He supported Hillary Clinton during the president ial campaign. Im pleased to have him at the table. Its always good to be here. Charlie lets take immigration. What are the repercussions of what he wants to do and the way he and the administration have done it. Michael i think that is a good way to frame it. First, is the impact of what the administration has done here. They say they are trying to make america safer. I really believe what they have done is going to make us less safe. Let me walk through that. First of all, there was already significant, i would not say extreme, but significant vetting of individuals from these countries. Individuals from these countries who wanted to travel to the United States, had to go to a u. S. Embassy or consulate and apply for a visa. Their names were run through every possible database you can think of. There were multiple interviews with u. S. Consular officials before they were given the green light to come to the United States. There has been over the past x number of years no individual that has come from one of these countries that has committed an attack in the United States. So the system that was already very wellas working in keeping terrorists out. There is little to be gained by the ban that has been put in place. Second, there are three huge downsides that will, i think, make us less safe when put together with the fact that there are not a lot of gains here. Those three factors are, number one, this is going to be a recruiting boon for isis. This plays into the isis narrative that the United States of america is at war with islam, the religion, and not extremism. As far as i know charlie they will say they are not just banning us, theyre banning all muslims. Michael right. Charlie even though its not 100 . Michael and it doesnt really matter what the Administration Says whether it is a ban on muslims are not. The way it is perceived in the world, the way it is perceived in the muslim world and arab world is as a muslim ban and isis will play to that. Charlie right. Michael isis itself, as far as i know, has not said anything yet, but the media people around isis that amplify its message that sometimes speaks on their behalf are already talking about that this proves their point about what the United States is all about as far as the religion of islam. So a recruiting boon for isis. Second, we need the cooperation of those countries in the war in the extremism, counterterrorism war. We make it politically more difficult for them to do that when we create the perception among their population that we are banning all muslims from coming to the United States. We make it more difficult on the government of iraq to cooperate with us. Third, we create disincentives for individuals in those countries to work with the u. S. Military directly or to work with u. S. Intelligence directly because one of the reasons they do that now is on the hope of coming to the United States when that work is completed. Charlie right. Michael there are lots of stories about people who are on their way here and now, weve created a disincentive for them to do that. Charlie the story has spread at home . Michael absolutely. When you add all of that up, we are not safer. We are, in my view, less safe. That is the substance of what happened here. Thats the first point you raise. Charlie, the second point you raise is how they did this. There are the right ways to do things in government and there are the wrong ways to do things. The right way is an administration puts together policy change or a new policy, they put it on paper, they send it, physically send it to the relevant departments and agencies. They get written responses and they make any changes they deem necessary. Then they get everyone around the table, first at the deputies level than the principals level and with the president to hash it out and have a conversation, to come to an agreement. Doing it that way sometimes leads to a slower process and that was one of the criticisms of president obama, that he was slow, but that is the consequence of doing this the right way. When you do that, you get their views of everybody and the expertise of everybody in government brought to bear. You get better decisions. Thats not what happened here. A small group of people making the decision, quickly made, reporting i believe it to be true, the secretary of Homeland Security was just being briefed on what this executive order was all about when he saw on television the president signing it. So clearly, there was not the interagency discussion that there needed to be. That is not the way you make decisions. Charlie and one of the consequences is they had to change some things on the fly, whether its green cards or whatever it might be. Things they said it when we that they said in the end we think this through, thats not quite what we want to do right now. Michael theres a lesson for them charlie the countries are iran, iraq, syria, sudan, yemen. Others have stepped forward to say what about saudi arabia or the United Arab Emirates . Michael sean spicer said this is about the president getting ahead of threats. This is about dealing not only with the threats we know about but potential threats. If that is the case, whyd you not ban travel from all of those countries . Charlie let me ask this question do we need to do a better job in terms of you say it has then working, it worked during the Obama Administration. We did not have someone come in under that process and do something terrible. But you also have to look forward is it a good idea to have a better system . Michael there is not a process inside government or outside government that cannot be improved. A much better approach here would have been lets review the vetting process. For all individuals coming to the United States. It is actually more likely that a german muslim or