017 looks like from a legislative perspective. JUDY WOODRUFF: Already? REP. PAUL RYAN: Absolutely. That’s what you do when you’re running a legislature. You plan your year. And so Senator McConnell and I walked the president through basically what we see 2017 looking like. And there is a lot of deadline-driven events, statutory deadlines that you have to meet. And then there are plenty of other priorities that we’re working on. And so just that planning process gets you talking about the big issues, the big picture and all the things we’re trying to get done and when we’re trying to get them done. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to stay with the immigration ban for just a moment, because former CIA Director Michael Hayden, whom you know… REP. PAUL RYAN: I know Mike well, yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: … joined a legal brief with a number of other national security experts in saying that they not only don’t think this is going to make the United States safer, they don’t see a threat from these seven countries, but they think it could make the country less safe, because it is going to be easier to attract people who want to work with terrorist groups against the U.S., to say the U.S. is anti-Muslim. (CROSSTALK) REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes. I think the rhetoric is damaging, no two ways about it. Let’s back up for a second. After the Paris shooting, we brought the Department of Homeland Security and FBI up to Capitol Hill to say, what is happening? Could this happen here? Because, if you remember, at the Paris shooting, there was an infiltration of ISIS among the Syrian refugee population into Europe. JUDY WOODRUFF: But it turned out there were not refugees involved. REP. PAUL RYAN: But that was the issue at the time. And so what Homeland Security and the FBI told us was, they can’t vet these people. There — there isn’t a Siri to talk to, to vet these people. And so what we discovered was, there was a hole in the vetting process to guard against people trying to infiltrate the refugee population. And so that is why we passed legislation then about a year ago. The bill passed the House, but it got filibustered in the Senate. So it never actually went into law. So, we have been long on record on a bipartisan basis that we need to get these vetting standards right and we need to take a pause in these programs to make sure that we have the vetting standards right. The reason these seven countries, which were identified by the Obama administration, are listed is because we have a hard time corroborating the veracity of people’s claims coming from those countries. Those countries in particular, we have a hard time discerning who exactly these people are that are coming into the country. That is why it’s totally reasonable and rational to have a pause in this program, so that we can update and upgrade our vetting standards, so that we can be better secured to make sure that we don’t have somebody trying to infiltrate the network. JUDY WOODRUFF: But there haven’t been terrorist incidents perpetrated by people from these countries. I mean, that’s … REP. PAUL RYAN: From these countries or from — through the refugee population? From these countries, absolutely, from the refugee population. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. REP. PAUL RYAN: But the point is we know that ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee populations. That is intelligence that has already been unclassified. So, the question is, are we doing everything we need to guard against that? The point — I think you made a good point, though, which is, this isn’t a Muslim ban. If it were, I would be opposed to it. But the rhetoric surrounding it makes it look like it’s a ban on a religion or a religious test. And I think that rhetoric is inflammatory and doesn’t help us. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that raises the question, because the president himself and others around him have talked about — they have talked about their preference for a Muslim ban. REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, and I disagree with that. I disagree with that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you confident that there will not… REP. PAUL RYAN: I disagree with it now and I disagreed with it then. But that’s not what this is. JUDY WOODRUFF: I understand that. But my question is, are you confident this administration is not going in the direction ever of a Muslim ban? REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, because we will — we will — I and many others around here would oppose that. JUDY WOODRUFF: A little bit more about your relationship with the White House. We know that you are good friends with fellow Wisconsinite Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. REP. PAUL RYAN: He’s my constituent. JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s right. My question is, how is your relationship with Steve Bannon, who, when he was at Breitbart News, took a special interest in you, called you the enemy after you became speaker? REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, I don’t really know him. I have gotten to know him two or three times. We have had a few meetings. We have gotten along fine. He’s not someone I have a history with. Obviously, I didn’t know him when he was opposing me all those times. We’re different kinds of conservatives. That’s something I can safely say, I think. But we’re serving a purpose, which is to get this agenda passed. And on this agenda that we have rolled out, that we ran on, on that, we agree. So I see a person in which I have a common cause and purpose with. We’re different kinds of conservatives. We really don’t know each other, but we’re all trying to get this agenda enacted. And that’s why I don’t see a problem here. JUDY WOODRUFF: Russia. You have said on a number of occasions you want to see the sanctions against Russia continued. President Trump, though, has made some not just conciliatory, but even complimentary comments in the last few days about President Putin. Were you shocked by that? REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, I just don’t see it that way. I just see it differently. I think, first of all, I don’t subscribe to relativism, whether it’s in political philosophy, foreign policy or in life. So, I don’t think there is a moral equivalency here at all. So, I just disagree with any kind of notion of a moral equivalency. There’s a gaping difference between the United States of America and Putin’s Russia. That’s point number one. Point number two, I think what the president is trying to do is not unlike what the past two presidents did with Russia. I just don’t think it’s going to work. Remember when George W. Bush said I could see through his soul or something like that? JUDY WOODRUFF: Trying to get close to Russia. REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, he was trying to get close to Russia and trying to get close to Putin. George Bush did that. I don’t think it worked. Remember Hillary Clinton with the reset button on behalf of Barack Obama, trying to get close to Russia, trying to smooth things out with Russia? New administrations do this. Now, it’s logical as to why they want to do this. There are instances in which our interests align with Russia and there are those where they don’t. And so the question is, can we help steer Russia to being something that doesn’t conflict with our interests and something that — and a country that aligns with our interests? I don’t personally — I’m not going to hold my breath on that. