“Trump's got his own brand of the Madman Theory…he uses it not only against adversaries, but also against allies.”
After more than two decades as a foreign correspondent stationed in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, Jim Sciutto returned to Washington where he is now CNN’s chief national security correspondent and CNN Newsroom anchor. In his latest book, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes On the World, Sciutto looks at how a provocative approach to foreign relations, made famous by Richard Nixon, is today employed by President Trump on the world stage.
Trump’s mindset around America's relationship with other nations is understood in one word: transactional. “Trump's view of the world with adversaries and allies is ‘What are you doing for me? What are you doing for us?’” This has often led to extremely narrow points of view on issues where President Trump doesn’t see the big picture as it relates to broader alliances.
We see this playing out with China. Tensions have escalated sharply under the Trump administration with a trade war and attacks on industries like Huawei and TikTok. Some of the biggest challenges of our time will play out over the coming decades as conflicts around Taiwan, Hong Kong, and national security intensify, and China marches towards their stated goal of overtaking the United States as part of their 100-year plan.
LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE
SPEAKER
Jim Sciutto
Chief National Security Correspondent & Anchor
CNN
MODERATOR
Anthony Scaramucci
Founder & Managing Partner
SkyBridge
EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews we've been doing during the work from home period in lieu of our global conference series, the Salt Conference and really our goal with these digital interviews is to provide a window into the minds of subject matter experts and to provide a platform for what we think our big world changing ideas and we're very excited today to welcome Jim Sciutto to SALT Talks.
John Darsie: (00:43)
Jim is CNN's Chief National Security correspondent and the anchor of CNN newsroom. After more than two decades as a foreign correspondent stationed in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. He returned to Washington to cover the Defense Department, the State Department and the Intelligence agencies for CNN. His work has earned him many awards including multiple Emmy Awards, the George Polk Award, the Edward R. Murrow Award and the Merriman Smith Memorial Award for Excellence in Presidential Coverage. Jim is a graduate of Yale University and a Fulbright fellow. Today, he lives in Washington D.C. with his wife and better half Gloria Riviera, who is a crisis communications professional and journalist for ABC News as well as their three children.
John Darsie: (01:30)
And conducting today's interview will be Anthony Scaramucci, the Founder and Managing Partner of Skybridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the Chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.
Anthony Scaramucci: (01:43)
Well, Jim, thanks for coming on. I'm just going to hold up the book here. I thought it was a fascinating book and when I finished reading it, and I think we just talked about this before we went live, I would say that this is the best book and the most objective book on the last three and half years related to the President's foreign policy. So, whether you like the President or dislike the President, you pick up this book. It's a seminal study in what is going on and what he is thinking, but before we get to him and your book, I want you to tell us a little bit more about your background, because it's fun to read people's Wikipedia, but it's way better to hear some. Tell us something about your background that we wouldn't learn from Wikipedia, Jim.
Jim Sciutto: (02:26)
Well, first of all, thank you, Anthony, for inviting me it really is a privilege. Thank you, John, for the nice introduction. Thanks to all of you for taking the time. I'm always grateful when people take time to hear the story of the book and how I came to write it.
Jim Sciutto: (02:35)
Okay, a little bit about me. I'm a New Yorker. Probably my biggest claim to fame is going to the same high school as Dr. Anthony Fauci. What could be better than all-boys Catholic school in Manhattan. I went to college and studied China, because it was just interesting to me and it was something different and the only thing I knew I wanted to do after college was to go overseas and travel and learn and study and work. And I did that I spent my first 10 years as a reporter pretty much in China. And then after 9/11, switched gears and spent a good chunk of my life covering the Middle East and Iraq and Afghanistan and all the conflicts around that.
Jim Sciutto: (03:20)
And it's been sort of, as I'd like to say to folks, it's a paid traveling education about the world and I've enjoyed that as a career. What I've tried to do in this book and others is sort of connect the dots for people where I can on some of these big picture issues. And like you said, I mean, my goal on this, and by the way, for this book, I only spoke to people who worked for Donald Trump, current and former. My goal here was to take a look without prejudice at what he changed and where we are four years after he came in.
Anthony Scaramucci: (03:55)
So, I want to talk about the title you named it the Madman Theory. It's interesting because we go back to Richard Nixon's assessment of Nikita Khrushchev. He told his staff that he thought Khrushchev was brilliant and making people think he was "a madman," a result of which it made the rest of the world cautious. Of course, Richard Nixon had less success convincing people he was a madman as it related to the North Vietnam situation, but here we are with the President. Why did you name it the Madman Theory? Some of it's about the President, frankly, some of it is not, so why did you come up with that title?