french muslim who has been radicalized is likely to try to come to the United States and commit an attack than it is someone from yemen because it is much more difficult for the person from yemen to get here that a person from france or germany. So, the whole system should be looked at and reviewed. Thats what new administrations do. But you dont jar the system and create the negative consequences we talked about while you do that review charlie . Review. Charlie what is your assessment of the National Security team at the white house . Michael jim mattis, i know well. He is at the pentagon. Torlie somebody who seem have the respect of the president , and everyone else by the way. Michael and me. He has a remarkable life story and a great soldier. I think he will do well. I think he will stand up to the president when necessary. The one caution i would have on the secretary of defense is that when he was the commander of Central Command and had that responsibility for the entire middle east, he often argued that we should be, that we should respond disproportionately to an iranian provocation. That if they fired on a ship or grabbed a group of sailors, or run a number of small boats at a u. S. Naval vessel, we should respond disproportionately to send a message. Charlie there are others that would think thats a good idea, like chicago rules. Michael i believe you respond proportionately. Charlie always proportionately. Michael he argues for disproportionally. That is the one issue i would have with jim. At cia, i have not gotten to know mike pompeo very well in the last month. Charlie you have . Michael i have. I only knew him before from our relationship when i was the deputy acting director and he was on the house Intelligence Committee. Those were not great interactions because they were over benghazi. Right. I saw him in that light. I saw him is very partisan, i saw him as political, i saw him as attacking the agency in me. But, he reached out to me after he was nominated and we had a number of very good conversations. Charlie what did you tell him about the cia . Michael the first thing i told him is that the men and women of the cia are the most dedicated and committed people he will ever run into. And that they will follow him anywhere. And that they care about one thing and one thing only and that is keeping the country safe and he was being handed a national treasure. I told him that his ultimate responsibility is when he walks out the door, whatever it is, to leave it as a national treasure. Then, we had long talks about the Senior Officers there might make a good beauty. Deputy. I gave him my views and we talked about how to deal with the perception created by his partisanship over benghazi. How does he handle this . That when he walks into the building . I told him that he should be honest about it. You are a politician then. It was politics and you are in a different place now and you did not bring politics with you down the beltway when you came to the agency. You did not bring it into the building. Charlie give us an example of how the cia goes about their recommendation for something that may be in the briefing. Do they say, mr. President , here is the issue and here is our recommended approach or do they say here is the issue and you have three options . A, b and c. Michael the cia does not do the options part. The cia does not do policy options. What cia does is they collect information about threats facing the United States. What we like to say is collect information on the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, whether they be al qaeda or whether they be vladimir putin. Then, we take all of that information and put together an assessment for the president on how to think about threats, why it exists, how might evolve and what factors might advance it might influence it for the good and the bad. Then, the policymakers take all that have been together policy. Charlie and that would in this case be the National Security council . Securityse national counsel. The deputies of the National Security council and the executives of the National Security council. Charlie is there often disagreements among the agencies or is that a rare occurrence . Michael there are often small differences of opinion. It is very rare theres a difference of opinion that matters to the president. That is the dnis job. To say this is what the Intelligence Committee thinks. Mr. President you need to know everyone in my community thinks that except dia or cia. Charlie where is the fbi in this . Michael the fbi is a member of the Intelligence Community. In its intelligence function. Charlie is it a member of the principles communities . Michael i dont know if it is formal or not but jim comey would comment on issues of relevance. So demoting, as was done over the weekend, degrading to some degree im sorry, i forgot chairman of the joint chiefs the chairman of the joint chiefs is a member. Degrading the chairman of the joint chiefs and the dni and saying they will only be invited when theres issue of relevance to them. Charlie, i never sat in a principles meeting or a meeting where the dni and chairman of the joint chiefs did not add considerable value. No matter what the subject was. Charlie people forget the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the man who reports to the president. Michael yes. Charlie hes not running the military, he is the president possibility officer. Michael yes, military advisor. Charlie he is there to advise the president on military matters. Michael right. That is the team. At the center of the team is mike flynn. Charlie the National Security advisor. Who runs the security meetings generally . Michael he runs the principles meeting and he would sit to the president s left and mike flynn runs those principals meetings. It is his job not to have an opinion at the meeting. It is his job to lead the discussion in a way that gets everyones opinions on the table to see if they can find consensus on a policy recommendation to the president , and if so, take that recommendation to the president , to get approval, and if there are differences of opinion, take those differences. Tom donlon was exceptional in that. Charlie in that he would . Michael lead the conversation in a way that everyone got an opportunity and not guide the discussion in one direction or another. You dont want a National Security adviser who comes into the room and says here is my view, im going to drive the discussion. Charlie lets just remember for a moment starting with kissinger. Bush 41 was brent. Michael tony lake and sandy berger. 