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, if this president were to relax sanctions against Russia… REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, I don’t support that. JUDY WOODRUFF: … would you support legislation to prevent it? REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, no, I think the advantages were overdue. I think President Obama should have done them a year ago. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you would support legislation to keep them strong? REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, I do support — yes, I have long supported sanctions on Russia. JUDY WOODRUFF: Turning domestic, to a subject that I think is close to your heart, tax reform. It has been your top legislative agenda. REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, you see the smile? I just — I love the issue of tax reform. We haven’t done it since 1986. So, we think it’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, here we are, however many years that is later, 31 years. REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes, I got my driver’s license the last year we did tax reform. JUDY WOODRUFF: Will the individual and the corporate tax cuts that you’re interested in the House passing be permanent? And will these cuts be revenue-neutral or will they require offsets? REP. PAUL RYAN: Yes and yes. Well, to be revenue-neutral, they will require offsets. So, we’re planning revenue-neutral tax reform, which means you have to take away loopholes and special interest deductions if you’re going to lower tax rates. That’s clearly what we’re working on doing. That’s what the House blueprint that we ran on does do. It does affect both what we call the individual side of the tax code and the business side of the tax code. And we propose it on a revenue-neutral basis. And we also propose permanent tax reform. When we did the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in the Bush administration, those were only individual tax cuts, which you can actually mak

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we turn now to my interview at the White House today with Vice President Mike Pence. It’s his first since assuming the office. I began by asking the former Indiana governor how he thinks the first few days have gone, a time some have described as turbulent. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I think we’re off to a great start. The American people are seeing in President Trump a leader who is keeping his word to the American people. We like to say we’re in the promise keeping business. And literally from the first day of this administration we’ve been working to put into effect the policies that the president campaigned on, and that we really do believe will strengthen America at home and abroad. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, big announcement last night. The president announced his choice to fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. I think virtually everybody agrees he is imminently qualified to be on the court. Democrats are pointing out, so is Merrick Garland, imminently qualified. But Republicans didn’t give the hearing for nine months. Why is this different? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, first let me agree with you strongly that Judge Neil Gorsuch is exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. He actually was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate for the 10th Circuit a decade ago. And has an academic career that spans from Columbia to Harvard to Oxford. And yet he’s a man of the West, a fourth-generation Coloradan. And I think he brings practical, real-word experience, but an extraordinary intellect to succeed, not replace, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. And I know the president’s grateful that Judge Gorsuch is willing to step forward. And I think it’s one more example of President Trump keeping his word to the American people to appoint to the court someone who will be faithful to the Constitution and apply the law as written. JUDY WOODRUFF: But if Republicans weren’t willing to hold a hearing for nine months for President Obama’s pick for that vacancy, why should Democrats do the same thing? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, we understand there’s some angst. And I talked to Republican and Democrat members of the Senate about last year. But it was a vacancy in an election year. And I think it’s important to remember that the court itself, the federal government itself belongs to the American people. The decision that the majority made is essentially to put the direction of the court and the appointment of this justice in the hands of the American people. And they did that. And in President Trump they elected someone who’s committed to appoint someone in the tradition of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. He did that last night. And I think the very broad and bipartisan support that you’re witnessing for Judge Gorsuch is a reflection both of his character, of his career, but also a gratitude that President Trump has followed through and did exactly what he said he would do one more time. JUDY WOODRUFF: So Democrats say they are going to look at his record, they have a lot of questions. They want to see if he’s in the mainstream. If they decide to slow this down, this process down, should the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, go ahead and change the rules? So that instead of 60, which it is now, votes required, it would only take 50, the so-called “nuclear option”? We know the president said this morning “Go ahead and go nuclear” he said to Sen. McConnell. Do you think that’s what he’ll do? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: President Trump and I, and our whole administration are extraordinarily enthusiastic about the opportunity to see Judge Gorsuch confirmed by the Senate. It’s one of the reasons why I accompanied him to Capitol Hill today to get those conversations started. But let me also say we’re very heartened by the response now of seven Democrat members of the Senate who said that they believe the judge deserves an up or down vote. And I do believe that as Judge Gorsuch travels across Capitol Hill in the weeks ahead, sitting down with Republicans and Democrats, they’re going to see what the president saw. Someone who is a first-class intellect, a fourth-generation Coloradan, and someone who in a fair and impartial way is going to uphold the Constitution and apply the law as written. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you know … VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: We believe that he’ll get that same level of consideration that the nominees in the first term for President Clinton received, the nominees for President Obama received in their first term. JUDY WOODRUFF: So you don’t think the Senate Majority Leader McConnell will have to resort to the so-called nuclear option? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I’m hopeful that he doesn’t. I’m hopeful that he doesn’t. The president and our entire team are committed to supporting Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. But I do believe that when you look at those first term nominations of President Clinton … JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: … and of President Obama, none of those were filibustered. All four received broad bipartisan support. And all were considered and resolved in the Senate in a matter of 60 to 70 days. I do believe that once members of the Senate in both parties have a chance to sit down with Judge Gorsuch we’re going to see the same bipartisan support. JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to turn now to the immigration executive order that was issued over the weekend. We looked this up and since 2001, 9/11, 82 percent of the fatal attacks by Islamic extremists in this country were committed by either legal permanent residents or citizens. The rest were committed by people who were not from these seven countries that this ban applies to. So is this the right answer? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I believe it is. President Trump has no higher priority than the safety and security of the American people. And he made it clear in this election, particularly in the wake of the terrorist attack in Paris where individuals had used a refugee program to gain access to that country. The president made it clear that we were going to pause. We were going to implement extreme vetting. And focusing on countries that the Obama administration and the Congress have identified as being problematic, being in many ways compromised by terrorism. Having a pause that ensures the people that are coming into the country don’t represent a threat to our people or to our communities is of paramount importance. JUDY WOODRUFF: Even though they’re not a country from which those who perpetrated terrible acts come? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, the reality is, is there’s a — as you’ve seen American forces on the move overseas just in the last week, and the loss of life of a courageous Navy Seal. … JUDY WOODRUFF: In Yemen. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: We are in a struggle against radical Islamic terrorism, al-Qaida and ISIS. The president, in his campaign for office, made it clear that he would make a priority of confronting radical Islamic terrorism abroad. But also adding new measures to ensure that individuals would not be coming into this country with the motivation to harm our people. And we really do believe that this temporary pause with regard to the countries other than Syria, temporary pause where we evaluate our screening process and ensure that people coming into the country don’t represent a threat is appropriate. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to pick up on what you said because a number of even Republican senators, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ben Sasse, former CIA Director Michael Hayden have said their concern is that by doing what the administration has done it’s going to not make this country safer, but it’s going to encourage those overseas who are trying to recruit new people into the jihadist movement..are going to use this as an excuse and say, see, we told you the U.S. doesn’t like anybody who is Muslim. In other words, they’re saying it’s going to have the opposite of the intended effect. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I’m aware of those comments. But I respectfully disagree with them. I truly do believe that President Trump making decisions to pause our various immigration programs and refugee programs for a period of time so that we can ensure that there are new safeguards in place, just as Secretary Kelly described this week, is in keeping with the expectation of the American people. And I have to tell you, having been a governor and now having the privilege to serve as vice president, it heartens me to know the passion that President Trump has for ensuring our system of immigration, the way people come into this country is operated in a way that puts safety and security and the well-being of every American, regardless of their race or creed, first and foremost. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you not only have, as I said, bipartisan senators making some of these comments but a thousands people who work at the State Department have signed a letter saying they think this is going to lead to the country being less safe. We heard the press secretary at the White House, Sean Spicer, say if they don’t — if they’re not on board, don’t stay in your job. Is that how you view this? Their dissent? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, obviously there’s a history of — and a tradition even within the State Department for dissenting opinions. And I can tell you, working with President Trump closely and seeing the way he operates as a leader, he’s always interested in a broad range of opinions. But make no mistake about it. We want in this administration people that share the president’s vision for a safer America. For a stronger America. For a more prosperous America. JUDY WOODRUFF: So they should leave? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: And I believe, as Secretary Kelly laid out in that press conference this week, that people are getting a better sense of the direction, the focus of this executive order. We’re making sure that all du

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: Now, for more on the executive order on refugees and visa holders and changes the president to the makeup of the National Security Council, we turn first to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She served as the United States’ top diplomat during the Clinton administration. When we spoke a short time ago, I began by asking her reaction to the Trump White House ban on immigrants from seven countries. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Former U.S. Secretary of State: Judy, I’m appalled, because it’s done everything except keep America safer. And let me just say, I kind of have looked at things thinking that they made this executive action without really understanding what it’s all about. So, it was unprepared, I would say, because they didn’t really see how the government works. They didn’t really contact the various departments that are part of this homeland security, trying to figure out what would happen once you do something like this from the Oval Office. So, unprepared. And then I think, also, part of the problem was, they didn’t understand what I say the unintended consequences of this, because the truth is that the countries that have been designated are now reacting, creating more problems for us, and then banning people — our people from going there. For instance, in Iraq, how do we protect our troops? What about the people that are interpreting? And then I think all of it is based on untrue facts. And so I think it is a very serious problem in terms of how the whole system works. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me take a couple of those, one at a time. What they’re saying is if — they’re saying, if they had let the rest of the government know what they were doing, that it would have leaked, and they said there would have been a flood of people trying to get in. And they also say that they’re basically only following what the Obama administration had done a few years ago in listing countries that were the most for the United States to fear in terms of terrorism. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, the latter is true. What was happened was, there was an incident where something was coming out of Iraq. They were concerned about what the facts really were. They wanted to re-vet some people. They didn’t have enough manpower to do that, so things slowed down. So there is nothing like that that happened in the Obama administration. I think the excuse about not letting others know, first of all, they need to understand that the government, in fact, when people trust each other, doesn’t leak out when it’s an important issue. But how can you not let the departments that have something to do with executing the order not know? Because I think that they were genuinely surprised by, you know, how slow it was, what happened when they detained people, what happened then when there were demonstrations against it. So I’m willing to say they were surprised at the reaction to it, but that’s a sign of the fact they didn’t understand what they were doing. JUDY WOODRUFF: The other argument they make, Secretary Albright, is this will all settle out, it’s just the hurly-burly of the first few days, that it’s only 109 people, they said, out of over 300,000 travelers over the weekend, and that we’re all making too much of this. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: No, we’re not, because what it’s shown is that the United States is not prepared to deal with something that the president has decided he wants to do, so it puts real question as to how the system works. It also has undermined other countries’ trust in what we do, trying to figure out who in the department is responsible for what. And then I actually think it’s a gift to those that hate us, because now what has happened is ISIS is really kind of saying, yes, right, this is what America is like, you can’t trust us. And so I think they basically were completely unprepared for what they kind of unwrapped, without really considering the unintended consequences, and I don’t think it makes us any safer. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the other moves the Trump administration made over the weekend was to announce a reorganization of the National Security Council, which, in effect, appears to downgrade the role of the director of national intelligence, and also the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They had also downgraded the role of the CIA director, but they now in the last — today have restored that. How do you read that move on the part of President Trump? MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I teach about decision-making, so I have been thinking about this. And I think it also wasn’t thought out, and partially because — we have heard a lot of stories about how the transition really wasn’t done very well. I have been transitioned into and I have done the transitioning. It’s a fascinating process of turning over the crown jewels when it’s done properly. That didn’t happen. And so I think they didn’t understand how the system works, and, in fact, downgrading the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Maybe they think they already have too many generals, but the bottom line is that it’s important for that person to be in the meetings no matter what. And what they have done is say only when it’s really necessary, decided by the national security adviser, and the same for the director of national intelligence. It’s important to know the intelligence and the response of the military. JUDY WOODRUFF: The other change they made was to add Steve Bannon, who is a senior adviser to the president, to the — the campaign adviser — add him to the National Security Council attendees, principals — I guess you call it principals list. Their argument is, well, the Obama administration had people like David Axelrod and others who sat in on national security meeting. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: That — you know, frankly, that is the most outrageous thing that they have done, is to add somebody with an extreme ideology to those that are supposed to be making decisions based on U.S. national interests, not on ideology. And it’s one thing to have one of the advisers come in on occasion when the issue is some combination of domestic and foreign policy, but not to have somebody with the views of Bannon that we now hear to be there all the time. And the troublesome part about all this is, what is the circle around the president? Who does he listen to? And the examples that we have had, whether it’s now with the immigration executive action or just generally, is the decision-making process. We’re not a new country. We have had a decision-making process. And they have, in fact, developed something different. And, Judy, I thought the following. Disruption is not a bad thing for bureaucracy. Destruction, however, is very dangerous. And so what we have seen in the last week, I think, is dangerous. JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly, last question. Impression of Rex Tillerson, who is the president’s designee to be the next secretary of state? MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I have met him. I think he’s a very fine person. He’s been a very good CEO of Exxon. The question is how he’s going to operate within this particular setup, how he’s going to work with the State Department, where a top group of people have left who are some of the operational people, and then how is he going to define what the roles of the State Department is? JUDY WOODRUFF: Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, thank you very much for talking with us. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Great to be with you. Thank you. The post Refugee ban ‘a gift to those that hate us,’ says Madeleine Albright appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioWATCH MORE: The Obama Years JUDY WOODRUFF: This morning, I sat down with outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry at the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was one of many Obama administration officials participating in an event called Passing the Baton, focused on a smooth transition between administrations. I began by asking him just how smoothly the transition to the Trump team is going. JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State: Well, it’s going pretty smoothly because there’s not an enormous amount of it. There are some people that have been in the building for a period of time. But, you know, quite candidly, I think there has not been a lot of high-level exchange at this point in time. I’m still expecting to meet with my successor at some point in the near term. JUDY WOODRUFF: You haven’t met with him yet? JOHN KERRY: No, I haven’t met with him yet. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you expect to? JOHN KERRY: I do. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are the one or two things that you wish you had known in the very beginning that you only learned later and maybe painfully? JOHN KERRY: What troubles me a little bit is that people are not separating a remarkable transformation that is taking place globally naturally from things that we’re really responsible for. Let me give you an example, Arab Spring. We didn’t start the Arab Spring. We couldn’t have stopped the Arab Spring, particularly with respect to Syria. And I think there are some things that might have been able to have been done. But that had nothing to do with the red line. And let’s make that absolutely clear, folks. President Obama never retreated from his red line. He never changed his mind about his readiness to bomb Assad to make it clear, you don’t use chemical weapons, never. There’s a mythology that’s grown up around this. One of the greatest challenges we all face right now, not just America, but every country in the world, is, we are living in a factless political environment. And every country in the world better stop and start worrying about authoritarian populism and the absence of substance in our dialogue, if you call it that. JUDY WOODRUFF: What can the U.S. do about that? JOHN KERRY: Well, we’re going to have to fight for it. I think a lot of people are struggling with the, what do you do about it? If policy is going to be