 I'm Mark Uptigrove, the President and CEO of the LBJ Foundation. And on behalf of our partner this evening, the Intelligence Studies Project at the University of Texas at Austin, I want to welcome you to an evening with former CIA Director John Brennan. I'm honored to conduct the conversation with Director Brennan, and I'm also privileged to be joined tonight by Steve Slick, the inaugural director of the Intelligence Studies Project, who prior to coming to UT served in the intelligence community himself for nearly 30 years. Steve will introduce our guest tonight with whom he served as a colleague at the Central Intelligence Agency. So ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming my friend Steve Slick. Good evening. Thank you very much, Mark. The Intelligence Studies Project is absolutely delighted to co-sponsor this evening's event, and I join all of you in looking forward to the conversation. UT's Intelligence Studies Project was launched five years ago. Our marching orders came from two public servants who know a little bit about intelligence. Admiral Bobby Inman observed, there's been far too little focus in the academic world on the intelligence community, and the critical role it plays in our country's national security. He charged us with building here in Austin the nation's leading academic center for the study of intelligence. Former Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence Bob Gates told us, help the new generation to learn about intelligence, its many disciplines, its structure, how it operates, its strengths and weaknesses, how it is used, how it is used, and most importantly, how it can be improved. So we're making some progress. We now offer a range of courses on intelligence to graduate and undergraduate students. We sponsor research that has an impact on our national security policies in Washington, and we know that because the policymakers tell us. Finally, we routinely host here on campus current and former leaders of America's intelligence agencies, and that tradition will continue tonight. The Intelligence Studies Project relies daily on the support of the Strauss Center for International Security and Security and Law, excuse me, and the Clement Center for National Security. We appreciate our partners at the LBJ Foundation and the library and the hospitality of the LBJ School of Public Affairs. Increasingly, though, we can turn to our alumni who are found among the leaders in the U.S. national security community. John Brennan is one such alumnus. In 1980, John curtailed a Ph.D. program in the government department, collected his master's degree, and moved to Washington, D.C. to accept a job offer from the Central Intelligence Agency. Over the next 25 years, John distinguished himself in assignments in both the analytical and the operational arms of the agency. In 2005, after standing up the new National Counterterrorism Center, John left government for a brief stint in the private sector. He returned to public service in 2009 as President Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The president then appointed John Director of the CIA in 2013, a position he held through the change in administrations in January of 2017. At CIA, John was not a status quo leader. He directed a major modernization program that more closely integrated the operational and analytic experts. He also prioritized digital technology. John resumed his association with UT last year and now contributes as a university distinguished scholar. Earlier today, in fact, John met with academics, policymakers, and several journalists who were enrolled in the Strauss Center's cyber boot camp. He met with a class of LBJ school graduate students studying intelligence and policymaking. And he also met with my plan two intelligence seminar just several minutes ago, so we worked John quite hard. Please join me in welcoming John Brennan back to the 40 acres. We're welcome, Mr. Director. Thank you, Mark. It's great to be back in Austin. This has been a very disturbing day where we've seen threats on your life and on the lives of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others. What are your thoughts as we end today? Well, I think we're at a very unfortunate stage of our national history. When we cannot have the civil discourse that we need about the future direction of our country and policies without having individuals, I think very disturbed individuals, resorting to attempted acts of violence. And so I recognize that there are a lot of raw emotions and feelings in this country and very strong feelings for individual political parties as well as individual politicians. But this country was founded upon the foundation of freedom and liberty and freedom of speech. And if I and others are being targeted because we're speaking out and we're living up to our responsibilities as citizens, I think that again is a very unfortunate turn of events. So I have full confidence in my former law enforcement and intelligence colleagues to get to the bottom of this and to take the appropriate actions. I have been contacted by the folks in the security realm, letting me know what they're doing. So this is something that I think all Americans who really cherish our freedoms and our liberties really should be outraged over and try to do everything possible to bring that the level of discourse down. So that we're able to engage in a very constructive and productive way to make sure that this country is able to realize its full potential, including on the political front. Donald Trump made a statement earlier today in which he said, I just want to tell you that in these times we have to unify. We have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America. We live in a very divided nation. Have we reached a moment finally when we're capable of coming together? Well, I'm tempted to say that was said by Donald Who. Well, I think it's very important for an individual who is in the Oval Office today to say exactly that, that we need to come together as a country. We need to unite. We may have differences, but this should be no reason whatsoever to resort to these types of acts of intimidation and potentially violence. I sincerely wish that Donald Trump though would have said these things previously and regularly. I wish that he would have encouraged people from all different backgrounds and political affiliations to come together and to try to resolve differences in a very positive manner. Unfortunately, I think Donald Trump too often has helped to incite some of these feelings of anger, if not violence. When he points to acts of violence or also talks about swinging at somebody from the press, the media. That's why I have spoken out so strongly, some would say very stridently. Because of what I think is a continued failure on the part of Donald Trump to live up to what I think should be all of our expectations about what an American president should be doing, especially in times like this. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I work for six presidents, three Democrats and three Republicans. I had tremendous respect for all of them. I didn't agree with all the policies, but I always believed that they were trying to do what they believed was in the best interests of the country and not of themselves. And also I felt that at particular times when maybe tensions within this country were strong or emotions are strong, they were unifiers. I remember very vividly how President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9-11 was helping to rally this country so that we all stick together in the face of this foreign adversary who caused such great havoc, destruction and carnage, the 9-11 attacks. So unfortunately, I think Donald Trump has not helped to encourage the type of civil discourse and public engagement. And his rhetoric too frequently I think fuels these feelings and sentiments that now are bleeding over into potentially acts of violence. So I'm hoping that this is going to make it clear to him that what he has done here to fore as far as a lot of this rhetoric really is counterproductive. It is un-American. It is what a president should not be doing. What he said today is what the president should be doing. But follow up on those words with actions and with his future comments. I'm hoping that maybe this is a turning point. To be clear, Mr. Director, does the president's rhetoric emboldened those who might commit these acts? I think one can make an argument that it has emboldened individuals to take matters into their own hands. And so when he compliments individuals who have in fact body slammed others or that he's going to pay the legal bills if somebody takes a swing at somebody, that can only be seen as encouragement and incitement. And maybe it makes him and his people feel good at a rally that's gonna sort of generate the type of applause because it shows that he's being tough and strong, but it's really showing I think a weakness. And this is what unfortunately a lot of bullies and a lot of individuals do. And he's pandering to those I think very, very disturbing sentiments of some people that want to take matters into their own physical hands, as opposed to working through these problems. And that's why I think it's so important for somebody who really is the spokesperson for the government and for the country. He has to realize that every single day, whether he realizes not, he's a role model. Not just a role model for these individuals who might be engaging this, but role model for the next generation of Americans. That's why I spent the entire day talking to a lot of students here at UT. I believe very strongly that the next generation of Americans should really cherish all the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in this country and try to give back to this wonderful country of ours, either through public service or the good works that they do with their community or and so again, I really have some serious, serious concerns and objections to what Mr. Trump has done while he is serving in that very, very special and esteemed office of the presidency. He needs to rethink what he is doing and saying. He should not be beating the tom-toms of anger and animosity and war. He should be trying to bring us together and heal us as a people, because the polarization that has taken place in this country over the last couple of years is really quite antithetical to what this country is, which is to bring Americans together. So I tend to get very frustrated. I'm trying to figure out exactly how I can use my voice as a way to object to what he's doing. I am hoping not to add to that cauldron of emotions and feelings. But in having policy differences with the president, as I said, I've had them before, that's fine. But when a president does not maintain the decency, the integrity, the honesty that I think should be inherent in that office of the presidency, I'm going to call it out. I'm going to say this is wrong and there needs to be some changes here. And I hope that more and more people, more Americans, especially people who are part of Mr. Trump's political party, Republicans, are not just going to turn a blind eye because of other things that maybe he is doing and they want to see accomplished, but call them out and say, this should not happen. This is inconsistent with our values as a country and what it is that you should be doing as a president. And it's overdue and too many of the individuals in the Republican party are not fulfilling their responsibilities. Again, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, but I think on the basis of all of what we do, we should be Americans. And I think too few of them are putting being an American first and putting their political affiliation or their tribe or their agenda first. And I think for the good of the country this needs to stop. Mr. Director, when did you decide to speak out? Was there a point where you said, you know what? I can't take this anymore. I need to make my voice heard. Well, I think there were some indications even before Mr. Trump assumed the office of the presidency in December of 2016 and in January of 2017, he was denigrating and disparaging the work of the intelligence professionals and the mission that they had been on. And there were very, very, I think, destructive comments that he made. And so I spoke out even when I was Director of CIA because these are colleagues and American patriots that have sacrificed so much. Their families have sacrificed so much for this country. And for someone like Mr. Trump to come in and basically just be so dismissive and very negative, I took that very personally. I tend to get defensive of my colleagues at CIA and the intelligence community. And I was then hoping that he was going to change his ways once he assumed the office of presidency. But within two days after his inauguration, there he was at CIA headquarters in front of that very, very special memorial wall where the stars are emblazoned on it of CIA officers, women and men over the years, who paid the supreme sacrifice and gave their lives and then went on a political rant about the size of his inaugural crowd. To me, that really was sacrilegious in many respects to a CIA officer. And so I came out with a statement saying that he should be ashamed of himself, that it was a despicable display of self and grand diesman, I think I said. And so through the course of 2017 and then 2018 here, I have not seen him mend his ways. And so I have decided that I'm going to speak out. I was gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that he would adapt to the office of the presidency, but he hasn't. And one can argue with what I have said or how I have said it or what I have done. But the things that he does and says, knowing lies, knowing dishonesty, fueling the fires of partisanship, fueling these emotions and these sentiments, this is something that no president of the United States should be allowed to get away with. And so I guess it's been