Jim Sciutto: (04:32)
So, it started a bit with something that the President and his supporters have said about him from the beginning, right? This is someone who was going to shake it up and the nature of the way he did business, and the way he would do government is by keeping everybody off balance, right? Some of this is in the heart of the deal. I'll be unpredictable. I'll surprise. I will disrupt and then bring that all together by the seat of my pants and we'll get to a better result.
Jim Sciutto: (05:00)
Now, as I heard that and then saw it play out as a reporter with him in charge. It seemed familiar to me because as you said, Richard Nixon tried to harness this same dynamic and he owned it. He called it the Madman Theory. He had Henry Kissinger communicate in no uncertain terms with the North Vietnamese and the worst part of that war that he was just crazy enough to nuke them. There are White House conversations on tape, where he even dictates the language to use. Kissinger communicated that to the North Vietnamese. It didn't work, as you know. Those negotiations got no better. The war did not end well for Nixon or for the U.S.
Jim Sciutto: (05:42)
So, 50 years later, Trump comes into office. He's got his own brand of Madman Theory, but it's different, right? One, in that he uses it not only against adversaries, but also against allies, keeping NATO allies, Canada, Mexico on edge, off balanced arguably as much as China, Russia, Iran, et cetera. But even and this the more disturbing dynamic, his own advisors and senior officials. I chronicled a whole host of situations during his presidency, when he caught the entire National Security community off guard. His two withdrawals from Syria, for instance, where the decision-making, the policymaking rather follows the decision. It's not preamble to it. He comes up with something and then they got to figure out how to deal with it. So, Trump's madman theory is definitely unique to him.
Anthony Scaramucci: (06:40)
And you do point that out in the book that there was a 10-month lapse between him trying to make that decision and the actual execution of the decision because many people frankly disagreed with him on that decision, including Secretary Mattis, who more or less said he resigned over that policy decision. I want to go back a step though. I want to take you right back to you finished the book, you've done all this research, the book closes, and someone comes to you and says, "Okay, so give me Trump's foreign policy. Give me his strategic worldview." What is it, Jim?
Jim Sciutto: (07:14)
I asked everyone I interviewed for the book that very question. "Crystallize it for me, put it on a bumper sticker, or a campaign slogan," and the common refrain is transactional. The Trump's view of the world with, again, adversaries and allies is "What are you doing for me? What are you doing for us? Do I perceive that to be equal and balanced, right?" Now, that can serve your interest, right? Because you can arguably find a way to make a deal, for instance with China. Someone who is competing with you and wants to unseat you as the world power.
Jim Sciutto: (07:53)
And you saw some of that, slices of it in the phase one trade deal, although even and I tell this story to his own advisors involved in that, consider that a capitulation. The trouble is with allies as well he has a very similar view of it. We've seen this play out with trade disputes with Canada, for instance, reignited just last week or dealings with NATO allies over the budget or right now, with South Korea over quintupling how much South Korea pays to support deployment of U.S. troops there The trouble with that transactional worldview and again, don't listen to me, listen to the folks who work with him at the highest levels, is that it's so narrow-minded, that you miss all the other things that go into that relationship, right?
Jim Sciutto: (08:41)
I mean, HR McMaster talks in the book about how much trouble he had convincing the President that alliances have ancillary benefits, right? That can't be boiled down to a bottom line. Things like intelligence sharing or backing you when you go to war, say post 9/11 when NATO invoked the Article III, mutual defense, beyond that, shared values, goals, support for rule of law, et cetera. So transactional, but a very narrow view and by the way, sort of an end of any sort of American exceptionalism, right? The Trump has a very, what's the word, sterile view of America's position in the world, it's-
Anthony Scaramucci: (09:26)
I don't want to give the whole book away, but you do point that out and it's in conversations with Putin and the realization in his mind that America doesn't need to be "exceptional" or do exceptional things for the world, it can just be another player on the world stage. So, I want to thread this question and get your reaction to it. If you go back to Dean Acheson and the book Present at the Creation and the understanding of the infrastructure that was put in place after World War II and you tie it to Brent Scowcroft, the legendary National Security Advisor that just passed this past week. There was a continuous threat whether you were a Democrat or a Republican, there was an idea until the Berlin wall fell down of a policy of containment. There was an idea that we were going to be constructively engaged around the world helping our allies and we were going to disavow our enemies, but we were going to do it in a way that hopefully didn't lead to conflict, we would use soft power, some hard power, but you got the point.
Anthony Scaramucci: (10:27)
That continuum from 1947 to let's say 2017, January ended. It seems like the cord got caught on that and we're into something new now, which you referenced in the book. Are we permanently into something new now, are we going back to something old or do we now have to reengineer everything, Jim?
