Skip to main content

tv   Face the Nation  CBS  June 4, 2017 8:30am-9:31am PDT

8:30 am
captioning sponsored by cbs >> dickerson: today on "face the nation g news overnight as terrorists strike in london again. and we will preview what could be crucial congressional testimony from former fbi director james comey. in the third terror attack a in great britain in as many months came a scene that is now becoming all too familiar. on a summer saturday evening in london, three terrorists drove a van into pedestrians on london bridge. then went on a stabbing rampage in a nearby neighborhood filled with restaurants and republicans. >> pubs at least seven are dead and close to 50 injuries:london mayor conveyed the public anguish. >> there are not words to describe the grief and anger we are feeling today. i am appalled and furious. >> prime minister may surrounded the alarm for a fresh alarm to combat the threat. >> we believe we are
8:31 am
experiencing a new trend in the threat we faces a terrorism breeds terrorism. we cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are:things need to change. >> dickerson: we will bring you the late west reports from the scene. then as former fbi director james comey prepares to testify before the senate intelligence committee about pressure he felt from president trump to end his investigation, we will talk with two top members of the committee. vice chairman narc warmer, warner and susan collins. >> still feeling the chill after president trump pulls out of a global climate packet we will see where relations stand with nikki haley and nato general jens stoltenberg, it is all coming up on "face the nation". >> dickerson: good morning and welcome to "face the nation". i am john dickerson. there is grim news this morning as the residents of london awoke to another terror attack on their
8:32 am
city. the police believe the incident has been contained and say they shot and killed the suspects. we begin our coverage with cbs news correspondent elizabeth palm whore is at london bridge the scene of one of the attacks. liz. >> good morning, john. well, 16 hours in and the uk government has decided not raise the terrorist threat level to its highest notch that is critical. it is a very good indication that they do believe that they have managed to kill the three men who planned and executed these attacks. >> however, officers today have been raiding homes in the east end of the city, and have arrested 12 people so far who may have connections to the attacks. >> they started just after 10:00 last night with people around london bridge running for their lives. urged on by the police. the terrorists then, which they have used to mow down pedestrians on the bridge stood abandoned as security services rushed to the scene from the air
8:33 am
and the ground. the three men armed with knives had raced into nearby restaurants on a stabbing spree. eyewitness gerard saw it all. >> a start running and stabbing everybody, whoever was near them. >> one by standing captured pictures of a victim being helped away, his throat apparently cut. and in this video, you can see severely injured people being treated at the scene of the attack in burrow market which is right next to the bridge. meanwhile, armed police units moved into position here, filmed by a traumatized resident on her phone. and then a suddenly as it had begun it was over, the three suspects shot dead by police. all of them were wearing what looked like suicide belts but which turned out to be fakes. prime minister theresa may. >> the police responded with great courage and great speed .. the terrorists were confronted
8:34 am
and shot by armed officers, within eight minutes of the police receiving the first emergency call. >> the police response was stunningly fast but the government is clearly worried that there are now other radicalized young men who realize that they need nothing more than a car and a kitchen knife to seau they them. >> as she said, terrorism breeds terrorism. >> dickerson: elizabeth palmer, thanks. we now go to cbs news foreign correspondent charlie d'agata who is also as london bridge. >> good morning, john we are in an area not far from where the attacks took place last night and these neighbors in the heart of london are still on lock down. the police cordon about as wide as it was last night as this investigation gets underway. this morning, forensic teams come through the area searching for any clue that might help identify the assailants and provide some explanation for their motivation. >> an unarmed transport police
8:35 am
officer was among the first knifing victims, stabbed in the faces a he tried to intervene. police say he is in stable condition, that his injuries are not life-threatening. >> documentary filmmaker gabriel used his cellphone to capture the moment armed police helped put an end to the rampage. >> so i saw this man with this kind of explosive looking belt and so at that point, they were running towards me. >> that apparent suicide belt was a fake, designed, police say, to spread panic and fear as attackers lunged at victims. then there was the police officer was trying to do his best to control the situation and i think he managed like he was the guy to put them towards the main street, where the cops came over and they surrounded these people and they shot them down. >> the attack came right on the
8:36 am
eve of tonight's ariana grande benefit concert in manchester in tribute to victims of the suicide bombing less than two weeks ago that killed 22 people. >> that concert actually sold out in less than 20 minutes. now, manchester police say it will go ahead as scheduled but with increased security, everyone is going to be searched and armed police will be on duty. >> john. >> dickerson: charlie d'agata for us in london, thanks, charlie. we want to go now to new york where former homeland security advisor to president george w. bush and cbs news senior national security analyst fran townsend is standing by. want to get your read on what happened and what we know so far. >> you know, john, look, the london police, the extraordinary speed with which they killed the three attackers, by the way the attackers helped them, the suicide vests as soon as police saw that knew they had to shoot them and take them down. i think right now what we are