43 had condoleezza rice. Michael exceptional people. Charlie president Obama Tom Donlon and then susan rice. Michael yes. Charlie now it is michael flynn. Michael yes, i dont think he compares. Charlie because . Michael i dont think mike is a strategic thinker. Charlie he is an intelligence officer. Mike was a brilliant tactical intelligence officer. Charlie what does that mean . Michael mike worked for stanley crystal in iraq thing putting together targeting packages to go after individuals every night. Literally, multiple individuals every night. He was masterful at that. Thats a very tactical job. He was very good at that. Strategically, i dont think he compares to condoleezza rice. Charlie washington gossip is mike flynn has lost some of his underlying washington gossip, im not sure anyone in the administration has said this except maybe in conversations inh reporters outside and and off the record manner. That the reason steve bannon, a political advisor and strategist and someone who seems to be inside Donald Trumps head and crucial to him he made him president or chairman of the campaign when Kellyanne Conway became manager of the campaign and has been put on the principals committee. There is always resistance to that because they dont think political people belong in National Security discussions. Michael there are two issues i , think. One is politics should not be in that room. Politics should not drive National Security decisions. I was never in a deputies meeting, a principals meeting or nsc meeting where politics entered the discussion, never, not a single time. Charlie it seems to me that its up to the president to say theres not going to be politics in this room. Michael that comes later. Thats in the oval office. The political discussion. Charlie the political discussion comes later. Michael i see steve bannon, and i think many people do, as a political guy. So he doesnt belong there. That is issue number one. Issue number two is if you have two senior advisers to the president in the room, the National Security adviser, mike flynn, and steve bannon, who is very close, then, you have competing channels of advice to a president of the United States. That is not a healthy thing. That is not a healthy thing. Charlie suppose the president of the United States says i see him as a security guy because he has been invaluable to me. Should a be the president s call to make that decision . Michael of course it is the president s call. Thats what happened here. If the president were to ask me, and of course he would not, i would advise him against it. Charlie if you are National Security advisor, you would have argued it. Clearly. Lets talk about some of the other issues because i think its important to understand how it works and you have an insight view. Obviously it was respected by the incoming cia director. Now we have a discussion about torture again. Where are you on torture and where are cia people whose consideration is the National Security of the United States, where were they in this argument that gain some conversation last where are cia people whose week about black sites, about waterboarding, and about extreme measures . John mccain jumped in with both feet. Michael i would say two things. On this very show, i would have talked about what was done after 9 11 with regard to secret prisons and interrogations and tried to put it in context for the viewers. The first point i would make is those were unique times. We knew very, very little about the enemy. It felt like a ticking time bomb scenario where you have an individual who you think knows about an attack that is just about ready to happen and they wont talk to you. When the secret prisons were set up, there was no other place to take these individuals. Guantanamo was not open yet. And it was legal. All the techniques at that time were deemed by the Justice Department to be legal. Charlie but they are not anymore . Some are, some arent. Michael the ones that everybody talks about are not. The situation is completely different today. You dont need to do it today. There are mechanisms in place when you capture an individual to interrogate them, theres a whole Interagency Team that has been created to do that. So you just dont need to do it anymore. That is the first point. The second point is there is nobody that i know at the cia or any former senior cia official i know who would ever want to go down this road again. And the reason is we were left to hang out and dry. We were told this was legal. We need you to do this. People follow those orders. They did what they were told, then all of a sudden, people said this is wrong and we and we are going to investigate you. They dont want to go down this road again. Charlie no cia agent wants to do that again without knowing his government is behind him. Michael no. So my mentor, mike hayden often jokes if the president wants the cia to do waterboarding again, he will have to bring his own bucket. Charlie let me talk about two other issues here. North korea. Michael yeah. I think this is going to be the president s first test. And i think it is coming so