building, it's been a crescendo now. And my father was a tremendous role model for me, tremendous integrity and honesty. And he always said, John, do what you think is the right thing to do. And there'll be people that will criticize you for it, but if you can look yourself in the mirror in the following morning and say, I did my best, I told the truth, you're okay. And so I've tried to lead my life that way. And people are surprised that a former director of CIA is speaking out publicly. How dare he do that? Well, I very much adhere to my obligations when I was a CIA director in terms of not being a partisan, not being an advocate of policy. But from the course of 33 years in public service, I worked hard to protect those freedoms that we hold so dear, including the freedom of speech. And so now I'm taking advantage of those 33 years of investment for freedom of speech. And I'm not gonna be intimidated. And people can say that my security clearances have been revoked, people can do other types of things. I am so proud to be an American. I am the son of an immigrant. And my father impressed upon me early on, John, don't ever take for granted that you are an American citizen. He worked hard for 28 years from overseas to emigrate here to the States. And he instilled in myself and my siblings just how special it was to be an American and to do what we can to give back to this great country of ours. So I do take personal offense when there are individuals who are in these positions of responsibility that are supposed to represent the interests of all Americans, not their tribe, not their core constituency, but all Americans. And when they fail to live up to the very basic and minimum standards of decency and integrity and honesty, they are failing. And they should not be allowed to get away with it. And that's, I'm gonna continue. I'm not that I feel strongly about this issue. And looking back, is there anything you've said, any criticism you have made where you thought maybe I went a little too far there? Hello. Good, yeah. I thought my freedom of speech was being a bridge. How are we doing, guys? Can you hear me now? Okay, that's good. Yeah, good. Okay, I'm back. The most uttered phrase in the United States today. Can you hear me now? You know, sometimes my Irish gets up. And especially, as I said, when my former colleagues are being targeted unfairly, I will, some of you may know, I have a Twitter account. That sometimes I put some things out there. I would have to go back over it and I'm sure I might refine some words, whatever. Early on, I think I was using a lot of words that a lot of my followers were saying were too many syllables and it requires some people to have to look them up. Cacostocracy was a good one. But I don't regret going out publicly. And yes, is it a bit abnormal? Jim Clapper, the former director of national intelligence is speaking out as well. Michael Hayden as well. We have very abnormal times now. I would argue we have a very abnormal individual in the Oval Office who is, again, not fulfilling our responsibilities. So this is my second time I retired. I was really looking forward to just sort of riding off slowly and quietly into the sunset and just being able to spend more time with my family, catching up on American culture and seeing a movie now and again that I never saw over the course of my career. But again, these times have compelled me to speak out and again, it's because I love this country so much and I take seriously my responsibilities of being an American. And if my voice in any way helps to maybe get us on a better track and I'm hoping I'm not, again, getting us on the wrong track at all, and so I need to be mindful of that and I'm trying to be, I think more so over the past several months because I recognize that my voice is heard but I'm not going to be quiet. It's just, it's not in my nature. Sorry. President has questioned the integrity of the intelligence community on several occasions. What's the morale of your colleagues in the intelligence community today? Well, CIA officers as well as FBI agents and others in the intelligence community, I think they have been used to over the years being a bit of a political football and being the subject of criticism from both sides of the aisle. And I think the professionals are used to it and I tell them, keep your head down, continue to focus on mission, irrespective of what they might say about your integrity and your mission and your importance, you know just how important your mission is. You know how you keep your fellow Americans safe. So continue to do that. I'm sure it's dispiriting to many people, especially the sacrifices they make and probably some of the newer employees are wondering, boy, is this what it's like all the time? It's not like this all the time. But there are two constituencies that I'm very concerned about, the morale and the reaction. One of the groups that I talked to today and yesterday I was up in Boston talking to students, those young Americans who aspire to go into national security, intelligence, a law enforcement, a diplomacy of the armed forces. And I just worry that they may be dissuaded from doing that for private sector opportunities that are out there because of the criticisms that they are being subjected to. And so I knew agency officers that would come on board. I would always tell them to try to make sure that they tune that out when I would go on recruiting trips. I would tell people, don't worry about the political rhetoric. What you do is important and it makes a difference in our national security and it makes a difference as far as lives of your fellow citizens. So I'm hoping that this rhetoric and these comments are not dissuading a number of young Americans. The second constituency though, it's the families. Those who are keeping the home fires burning. The ones who are juggling the children going to school and going to their sporting events and are really the ones that allow patriotic Americans at CIA and FBI and other places to fulfill their responsibilities. And I'm sure that husband or their wife that is on the home front that welcomes their loved one back from an Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever and say, honey, why do you continue to do this? We're making ends meet on a federal salary. You're putting in way more than 40, 50, 60 hours a week. You're away from us for three months. And here is the person who you're supposed to be supporting that is being dismissive and denigrating of your profession. Why are we doing this anymore? And I know firsthand that those families sacrifice so much that there are so many PTA meetings or sporting events or meals or gatherings at the holidays that CIA officers miss and FBI agents miss because they're trying to keep everybody here safe. And the audacity of people to question their mission, their integrity, that's beyond me. I am concerned about how young Americans and the families of those officers and agents are really having to deal