[Jim Sciutto, Cnn Chief National Security Correspondent:] About Russia's ongoing interference in U.S. politics.
[Question:] Senator, did you speak about election interference as well? Did that come up?
[Sen. Rand Paul , Kentucky:] We had general discussions of a lot of issues. And, basically, we have decided that, right now, what we're trying to do is have dialogue. And I don't think we solve issues, other than see, our biggest issue right now is no dialogue. Is isn't the issues at hand.
[Sciutto:] Paul's apparent lack of urgency stands in sharp contrast to the nation's senior-most national security officials. Just last week, they delivered the stark warning that Russian interference remains pervasive today.
[Dan Coats, U.s. Director Of National Intelligence:] It goes beyond the elections. It goes to Russia's intent to undermine our democratic values.
[Sciutto:] Now, Putin's press secretary says that this letter was delivered through what he called diplomatic channels. They say, the Kremlin, that they have not yet reviewed it. And we should note that the meeting between Trump or, rather, between Putin and Paul has not happened Jake.
[Jake Tapper, Cnn Anchor:] All right, Jim Sciutto, thanks so much. We will talk about with our experts now. Mary Katharine, there's just this schizophrenic foreign policy when it comes to Russia. I don't really understand. On one hand, you have Coats and Wray and all the national security officials saying the Russians are they attack us in 2016, cyber, they're doing it again right now. And then you have President Trump and Rand Paul, who seem to be on a different page.
[Mary Katharine Ham, Cnn Political Commentator:] Right. Yes, you constantly have this huge divergence between what the president specifically is saying publicly and the policies that they're putting in place, many of which are tough and good. But that's a problem because what the president says matters. Now, Rand Paul has always been more on the interventionist, leaning toward isolationist side when it comes to foreign policy than many people in the Senate. This isn't like a huge shift for him, but I hate the way this is being framed by many Trump supporters and by more libertarian parts of the party, where it says it's either war or diplomacy, all-out or diplomacy. We can do diplomacy with a more clear-eyed vision of exactly what Putin is and exactly what Russia is trying to do. Moral clarity and diplomacy can go together.
[Symone Sanders, Cnn Political Commentator:] What is Rand Paul meeting with people going to do about Claire McCaskill, who's still getting hacked by the Russians in Missouri? I just don't understand this insatiable need of some people in Congress to run over there and meet with President Putin. It just makes no sense to me, when we are currently under threat. We are less than 100 days from the midterm elections. And cyber-security-wise, there are many people that are in fact not safe. So I just think that folks need to be taking this a lot more seriously. And I hope that Rand Paul gets a reaming when he gets back to Congress from some of his colleagues that are asking what the hell he's doing.
[Bill Kristol, Editor, "the Weekly Standard":] Symone, that's very much welcome, welcome to a hawkish foreign policy.
[Kristol:] Why is Trump writing a letter for Rand Paul? I mean, Rand Paul is...
[Jason Kander , Former Missouri Secretary Of State:] You open it up, it says made guy.
[Kristol:] Yes. I mean, seriously, he has an ambassador to Moscow, Jon Huntsman, if he wishes to transmit messages to Vladimir Putin. He can pick up the phone and talk to him, I suppose. He's got a national security visor. Paul has been against. Didn't the sanctions in the past... It was like 98-2. He's one of the two. He is against the policy of the huge majority of Congress on Putin, which Trump has reluctantly acceded to in some respects. So giving Paul the letter really undercuts the notion that there is a tough Russia policy, I think.
[Kander:] Sometimes, it's helpful to step back and look at this from high up. And what I'm reminded of is, you talk about, like, a schizophrenia foreign policy. Right? We're supposed to be one big family, like it's supposed to stop at the water's edge. And it just reminds me of like, when I was a kid, and my younger brother was smaller than me, we would get in fights. And I would beat him up a little bit. But if you came from down the street and tried to beat up my little brother, I was going to kick your butt. That's how it's always worked in this country for the most part. Republicans and Democrats, we have arguments inside the house. But if you come and try and attack the house, or come after one of us, we band together and kick your butt. This is not how it's supposed to go. And, apparently, the way you get in the good graces of President Trump is you say, hey, I would love to go meet with your buddy Putin.
[Tapper:] Now, you pointed out that this is not new, this kind of foreign policy for Rand Paul. He's been a skeptic of the more hawkish foreign policy towards Russia. But what is interesting is he's been very critical when they were running against each other of Donald Trump, specifically on how Donald Trump would handle Vladimir Putin. In fact, during that second Republican debate that I moderated in Simi Valley at the Reagan Library, take a listen to what Rand Paul had to say about Donald Trump.
[Paul:] Do we want someone with that kind of character, that kind of careless language to be negotiating with Putin?
[Tapper:] Apparently so.
[Ham:] That is a good question, Senator Paul. And I also take issue with Paul said the problem is there is no dialogue. The president just sat down with Putin very recently, as we all remember, and the dialogue may be some of the problem, and his careless speaking within said dialogue is part of the problem. So I agree with old Senator Paul, I guess.
[Tapper:] I guess the other question, Bill, is if the Russians are still attacking the United States Facebook just last week, I think, took down some ads that were supposedly by the Russians trying to foment discord in the United States. You had Dan Coats, all these intelligence people talking about how the Russians are still attacking us. Why is there's this constant need to go and talk to people who are attacking the citizens of the United States?
[Kristol:] No, it's pathetic. They are also attacking Russian dissidents in England, Great Britain, an ally of ours, and killing actually one woman, British woman, right, inadvertently, I guess, as a result of their but they have an attack, chemical weapons, on British soil. Look, if a bipartisan delegations. This is sort of Jason's a bipartisan delegation went over there, senior senators, senator congressmen, said to talk tough to Putin and say, we have a bipartisan consensus in this country that you will pay a big price for continuing to do this and also for other things you're doing in Ukraine or elsewhere and in Britain, that would be one thing. There's a case for Congress weighing in, in support of a tough U.S. foreign policy. There's not much case for one senator going over and trying to undercut American foreign policy.
[Tapper:] And, Mary Katharine, Rand Paul spoke last month about the importance of diplomacy with Russia and it kind of gets to the false choice that you say he makes. Take a listen.
[Paul:] Nobody is saying or excusing Russia's meddling in our elections. Absolutely, we should protect the integrity of our elections. But simply bringing the hatred of the president to the Senate floor in order to say we're done with diplomacy, the hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war then give diplomacy a chance.
[Tapper:] Is that you? Are you a partisan that would rather risk war because you hate Donald Trump so much?
[Kander:] I'm pretty sure that diplomacy has been the reason for a really long time that we didn't go directly to war with Russia or the Soviet Union. So I really don't get the idea that for the longest time we have been having this debate, should we go to war with Russia or should we have diplomacy? I think that's not true. It's really more he's saying like someone is trying to burglarize his House and he's like, we should just talk to them. I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
[Tapper:] Is it appeasement, do you think?
[Ham:] Well, at Symone points out, there's also urgency here, because we are close to an election, and that's what they're trying to mess with. So having it present at the top of your mind and dealing with it strictly is important.
[Tapper:] Everyone, stick around. We got a lot more to talk about. The president may be touting a GOP sweep in the latest primaries. Not so fast. The red alerts show the results about Republicans and Democrats about November. Stay with us.