Jim Sciutto: (10:51)
It's an open question. I think what's the most immediate question is does it last another four years or just another three months, right? I mean, that's an open question.
Anthony Scaramucci: (10:58)
Well, you tell me. Does it last another four years or does it end it in another three months?
Jim Sciutto: (11:03)
I know no better than probably anybody else on this call. I mean, we look at the polls, but listen a lot can change in a short period of time. I mean, the thing is and this is again a point repeated by many of the folks I spoke to, confidence is easily lost, far more difficult to gain, right? Confidence in an alliance. For instance, the NATO Alliance, how quickly can you turn that around? And by the way, folks I spoke to for the book share John Bolton's concern that in a second term steps like leaving the NATO Alliance are possible or reducing or eliminating U.S. troops on the south, on the Korean peninsula or removing all troops from Afghanistan, right? These things that we sort of-
Anthony Scaramucci: (11:50)
Or repositioning the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific, you got all of those different things.
Jim Sciutto: (11:56)
No question and a lot of things that happen in half measures in the first term, you might go whole hog in the second term, and therefore, the results of those things become far more lasting. I'll tell you one thing, the alliances. Alliances are, they're about how you feel about them in a way, right? Beyond what's on the paper. Do you believe them? Do your fellow allies believe in them, and more importantly, do your adversaries believe in them? So, when you look at like a NATO alliance, yes, we're still in, but Russia senses the fissures, right? And they listen when the President questions, for instance, the obligation to abide by the mutual defense, clauses of that.
Jim Sciutto: (12:40)
So, once those questions are raised, how quickly can you tamp those down? That's an open question. It's an open question for this country, regardless of who's in the White House on January of 2021 and the genuine concern of folks who worked at the highest levels with this President about how lasting those changes are.
Anthony Scaramucci: (13:02)
Okay. So, let's switch to China for a second. You studied Chinese history. You were based in Hong Kong, as you referenced. One of my friends who's in the foreign policy establishment said that the decision to go after China as aggressively as the President is, I want your reaction to this, is tantamount to the decision of Germany attacking Russia in 1941. It will have the same sort of consequences. And I want to give you a specific example. Let's go to WeChat. We're going to ban WeChat. There will be retaliatory measures on Apple Computer and other great companies, multinational companies in China. So, what's your reaction to that statement about how the President's handling China? Again, I don't want to give the book away, but then secondarily, you see that potential retaliatory situation that could set itself up, which will lead to further bellicosity and more conflict. What's your reaction to all that?
Jim Sciutto: (14:01)
So, where we are right now with China's very dangerous moment and before I go further on that, just for the sake of the folks listening here, I spent a good 20 years covering or working in China and I spent a couple years in government there as Chief of Staff to the Ambassador. I have watched up close Chinese malign activities against their own people. I've spoken to dissidents who were tortured, but also I've spoken to companies and maybe some of you who are on the call here right now who've had your IP flat out stolen. I've spoken to folks in the Pentagon, who've watched U.S. National Security secrets go out the door to China. So, I have a real granular experience of China's bad behavior here.
Jim Sciutto: (14:47)
And by the way, in the book, I make the case for pushing back hard against China, right? Giving credit where the credit is due to this President and just my own experience of watching the U.S. be so deferential to China through the years for no good reason. So, you know where I'm coming from in terms of personal experience here. So, Trump comes in and says, "I'm not going to stand for that anymore." And we've seen that and we've seen some benefit from that. Where we are this year is different though because he is clearly ratcheting up the tension, misstatements from Pompeo, et cetera, the real moves and ones that really hit China in the gut on some of its most valued national industries here, Huawei, TikTok, et cetera.
Jim Sciutto: (15:40)
And Trump officials, Trump himself, Peter Navarro, too, he talks about in the book, they speak openly about wanting to damage China here. They want to move the supply chain out of China, so people in Beijing are like, "You want to screw our economy," right? I mean, they take that seriously. So, the question then becomes, and this is something with all of Trump's National Security priorities is okay, you got every right to push back against them and I can understand each of these moves you're doing now, individually. Tell me how it ties together? What is the end game here? Where does this take us? Is there a negotiation point you're trying to come towards? Is there a phase two trade deal that solves some of these issues? Is this a case where there is a quid pro quo, where there's a transactional point where you can reach some sort of agreement because Steve Bannon speaks very openly in this book about the possibility of war with China within five years? Is that eventuality that the President is prepared for? Does he have an off ramp before there? Those questions aren't answered, so that's the question of where we are.