with these abnormal times. Are there ramifications abroad when our intelligence, communities, integrity is challenged by the president? Do they have less credibility? Can they be potentially less effective? Thank you, Laura. I'm gonna break out in song now, watch out. And you definitely don't want that. Yeah, I think there are ramifications. On a couple of fronts. One is, I think Donald Trump has demonstrated that he has a very selective use of intelligence. When he agrees with it, when he agrees with it, he'll point to it and use it as the rationale and the basis for whatever policy action he might take. When he disagrees with it, he disparages it and he questions its accuracy. And so, so many times, given the US's global responsibilities and how much we try to get our allies and partners to join us on certain initiatives, and intelligence frequently is at the base of that. If Donald Trump is poking holes in the intelligence, how are we going to rally that type of international support that we need? Secondly, I think it's been demonstrated that there has been, I think in some instances, a cavalier handling of intelligence in terms of people who visit the Oval Office and some intelligence is shared. It makes some of our intelligence partners very, very reluctant to share information that might be mishandled and might be exposed then and compromise their intelligence capabilities and sources and methods. So, you know, the standing and the reputation of US intelligence is so important if you're going to bring together some type of effort to push back against a Russia or some type of military adventurism. And if the political leadership of the United States throws darts and arrows at that intelligence community and their assessments, it just undermines our ability to really rally that international environment. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Trump is somebody who has dismissed, in many respects, the importance of a lot of these multilateral initiatives and institutions and going much more on the bilateral front, believing that he is, you know, the master of deal-making and wants to cut a lot of these bilateral deals. And in this very complex and globalized world, the United States, as big and as powerful and as strong as we are, we cannot deal with these issues individually or by ourselves or in bilateral ways. We need to make sure that we take advantage of the multilateral institutions and the United Nations and others to be able to push forward in terms of advocating and supporting those policy objectives that are very much in our national security interests. So, I do think having this attitude toward US intelligence and the part of Mr. Trump is very, very harmful to our national security interests. As you look around the world, Mr. Director, what do you consider America's greatest immediate threat? Washington, D.C. Well, there are so many things here that I think really need to be of a concern. You know, the polarization that exists within the U.S. The need for a continued emphasis and investment in education here in the United States in terms of particularly our young at the university level, but also secondary elementary and also zero to five. I'm a very strong proponent of that. And also making sure that we're able to take advantage of the world's riches in terms of United States still being a melting pot for the world. When I think about the national security front and what are the key threats, that digital environment is really so critical to our future security, safety, and prosperity. Most human activity takes place in that cybersphere and the human condition has been advanced significantly as a result of it. We are so dependent and so tethered to it in terms of our mobile devices, our ATM cards, our credit cards, you know, and all the smart appliances and other types of things. And we're gonna have more and more dependence on it as we go more to the internet of things and automation. So there's great, great opportunity there, but there's also a lot of malactors around the world that are trying to seize the opportunities that exist and the vulnerabilities that are in there. And I don't think we have come to terms as a government or as a nation with what it is we need to do to try to make that environment as secure, as reliable, as resilient, and as resistant as possible to those types of malactors who are gonna come in and steal data or try to destroy and disrupt critical infrastructure or other types of things. And it's the most challenging and vexing problem that I had to face when I was in government because it is very complicated and complex. It's an environment that is owned and operated 85% by the private sector. So what is the appropriate role for the government in that private sector owned and operated environment? What should the FBI and CI and NSA be allowed to do and given authorization to do in order to detect and to deter and to disrupt the types of cyber attacks that are taking place on a regular basis? And how is so much activity taking place in that digital environment frustrating the rule of law, the government's ability to carry out its rules and laws? For example, unbreakable encryption, which we all love, we want, we wanna make sure that our data and our devices are so protected, but our adversaries can use those very same devices in order to coordinate and to communicate and to plan devastating attacks like 9-11. And if that unbreakable encryption prevents the appropriate authorities when they're given the appropriate authorization to access certain devices in order to understand what may be ticking, but they can't get in there because of unbreakable encryption, it's a dilemma. Now, I'm not advocating at all that we should do everything unbreakable encryption. I think we need it, but I just know that the continued advancements in technologies have such advantageous aspects to them, but there are also things that we need to be thinking about about how our adversaries and those malactors, both domestically and internationally, are going to take advantage of the tremendous advancements in technology and in that digital environment. That's why I've called for many years, and it's fallen on deaf ears, that just like in the aftermath of 9-11, when we had an independent congressional bipartisan commission on how we were going to break down a lot of those walls in between government agencies and departments and came up with a series of recommendations, and that's why this country is so much safer today than it was back in 9-11 in terms of not being hospitable to terrorist activity. We need to have that similar type of commission on cyber. I'm a liberal arts guy, quite proud of it, but I've come to understand all of the challenges associated with technology and the digital environment, and so a bipartisan independent commission that we've put together for two or three years that would look at it rigorously and thoroughly and identify some of the things that we need to be thinking about as a