8:37 am
seeing is in terms of the searches they are looking to see, were these three individuals, were they directed by isis? were they enabled or simply inspired? you know,, the difficulty is with individuals who are inspired by the internet like messages on telegram and the isis channel calling for these sorts of attacks using cars and knives, you know, it is difficult to interrupt that cycle of violence, if someone is merely going to take a van or knife how do you interrupt that? and i think that is what the prime minister is getting at. we can't stand for this radicalization over the internet any longer. >> dickerson: is that what she means, theresa may mentioned this was a new trend. is that how you read it in terms of what she means? what is new here? >> reporter: i think what she is talking about is new is this use of every day items of a car or a knife, something easily accessible where you can be inspired by a message on the internet and just go out. it is a new trend and, you know,
8:38 am
the londoners are really suffering from this. even the westminster attack in the last two months where they used a car on a different bridge and a knife. and so this does seem to be a new trend and very difficult for them to be able to get their arms around. >> dickerson: and as you say, as opposed to what happened in man academies search which required bomb making expertise this is homegrown type of -- >> that's right, john. we don't know, we are presuming these are british citizen bus we don't know that yet, so if it is homegrown, what is often referred to as clean skinned individuals otherwise unknown to authorities, it becomes very difficult to identify and deter and prevent the attack before it takes place. it really does require citizens to help identify those who may be in the process of radicalization before they take the decision to go out and do it. >> what would american officials be doing after an attack like this? >> well, i think serve going to be looking, first of all,
8:39 am
american authorities are looking to see do, we have anything in our intelligence about these three attackers or the network, if there is a network, that they are associated or affiliated with that might be of used to our british colleagues and authorities. i do think it is worth saying, john, after all of the leaks relating to manchester there was concern that authorities wouldn't be sharing, british authorities wouldn't share with us information. i think this is a good indication from what we are hearing and seeing that british authorities have continued to share intelligence with us and we are doing the same back to them. and that will help us ourselves in understanding how this attack was executed to help protect americans here at home. >> dickerson: the president responded first to this attack by bringing up his travel ban. how useful would that be in combating this kind of an attack? >> reporter: well, i think the concern, the underlying concern here is as we see our u.s. forces and our allied forces making progress in places like
8:40 am
mosul and raqaa against the sort of physical caliphate, will individuals flee that area before those cities fall and try to come to western countries, whether that is europe for united states? the president's, what we call the travel ban is really a 90-day moratorium to look at whether or not who do we let in under what circumstances and what are the sort of indicia we should be looking at to identify threats before they arrive on our shores. it is not clear whether or not that has relevance in this particular case, the overnight london attack, but i think that is the underlying concern, as the physical caliphate falls how do we identify and make sure we don't let those people sort of bleed into western europe and the united states. >> dickerson: all right, fran, townsend thanks so much. >> reporter: thanks, john. >> dickerson: we turn now to the top democratic on the, democrat on the, senator mark warner. >> first of all, john, let's express our condolences to the
8:41 am
british police, they are our closest allies and the police responded appropriately eight minutes after the incident started the terrorists were taken down and also want to emphasize as well that as your report just made that the information sharing between the british and the americans is still top-notch and going forward. i think there is not much more than the natc knows than what has been talkly reported. there is no imminent threat in the united states. the very question is, was this terrorist directed or terrorist inspired? the british will continue to investigate. i think it is really important, though, and one of the things that concerns me about the president's tweets this morning were he in effect is calling for a muslim travel ban again, even though the courts have continued to turn that down, if the president wanted 90 days to reexamine how individuals from certain countries would enter
8:42 am
