Latest Breaking News On - National security counter intelligence - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
page, you can see that they're still looking for the pipe bomber that set pipe bombs outside the dnc and rnc on january 6th. this is an active, unfolding investigation, and it's an imminent, active, and rising national security threat. that's why i've called it the american ingency. it includes members of congress, it includes the former president, it includes the former national security adviser in general flynn. it goes all the way down to the oath keepers, stewart rhodes, and people who could be convinced by their latest press conference. it's much bigger than a political story. it's a national security threat, and it has to be treated as such. >> what do you think creates not just the permission structure for something like this to happen, that as frank feglizi says a sham, but there was enough incentive, enough of a payout for them politically and perhaps operationally, which is even more ominous. where does that come from, and how do you combat that? >> it comes from the core of
this movement. if i were going to create an american insurgency, i'd want to infiltrate places of power. i'd want to infiltrate the media, congress, the military. and that's what we've seen is this movement. and that's really what it is, this movement has extended to every organization, every power structure within our society. and that's why it's so difficult to combat, that's why the pentagon continues to call domestic extreism our number one national security. so the regulation has to come from them. congress has got to do something about matt gaets and marjorie taylor greene. the media has to responsibly deal with coverage. voters have to vote them out. the pentagon has to stay vigilant, because every time they issue a call, there's a radical watching, people who are becoming radicalized, and their movement continues to grow. it's not just how many voters that these people can get, it's about how many violent people with guns they can motivate to do things. and that's why the threat continues to grow and why the threat continues to rise. >> let me show you how jeffrey
>> yeah, i mean, the simple version of your question is, can we protect us from ourselves? that's the threat right now. the threat and risk picture is higher than it's been in many, many, many years. and the toolkit, as you say, is lacking. and you know, if i had to pick a general category of questions that i get the most when i'm out and about or public speaking or on social media, it's this, it's this kind of question. who's going to do something about this? why can't we do something about this? can't this person be arrested? and i have to go through the whole lecture, unfortunately, on free speech, freedom of assembly, constitutional rights, what's a crime, what's not a crime. and the reality is that federal law enforcement, local, county, state law enforcement, can't be everywhere all at once. they can't be all over social media. we don't want that. but yet, like you said, when we're telling the average citizen, please notify law
the pit of my stomach wondering what else was taken that i don't have back, that i need to worry about. it's a question and a threat that hasn't stopped. and again, looking at this i see it as a counter intelligence nightmare. >> mike, you've done extensive reporting on the counter intelligence questions that were asked about donald trump at the beginning of his presidency. >> in some ways i look at it, but it's sort of -- i'm not sure if it's a next chapter or a book end, but, look, in may of 217, you know, andy mccabe and struck open up this investigation into whether donald trump is a national security threat and obstructing justice. and while the issues in the indictment are different than the issues that they were looking at at the time,
regular psychologists to book because it may be it made him feel special, but whatever it is, pete struck, donald trump as a national security counter intelligence question slash threat is a years long question now. if you're mccabe and opened an investigation into donald trump when he fired comey because he could not see it to let flame go. as far as i know these questions were not resolved. they were asked when donald trump sought asked. this 39-page indictment presents all of the things that mike describes, someone whose legal problems are all self-inflicted. but to the point mary's getting to, someone who has always been a national security question, maybe threat to the united states of america. >> yeah, nicolle, i'd go further. i'd say donald trump is a counter intelligence nightmare
history would have protthis case. it's because they all realize not just that he was a national security threat but frankly he continues to be a national security threat. we can get back the documents and as pete said we might not even have all of them back, but we can never get back what's in his head that he could be talking to people about anytime he sees it in his interest. >> that's such a good point. he can never unknow the things that he saw as the country's commander in chief. and mary, just real quickly is this a routine motion from doj, this protective order aschris kise and mr. blanche go through their security background checks? this is something we saw cross the wire as we came on the air. >> the motion i saw briefly from one of your producers who sent it to me before we were starting up is actually a motion for a protective order not so much related to the classified information but related today the unclassified yet still sensitive discovery that the government is ready to turn over
sitting here acting like there's something debatable about whether classified information that may have people that are giving us intel exposed -- i would be filling the vacuum with surrogates that have credibility talking about the threat this is to america and change the debate. if you accept their premise, you're going to get to their conclusion. the democrats need to change the premise. the thing that needs to be discussed is national security, and dealing with the fact that we are not dreaming of one day we could be in a problem. we're facing china and russia. we're in ukraine right now. nato's on the table right now. and we ought to be saying this is what this is about. let the courts decide the criminality, but we can't argue that we are talking about a situation that we can't risk the sacred nature that we deal with classified information. >> i mean, basil, from a law and
stolen." this happens as trump is being arrested and processed, and it feels like, absent dana milbank reporting it out and writing about it and bringing it to our attention, we might have missed a really important move in what is basically being created on washington's version of a sound stage, right? this wasn't real. but it was created for a very slibt reason, and i wonder what you think. >> the threat is real. it's a national security threat. it has to be treated as such. were the members of it's assess and al qaeda unavailable to testify yesterday? these people are celebrating enemies of america. i don't think that insurrectionist goes far enough, name lag these people are. they are domestic terrorists. and they continue to be at large. i think this is an important part of this conversation that people don't understand. the fbi is still looking for participants in the january 6th attack. just yesterday the boston fbi arrested two people. if you go to the fbi's twitter
domestic terrorists. we marked his complete reversal on tucker carlson's broadcast where he said, "i misspoke, i chose my words incorrectly." the rewrite on the insurrection, which was in the words of the capitol police officers akin to medieval combat, seems to sit right at this intersection of what we talk about all the time. the domestic violent extremist threat, and this version of the trump republican party. >> it's legitimizing the continuing thread, but it's getting worse, nicole. when you legitimize by having elected officials actually throw a sham committee, a sham hearing, as you said, no authority to have it, there's no such subcommittee or committee. matt gaetz can't chair anything. they set it up in a visitors' room, put up props and official congressional seals to make it look like a hearing. they used hearing language. "i yield my time." "thank you for testifying."
essentially you could read the indictment as one that is about a threat to national security and obstructing justice. and it sort of pulls the thread through to show what happens when donald trump is investigated when he is no longer president of the united states and he's investigated, you know, by a justice department that is not, you know, afraid to take him on. now, would the justice department have gotten there on its own had it not, you know, when they opened up those original investigations? i don't know. but i think that something that i always have to sort of remind myself of is that you had a special counsel's office with jack smith that really went after this. they weren't listening to anything that trump had to say. they didn't have a trump-controlled justice department to go through to figure out whether they could subpoena the president of the united states or do any of these other matters. and they really for lack of a