country and what we need to do to adapt to that environment and whether or not we need to have a very unique and unprecedented private-public partnership so that we can better secure that environment and how we're going to prevent or at least minimize the greatest and possible the misuse of that environment, the influence of our elections or to disrupt critical infrastructure or to steal millions upon millions of dollars and having something like that that can identify some options and make some recommendations and also bring some of our legal structures up to date, I think this is something that is overdue and I'm hoping that we're not going to be facing sort of the equivalent in the cyber realm of a 9-11. We should do things prior to any type of real disruptive attack. So that's one area that I'm very concerned about. You know, there are terrorist groups that are out there, they continue to be dangerous. They have been very much hollowed out as a result of the very good work that has been done by the Intel's community but Al-Qaeda is still a dangerous organization. ISIS is still out there. It's taken a lot of hits in the battlefield but because of the very good work at the federal and the state and the local level, we are able to detect and uncover a lot of these attacks before they actually move down that execution pipeline. You know, Russia continues to develop its advanced military capabilities including on the nuclear front and very concerned about what's happening as far as the INF Treaty and the administration's decision to step away from it. North Korea obviously is a problem and an issue and I think it's good that we're having some engagement with it. I still don't know what has been accomplished as a result of the Singapore summit. I think Kim Jong-un always had an intention to escalate in the aftermath of the US presidential election whether or not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was elected. I think his plan was to escalate increased tests both nuclear and ballistic missile tests and then to put a more accommodating face on him and then de-escalate. And I think that the Trump administration fell into that trap and so they had the Singapore summit. I think what Kim Jong-un is trying to do is to gain an international acceptance, reduce the tension and pressure on him. We already see that the Chinese are relaxing a lot of the limits they had on sort of cross-border trade and Kim Jong-un, my mind wants to gain de facto acceptance of his nuclear status and so that he has the same status as the Indians and Pakistan's of the world and I've seen no real steps taken that will reduce his military capability. And let's not forget, North Korea has a nuclear capability. Iran didn't and as difficult as that Iran deal was to negotiate it was much easier because you didn't have to dismantle an existing nuclear arsenal. While in North Korea you have that nuclear arsenal, you have all the attendant facilities in terms of missile production, engineering, fizzle material production. This is an issue that we need to address but escalating the rhetoric and calling people sick puppies and rocket man or whatever, that was not the way to go. But I do believe it's important that we have at least a diplomatic channel in the way. But they fall in love according to Trump and that's literally what Trump said. You have the president forming a very unlikely but very strong friendship with Kim Jong-un and saying that he fell in love. Does that help or hurt us at this point? Let me ask you another way, Mr. Director. Will there ever be a point where we can trust North Korea? I don't think that for the foreseeable future, especially with Kim Jong-un there, that we should ever trust them in their word. It's like Ronald Reagan's famous comments, trust but verify, but there needs to be a significant amount of work done in order to roll back North Korea's nuclear and especially long range ballistic missile capability as a way to take away his ability to threaten the American homeland in particular. I think there are ways to make some incremental progress in trying to retire a number of the facilities, maybe allowing some inspectors to come in, inventorying the number of nuclear warheads he has. This is gonna take time and I think we have to recognize that we need to outmaneuver and to outsmart Kim Jong-un as opposed to it being the other way around. So far I think he's gained the advantage because he has been given the world stage, a summit meeting with the president of the United States and what has he done? Well, he returned some of the remains from Korean war vets, important. He says he's going to demolish what was already a badly stated nuclear test facility. It was already sort of on the brink of collapsing but there's been nothing else that has been done. We need to start to try to push him down that line but we should never trust him. We need to have the best intelligence capabilities possible to be able to see whether or not what he says he's going to do is actually what's being done. Would we be in better shape today if he had remained isolated and President Trump hadn't made the overture, hadn't put him on the world stage? Better shape? The tensions that really rose very quickly. I was very concerned that when tensions are high between the United States and North Korea or North Korea and South Korea, tensions along the border along the DMZ go up as well. And you could have some type of inadvertent military clash that could quickly escalate and then go to a major conflict. And that's why I think it's very important we bring things down. I think there could have been some things done in preparatory to a summit meeting that would have been a little bit more productive. So I think we're certainly in a better place today than we were last year at this time because things were ratcheting up. But part of that ratcheting up was Donald Trump's own doing by calling Kim Jong-un and all these words and being very insulting. And so he was ratcheting up and now has brought it down and taking credit for ratcheting down but we're still at the same place in terms of North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear capability. So if we're concerned about the threat posed by North Korea having that capability, things have not improved at all. It still does. But the fact that bilateral tension has gone down, I think that is important. And that's why I said that having a diplomatic channel open and engaged is something that is very worthwhile to do. You have written and spoken about the brutal murder rather of Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey. And you believe that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salam, MBSSE is known, is ultimately responsible. What will Saudi Arabia do next as the world focuses on this murder? Well, Mohammed bin Salman, MBSSE says, the crown prince, he's the day-to-day decision maker in Saudi Arabia and he has basically total control over all of the instruments of power in Saudi