the united states, he has had more than 90 days, why, if there are new procedures put in place, put those procedures in place. don't continue to call for this travel ban, which is, frankly, all of the leaders of the intelligence community have said would be, in effect, a slap in the face to muslim americans and others in, and this many ways may actually incite more incidents. >> dickerson: very quickly, theresa may said, she talked about technology, you were once a technology executive. she talked about internet service providers and how there needed to be some way to regulate cyberspace to keep this ideology from having a place to grow. what do you think of that? >> i think we do need to reexamine the roles of all of these platform companies, the facebook, the twitters, the googles, and recognize there may need to be some responsibility to curate information. i was out on the west coast last week and met with some of those companies. i think they understand that. they first started some regulation around child pornography, they have now started to regulate some content
8:43 am
around terrorism threats. the i was out there raising questions around fake news and how that kind of affected the democratic process, facebook for example said they took down 30,000 fake sites before the french elections, but i think this is a discussion that we need to have because obviously there is value in the internet, we want to continue to have these connections but there is also we are seeing the dark side. >> dickerson: you have two hearings this week, james comey is testifying on thursday but before you have a hearing on wednesday what is important about that hearing? >> we are going to have the wednesday hearing, director coats and nsa head admiral rogers, the press has reported both of those individuals had some level of pressure from the president to down play the russian investigation. i want to ask those individuals directly, did they have that kind of pressure, can they report on those conversations they had with the president? because it would be very concerning, and then obviously, first thing we have former fbi
8:44 am
director comey and i think we have known since watergate that rules of the road were, you know, a president shouldn't intervene in an ongoing investigation, particularly the case if it involves individuals that are close to that president, and it would be unthinkable if the president actually did what was reported, asked fbi director comey to in effect back off of at least the investigation into general flynn. >> dickerson: and is comey going to be able to testify there has been some talk --. there has been some talk but my hope, is and i believe this morning the white house has backed off from some call of executive privilege, since clearly the president himself has commented about this, and, you know, frankly no matter what you thought about jim comey the fact that the president disparaged him with comments in front of the russians is just unacceptable. >> dickerson: so you expect james comey to give a sense of why he felt that pressure, he won't bring the memos he wrote, why not -- >> we want to get a look at those memos as well. i believe former fbi director null whore is now leading the
8:45 am
investigation he will have to agree whether comey can look at those memos or whether we can look at those memos. ultimately i think we will get a chance to look at them. i think it is very important. >> dickerson: is there a key question you want comey to answer? >> i want him to reinforce one the fact that the russians directly intervened in our elections, which everybody accepts except for the president and maybe vladimir putin. and, two, i want to know what kind of pressure appropriate, inappropriate, how many conversations he had with the president about this topic, did some of these conversations a take place even before the president was sworn in? and i think jim comey deserves to have in effect the day in court since the president disparaged him so much. >> dickerson:. >> you said the treasury department has not complied fully with the committee document request. where does that stand? >> we are still sorting through, getting, we are getting more cooperation and trying to folsom of the financial ties. there have been some evidence. >> dickerson: as 0 are, ties to russia? >> guys to russia between some of the associate office mr. trump, some of the payments. we just want to follow that to ground, whether with general
8:46 am
flynn or mr. mann forth, and, manafort and i think we have that information. i know you will have susan collins on later in the program, i am very proud of the committee we have stayed bipartisan and going to follow the facts and every one of us democrats and republicans realize this it is one of the most important things we do and wherever the facts lead we are going to follow. >> dickerson: will you be asking treasury for any information about president trump's ties to russia? >> i think if there are inappropriate indication of financial ties, we would look at those, we have not seen those to date, there is a lot of smoke, we have no smoking gun but this, every week there is more smoke that appears wand, and we have to sort through it. >> dickerson: give me a sense of the larger smoke question. there is no groove of conclusion, so where, collusion, where are we on smoke versus fire. >> have a number of contacts that took place between individuals affiliated with the trump campaign and the russians prior to elections. and there are still some of those contacts that, that i
8:47 am
don't think have been fully revealed and then we have a series of contacts that took place between the election and the president's inaugural, some of those were contacts that obviously didn't get disclosed, cost general flynn his job and cost the attorney general, he had to recuse himself from the investigation because these individuals didn't fully disclose. we have a search advice of contacts as well between mr. kushner that some may have taken place before the election but obviously others after the election. then we have the series of events that took place since the president has been sworn in where clearly comey and potentially rogers, coates and maybe others have been attempted to be influence bed at this president. so as each week goes along and more stories break, what i think the president deserves and the american public deserves is to go past reported press stories and actually hit facts. >> dickerson: final, very quickly, anything off limit with comey on questions? >> i think she going to have a chance to tell his story and i i know every smeb going to have a