Anthony Scaramucci: (16:45)
You do point out in the book, if it's okay, I don't want to give up the book. I thought the book is amazing. It's why keep holding it up. I think it should be a bestseller. Jim, God bless you for writing it, but it would be very tough to have a land war with China. It would be very tough to have a naval war with China. We've also overextended ourselves over the last 20 years in other wars. And so this sort of nonsense, I mean, I consider my only contribution to American history is knocking Steve Bannon out of the White House alongside of me. I think that that probably saved more people's lives than people fully understand, but we can go into that at another point. But that nonsense and that ideological nonsense that can flip the switch and end up into a violent war, how likely do you think that that is, Jim?
Jim Sciutto: (17:32)
I asked everybody for this book and I constantly am asking my contacts in the Pentagon. I'll tell you one thing I watch very closely is Taiwan, right? And I think, as the U.S. has sailed ships more frequently through the straits there and advertise that in a way we haven't done in the past. And as China take steps, like if you've seen just in the last few days, flying warplanes over Taiwan. I mean, the nature of how these things escalate it follows was a pattern here.
Anthony Scaramucci: (18:01)
It's like the guns of war. It's like Barbara Tuchman referenced about the beginning of the First World War. What do you think of the National Security Law that was just implemented in Hong Kong?
Jim Sciutto: (18:09)
Well, it's-
Anthony Scaramucci: (18:10)
How does that tie into Taiwan?
Jim Sciutto: (18:13)
It is sad. I lived in Hong Kong for five years. I still got a lot of friends there and that was a special place, right? Right on the side of China. They're ending Hong Kong. Hong Kong, as we know it, is over. Hong Kong is effectively now part of China with all the bad reasons you can imagine. I think from the U.S. perspective it is a measure of U.S. policy that if getting tough on China was going to deter them from doing things you don't want them to do. It didn't work there, right? China has said, "You know what? We're going to do it. All the threats you have, you can sanction us, whatever, we're taking it over." It's a loss, right? I mean, they could have done it to any President or any administration, but it's a loss for the world, it's a lost for Hong Kong and it's a loss for the U.S.
Jim Sciutto: (19:06)
And it does show something that folks have been writing about for some time and it's in the public commentary, too, that listen. There are two players in this game here, right? It's not just Trump. I mean, Xi Jinping is no slouch and he has a very cocky, ambitious view of the world and view of the U.S. and actually somewhat a dismissive one because it's interesting. China talks about the U.S. in increasingly dismissive terms. They see us in an accelerating decline in terms of our economy, our political system, and even in their public commentary, they move up their aspirational date for taking over the U.S. from 2049, 100 years after the founding. They start to talk about it in the 2030s. They're ambitious and Xi is an aggressive SOB.
Anthony Scaramucci: (19:56)
Yeah. And they've got population and they've got obviously 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-year plans. You're mentioning 2049. I would recommend you people on this call to go look at that plan, because it's a very detailed plan for the 100th Anniversary of China. And United States and our political leadership has no plan and so, this is something people should really consider.
Anthony Scaramucci: (20:21)
Let's switch to your day job, which you write in the book in your Acknowledgement Section of the book is your dream job, which is being an American journalist and having your television show, but you have an American President that says things like the fake news media, and he does say that the press is the enemy of the people, which you know as his former communications director, I had to write an op-ed denouncing that sort of rhetoric, someone who believes obviously in the First Amendment and our Constitution. So, what do you say to that? Has your job become more challenging or the ratings are certainly up because the guy's obviously an attention grabber, so you like where we are right now? Is it good for you? Bad for you?
Jim Sciutto: (21:05)
Well, let's talk about the country first. I don't think it's good for our country, right? I think that listen, Donald Trump's not the first President to attract the press. It's happened before, but he's done it in a different and far more aggressive and insidious way. And remember, Trump is often very transparent and when he did that interview with Lesley Stahl, I'm sure you remember right after the election, December 2016, and said, "I do this, so that if you write critical stuff about me, folks won't believe you," right? I mean, that's essentially the plan here, right? It's just that we've seen it writ large as someone who has been a Commander-In-Chief.
Jim Sciutto: (21:42)
Forge about, you know. We all get attacked every day. You get attacked. I'm sure people on this phone, you get attacked. Social media empowers people to say what they want often behind the veil of any sort of distance, et cetera. I don't care about that I do care about there being a generally accepted view of reality, because that's necessary for the functioning of democracy. And in the midst of a pandemic, where you would think at least science would tramp politics, right? At least, the wisdom of taking a step like wearing a mask would tramp politics. At least, accepting the number of deaths is real and not "Well, maybe exaggerated by the left to damage my presidency," but no, even that's politicized.