Arabia. Military, security, intelligence, nothing really happens of any import in Saudi Arabia without MBS's very personal and direct authorization. And so something as horrific and as audacious as this of the killing of a U.S. person in a Saudi diplomatic consulate in Istanbul, a person who is a journalist and writer for the Washington Post and doing in a country like Turkey, to me that's more than met the threshold of a MBS authorization. Whether or not he authorized the dismemberment, the horrific and brutal killing and torture of him and the reported dismembering of his body, I don't know. But I have no doubt in my mind that MBS was fully aware of what was ultimately going to happen to Jamal Khashoggi and had approved it. Now, his father, King Salman is a well-respected member of the royal family, has been for many years considered to be fair, pious, very judicious. In fact, he was the person in the royal family for many years that would meet out punishment to princes who strayed off of the appropriate path. But King Salman is in his early 80s. He has failed mentally over the years and he has given his son tremendous reign and latitude in terms of what he's doing. MBS also has limited significantly any type of access that King Salman might have to other people. And MBS has been very, very clever and is very successful in eliminating any type of rivals within the family or the power centers. So he leapfrogged over more senior members of the royal family to now be basically the king in waiting. And a lot's going to depend on whether or not Salman still has the mental and physical ability to convene some of the other members of the royal family as well as the talent security services and tried to get to the bottom of this in terms of MBS's actual role and responsibility. Whether or not he's going to hold his favorite son culpable for this and take action and dismiss him or do more, I don't know. In my mind though, this horrific, horrific act requires a very strong action in the part of the Saudis and it's not finding scapegoats and throwing 15 or 18 people who did this sort of into jail. There needs to be a thorough accounting of it. And I believe that if the U.S. Saudi relationship is going to get back on track the way it needs to because Saudi Arabia is an important partner and is very important as far as to building the Middle East is concerned, that MBS is going to have to be replaced or dismissed. That I think will do a great deal to repair the relationship with the United States as well as with the rest of the world and will take the appropriate action against the person who I think is ultimately responsible for this. And I do believe that Saudi Arabia's future stability and Saudi Arabia's relationship with the United States is worth much more than one man, MBS. And despite, you know, he's a very smart, he's ambitious and he's the favorite son of the king, none of that in my mind is a reason to allow him to continue to be in position because it is going to be a tremendous drag on the U.S. Saudi relationship for, I think, you know, quite a while to come. The Western world had such high hopes for MBS. Time Magazine put him on the cover when he came to the United States earlier this year with the headline Charm Offensive. And he was a reformer, ostensibly, somebody who was going to transform the Islamic world through changes that he would make in terms of policy. And yet you say he is a ruthless authoritarian leader who is drunk on power. How do you square it to this reformer with this authoritarian leader? Who is MBS? Well, I think he is both. I think he came into power as the Crown Prince with a vision about what needed to happen in order to bring Saudi Arabia more into the 21st century. And so a lot of the reforms that he initiated were overdue. He reduced the powers of the religious police, the Motawa. He had allowed for there to be mixed gender gatherings in the kingdom. He's allowed women to drive, opening movie theaters, other types of things. And I think he sincerely believed that that needed to happen. And so I think he took some appropriate steps, again, to diminish the influence of some of those more radical and conservative Islamic elements in the kingdom. He was also doing it, though, to gain popular support. But as most authoritarian leaders do, they do not allow there to be criticism of what they're doing or the pace of what they're doing. So for example, he incarcerated a number of women activists who were petitioning for even greater freedoms for Saudi women. And he would not allow there to be that type of opposition to what he is doing. So his reforms are going to be at his pace and in his way. And he has incarcerated a number of individuals that have dared to speak out. I think that's why Jamal Khashoggi was such an irritant to him because he had some gravitas. He had respect. He had a following. And he was making some very legitimate criticisms that MBS, yes, has done some very positive things, but he is increasingly authoritarian. He's increasingly paranoid about those elements that could threaten him. And so I do see him as both. And those reforms that have been initiated are worthwhile. It gave him some additional cover and support from some of the especially the younger generation of Saudis. And he has been masterful in terms of a public relations campaign in order to generate support from a number of courtes inside of Saudi Arabia. But people should make no mistake about it. MBS is not a person who is trying to bring democracy and freedoms and openness to Saudi Arabia other than his way of doing things in authoritarian way. Let me turn to Russia for a moment and the charges of Russian collusion against Donald Trump. In August, you wrote a New York Times op-ed in which you wrote that Russia's denials of interference in the 2016 election, along with President Trump's claims of no collusion, are hogwash. And you go on to write Mr. Trump clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him, which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might challenge him. Has that worked? There's a lot there. What worked? Well, has he scared into silence those who would challenge him? Well, I don't believe that I've been scared into silence. Well, not you. But I think you were saying he's trying to do that to scare others. You've been very outspoken. You've been very courageous in expressing your beliefs. But do you think that that kind of action is effective ultimately? Well, I think that he is attempting to intimidate and bully and threaten those who pose a perceived threat to him. And that's why he has tried to delegitimize the free press. He's tried to question the integrity and the purpose of the Mueller investigation. He has questioned the FBI and Department of Justice's professionalism. He's doing a number of things to try to ensure that if something comes out from any of those quarters that's critical of him, that he has already made the case for why you shouldn't believe it. When he then went and