8:48 am
number of questions for him. >> dickerson: thank you so much. >> thank you, john. >> dickerson: and we will be back in a minute. >>
8:49 am
>> dickerson:. >> and we are back with maine republican senator susan colonel whroins is also a member of the intelligence committee. senator, before we get to the hearings this week i want to ask you the president's reaction to this horrible attack was that he said the travel ban that he pushed for needs to be enactedht now. do you agree with that? >> i don't. i think that the travel ban is too broad and that is why it has been rejected by the courts. the president is right, however, that we need to do a better job of vetting individuals who are coming from war torn countries into our nation, but i do believe that the very broad ban that he has proposed is not the right way to go. >> dickerson: let me ask you about the hearings next week. you said to "the new york times" that this was like a tapestry, and that there are threads and you are seeing more and more,
8:50 am
the more you get into it, how big is that damn i have? is it getting bigger? how do you feel like you have a handle on it or just keeps getting bigger? >> there is so much speculation and so many stories and so many leaks that it is very difficult to determine the facts of the russian involvement in our elections last fall, the extent of that involvement, and also whether or not there was collusion or collaboration with members of president trump's campaign team. and that is why the hearings this week are so important, particularly the hearing on thursday with mr. comey. this will give us a chance to give his perspective on the issue of russian involvement and also on the issue of collaboration or collusion. what has he seen? what initial judgments has he made? >> dickerson: you have mentioned -- i think because of that complexity you might --
8:51 am
might benefit from having a special investigator on the committee. is that the benefit of that? >> it is. this is extraordinarily complex, and we have a wonderful staff of experts in intelligence, but i think we would benefit from having an experienced investigator overseeing the investigation. i will say every member of the committee has been extremely active in reviewing the evidence that we do have so far. >> dickerson: how much of your time does this take up, all of that evidence? >> it is taking up a great deal of time. i have made three different trips to cia headquarters to go over the raw intelligence. that is information that we don't usually get to see. one reason that i am so eager to question mr. comey is in the letter in which he -- in which the president fired the former fbi director there is a very interesting phrase in which he
8:52 am
says, while i am very grateful that you on three separate occasions informed me that i was not a subject of the investigation, that trays raises a lot of questions in my mind. does mr. comey agree that that is what was said? why would he tell the president that? what was the tone a and the context of those discussions on three different occasions if they, in fact, are accurately portrayed in this letter. >> dickerson: well, mr. comey at one point said in testimony, he said there was no effort to block this investigation. so how do you see those, squaring those two things? >> that is one of the reasons why it is so important for us to hear from mr. comey before our committee as well as other witnesses. the acting director of the fbi also said that there have not been an attempt to influence the investigation.
8:53 am
and yet we hear about these memos to the file, all of these dinners and meetings between president trump and the fbi, the former fbi director, so we need hear the directly from mr. comey on these important issues. >> dickerson: and in your mind, is there a space where the president could have put pressure on him, but pressure is not all the way to obstruction? >> absolutely. let me give you an example o of the conversation that allegedly occurred about michael flynn. if the president said, look, i just fired the guy. i feel bad for him. what do you think is going to happen? that is one thing. if on the other hand the president said to mr. comey, i want you to end this investigation of general flynn. i want it ended now. and if you don't do so you are going to be in trouble. that is a whole different nature of a conversation. and that is why the tone, the exact words that were spoken and the context are so important.
8:54 am
and that is what we lack right now. and we can only get that by talking to those directly involved. >> dickerson: all right, senator collins, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you a. >> dickerson: and we will be back in a moment. back in a moment. >> ow. $4.95 per trade? uhhh. and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah.
8:55 am
♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks. ♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver.
8:56 am
a. >> dickerson: cbs news will have live coverage of former fbi director comey's testimony before congress on thursday, june 8th, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, 7:00 a.m. pacific. we will be back in a moment. >> this portion of face nation is sponsored by fed ex. helping deliver global ecommerce. >>
8:57 am
♪ what we do every night is like something out of a strange dream. except that the next morning... it all makes sense. fedex powers global e-commerce... with networks built over 40 years... that are massive... far-reaching... and, yes... maybe a bit magical. ♪ [boy] cannonball! [girl] don't... [man] not again! [burke] swan drive. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two.
