OPINION - Shields and Brooks 3/23/2018

"Shields and Brooks on John Bolton’s worldview, Trump’s shifting legal team" PBS NewsHour 3/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Trump choosing John Bolton for his third National Security Adviser, the departure of John Dowd from the President’s Russia probe legal team, plus former model Karen McDougal sues to be able to tell her story of an affair with Trump.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And that brings us now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, gentlemen, I’m actually going back to what we were talking about earlier in the program, Mark, and start with John Bolton.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  OK.

Judy Woodruff:  The President making a lot of news, making news on his own, tweeting last night the surprise announcement that H.R. McMaster was out, John Bolton’s in, and this on top, as you just heard from Yamiche, one change after another at this White House.

What are we to make of this?

Mark Shields:  Well, first of all, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Nancy McEldowney, who was on the show.  I think she’s absolutely right about John Bolton.

John Bolton is not just ideologically fixed where he’s been.  Unlike his apparent foes within the administration, Jim Mattis, secretary of defense, and Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he [Bolton] has never comforted anybody dying in battle.  He’s never written to a next of kin.

He avoided military service himself, yet it’s his prescription for virtually every situation that arises, whether it’s North Korea or Iraq, for which he has never apologized, for which he was a relentless advocate, and wrong.

So, I just think, temperamentally, Judy, he is the worst possible choice that Donald Trump could make.  He is brutal to people who work with him.  And I just think, what he is, is he’s a flatterer.  And Donald Trump, we know, is incredibly susceptible to flattery.

Judy Woodruff:  David, what do you make not only of Bolton, but just the sequence of changes, almost one right after the other, at the White House?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, first, on Bolton, I think, ideologically, Trump probably should have picked him first.  I think a President should pick the sort of person who shares their world view.

And if there is anybody in the Republican foreign policy galaxy who shares President Trump’s world view, it’s John Bolton.  In the administration, he came up with the — he was talking about America first long before Donald Trump ever was.

When he served earlier in the earlier Bush administration, he was a relentless foe of sort of the Republican establishment, the Colin Powells.  He was a relentless foe of the conservatives — of the neoconservatives, who believed in democracy and human rights.

He was an old-style what we call paleocon, power vs. power kind of conservative.  So, Trump at least got somebody he agrees with.

Temperamentally, I agree with Mark.  He was famously thought of as a kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy.  He was famously thought of as someone who didn’t look at issues honestly, look at intelligence honestly, but came with a highly ideological predisposition.

I don’t think he’s the worst thing in the world.  He comes across a lot of issues that I do think seriously increases the chance that we will have some military action in North Korea and Iran.  But he’s not a complete loon.  He just has a bellicose, old style, we need just to be more powerful than anybody else around, and we need to threaten that power all the time, which, when you take — combine it with a temperamentally unstable President, that’s a dangerous combination.

Judy Woodruff:  Dangerous combination?

Mark Shields:  Dangerous, dangerous combination.  And I think David is — suffers from an excess of charity.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  No, I agree with his analysis, up to the point.

Donald Trump, if you will recall, ran on a foreign policy, all by himself, that he had opposed the war in Iraq, that he was the only Republican who had, just as Barack Obama was legitimately the only Democrat in 2008 who had opposed the United States going into Iraq, won the nomination and won the Presidency.

I’m not saying it was the sole reason, but it certainly gave him a uniqueness and distinction that he claimed for himself.  The evidence for it wasn’t necessarily overwhelming that he had been a dove from the outset.

But that is the polar opposite of John Bolton in that sense.  And Trump wanted a less aggressive, a less assertive American military presence.  And I think the voices of restraint in this administration have been diminished.  And I think that it’s down to Mattis and Dunford.

And I’m just grateful the two of them are there.

David Brooks:  I still think it’s far from a sure thing that it will be super bellicose, super militaristic.

The foreign policy school that Trump has somehow glommed onto and then John Bolton definitely subscribes to really goes back into ancient pre-World War II Republican history, which was much more heartland, much more isolationist almost, but no sense of foreign policy idealism, no sense we want to make the world a better place, that we want to give people dignity, we want to give them human rights.

That’s not part of the equation.  It’s much more, we’re in a great power struggle, and they’re tough and we’re tough.  And that’s just the way they see the world.  It’s an old-fashioned, more, as I say, pre-Cold War style of Republican foreign policy.  But it did tend to be non-adventurist.