Jim Sciutto: (22:33)
And I'll often, I'll ask my friends who were in business who will defend the President on moves like this, and I'll say, "Could you make good business decisions without hard data that's acceptable? Could you do this?" They'll say, "Well, no." And it's like, "Well, this is what the President's basically asking us to do because he's attacking facts that are inconvenient to him." And that's the most damaging thing. For me personally, my approach is just keep doing my job as best I can and try to follow professional standards, talk to both sides. And that's what I tried to do on this book, the best you can do, but for the country, I'm genuinely worried.
Anthony Scaramucci: (23:10)
I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie in a second, because we've got a ton of questions. We got great audience attendance on this, which is fantastic, Jim, but one of the people that you interviewed, I can't give up his name, but I now just gave up the gender, so it has put me in a little bit of a box. But one of the people you interviewed is huge fan of yours wanted me to ask you the following question and see what your take would be, the President, this is his observation, likes going against his staff. Meaning someone offers him an idea and it's an informed idea and in order to prove them wrong, they'll counter intuitively do the exact opposite as a way to make them lose face. Did you see that? What's your opinion of that? Is that true based on your analysis and in this book?
Jim Sciutto: (24:02)
Based on firsthand accounts multiple, that's a consistent thing. The President has an almost reflexive desire to play the other stock, right? Say, "Well, you say that, but what about this." [crosstalk 00:24:13]
Anthony Scaramucci: (24:12)
That would speak bad who it was then, right? Because that's the word he's always using, the word reflects it. Well, we'll talk about who it is after the call is over, but-
Jim Sciutto: (24:20)
But I wouldn't say, but I will add the differences, so it's one thing, Susan Gordon, who I spoke to in the book and who has briefed the President repeatedly as the second highest ranking U.S. Intelligence official before she was forced out by the President said she'll never question a President's ability or right to question her analysis or opinion or advice, but she said that the worrisome part becomes where he questions things we know, we know, not sort of questionable intelligence, but we know.
Jim Sciutto: (24:52)
"Here are the pictures of these bad guys doing bad things," right? Or we know this where when the President either because he refuses to see it or it doesn't fit his worldview or it doesn't fit his current position. When he denies a clear reality that that, that's the most worrisome thing and we've seen it right. I mean, U.S. Intel reports that North Korea is expanding its nuclear program, not shrinking it, right? Just as one example or Russian interference in the election. When what you know and he still won't move them, that's what really worries them.
Anthony Scaramucci: (25:28)
So, I have to follow up, John, then I'll turn it over to you because another person that you interviewed for this book came to see me and said that the President's worldview is because he's not intellectually defining it, but when it comes through his telescope, into his sniper range he starts firing at it because he really wants to bring the United States back to the 1890s. He wants to wall off the United States literally and figuratively from the rest of the world and he wants to produce everything in the United States. So, if this plastic cup is a half a cent in China, $24 in the U.S. doesn't matter, you'd like to produce it here in the U.S., disengage the United States from the rest of the world and turn it back to the prior to World War I. And every time it comes into his wheelhouse from your transactional description, he starts firing at that. Do you believe that that's the case?
Jim Sciutto: (26:27)
He does have a mercantilist view of the world, right? I mean, it's old school, both in terms of trade, make it all here, damn the rest of the world but also, of course, national security, right?
Anthony Scaramucci: (26:40)
Do you think that's the right thing for the U.S.? I know you're a journalist, you want to be objective, but give me an editorial comment here. Is that the right thing for the U.S. at this moment in world history, in U.S. history?
Jim Sciutto: (26:50)
Well, two answers to that, personally. One, it doesn't fit the reality of today's world. It's far too interconnected, right? But we're not sailing around on wooden ships anymore, right? I mean, a heck of a lot harder to do what he's talking about, but also, I don't personally believe based on my own experience that that serves our interests best. I think that the U.S. has profited benefit just speaking from our own view of the world, but we've benefited a lot from an interconnected world, a world where there's not war in Europe, right? And that allows for a healthy partner there and a healthy customer.
Jim Sciutto: (27:24)
Two, where the trade routes are open in Asia, where rule of law matters, where there's more, not less democracy, because it's a fact, democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. So it'd be nice to stick our heads in the sand, I guess, I find that a much more boring world, but it doesn't, in my view, serve our interests.
Anthony Scaramucci: (27:43)
All right, John. I'm going to turn it over to you. Jim, look out. He's going to ask mean, tough, intimidating questions. Okay?
Jim Sciutto: (27:50)
I'm ready.