8:58 am
♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ >> dickerson: and we will be right back with a lot more "face the nation", including our interview with u.n. ambassador nikki haley explaining the president's decision to leave the paris climate accord and it is head of nato, jens stoltenberg. plus our panel. stay with us. >>
8:59 am
9:00 am
welcome back to "face the nation". we spoke with u.n. ambassador nikki haley before the london attacks occurred, so we had to edit her remarks for our broadcast today. the longer version of our interview is available at wwe began by asking about international reaction to the president's decision to pull out of the paris climate change accord. >> i think they understand. they understand that the u.s. is doing what is in the best interest force u.s. and the thing is, john jerks always been a leader when it comes to the environment, and we have always been very conscious of that, and what you are seeing the u.s. doing is making sure we are take diving u.s. first, our first concern does not need to be what the international community thinks of us. our concern needs to be, are we doing right by the american citizens? >> dickerson: does the president believe in climate change, ambassador? >> he believes that climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of that equation and a i know he is absolutely intent on making sure
9:01 am
we have clean air, clean water, that he makes sure we are doing everything we can to keep america's moral compass in the world when it develops the environment. we have done that in the past, we will do it in the future, it is what the u.s. does, it is what we will continue to do. >> dickerson: that seems to be a difference there what the president has said before he said i do not believe in climate change and he has called it a hoax. so you are saying that is not true? he believes in man-made climate change? >> the president believes the climate is changing, and he does know that mutants are a part of that equation. >> dickerson: so he believes human activity which creates those mutants leads to climate change; is that right? >> john, i just gave you the answer. i mean, that is what he believes and so that is as clear as i know to give it. you know, we can all weigh in out but at the end of the day watch the president does. what he is doing is making sure that we have jobs for american citizens but also making sure that we have a clean environment. >> dickerson: you and the president have said he would like to forge a new agreement with the international community. now, countries like germany and
9:02 am
itly said, there can be no agreement but also how can there be an agreement if the united states doesn't believe that human activity leads to climate change and the entire rest of the world does? >> john, i think that at the end of the day, we can debate the minutia of what is and what isn't climate change, but what we have to look at is, as the president said he will look out for jobs, she going to look out for the economy and he is going to look out for america's interests, but we are always going to be a good international citizen. it is what we have always done. we have always been conscious of the environment, we are not going to stop doing that. >> dickerson: okay. it seems like there is an irrevocable disagreement with the rest of the world. let me ask you this question. >> i think the rest of the world would like to tell us how to manage our own environment and i think anybody in america can tell you we are best to decide what america should do. we don't need india and france and china telling us what they think we should do. >> dickerson: angela merkel obviously in her conversation with the president about said if
9:03 am
the u.s. pulls out of the agreement what is the moral look going to be in africa where it affects famine and drought and war and fiji where the sea levels are affecting them what is the answer to angel angela m. >> the answer is they should continue doing what is in the best interest and if the paris agreement is something that works for them they can achieve, they should do that. you know, there is a reason that president obama didn't go through the senate to get this cleared, because he couldn't. it was -- the regulations were unattainable, i mean you could actually could not have a business run under the regulations that we had, and so we are not saying 4 get about the environment, we know that there are issues with the environment, we no he that we have to be conscious of it. but we can't sit there and have angela merkel telling us to worry about africa, she should continue doing her part and we will continue doing our part and we will continue encouraging other countries to do what they think is in the best interest of them, but, you know, american
9:04 am
sovereignty matters. >> dickerson: when we spoke in april you said that it was washington chatter about the question of russian meddling in the elections but since then there have been more reports about russia trying to meddle in nato countries, the president of russia talked about breaking up nato as an objective yet the u.s. has taken no action against russia. why? >> i think that, you know, they are going through the motions of the investigation. i can tell you we have taken actions against russia in the security council, we have stood strong on the sanctions and to the situation with ukraine and called them out in their association with the assad regime and going continue to call them out as we need to. at the same time, we are trying to see if we can have talks with them on how to better come in line in the syrian conflict. we are okaying with them on counterterrorism. but if we see russia doing anything wrong, we are going to tell them, i can tell you the international community is concerned about russia's meddling within all of their elections, but their, there are concern about russia for a lot of reasons and we will continue
9:05 am
to keep our eyes on them and when we can work with them we want to do that but when we can't we want to hold the line. >> dickerson: thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you, john. >> dickerson: and we will be right back with a special interview with nato secretary-general jens stoltenberg. >>
9:06 am
>> dickerson: joining us now is nato secretary-general, jens stoltenberg, mr. secretary-general we want to welcome you to face the nation. nato in the most recent meeting there was a lot of talk about terrorism.