And so there was some restraint even back in the early America first days.

Judy Woodruff:  So you don’t see them being quick on the trigger?

David Brooks:  As I say, more quick on the trigger than with Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster, that’s for sure, but I wouldn’t say we’re necessarily marching off to war.

I do think Trump still — his instinct is, I don’t want to spend blood and treasure abroad.  His constituency doesn’t want to fight another war.  I think he would be slow to want to commit troops anywhere, just by his instinct.  He’s a domestic policy guy.

Mark Shields:  John Bolton’s application for the job was his most recent piece in The Wall Street Journal advocating the legal case for the United States attacking North Korea preemptively and unilaterally.

That is not World War — pre-World War II Republicanism, which was, if anything, isolationist.

I mean, the National Security Adviser, Judy, has to be, to be successful, an honest broker between Defense and Treasury and State and all the competing interests, and present to the President the distilled views and honest options that are advocated by his appointees.

And there’s no evidence at all that John Bolton is equipped temperamentally or experientially for that role.

David Brooks:  Yes, I totally agree with that.  He doesn’t fit this job at all.

And I guess the one fear you would add is not so much what you believe, but just a swirl of machismo.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  This is an administration which is — whose masculinity is on high decibel, while being extremely unstable.

And so that would be the — the whipping up in a frenzy would be the part I would emphasize, I would worry about.

Judy Woodruff:  Other than that, it’s very calm.

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Another Shakeup and Hard Turn Right

"Programs, Programs, get your Program.  How else can you know who's in the White House.  Programs..."

"John Bolton named national security adviser in another high-level White House shakeup" PBS NewsHour 3/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is being replaced by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.  John Yang joins Judy Woodruff to explain what we know about McMaster's resignation and the man slated to take his place.

"Trump pick John Bolton has history of clashing with U.S. intelligence community" PBS NewsHour 3/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former UN Ambassador John Bolton will become the third National Security Adviser since President Trump took office, taking over for Army Lt. Gen H.R. McMaster.  Bolton is a longtime hawk on foreign policy who has served Republican Presidents since Ronald Reagan, and has held Trump's ear as a commentator on FOX News.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Jonathan Landay of Reuters.

"How will hawk John Bolton affect foreign policy?" PBS NewsHour 3/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In naming John Bolton to be his next National Security Adviser, President Trump has picked a long time foreign policy commentator and practitioner, and conservative hawk who has called for military action against North Korea and Iran.  What change will Bolton bring to the job?  Judy Woodruff gets assessments from former diplomat and NSC staff member Nancy McEldowney, and Matthew Kroenig of Georgetown University.

OPINION - Shields and Gerson 12/1/2017

"Shields and Gerson on Michael Flynn’s Russia probe cooperation, GOP’s tax bill calculation" PBS NewsHour 12/1/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Michael Flynn’s guilty plea in connection with the Russia probe, the Senate GOP’s push for its tax reform bill, and what’s next for lawmakers including Rep. John Conyers who have been accused of sexual misconduct.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  From courthouses to Congress, it has been a week crammed full of news, the Michael Flynn guilty plea today, momentum for the Republican tax plan, and increased calls for Congressman John Conyers to resign amid charges of sexual misconduct.

All that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Gerson.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Welcome to both of you.

So, Mark Shields, what a day here in Washington.  The special counsel, Robert Mueller, made news early today with this guilty plea from retired General Michael Flynn, the President’s former national security adviser.  What do you make of it?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, Judy, one former federal prosecutor said that Michael Flynn was looking at several score years, potentially, behind bars for the offenses that were listed against him.

And for Robert Mueller to accept his plea of guilty for this one charge of lying to the FBI, which is a very serious charge, led him and all of his colleagues to conclude that this is big, that what he is delivering (he, Michael Flynn) to Robert Mueller and his office is significant, so significant that they would let his son off and apparently not proceed on the charges that Carrie mentioned in the earlier segment about his not registering work with Turkey and the other charges against him.

Judy Woodruff:  And, again, Michael Gerson, the White House is saying, that’s all well and good, but that’s just what Michael Flynn did and it had nothing to do with anybody in this White House.

Michael Gerson, Washington Post:  It’s not a particularly credible response at this point, I think.