Anthony Scaramucci: (27:51)
[crosstalk 00:27:51] interviewer than me, Jim.
John Darsie: (27:53)
All right. Well, we've covered your most recent book, I want to rewind a little bit to your first two books for a couple of questions. So, the second book you wrote was called The Shadow of War, talks about primarily how Russia and China are waging a war that the average American might not realize is being waged, but the United States might be losing. The intelligence community concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to elect Trump and the intelligence community is saying again, that Russia and others, including the Chinese are interfering in U.S. politics again, what does that interference look like based on your sourcing? What are we doing to stop it and what scares you most about the President being set by the level of foreign interference in recent elections?
Jim Sciutto: (28:41)
Where we are today after 2016 is just jaw dropping, right? I mean, in 2016, and this is not an issue of politics except frankly for the President because it was bipartisan agreement. Russia interfered to help Trump and you saw it in the record. You saw it in the theft of DNC emails and the drip by drip exposure of them. You saw them in the theft of John Podesta's emails and the convenient release of those emails 22 minutes after the Access Hollywood tape dropped. I mean, this was interference with intent. And yes, Russia and other countries had interfered in elections before, but the degree, the brashness, the aggressiveness was different.
Jim Sciutto: (29:22)
So, here we are four years later and it's happening again, right? I mean, you have a Russian backed politician in Ukraine feeding information to Republicans on Joe Biden. I mean, it's so obvious and it's happening in the public. It's not even happening secretly. What's different is one, you have Americans participating in it, right? I don't know. Listen, you can make the argument that it's worth investigating everybody, but you got to know your source, right? If it's coming from Russia and if your Intel agencies are assessing that they're interfering again and want to advantage the President, it seems to me you should take that information with a grain of salt, but in addition to that, we have a President who just has repeatedly refused to say, "No, don't do it."
Jim Sciutto: (30:11)
Now the concern is does Russia and for that matter China, North Korea, and Iran, who were also messing around, do they take a step they did not take in 2016, which is to mess with actual voting systems, vote counting, registration, because the concern expressed to me for The Shadow of War about 2016, which didn't happen, but they were concerned about it, is that the probing attacks that they've done sort of sneaking their way into these systems that they activate that stuff.
Jim Sciutto: (30:39)
And just and think of this, on election day, you would not need to blow up voter registration databases in 5,000 voting districts, you could do in three in Florida or one, just imagine the upset and the questions and the fear that that would cause. They're already interfering In the informational side of this election, do they go into the systems? It's an open question. And let's be frank, they haven't been warned off it, not by this President. So how do they read that signal? Do they say, "Can we get away with this?" You could imagine them saying that.
John Darsie: (31:19)
Right. If Biden were to win and you did see that level of interference and he overcame it to win the election, what type of response do you think you'd see from a future administration regarding election interference?
Jim Sciutto: (31:32)
Well, I don't know. I mean, I think here's the thing, it wouldn't take much, right? I mean, the response that you need is not rocket science. It's a definitive statement that we won't stand. Now, again, credit where credit is due. I do it in this latest book, The Madman Theory, in terms of Trump standing up to China, and I did it in The Shadow of War talking about the Trump administration has enabled Cyber Command to be more aggressive in terms of responding to cyber-attacks that the Obama administration did.
Jim Sciutto: (32:04)
Some of this is, a lot of this is classified, but some of it's sort of snuck its way out, implanting U.S. weapons, tools, whatever you want to call them and they're crucial systems, kind of letting them know about it, so that if they go too far here, we could say, "Hey, we could turn our weapon on, too." So, so the U.S. has taken a more aggressive posture. The thing is, the President has not indicated in his public comments that interference in the election is a red line for him, right? He hasn't made that clear and a lot of this is about messages delivered.
John Darsie: (32:38)
So, you talked about how Trump's general foreign policy actions are defined by a transactional approach to foreign policy. So, you talked about a couple of the big headlines that have generated a lot of controversy regarding Trump's foreign policy. One, intelligence he has reported that Russia put bounties on the heads of U.S. troops, which in some cases they believe might have led to some deaths of U.S. troops. He pulled U.S. troops out of Northern Syria and basically left the Kurds for dead allowing Erdogan to come in and have his way in that part of the world. What do you think the transaction is that's taking place? Is it something extremely cynical, like blackmail or financial inducement or do you think it's part of that reflexive contrarianism that Trump likes to engage in with his staff?