9:07 am
how does that relate to what just happened overnight in london? >> what happened overnight in london just underlines the importance of stepping up the efforts to fight terrorism, and nato has an important role to play. our biggest cooperation or presence in afghanistan is about fighting terrorism, preventing afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists and we are in afghanistan in response to the terrorist attack against the united states and 9/11, 2001, but what we decided at the meeting last week was to step up our efforts by joining the global coalition to fight isil and also to provide more support to our surveillance planes and the nato allies are in many different ways contributing to a very important, long fight that will take time to defeat isil and extremists. >> dickerson: and so that nato
9:08 am
role extends beyond afghanistan into the awac planes in syria and iraq as well. >> yes, first of all nato has done many things in the fight against terrorism for many careers but afghanistan has been the biggest operation. we are increasing our practical support to the counter isil coalition and training iraqi forces with awac surveillance planes, to improve the situation in iraq but also working with partners in the region, jordan to help them, to help them keep their own countries stable, that is extremely important in the fight against terrorism. and we are also strengthening our work when it comes to intelligence, we just established an alliance for intelligence and to improve the ways we are sharing intelligence. and the u.s. is playing a lead role in all of this, u.s. so strongly pushing for nato joining the coalition, president trump personally engaged in that issue, and i welcome the u.s. in
9:09 am
the fight against terrorism. >> dickerson: you were prime minister in 2011 when there was an attack in norway. does this reflect on this moment in london based on your experience. >> i think what we see is that the terrorists they want to change the way we believe, they want to attack our open, free societies and the best response is to stand up for our open free societies and continue to live the lives we want to live, because then the terrorists will lose. it also underlies the important of many things. we need many tools. we need to fight the ideology, the extremism, and political, diplomatic means but also need military tools as we see in afghanistan. >> dickerson: what is your response to the president's departure from the paris accord this week? >> he has made his decision and we have heard the reactions from the european allies. i think this illustrates that nato is an alliance of 28 democracies, we have seen differences before, going back
9:10 am
to the crisis in iraq war in 2003, but nato has been able to rise above these differences and stand together, be united around, to depend and protect each other and that's exactly what we are doing now. >> nato has weathered difficulties but this isn't alone, the paris agreement departure and there was also some confusion about the president's behavior at the nato meeting. do you believe that president trump believes in the mission of nato? >> absolutely, partly because this is a treaty obligation by all allies, it is part of the founding of the alliance. second, because he has in meetings with me and a public, when i met him in the white house last month stated that he is committed to nato and his security team has also stated that very clearly. but more importantly is that the u.s. is now increasing their military presence in europe for the first time since the cold
9:11 am
war, and the president trump suggested 40 percent increase in funding for u.s. military presence in europe. we will have a new armored brigade. we will have more training. more equipment, more infrastructure, so actions speak louder than words and we have seen actions meaning increased u.s. presence in europe. >> dickerson: you mentioned words critics say the president didn't mention article 5 during this nato meeting, the idea that an attack on one is an attack on all. has that over blown his fix ace on not mentioning that? >> first of all he has stated several times he is committed to nato and there is no way you can be committed to nato without being committed to article 5 because nato is about article 5, collective defense, stand together, all for one, one for all. second, it is in the u.s. interest to have a strong nato because two world wars and the cold war told us stability, peace in europe is also
9:12 am
important for the process enter at this and the stability for security of the united states. you have to remember that the only time nato has invoked article 5 was after an attack on the united states. >> dickerson: has president trump's pressure on nato members to pick up their financial commitments has that been effective? >> it has helped to convey a very clear message about the need for increased defense spending across canada and europe, and a good thing is that the european allies now understand that we have to invest more in defense, not only to please the united states but because it is in the interests of europe to invest more in security, because we live in more dangerous world, and the good news is that defense spending now has started to increase across europe. we have started to increase and looking toward the target. >> dickerson: secretary-general thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> dickerson: and we will be
9:13 am
right back with our political panel. >> ,,,,,,,,,,
9:14 am
>> dickerson: and now for our political panel. carol lee is the white house correspondent for the "wall street journal", jamelle bouie
9:15 am
is the cbs news political analyst and slate's chief political correspondent. ramesh ponnuru is a visiting fellow at the american enterprise institute and senior editor for the "national review" and we want to welcome adam entous to the broadcast, he covers national security and foreign policy for the "washington post". ramesh, i want to start a with you. we have seen two reactions to this terrorist attack in london. the first was from the secretary of defense, james mattis and he was asked about the reports and he said, quote, i like to learn about something before i talk. and then we have had the president wh who has tweeted que a number of times since the attack, maybe half a dozen types and talked about everything from promoting his travel ban, he criticized the mayor of london, and he also talked about also gun control. what do yowhat do you make of to different reactions? is that the yin and yang of the trump reaction? >> i think the secretary of defense has reeked in a fairly customary manner for a high government official, and president trump continues to redefine what presidential means