made in 140 characters on Twitter, and every reasonable measurement of accountability is being bypassed, and people don’t care about it, we have a problem. And it’s not just our problem here in the United States. It’s all over the world. JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Kerry also called for a new Marshall Plan to help countries in critical regions around the world educate their exploding youth populations and prevent them from being radicalized. The post Kerry: ‘We have a problem’ if people don’t care about accountability or policy being made on Twitter appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioWATCH MORE: The Obama Years JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to my interview with Secretary of State John Kerry. I sat down with him earlier today at the State Department, before the public release of that intelligence report on Russia. But I began by asking, now that we have confirmation Russia interfered in the election, does that fundamentally change Washington’s relationship with Moscow? Secretary of State John Kerry, thank you very much for talking with us. JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State: My pleasure. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, now that it has been confirmed that the Russians interfered aggressively in the U.S. election, does this represent a fundamental change in the United States’ relationship with Russia? JOHN KERRY: Well, that remains to be determined. It certainly represents a major challenge in that relationship. It’s a hostile act. It has serious consequences, and we’re going to have to work that through. And I say we. I mean the United States, the next administration is going to have to approach Russia very clearly understanding what has happened. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think more needs to be done to retaliate as of now? JOHN KERRY: Well, I think that President Obama made it clear that we would retaliate at a time of our choosing and ways of our choosing. And that means some of them, the public will know about, some of them, they will not know about. Obviously, with two weeks left, I think that the administration coming in is going to have to make some judgments of its own about what the next steps will be. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, it’s reported the Russians were celebrating the election of Donald Trump. Why would they be celebrating? What do you think? JOHN KERRY: I’m not going to speculate. I really think it’s too important. And I just am not going to speculate. I think there has been a lot of news articles. You all have been covering this for some period of time. People are going to draw their own judgments, but I’m not going to add to that speculation. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you think Vladimir Putin wants? You have been dealing with him for a long time. What do you think he’s after? JOHN KERRY: Well, he’s after a lot of things. There are a lot of motivations. He obviously has agreed with us on some things and disagreed with us on others. And we managed to find common ground and work together effectively on the Iran nuclear agreement, where Russia assumed major responsibilities to try to get the agreement done and to make it work. So I can give you a long list of things where Russia and President Putin have found common ground and worked with the United States. But, on Ukraine, on the implementation of the Minsk agreement, on Syria, we have obviously not been able to find the same kind of common ground, despite good efforts. And those are problems that are going to continue into the next administration. My hope is the next administration will approach Russia strategically, with a clear purpose of trying to find more common ground, but without giving up on fundamental values and principles that are at the core of the United States’ foreign policy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, are you concerned that that could happen? You have talked with your successor, the designate, Rex Tillerson. Does he have the same view of Russian intentions that you do? JOHN KERRY: Well, he and I are going to sit down, actually, I think next week, and have an opportunity to really debrief and to go into these subjects. So, I can’t comment on what his approach is going to be or what he’s thinking at this moment about that. I can tell you that I think there is an opportunity here, still, for President-elect Trump and then President Trump to try to reach out to Russia and see whether or not they can put to test the proposition that we could find things in which we can agree and perhaps on some things on which we’re going to agree to disagree, but, nevertheless, put the world in a better place. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, at this moment, you’re not worried that the incoming administration could be naive? JOHN KERRY: Well, I have questions, like everybody has questions, Judy. But I’m not — as secretary of state, it’s inappropriate for me to start speculating publicly or get caught up in the day-to-day back-and-forth. I don’t want to do that. I think it’s inappropriate. I think there are clear strategic possibilities that, if the new administration pursues correctly, could open up avenues of cooperation and reduce tensions and perhaps put to test whether or not there could be, you know, a more improved day-to-day relationship between us. JUDY WOODRUFF: Syria. I happened to sit down yesterday with Vice President Biden. I asked him whether that represented a failure for the United States. He said no. My question to you is, if it’s not a failure, doesn’t it at least, beyond being a humanitarian disaster, represent an enormous missed opportunity for the United States to shape events in that part of the world? JOHN KERRY: Well, we did shape events to a certain degree. It is certainly going to be debated whether or not they were shaped enough or whether certain options that might have shaped them differently were taken or not taken. But I agree with the vice president that the fact that we were not able, which is a disappointment, clearly, to push the parties into a place where they made a different set of choices, that’s disappointing. But I don’t think it represents, you know, some sort of failure on our part. You can try and try and push people. The old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. And here, we led people to water, the water of peace proposition, the water of Geneva of a process. We laid out through our leadership the International Syria Support Group. We brought Iran to the table. We brought Russia to the table. We had assurances that Assad would do certain things. He didn’t. He chose not to. So, the Russians failed, actually, to deliver Assad in a way that they said he would. The Iranians failed to deliver the process that they said they would, because they continued to prop him up in ways that went way beyond the agreement that had been reached in the Geneva agreement to try to come to a political resolution. So, look, did the whole process fail? Did the international community fail to solve it? Yes, profoundly. But was that a specific failure of the United States? History will debate whether some choices might have been made or not made that might have altered that, but I don’t think it falls exclusively on us that this problem hasn’t been solved. JUDY WOODRUFF: Are U.S. interests advanced with the way things stand today in Syria? JOHN KERRY: With the way they stand today? No, nobody’s interests are served by what’s happening in Syria today. It’s a catastrophe. It’s the worst human