I mean, it did feel like an historic day.  This — when the history of the Trump administration is written, I think Russia will be in the first paragraph.  And the reason is exactly what Mark was talking about, is that Mueller got something in order to give a considerable amount here.

We don’t really know what it is that he got.  It’s still, you know, undetermined.  But he got something that he felt that he could bring to a grand jury and that would forward a case towards people who are higher.

And there aren’t too many other people who are higher.  The group is small.  And many of them have the Trump family connection.  And so I think you can’t argue that this is just restricted to him.  He was turned in order to turn against others.  And I think that Mueller has a good idea of what that testimony will look like.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Mark, there is, though, this drumbeat out there from people who say, wait a minute, there is just too much focus on this Russia investigation, we don’t know where it’s heading, it’s taking up a lot of time and energy, and what does it add up to?

Mark Shields:  Well, I think what it adds up to, Judy, is that when — it’s been compared, Michael Flynn today, to John Dean at time of Watergate who — and Richard Nixon — he had been White House counsel.

And when John Dean came clean, it wasn’t Bob Haldeman, the Chief of Staff in the White House, or John Ehrlichman, who was Domestic Policy Adviser, the two people closest to President Nixon, they had in sight.

And I think — I don’t think there’s any question that unspoken is that the President’s in sight.  And the speculation all day today in Washington is, what will President Trump do?  Will he in fact, as the walls start to close in, or apparently seem to close in on him, will he fire Robert Mueller?

Lindsey Graham, in anticipation of that, the senator from South Carolina, urged him not to do it, warned him not to do it.  What will the Republicans do?

Paul Ryan has praised him, the speaker of the House, recently as stronger than any President since Ronald Reagan, and realizing that flattery gets you everywhere with this President.

I don’t know.  But that is, quite frankly, where it is.  It’s serious, it is real, it’s genuine.  And Bob Mueller is not playing games.  He’s not a partisan.  He was appointed by President George W. Bush at the FBI.  And, you know, he’s a guy who’s way above any kind of cheap party politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Michael, does it inexorably lead to the President?

Michael Gerson:  Well, it leads to a very basic question, is, why has everyone that touched this issue lied, lied to the FBI, lied to the American public?

You know, if they were just having normal contacts with a normal power — with another power, that’s what transitions do.  But when it came down to it — and this is advice for our viewers at home — you don’t lie to the FBI.  And that is a dangerous thing, because every lie is leverage for them.

They use it in order to get more information to make progress in their investigation.  And so they are attracting attention to the mystery at the center of this matter by their deceptions.  And that — it seems like we’re dealing with something very major.

Mark Shields:  Judy, if I could just pick up on Michael’s point, actually, which I think is a good one; what we do know is this, that after the election, during the interregnum, the transition, when Michael Flynn was out of government, but working in the transition, about to be named national security adviser, he, to really frustrate and overcome, veto American foreign policy legitimately and legally made by the sitting President of the United States, Barack Obama, to impose sanctions upon Russia for Russia’s meddling and sabotaging the American election, got in touch with Ambassador Kislyak, the former — then Ambassador to — from Russia, and urged him not to retaliate and not to overreact or whatever to these sanctions.

And we know that, the next day, Russia didn’t, and the day following that, Donald Trump praised Russia for its restraint in not retaliating.
-----
Judy Woodruff:  The other big story today, Michael Gerson, is what we talked to Lisa Desjardins about, is the — speaking of inexorable, this tax plan is — it moved through the House.  It was passed.  It’s now about to be passed by every good reporter’s reporting, it’s going to pass the Senate tonight.

Michael Gerson:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  What does this say about the Republican Party and how it wants to change this economy?

Michael Gerson:  Well, there is some drama to this.

Last night, when the Joint Tax Committee report came out saying that this would add a trillion dollars to the debt, and Corker essentially said, I can’t support this thing, it looked like it might be a near-run thing.

But McConnell gave a lot of people what they wanted, like Senator Collins and others, in this process.  Ultimately, there weren’t even three true deficit hawks in the entire Republican Caucus.  There was one, which was Corker.

(LAUGHTER)

Michael Gerson:  All this talk about deficits really was undermined.

But the ultimate calculation here that Republicans have made broadly on the Hill is that if they do end up the year with nothing, that they will be politically punished.  And their argument is that something is better than nothing, even a flawed product like this one.