9:16 am
in this new era. i thought that he found the right tone after manchester when he called the attackers evil losers, i thought that was kind of an inspired choice of rhetoric, here i third he reverted to his normal twitter form. i think it is off the tone that we would want to have in a president. i think gratuitously getting gen argument with the mayor of london whose city just suffered this attack, even if you political disagreements, trying to win debate points on issues like gun control, that is stuff you can leave to talk radio hosts that you wouldn't normally have the president, the leader of the free world doing. >> dickerson: the president mentioned that america needs to stop being politically correct. what do you think that means? he means, i guess in part the travel ban, do you think it goes beyond that? >> i think it is very much tied to the travel ban and broadly is a piece of president trump's view that oh, radical islamic
9:17 am
terrorism is the chief threat to the world. it is interesting that the president says that what needs to happen is less political correctness, given that if you look at his administration we have posts in the state department -- there is, i don't believe there is an ambassador to the uk at the moment. we have an administration that simply is not fully equipped to deal with security issues and my perspective it seems like that is what we need, less than any particular kind of political incorrectness but i do think that this choice of words about political correctness ties back to president trump sort of broader narrative about islam, about islam's danger to the west and to the united states and i think that is rhetoric that, as i think mayor of london criticized president trump for, may be a disadvantage to try to do something about -- >> dickerson: carol, what is the your sense of this? you have -- the president, obviously during the campaign, he spoke out or made this
9:18 am
connection between islam and terror. and when the first travel ban was put forward, a senior administration official talked about the travel ban and what else they may do in the administration and senior administration official said the reality, though, is the situation of large islamic populations that exist today in france, parts of germany, belgium, et cetera is not a situation we want to replicate inside the united states. that suggests that something more than just banning from certain countries. do you think the administration is headed in any direction beyond the travel ban in terms of any kinds of new policies that would address kind of a terror attack we saw in london? >> i think there is a potential for that but i think you need to look at what the president's agenda is particularly this week in talking about his difference between his response to the manchester attack, if you remember he was overseas at that time, he was talking with world leaders about implementing counterterrorism measures, combating ideology, he was taking a different sort of tone this week he is mentioning his travel ban and possibly a decision within the supreme court that could either give him
9:19 am
a temporary reprieve on his travel ban or not, so his agenda at least this week he is also home. he tends to tweet a little bit more and say things that are more customary to what w we have seen in the campaign from him when he is left to his own devices and he is not traveling overseas or perhaps with a bunch of different aides and so potentially i think you have to look at what his narrow agenda is in the next few days, with situate particularly on this travel ban. >> dickerson:. >> yes. you know, obviously we see him sort of previewing, you know, his view of the courts and pointing the finger at the courts saying, you know, if something like that were to happen here they are to blame for that threat and i think that is something that, you know, obviously would be a concern that, you know, i think it is a matter of time, you know, we could see something like that happen here. there are so many soft targets. also in the united states. is he basically going to be
9:20 am
pointing the finger at the courts at that point for preventing those attacks from happening here when, in fact, you know, i think we are finding in the case of london and potentially here the travel ban as he is describing it would not necessarily help with, this and so, you know, that is also a concern. is he basically trying to project a culpability on the courts for not pursuing his agenda? >> this is sort of, it is related to london and i think it is worth saying here. which is, there is an interesting kind of pattern i would call it with regard to president trump's reaction to terror attacks or attacks from sort of radicalized people. it seems that if if the president can't identify them as muslim or related to islam his reactions are immediate and strong. here in the united states in the past two months we have had multiple attacks from what authorities have described, white supremacists, white supremacist connections, views, there is a portland, there is
9:21 am
the in a man who went to baltimore to new york who authorities have described as a terror attack. and trump has been silent on those or at least prolonged silence and i think that difference there says a lot about how president trump conceives of terrorism and how he conceives of the necessary response to it. >> dickerson: carol, on wednesday and thursday we have these two hearings, a big hearing with james comey, that is obviously a challenge to the white house, how is the president responding to that? >> well, there are a number of ways in which they are responding. there was a big question of whether or not the president would try 0 to stop director comey from testifying or same certain things but many say he waved his executive privilege on certain conversations particularly that the president and director comey had about whether general flynn, the national security advisor the investigations into him or whether whether the president was under investigation. so i think they are watching this obviously very closely. they are also have taken steps to create a sort of unit within