catastrophe since World War II. And, as I said just now, it represents a failure of the entire international community to come to grips with solving it. And it’s a tragedy for the people who have been caught in the middle. But I am proud of what our administration has done, of what we did day to day to try to get a cease-fire in place. I am proud that we are the largest donor of humanitarian assistance for refugees. I am proud of what we did with the ISSG. And I regret that we were not able to be successful in getting the parties to Geneva. But I deeply believe that we are on the cusp of seeing that happen over the course of the next months, and that it will be the framework that we put in place that is ultimately going to be the structure around which peace in Syria is built. JUDY WOODRUFF: Several other countries I want to mention very quickly. Israel. You got a great deal of attention with the speech you gave about Israel’s policy, talking about the settlements. Right after that, they announced — Israel announced they’re expanding the settlements. We know the attitude about Israel of the incoming president-elect, Mr. Netanyahu. So, my question is, were you as secretary of state shouting into the wind? JOHN KERRY: No, I don’t believe so. I don’t believe so at all. Every administration through our history has said that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and they do not have legal validity. We didn’t break new ground with that, except that we reiterated and reaffirmed that we are not going to sit by idly and watch a sort of extreme element within the current government move in a direction that we believe is dangerous for Israel, reduces the possibility of peace, prolongs the potential of conflict, and is completely contrary to American values and interests, which have been expressed by Republican and Democrat administrations alike throughout history. JUDY WOODRUFF: Final question. You’re seen as the most shoulder-to-the-wheel secretary of state we have had in a long time. You have been to every — virtually every global — or you have been dealing with virtually every global trouble spot around the world. You have given this job long hours. You have traveled nonstop. What are you the most proud of? What is your greatest disappointment as you walk away? JOHN KERRY: Well, you know, I’m going to duck you slightly here, in the sense that I honestly don’t dwell on the disappointments. There are some. And we have talked about a few of the things that are undone. But I am very proud of the department. I think we are more engaged in more places in the world, simultaneously dealing with more crises, and with greater effect in those more places in the world, than at any time in American history. I think the world is safer without Iran with a nuclear weapon. The world has got the potential to be safer if we fully implement the Paris agreement. So, yes, I think, all in all, the Obama administration and what President Obama has focused on has lived up to our need to protect American interests, to live our values and assert our values, and to stand up for future generations. JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary of State John Ker

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioWATCH MORE: The Obama Years JUDY WOODRUFF: Mr. Vice President, thank you for talking with us. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I’m delighted to be here with you, Judy. I really am. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me start with health care, the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans say they plan to repeal it this month and then figuring Democrats are going to help them come up with a replacement later. What do you think’s going to happen? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I don’t know what’s going to happen. I think, as I said last night, it was reported in the press speaking to Democratic members newly elected members of the House that I think they’re going to inherit the wind here. You know, all the things that they said they dislike about the Affordable Care Act, they are all able to be adjusted. And we knew when we passed the act that we’d have to constantly see how it worked and improve it. For example, making sure that their significant more — more subsidies for young people to be able to get into the Affordable Care Act, bringing down overall cost. But at any rate, I think they’re going to find when they repeal it, all of a sudden you’re going to be reporting on your program at night on PBS about so and so died because they got their insurance cut off, would no longer cover them. They — you’re going to find out that women are paying more than men again for the same insurance. You’re going to find out that pre-existing conditions are — are able to disqualify you or make the cost of insurance prohibited. And so they’re going to have a — that’s why they’re having a problem now. They have no replacement. JUDY WOODRUFF: So do you think Democrats should work with them to — VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well I think Democrats should say, look, let’s take a look at what you have right now. What don’t you like about it? Let’s see if we can fix it. Let’s — talk to us. Tell us what your ideas are. But, this wholesale, look, the fundamental disagreement most Republicans have is they don’t think health care is a right. They think it is a privilege, not a right. We believe health care is a basic right. If education — you’re entitled to an education, why wouldn’t you be entitled to adequate health care? Period. JUDY WOODRUFF: But based on conversations of the President, we know the President has spoken with President-elect Trump — VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: — about this. Based on that, what parts of it do you think may actually survive? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: None of the good parts can survive with out the funding pieces of it. And the part they say they don’t like is the funding. There’s a reason why. There’s a reason why it’s constructed the way it is. You can’t go to insurance companies and say, you know what, we’re not going to change anything having to do with the pool from which you — you draw your people. We’re not going to do anything. But guess what, you can no longer allow for pre-existing conditions to disqualify somebody. And they go, oh. OK. How do I pay for that? So, you know, they talk — it’s obvious they don’t know much about it. But Mr. Trump’s a good man, but he doesn’t know much about the health care system. JUDY WOODRUFF: But they’re very serious about undoing it — VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Oh, they’re very serious about undoing it. So, like I said, lots of luck in your senior year. Undo it. See what happens. JUDY WOODRUFF: More broadly Mr. Vice-President, the Republicans are talking about dismantling much of the legacy of the Obama-Biden Administration, legislation, regulation. What are you most worried that they will do? JUDY WOODRUFF: More broadly, the Republicans are saying they want to dismantle much of the entire Obama-Biden legacy, legislation, regulations. What are you most worried they may do? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I think they’re kidding themselves if they think they can do away with legislation relating to the progressive values we’ve built into law. The public has moved beyond politicians. For example, I’m not worried about them repealing protections for the LGBT community, because the public is beyond that. I’m not worried about them being able to change the way in which we have reached out and provided many more opportunities for women. And I — but here’s what does concern me. What concerns me is that they will make some judgments in the foreign policy area, without having thought it through that may cause a lot of problems. For example, Ukraine, or the Northern Triangle, here in the Hemisphere, or dealing with Columbia. Unless you are very sophisticated about what your actions or inactions — let me say it another way. I was asked to go down to Australia, several months ago, to meet with the new — same Prime Minister but with a new coalition. And to re — not re-establish, but make sure that we had close relationships. While I was there I got a call from the — from the President of Latvia saying you’ve got to come to the Baltic states because Mr. Trump, during the campaign said that, you know, they may not protect us against the Russians. So words matter. I’m not suggesting that’s his position. But you have a lot of folks around the — parts of the world that have relationships with us now that based on some of the rhetoric that’s occurred. If they follow through with the rhetoric by non-action, could cause, have some serious diplomatic and — and physical consequences. That’s what worries me most of anything. JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re worried more about foreign policy than about domestic policy. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I am. JUDY WOODRUFF: But what they can undo domestically — VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Because I — I — JUDY WOODRUFF: — the environment and the rest of it. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I — I — I, look, they will probably do some very rash things relative to the environment. But they again will reap the whirlwind. The public has moved beyond the positions that these fellows have taken. So, in the near term, that may happen, but they’ll pay a heavy price if they do that. For example, they could come along and decide that they’re not going to have, you know, enforce the clean air standards. They could do that, but there will be a backlash. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about the Supreme Court. You chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee for eight years so you know very well what it means in the Republican controlled Senate sat on the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill that ninth seat on the court, sat on it for almost 10 months. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: First time ever. JUDY WOODRUFF: Once the president-elect, then President Trump chooses someone. Should the Democrats do the same thing and oppose and refuse to go along? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: No. JUDY WOODRUFF: Or Should they, thinking you need to fill that vacancy on the court, go along? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I think they should, look, the Constitution says the President shall nominate, not maybe he could, maybe he can’t, he shall nominate. Implicit in the Constitution is that the Senate will act on its constitutional responsibility and give its advice and consent. No one is required to vote for the nominee. But they, in my view, are required to give the nominee a hearing and a vote. I — it’s been my policy since I’ve been in the United States Senate, I presided over more Supreme Court nominees than anyone in history, anyone living. And never once, even the ones that I’ve disagreed with, have they been denied a hearing. And so I think the Democrats should not take up, what I think is a fundamentally unconstitutional notion that the Republicans — Republicans initiated 10 months ago. I think they should see who they nominate and vote on them. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you’ve seen the list of names that the President-elect Trump has put out there. Are any of them, to you, acceptable and are any unacceptable? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well I — I’m not going to comment on it — and to be honest with you, I don’t know all that he’s put out there. I’ve been having trouble enough following him on some other things. But, so, I’m not prepared to comment on any one of his nominees. JUDY WOODRUFF: Come back to foreign policy. Have you seen now the report by the intelligence community on Russian hacking? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Yes I have. Yes I’ve read it. JUDY WOODRUFF: And? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: There’s overwhelming consensus in the community and overwhelming evidence supplied by the community that Russia did engage in an effort to impact on the elections. There is no evidence that they actually tampered with voting booths, or tampered with voting rolls. But there is clear evidence that they, in fact, they were engaged in activities designed to try to impact in the outcome of the election. JUDY WOODRUFF: Evidence of any American cooperation with the Russians in doing that? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I’m not going to comment on that Judy. I don’t want to comment on any of the detail of the report. There will be an unclassified version that will be released very shortly, and it will lay out in bold print what they know. JUDY WOODRUFF: Will the American people learn something new from this? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I think it will probably confirm what a lot of the American people think. But, it will — it will state clearly that the Russians did, as a matter of policy, attempt to affect and, three things. One, it attempted to discredit the U.S. electoral process by implying that or laying the foundation for it is not on the level. Two, it — there’s evidence that — they — is there was an attempt to hurt Mrs. Clinton. But there’s also evidence that there was wider hacking than some people thought. So, the idea that the Russians were not involved in an effort to engage in our electoral process is simply not able to be sustained. They were. JUDY WOODRUFF: Excuse me. In connection with that, the criticism by the president-elect of the intelligence community in this country, belittling of the intelligence communit

Watch Video | Listen to the AudioWATCH: Our entire interview with CIA Director John Brennan JUDY WOODRUFF: We return now to my conversation with CIA Director John Brennan. Last night, we focused largely on allegations of Russian hacking of U.S. political operations during the election and the war in Syria. Tonight, we begin with concerns raised by European intelligence officials about possible Russian intrusion in upcoming elections there, and whether Director Brennan believes the U.S. is facing a new Cold War with Russia. JOHN BRENNAN, Director, Central Intelligence Agency: Well, I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope that, looking out over the next several years, the relationship between Moscow and Washington improves, because it is critically important for global stability for the United States and Russia to have a better relationship, absolutely, and so I fully endorse that. However, we see that there are still a lot of actions that Russia is undertaking that undermine the principles of democracy in so many countries. What has happened in our recent election is not new. The Russians have engaged in trying to manipulate elections in Europe for a number of years. We see that they take advantage of corrupt politicians. They will fund the parties and groups that support their aims. And so there’s active exploitation and manipulation of the political processes. JUDY WOODRUFF: But some now have the sense that this will all improve