claimed to revoke my security clearance, I've never been contacted by anybody in the government about this. Just a press spokesperson said it. But I think it was sent with a clear signal, particularly when they said they were reviewing the clearances of others, including current officials in the Department of Justice. That is blatant politicization of the security clearance system. And if one thing that intelligence community professionals feel very strongly about is that they should be able to carry out their duties without fear of any type of retribution by some politician who might not like what they do or say. If that happens, we are in a world of trouble and hurt. I've already talked about increasing authoritarian tendencies in the part of Mr. Trump. And so if we're gonna go down that road, the institutions of governance and institutions of this country that really protect us from abuse of power, the FBI, Department of Justice and others, we really need to rely on them. And now if Mr. Trump is gonna say, well, I'm gonna determine who has the ability and the security clearances to carry out those duties, well, he is then corrupting the system in a way that will allow him to perpetuate his rule. So when I was announced that my security clearances, reportedly were revoked, there was an outcry from many, many people, including one of my personal heroes and a very close friend and colleague, Bill McRaven, who led the U.S. University Chancellor's System. Well, I talk about a person of great honesty, integrity and decency, he is it. And he came out swinging after my security clearance to revoke with a very hard-hitting security clearance that's basically telling Donald Trump, well, if you're gonna do that, take mine too. Because they recognize the people who have served in the front lines, the people who have done their service in terms of keeping this country strong and safe, that if the politicians are gonna start to yank security clearances of people that they don't like, we are really not being true to what it means to be the United States of America. How do you see the Mueller investigation ultimately playing out? Well, I think I have, talk about another national treasure, Bob Mueller, who has tremendous dedication. And I have known Bob for 20 years and he is a pillar of integrity and professionalism and he is gonna do his work and irrespective of any type of political pressure that's put on him. I think the special counsel's investigative team is looking at three basic buckets of issues. One that falls into the area of collusion. When I said that the claims of no collusion or hogwash what I was talking about was some of the very public things that Donald Trump and others have said, inviting the Russians to find Hillary Clinton's emails and meetings in Trump Tower, there's a distinction between collusion and conspiracy. Collusion is not illegal. And my point in the piece was whether or not that type of interaction and collusion rose to the level of conspiracy with a foreign government to try to influence the election. That is criminal action. And I leave it up to Bob Mueller and his team to determine whether or not any of that engagements that they had, direct or indirect, meets the threshold of criminal conspiracy. That's one bucket. Second bucket is obstruction of justice. Whether or not there were any actions taken by any individuals involved to try to prevent the Department of Justice and the FBI from finding out the facts. And we already have seen that individuals have acknowledged lying to the FBI, whatever, and it is a criminal act to tell in on truth to the FBI knowingly. So that's another bucket that I think that they have to look at. And if there is obstruction of justice, it's going to be up to them to decide whether or not they have the evidence in order to indict individuals. The third bucket is what Paul Manafort and others have been tagged with, which is defrauding the government in terms of money laundering or other types of financial activities that were undertaken with the intent to defraud the government and prevent U.S. officials or tax laws or other types of things from kicking in. And so I think just like in Watergate, it was follow the money. I think there's a lot of things in that financial realm that could implicate individuals. Now, whether or not in any of these buckets there are going to be people who are going to be at the top of government or very closely associated with them is up to the Mueller investigative team. And I think that as Americans, we should accept the findings of the special counsel and he'll deliver reports to the Department of Justice and then I like to think the Department of Justice is going to share that with Congress, which will basically be their statement or their final report about the probability of criminal activity resulting in indictment or exoneration. And we all have to be prepared to accept those findings and to allow this process to play out. But I think that Donald Trump, who has continuously disparaged the special counsel's work and has tried to undermine the very strong reputation of Robert Mueller, it's clear that there is concern about what the special counsel may uncover or what its report is going to say. But I think we have to wait for that. I'm hoping that it's not gonna be in the too distant future. And then I think the Congress as well as the Department of Justice and our system needs to follow up as appropriate, whatever that may entail. Do you think all Americans would accept the Mueller report? No, I don't. And especially since we're talking about the rhetoric that's coming out of the Oval Office and Donald Trump. And I think he has already conditioned people to disregard anything that might be incriminating or critical of him. It's very, very intentional, very, very planned. In many respects, Donald Trump has been masterful in terms of trying to exploit a lot of issues and concerns in the United States and twisting things and twisting facts in a way to further galvanize support for him and belief in the things he says. So I think he recognized early on that a lot of the U.S. networks and media outlets and papers were problematic for him because they were exposing things. And so that's why he's been on this campaign and this war to delegitimize them. He also is why he's attacking other individuals that he sees as attacking him. But we really need to make sure that the special counsel's work is going to come to fruition, again, one way or the other. And this is where, once again, it's gonna be up to those individuals, elected representatives to embrace that report and allow it to move forward. And whether or not that's going to lead to some type of criminal charges on any more people or not, that's something that I think we, as a country, need to go through in order to get past this very challenging chapter of our history. Let me go back to the intelligence communities unambiguously that Russia interfered in our election. Even Donald Trump has admitted