9:22 am
the white house that is just specifically designed to deal with this issue of the russian investigation at large, so you will see some mobilization there and the idea is that the russia investigation has just bled too far into all the white house is trying to do and really try to wall it off and that's the way we saw in the clinton administration during the lewinsky trial, we will certainly look for the president to tweet and see some sort of response there, but i think they are just mostly watching. >> dickerson: what a are you watching for with the hearings this week? >> i think we have a hearing that is on wednesday where we are going to have the director of national intelligence coates, he is definitely going to be pressed on whether or not he came under any pressure from the president to basically contradict comey publicly when it comes to whether there was any coordination or collusion between members of the trump campaign, transition and russian officials so that starts off wednesday and when you get to thursday with comey, you know,
9:23 am
obviously what we don't know is the extent to which everything we have learned about his interactions, whether we have seen all of that in the reporting that has been done about the contents of the memos that he prepared. you know, this is a huge high stakes now, and, you know, whether comey is prepared to characterize what he was seeing when he was fbi director, i am skeptical he is going to be willing to go in that direction, but his willingness to talk about, you know, his private interactions with the president gets to, i think, a critical issue here is was there an effort to obstruct what were the contours of that effort, and, you know, are there elements of it coming from him personally that can really help, i think, the public, you know, empathize with comey and really kind of points to this broader question of obstruction that needs to be flushed out. >> dickerson: how do you think the politics of this hearing will play out, ramesh?
9:24 am
comey has been both the hero and villain in both parties. how do you think it plays out, and the allies of the president, how do he comport themselves in this? >> i think it is going to depend on a number of things. one is whether it happens at all. because it is entirely possible that the administration will make an assertion of executive privilege, carol was discussing, i think that would be an untenable position, unwinnable fight but that doesn't rule it out as happening. second, of course it is going to be what does comey say if this testimony proceeds, how does he characterize the pressure that was put on him? there is some room for ambiguity here that he can clear up or not clear up. and third, how much does he decline to say because mull search investigating these things and he doesn't want to step on these, the special counsel investigation. i think you are going to see probably a division of opinion among republicans, and the question is going to be how many of them are completely in defense for this administration and are taking the president's
9:25 am
line that this is -- that this entire investigation is essentially a kind of hoax, that his opponents have cooked up and how many of them are going to be entering it with an open mind, asking these questions, not necessarily prejudging that 43 has done something wrong, but not necessarily just in his corner at the same time. >> dickerson: carol i want in the last 45 second wes have last in the climate change decision from the president do you have a larger theory about how this fits into the trump presidency that you take from this decision he made? >> i would say a couple of things. it is consistent with how he campaigned. i think he had shifted on a lot of positions that he campaigned on and this is one where he couldn't go that far. it tells you a lot, i think it is true he was irritated with the pressure from the europeans. i told you that this is a president that does not like to be backed into a corner and will react. and i think he also left himself some wiggle room to potentially go back and try to do something
9:26 am
else. no one thinks that is actually going to happen but his rhetoric was a little bit, left him a little space so i think we just learned as to there are limits as to what he is willing to do in backing off his position. >> dickerson: we will have to end it there. thanks to all of you and we will be right back. >> i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurhuh. with geico. i should take a closer look at geico... geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage. this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella.
9:27 am
fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah? it's an expression, ya know? fire at will? you never heard of that? oh, there goes will! bye, will! that's not his name! take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more.
9:28 am
>> dickerson: that's it for us today. thanks for watching. until next week for "face the nation", i am john dickerson.
9:29 am
9:30 am
the following is a paid program. ♪ upbeat guitar music playing ♪ if you've been waiting to go solar, waiting for that best price of the year. today is your day. it's solar insanity. we've got 200 solar powered systems drastically reduced. we're going to sell them all today, so you might as well call, get going. we've got solar, we've got roofing, we've got battery storage, we've got roofing and solar combos. you could actually pay less for a new roof and solar power system than you're currently paying for your electric bill. so, what are you waiting for? flip off your power company and flip on the cheapest power you can buy. right now, it's solar insanity featuring solar4america. so, if you already know what a solar power system is, just call the number right now. if you don't, i want to introduce you to the man who invented solar4america. the founder, the president, the ceo, jim petersen. how are we looking over there we selling systems already? - we've already nine in the pre-sales. when you've got these kinds of prices, john, and you know we've done this in the past. when you've got a limited number of systems and these types


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on