And I don’t know if that’s a correct argument, but that is generally believed on Capitol Hill among Republicans.

Judy Woodruff:  Are they taking a risk by doing this?

Mark Shields:  They’re taking a risk, Judy, that they’re losing any sense of integrity.

This is a tax bill that is written solely for the deserving rich.  And it also, at the same time, manages to soak the poor.  Just the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office indicates that, by 2027, by 2027, Americans earning the princely sum of between $40,000 and $50,000 will, collectively combined, pay $5.3 trillion — trillion — more in taxes.  Americans earning over $1 million, by the same study, will receive $5.7 trillion in tax cuts.

I mean, the Republican Party, for the longest time — and Michael is a card — was a card-carrying member of it — believed in small government, limited government, in balanced budgets.

And then they drank the Kool-Aid of supply side.  And no Republican on Capitol Hill since 1991 has voted, since George W. Bush — H.W. Bush was President, has voted to increase taxes.  That is the Holy Grail.  That’s the one unifying, galvanizing principle of Republicans.

It’s not civil rights, as it once in the time of Abraham Lincoln.  It’s not even small government.  And it’s not certainly balanced budgets.  It’s tax cuts.  And it’s tax cuts for those best off among us.

Judy Woodruff:  But to get back to your point, and to build on what Mark just said, Michael, this says that Republicans are not — either they don’t believe the deficits are going to grow or they don’t think it’s going to be the political liability or the liability to the economy.

Michael Gerson:  Yes.

And they don’t think that it’s a risk to be seen as the plutocratic party going into these elections.  That may well be a risk here.

I mean, one of the examples is that Senator Rubio and Senator Lee had a very good proposal here to allow the child tax credit to be deductible against withholding, not just income taxes, which would really help blue-collar, working-class families in America.

It was deeply controversial.  It’s still up in the air, what’s going to happen.  But that’s not where Republicans were.  They’re supposed to be now the populist party, the party of blue-collar workers.

And they were not, at least as of the moment, willing to do something like this.  And that, I think, is a test that Republicans are failing.  If they want to be seen as populists, in the mode that Trump wants the party to be seen, they need to act like it.

Judy Woodruff:  And it looks, Mark, as if there is no question that the House is going to go along with something.  There will be changes, but, in the end, there will be a tax bill.

Mark Shields:  I think there will.

And I don’t think Democrats ought to skate on this, Judy, because the Democrats have let the debate become about the deficit, which means this.  If the Republicans do lose the House in 2018, and if the calculations and calibrations are accurate, then, when the Democrats get back in, they are going to be beset with enormous deficits, and their responsibility is going to cut — do the cuts or raise — and raise taxes.

And let’s be very honest about this.  There is — part of this is the Grover Norquist ideal, the Republican strategist, conservative strategist, and that is, you have to shrink the government.  Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has already said that the next move is on welfare, we have to cut welfare.

Welfare means one thing.  It means three things.  It means Medicaid, it means Medicare and it means disabilities, and Social Security.  And the Democrats — like the Republicans on health care never had a plan, the Democrats do not have a single organizing principle that they advanced instead of.  And I think that was the failure of Democratic leadership.

Judy Woodruff:  But it sounds, Michael, as if Republicans are prepared to make that argument.

Michael Gerson:  Yes.  No, I agree with that.

They could even — there’s a possibility that the House might vote on the Senate bill and avoid conference here, which I don’t know if that’s going to happen or not, because some members of the House might not want it to happen.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Michael Gerson:  But I think that they want to move in this direction as fast as they can.  And they’re going to tag the Democrats with that type of argument.

TRUMP AGENDA - Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster

"Trump taps military strategist as National Security Adviser" by Catherine Lucey (AP), PBS NewsHour 2/20/2017

President Donald Trump has tapped Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new national security adviser, replacing the ousted Michael Flynn.

Trump announced the pick Monday at his Palm Beach club and said McMaster is “a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.”

The President, who has no military experience, has shown a preference for generals in the top security roles.  McMaster, who wore his uniform for the announcement, joins Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, both retired generals.

Trump says retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg who had been his acting adviser, will now serve as the National Security Council chief of staff.  He also said he would be asking John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, to work with them in a “somewhat different capacity.”

Trump made the announcement from a luxurious living room, sitting on a couch between McMaster and Kellogg.  The President told reporters as he exited the room that Vice President Mike Pence had been involved in the process.