Jim Sciutto: (33:24)
I think it's different. I asked everybody for this book, "How can you explain the President's deference to Vladimir Putin?" And their most consistent answer is this one: That the President admires him. He's got an admiration for Vladimir Putin for his power and some of this again, is in his public comments, right? "He's a strong leader." You remember him saying that a couple years ago. His power, the power he has in-
Anthony Scaramucci: (33:48)
Can I interrupt you for a second though, because some journalists have suggested something more nefarious than that. Do you think that there is anything nefarious or you just think it's that he admires his power? You've done the homework.
Jim Sciutto: (34:00)
Well, here's the thing. And again, I asked everybody about that, everybody I interviewed for this book and I delve into that question in this book. Without proof that there's a kompromat or something, I don't think it's a substantive conversation.
Anthony Scaramucci: (34:19)
Did you read Bolton's though? Chapter Eight was like the orange jumpsuit chapter. You know what I mean? It was like ridiculous, so you don't think any of that is true?
Jim Sciutto: (34:26)
Well, the melding of, the idea that the President has business interest in Russia, I think is I mean, but again, that's in the public record, so that's very believable. The idea that he has debts to Russian investors is also credible. I don't have proof of that and the people that I spoke to for this book, don't have proof of that. They have their suspicions. But I didn't want this book to be about printing suspicions. I wanted it to be about things that people had personal experience of. So, the consistent thing and this could live right alongside what Bolton has alleged and others have alleged, but the most consistent thing they had personal experience of and witness was that the President expresses and shows admiration for Vladimir Putin for his power, but also that he shares Putin's nihilistic worldview, that it is a zero sum game, that no one's really better than anybody else on the world stage.
Jim Sciutto: (35:24)
And you saw that, go back to the Bill O'Reilly interview, right? 2017, Putin's a killer. Well, aren't we all? Anybody else? Any of us really that good? But even more recently, after the bounties story and when the President was reminded that well, it's not just the bounties, Russia armed the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in 2018. And the President's answer is, "Well, we are in the Taliban in the '80s. It's all the same." And that, why does that matter? First of all, do any of us here, is that our view of our country, right? It's not my view of my country, certainly not what I want it to be. But in addition to that, what Intel officials, who I interviewed for this book told me is that Putin knows that Trump admires him and he seeks to take advantage of that. In fact, they say that some of Trump's worldview is influenced by Vladimir Putin, for instance, that a number one source of the President's hostility to Western European leaders, our allies, is Putin, that they have an affinity on that.
Jim Sciutto: (36:22)
It's like, "Yeah, that Merkel, what a pain the ass," right? And that has consequences. We just pulled troops out of Germany. So, one Intel official I spoke to, used this term that Putin is Trump's honey trap, right? That's a remarkable thing to hear from someone who served him at the highest levels and the Intel agencies, again, I write about this a lot about this in the book, feared that Putin was in effect carrying out an influence operation on the President, right? To influence and shape his views and therefore shape the policy. And if you look at the public, so even if you don't have a P tape or a giant Russian debt load, that enough is a fairly disturbing thing to hear about your President and the proof is in the pudding. It's in a lot of the decisions and moves the President has made and hasn't made.
John Darsie: (37:10)
So, going back even further to your first book, which was published in 2008, it's called Against Us, it covers sort of the forces behind Islamic radicalization and you argue sort of as the crux of the book about the need to rebuild more constructive relations with the Arab World. Twelve years on from that book, has anything changed? Have conditions improved? And are we any closer to solving the quagmire that is the Middle East?
Jim Sciutto: (37:36)
Officially, I wrote that book, one of the thesis was about the appeal of Islamic extremism in the Western world among Muslims in the West. It came out in 2008 and then you saw what happened. I'm not sort of claiming credit for it, right? But we saw that bear out with ISIS and these homegrown terrorists and all that, lone wolves, et cetera, the appeal of ISIS, all these folks who went to Syria from Europe, et cetera. So, the question was "How to address it" is I think the security response to this kind of terrorism, it's certainly advanced, right?
Jim Sciutto: (38:14)
I mean, and again, in this book as well, I give credit to Trump for accelerating the dissolution, not the dissolution, but the defeat of ISIS in Syria, they're still around, accelerated after the Obama administration. So from a security perspective, probably better off although things haven't gone away. In terms of the relationships, no, not really, and in fact, I mean, where U.S. policy is going regarding Israel, the Middle East, some of those relationships, it's taking it in a different direction.
John Darsie: (38:52)
So, I want to ask you one last question. We ask this question of every guest who sort of covers National Security as a national security expert, what types threats and maybe ones that Americans, the everyday Americans aren't as aware of, what type of threats and future methods of warfare are the ones that really keep you up at night and make you worry about where the world is headed?