under a President Trump, that this may have just been a feature of the Obama administration. JOHN BRENNAN: Oh, I don’t think it was a feature of the Obama administration. I think it was more a feature of the Putin administration in terms of what the Russians have been doing over the last eight years, and certainly before that. This is not to say that we cannot find ways to be able to work together, the United States and Russia. Again, I think it’s critically important that we do. And maybe now, with a new administration, there will be opportunities to do that. I certainly hope so. But the facts are that the Russians tried to interfere in our electoral process recently, and were actively involved in that. And that is something that we can’t countenance, because, as you point out, there are a number of countries in Europe that are going to be having elections in this year, whether it be Germany, France, and others. And I must tell you, there is level of anxiety among my European counterparts about what the Russians might have up their sleeve in order to promote their objectives in these electoral processes. JUDY WOODRUFF: One other question about the president-elect and the intelligence community. He has been very critical of parts of the intelligence community. Has the well already been poisoned before he takes office between him and the CIA, which he has been particularly critical of? What are your colleagues saying to you about that? JOHN BRENNAN: The professionals at the CIA are very much looking forward to having the opportunity to demonstrate their expertise, their capabilities to the incoming administration, president-elect, vice president-elect, and others. And so every time there’s a transition, the CIA recognizes that it has a special responsibility and obligation to make sure those who have our national security in their hands are going to be as best informed and as enlightened as possible about the complexities of world events. And so I know there have been a lot of things in the media and the press. And I have told our folks, just focus on your work and look forward to the opportunity to brief the incoming team. So, nothing is soured at this point. And I really do believe that agency officers are ready and looking forward to this opportunity. JUDY WOODRUFF: A few other important parts of the world I want to ask you about. North Korea, over the weekend, its leader, Kim Jong-un, said that his country is — quote — “finalizing preparations of a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile,” which one assumes would mark — well, would mark an advance in Korea’s attempt to build a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the United States. Are the North Koreans as far along as it sounds like they are? How much should the United States, should the incoming president be concerned about it? JOHN BRENNAN: I think the incoming administration needs to be very concerned about North Korea. They continue to advance their ballistic missile capability, and as Kim Jong-un said, even at the intercontinental ballistic range. They continue to develop their nuclear program in terms of having nuclear capability that they could then marry with a ballistic missile. And that would be a threat and is a threat to regional states, as well as potentially to the U.S. homeland. Obviously, the trajectory that Pyongyang has been on over the past two decades, to include the last number of years under Kim Jong-un, has not been a good path. And we, the United States, along with our partners and allies around the world, to include China, which has an extraordinary amount of influence on North Korea, we need to work together to change that trajectory, so that North Korea doesn’t pose that threat to regional stability, as well as to global stability. JUDY WOODRUFF: Your administration has, in effect, celebrated the nuclear agreement with Iran, holding off Iran’s ability to have a breakout capability when it comes to nuclear weapons. Does North Korea represent a failure in that regard? JOHN BRENNAN: Well, North Korea has been embarked on this for the last couple of decades, it’s clear. And there have been a number of steps taken to try to prevent its continued march along this path in terms of sanctions and international program and criticism and isolation of North Korea. But Kim Jong-un and his father and grandfather before him were on this path. And it’s a — it’s an unfortunate failure of the international community to find a way to bring North Korea to its senses, so that it can focus on the health and well-being and welfare of its people, who are impoverished, and for him not to be able to continue to invest in a military capability that is only leading to North Korea’s continued isolation. JUDY WOODRUFF: How close is North Korea to being able to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon? JOHN BRENNAN: To me, the fact that he has a ballistic missile capability and he has said that he is going on the intercontinental side of it, and he has a nuclear capability, to me, that’s too close. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what does that mean? I mean… JOHN BRENNAN: It means that we cannot be — we shouldn’t feel comfortable with the continued military capabilities and the growth of those capabilities in North Korea. That needs to be addressed. JUDY WOODRUFF: What should President-elect Trump, once he’s in office, and your successor, Congressman now Mike Pompeo, be lying awake worrying about in the months to come, more than anything else? JOHN BRENNAN: Well, I think it’s all these things. It’s trying to make sure that they understand the complexities of the various challenges that are out there, whether you’re talking about a Ukraine or Iraq or Syria or North Korea or any of the issues we deal with cyber and terrorism. These are complex and complicated issues. And they’re not — they don’t lend themselves to easy and simple solutions. And also, in my experience, the past five, eight years or so, the number of these challenges continues to go up. And so it’s not just complexities of these issues. It’s the simultaneity of it. And the United States is the global superpower, remains so. And what they need to worry about is how are they going to ensure that they’re able to monitor what’s going on around the world, protect U.S. national security interests, not overcommit, and also make sure that the policy course that they stake out is one that has near-term interests in mind, but also longer-term strategic goals and objectives of the United States. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe they’re up to that challenge? JOHN BRENNAN: I believe that any administration that comes in, I think, sometimes is taken aback by the scope, the scale, the complexity of the problems. I was part of the incoming Obama administration, and I had served in government before. And I must tell you, once you have that responsibility, it’s rather daunting. JUDY WOODRUFF: And where will John Brennan be? JOHN BRENNAN: I will be on the sidelines, will be finishing up on Inauguration Day. And this is the absolute best job that I could ever imagine. And so this will be my last job in government. But I will be doing what I can to support our national security from the sidelines. JUDY WOODRUFF: John Brennan, the director of the CIA, thank you very much for joining us. JOHN BRENNAN: Thank you, Judy. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you can watch my entire interview with Director Brennan at PBS.org/NewsHour. The post Part 2 — John Brennan on what his CIA successor needs to worry about appeared first on PBS NewsHour.