that, although he says others interfered with it as well. What does Vladimir Putin ultimately want? What are his ambitions? Vladimir Putin is certainly a very crafty politician, survivor with a KGB background and intelligence perspective. He has said openly that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest indignity that he ever suffered in his lifetime. The country that he loved and that he worked for just collapsed. And then he also felt, I would say with some legitimacy, that during the 1990s, when the Soviet Union then was evolving into Russia and the various republics, that the United States did not do as much, and the world community did not do as much as it could, to facilitate the integration of Russia into the world economy and the world political environment. And I think he had a chip on his shoulder and he would view the United States through a almost a zero sum prism. And he felt that the things that the United States were doing was designed to further diminish Russia's standing in the world. And so the continued expansion of NATO eastward and the expansion of the EU eastward, he saw that as a direct encroachment on formerly the Soviet Union's, but then Russia's sphere of influence. And some of that I think had some legitimacy and some of it was just a result of his paranoia, but he feels that Russia really deserves a very prominent position on the world stage. And that's why he had great military capability, but he doesn't have the economic standing of the power. And so what he's trying to do is to find ways to shape global events and the political situation in a number of countries that will be more conducive to Russian foreign policy objectives. So for example, he really wants the sanctions on Russia to be removed because it really is inhibiting economic growth inside of Russia. So what Russia has done over the years is tried to prop up and support various European politicians and political parties that advocate for and improve into relations with Russia. And that's why in the 2016 presidential election here in the United States, we had a lot of experience about what the Russians would do in other countries in terms of funneling monies and other types of things in, because they would much prefer to shape political events in foreign countries through this type of insidious intelligence manipulation rather than rolling tanks over borders. But at the same time, he's going to try to take advantage of what he sees as opportunities if the United States is receding from its traditional leadership role in the world. And I think Vladimir Putin has had a pretty good sense of how far he could push without generating a real forceful US response. So when he annexed Crimea, when he doubled down and tripled down in Syria, I think he did that knowing that there was not going to be a real strong US response other than sanctions, which again has taken a pinch out of him. But he is trying to seize opportunities around the globe to increase Russia's influence and to shape political developments in other countries. We are facing challenging times, much as we did 50 years ago in 1968 when LBJ was in his last four year in office. As we wind down this conversation though, Mr. Director, I wonder if you can talk about what gives you hope in 2018? There's a 2019 afterward. Well, at least we got that going to us. And I am an optimist. I believe so strongly in the strength of this country, the resilience of this country. But also as I've looked at our national landscape of last year, there's some very impressive and dedicated people out there. Again, I'm not a politician and I don't support or advocate for individual political candidates. But I must tell you, as a former resident of Texas and a lifelong UT alumnus, this guy down in Texas, Beto O'Rourke, you've heard of him, huh? He is really impressive and I think very special. I watched that town hall video where an individual asked him for his view on taking a knee in the national anthem. And he gave the most eloquent, exquisite articulation in my mind of what it means to be an American. That's, yes, many, many of our proud soldiers and patriarch soldiers have given their lives to keep this country strong and free. And we revere the flag and I absolutely do. But there are many people in this country, as he pointed out, who died in the streets of Selma, who gave their lives in order to make this country a better country. And that's, we believe in something here in this country of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And so that video, as well as the things that I've heard him say on a campaign trail, that's the type of person we need in Washington. That's the person who I think is gonna, and I don't care if he's a Democrat or Republican, but he is something that I think can make Texas proud and that can really ensure that we're going to have this type of civil discourse in Washington that we so, so badly need. And I really do hope that as a result of some of the things that have happened, and sometimes as a result of pain, there's goodness that can come out of it. And we've been going through a lot of pain. And I'm hoping that a lot of Americans are going to realize what is most important to us. And what's most important to us is making sure that our children and grandchildren are going to enjoy the freedoms and the liberties and the tremendous opportunities that we've had as the most exceptional nation on this planet. And so I'm sure there are a lot of Beto Rocks out there from both parties. But these are the type of people who are determined and committed to try to make this nation a better place and will do what they can and devote their talent, their energies and the skills to it. So it's people like Beto Rock that give me hope, that give me a sense that we will turn this corner. We are gonna come out of this in even a better place than we were before, but it's gonna require people of decency and integrity to lead the way. And people who are going to speak out, as I know, there's gonna be critics. There's gonna be people who are gonna throw rotten fruit and tomatoes and whatever else at you. But it's incumbent on us to be able to speak truth to power. Maybe it's my intelligence upbringing, which is what we were always told to do. Speak truth to power, because that's what your responsibility and that's what your mission is. And so coming down here, coming back home to Texas, I feel really good when I talk to the students today about these young Americans who are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and wanna do whatever they can to keep this country strong and safe. So to the extent that my voice, either in the classrooms or in events like this, helps that effort, I'm going to do it. And I'm not gonna be intimidated and deterred from doing it at all. Mr. Director, we thank you for coming home. We thank you for being here tonight and we thank you for your many years of service to this nation. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. Thank you.