Jim Sciutto: (39:13)
Well, cyber and space, right? Cyber space and space-space. The degree, I think people are generally aware that cyber is a problem and if you work for any company in this country, you've been attacked, right? And you're probably getting attacked right now, you might have faced a ransomware issue. All of us on this call, I've been hit. It's interesting. The four biggest cyber thefts in the last like five years I've been hit by all four of them. One, because I went for the government OPM. They got all me and everything you want to know about me and my family. They got that. Anthem, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, so they got all my health information for my family. Married Hotel so they know where I've traveled and all of that kind of stuff. And what's the other? Oh yeah, Equifax, so they know all my final financial position. I'm like, and all of that, lots of that goes back to China, so they must have a really thick file on me.
John Darsie: (40:09)
You got nothing to worry about now. Everything's out there. You're like an open book.
Jim Sciutto: (40:12)
I'm not. I'm just going to throw it all out there. There's that. So that's like on the business side, but as it relates to how all the stuff, the lights, they could turn the lights off in Washington, D.C. based on penetration of critical infrastructure systems. Our very election systems are even more worrisomely under attack, our political discourse, so that's the cyber side. And then connect the dots on that and it's a real threat to everything we rely on. The space part, I think, is one that folks didn't know a lot about. They're getting to know more about with the space force and even some movies and TV shows and so on, but there are weapons in space.
Jim Sciutto: (40:51)
And every couple of months, I'll read about Russia or China launching another space weapon. You'll see it. Just keep your eyes open for it. It's up there. There are lasers in space. There are Kamikaze satellites. China wrote about it in The Shadow of War as a satellite that moon-raker style could steal other satellites out of orbit. And we depend on that technology, both for our security but also for business communications, et cetera. I think that's the front of this war that folks haven't really gotten their heads around yet.
John Darsie: (41:20)
Just one follow-up on the space piece. How do you regulate, space warfare, and how do you counter threats in space in a super national type of way to prevent just all out mayhem from breaking out in terms of the space race and space weapons?
Jim Sciutto: (41:35)
We need it. We don't have it. We don't have a SALT Treaty for cyber, right? And we don't have it for space, rules of the road where red lines, all the things that we established for nuclear weapons and help keep the peace, right? We don't have that for cyber or for space yet. I mean, you have some communication probably more at the state level about what each side considers a redline attack in the cyber sphere, but you need treaties if you want to avoid the prospect or not avoid, minimize the prospect of war.
Jim Sciutto: (42:13)
But if you talk to folks in Space Command, and they're like, it's in my book, and you'll hear it elsewhere, I mean, there's a like Star Wars is not far away. The nature of the way human beings is with war is that war moves to the next available front and we're already there and it's going to be more threatening over time, not less.
John Darsie: (42:36)
All right. Well, Anthony, do you have a final word?
Anthony Scaramucci: (42:38)
I got one last question.
John Darsie: (42:39)
Yep.
Anthony Scaramucci: (42:40)
And then we'll let you go, Jim. We try to keep these things tight. Madman Theory, loving the book. The book was awesome. Are we safer as a result of Donald Trump's madman theory or less safe, Jim?
Jim Sciutto: (42:55)
In most spheres less safe. The final chapter of the book is Before and After and just, I do it very academically. Here's where we were with North Korea, they had X number of nuclear weapons. This advanced the ballistic missile program, they have more now. Iran is closer, not further from a nuclear weapon, right? Russia is more not less aggressive in the world sphere. Now, we've stood up to China, but the fact is, China hasn't backed off in any of the places we've challenged them, actually they've gotten more aggressive. Now, will that change over time? But the sad fact is, we're less safe and if you don't believe me, just do me a favor and read that chapter folks and tell me if you disagree and I will accept all criticism.
Anthony Scaramucci: (43:40)
I wanted to ask you that because you do, you end the book with it, but the last thing I will say it's a phenomenal book, but it's also a cautionary tale on going against the grain of discernible thought and opinion that's been bipartisan and established for 80 years. Maybe they established it, it wasn't really that wrong after all. Who knows? We'll have to see what happens here, Jim, come November. But I want to thank you for writing the book, I want to thank you for being on SALT Talks. John Darsie downgraded his room. He had like George Washington pictures and all kinds of stuff like that, so you and I could stay competitive with them. But we'll let you go and hopefully, we can get you back before the election if you don't mind. We'd love to have you come back before the election. Talk a little bit where you see things prior to Election Day.
Jim Sciutto: (44:31)
Anytime. Deep gratitude to you, to John and everybody who took the time here. You do me a great honor if you had a look at the book and I wish you all the best as we get through all this.
Anthony Scaramucci: (44:40)
It was a great read. Thank you, Jim, for writing it. See you soon.