Trump brought four candidates for the position to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend for in-person interviews, McMaster among them.  McMaster called the appointment a “privilege.”

McMaster served in the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq.  Considered a scholarly officer, he holds a Ph.D. in military history, and has authored a book called “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam.”  He has also written articles questioning the planning for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The position of National Security Adviser does not require Senate confirmation.

Trump pushed out Flynn a week ago after revelations that the adviser had misled Pence about discussing sanctions with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential transition.  Trump said in a news conference Thursday that he was disappointed by how Flynn had treated Pence, but did not believe Flynn had done anything wrong by having the conversations.

Trump's first choice to replace Flynn, retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, turned down the offer.

"Who is H.R. McMaster, Trump's new National Security Adviser?" PBS NewsHour 2/20/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump named Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new National Security Adviser.  The 54-year-old is currently a three-star general in the U.S. Army, who lead American forces in Iraq in 2005 and brought stability to a city that had been rife with ethnic conflict.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Greg Jaffe of The Washington Post.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/17/2017

"Shields and Brooks on Trump using the press as a punching bag, Michael Flynn's sacking" PBS NewsHour 2/17/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including President Trump's contentious press conference, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's resignation, as well as the continued scrutiny over other potential contacts with Russia and more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

David, to you first.

That was quite a report from William Brangham, two towns in Texas, two groups of people, both sides of the political aisle.  What does it tell you about just how divided this country is?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes, welcome to life in America these days.

For those of us who have been traveling around, that's reality.  And two things strike me.  The first is, politics is based on social identity, and so, again, there is going to be differences between rural and urban and between left and right.

But what's at the core, why is the chasm so wide between the two, and why are the two universes almost non-overlapping?  It's like whether we're just in-group, out-group, or is there some cultural or ethnic or racial divide that's at the bottom of this?  It's very hard to figure out what unconsciously is making people so fervently in one universe or the other.

But whether it's an identity politics thing, or just we that like to form groups and we like to unify our group by hating some other group, that's the world we're in.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And, Mark, they couldn't have been more divided than they were.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  They weren't.  They were characteristically Texan.  They were outspoken.  They didn't hide their allegiance or their enmities.

And I thought a particular act of fraternal love was disabling the FOX News Channel when his brother came to visit over Christmas, not exactly a loving act, it would seem, but something that he boasted about to William on national television.

TRUMP WHITE HOUSE - The Flynn Debacle

"What Michael Flynn's communication with Russia means for national security" PBS NewsHour 2/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has come under fire for pre-inauguration conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.  Judy Woodruff speaks with The New York Times' David Sanger, and Leon Panetta former director of the CIA, about Flynn's actions and what the controversy suggests about the early weeks of the Trump administration.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It's been less than a month since Donald Trump took office, but already there are numerous reports that the National Security Council, which advises the President on key foreign, military and intelligence issues, is in disarray.

The leader of the NSC, retired Army General Michael Flynn, has come under increasing criticism for his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.

We turn now to Leon Panetta.  He served as the director of the CIA and secretary of defense during the Obama administration.  He also served as White House chief of staff for President Clinton.  And David Sanger, he covers national security for The New York Times.

And we welcome both of you back to the program.

David Sanger, I'm going to start with you.

You and your colleagues at The New York Times wrote a pretty remarkable story yesterday about — well, you can't use any words other than disarray, chaos, inside the National Security Council.  Given that, and the events of today, where do things stand?

DAVID SANGER, The New York Times:  Well, I think that everybody in the National Security Council is wondering when they're going to begin to get to what the council is supposed to be doing, which is coordinate among the different agencies of government, bring in intelligence, debate policy.

And several things have gotten in the way of doing that, Judy.  The first is that, as you reported before, General Flynn has been under this cloud and investigation.  And now we hear just a little while ago that President Trump and Vice President Pence are considering his fate, that just an hour after we were told that he's got the President's full confidence.

The second thing that is going on is that the staff itself is a little bit paranoid right now.  They know that Mr. Flynn has talked about starting an insider threat program.  That seems to them to be an invitation for their e-mails to be monitored, their cell phones to be watched.  We don't know that any of that is going to happen, but it gives you a sense of the mood.

And the third thing is that many of the people on the NSC, this body that is supposed to coordinate all this different policy, come from the agencies, and they feel as if they have been frozen out.  And yet there is no one above them who has got a clear job responsibility.

So I would say that, for an operation that is supposed to run like a business, it's not running much like a business.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, there's a lot to tackle there.

But, Secretary Panetta, I want to go first to the fate of Michael Flynn, the general who is the President's national security adviser.  As we have been reporting and as David just said, the President himself issued a statement through his press secretary tonight saying that he's talking to the vice President about what to do.

Is what General Flynn reportedly did, talking to the Russian ambassador to the U.S. before President Trump takes office about what to do about Russian sanctions, is that something that is just off — should be, frankly, off-limits for someone in his position, advising the President-to-be?

LEON PANETTA, Former U.S.  Secretary of Defense:  Well, there's a lot for the President and the Vice President to consider here.

I think first and foremost is, one of the principal qualities that you need as national security adviser is trust, the trust of the President.  And that depends on truth and it depends on honesty.  And if, indeed, the National Security Adviser didn't tell the truth to the Vice President, and the Vice President in turn went out to the American people and said that he had no such conversations with the Russian ambassador, I think that's a serious matter, and one for them to think seriously about.

With regards to the substance of what was discussed, you know, it's hard to tell exactly what these conversations were about.  I think it is of concern in terms of judgment for somebody who is not in a position of power to raise the sanctions issue.  I think the sanctions issue in general is a terrible mistake to even imply that we would withdraw from those sanctions.

But I guess more seriously here is the issue of just exactly what was discussed.  And those issues are under investigation, both by the FBI, as well as the Congress.

"How deep will the Senate delve into Flynn investigation?" PBS NewsHour 2/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  How far will the Senate go in investigating the events that led to the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, amid wider concerns about Russian interference in the election?  Judy Woodruff gets two reactions from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who both sit on the Intelligence Committee.

IRAN - Trump Sanctions

"Will new sanctions and statements escalate tensions with Iran?" PBS NewsHour 2/3/2017

HUMM....  I have to wonder is this Trump really understanding the issue, or Trump-the-bully exercising his muscle?

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New U.S. sanctions were applied to people and companies tied to Iran's ballistic missile program.  The National Security Adviser released a statement saying that the international community has been "too tolerant of Iran's bad behavior" and that the administration wouldn't tolerate "provocations."  Hari Sreenivasan talks to Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  As we reported earlier, the Trump administration applied new sanctions today to more than a dozen people and companies tied to Iran's ballistic missile program.

Hari Sreenivasan has more.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  The White House says the sanctions are not related to the nuclear deal, and structured in a way that maintains the U.S.' commitments to that agreement.

At the same time, the national security adviser, Michael Flynn, also released a statement today, saying — quote — “The international community has been too tolerant of Iran's bad behavior.  The ritual of convening a United Nations Security Council in an emergency meeting and issuing a strong statement is not enough.  The Trump administration will no longer tolerate Iran's provocations that threaten our interests.”

Joining me now for what the new sanctions and statements mean going forward is Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Karim, let's start by putting this in context.

Who do these sanctions affect and what are they going to be prohibited from doing?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace:  Hari, these sanctions are very targeted against individuals and entities that are affiliated or part of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who are involved in Iran's missile program and Iran's support for regional militias.

And they're very targeted.  They're not broad sanctions which are intended to really change Iranian behavior.  But I do think they're intended to do what General Flynn, the national security adviser, said, which is to put Iran “on notice” — quote, unquote.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  How different are they from steps that perhaps the Obama administration would have taken had they seen this ballistic missile test happen on their watch?

KARIM SADJADPOUR:  You know, the Obama administration was reluctant to sanction Iran and counter its regional behavior because they were very worried that would provoke an escalation which would jeopardize the nuclear deal, which was the Obama administration's main foreign policy legacy.

And the Trump administration doesn't have those concerns.  President Trump has routinely denounced the Iran nuclear deal as a disaster.  And I think, in contrast to the Obama administration, the Trump administration's national security brain trust, men like General Flynn, General Mattis at the Pentagon, these were men who served in Iraq, and they hold Iran responsible for the death of hundreds of U.S. soldiers.

And so they felt, during the Obama years, that they were restrained from being able to retaliate against Iran.  And now they feel unrestrained and they're confronting Iran in the region.