tv State of the Union CNN March 15, 2015 9:00am-10:01am PDT
nancy snyderman never had ebola and never put anyone at risk. just a little reminder that she was right." she did screw up by seeming hypocritical but maybe we should ask if we all screwed up too. that's all for this televised edition of "reliable sources." stay tuned. "state of the union" begins right now. nuclear war of words. the senate majority leader defends a republican letter to iran and who's guarding the president? more scandal with the agency in charge of protecting him. this is "state of the union." senate majority leader on a letter he signed to iran's leaders. what's going on with the president's protectors? blowback on hillary clinton's e-mail scandal. and jeb bush's debut in the granite state. good morning from washington. i'm dana bash. the u.s. is preparing to begin a new round of negotiations with iran over its nuclear program, but those talks are being overshadowed by an
open letter to iran's leaders by 47 republican senators who warn that that deal could be scrapped by congress. joining me now for an exclusive interview is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. thank you very much for coming in. let's talk first about the timing of this. there's a lot of discussion about the fact that this was done in a rushed way, signed quickly before senators wanted to get out of
up to before the snowstorm. when did senator cotton come to you with the process? >> dana, let me see i think this is a good case of selective outrage. i remember reading about senator robert bird flying to moscow during the negotiations over the salt ii treaty explaining to the russians the senate's role in treaty ratification. and john kerry when he was a senator flew to managua and met with a communist dictator there, daniel ortega and accused the reagan administration of engaging in terrorism. look, members of congress expressing themselves about important matters not only at
home but around the world is not unprecedented. so the
main point is the president is about to make what we believe will be a very bad deal. he clearly doesn't want congress involved it at all, and we're worried about it. we don't think he ought to make a bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world. >> can you tell me though having said all that the process? because -- >> sure. i signed the letter. i don't think it was a mistake. it's no more unusual than robert bird going to moscow or john kerry going to managua. >> did you go over it, look at it? >> i read it. i thought it was entirely appropriate to explain that the process is going to include congress at some point. the president would like to keep us out of it, we know that, but we're going to be involved in it. if the deal is made, we'll bring up the corker-menendez proposal which would require the deal to
come to congress. a number of democrats have indicated that's a good idea. if a deal is not made then the kirk-menendez proposal ratcheting up sanctions against the iranians would be the appropriate next step. >> let me read part of the letter. it said it has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you might not fully understand our constitutional system. we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between president obama and eye toe ya ayatollah khamenei. it comes across as patronizing and juvenile. there's some questioning whetherya ayatollah khamenei. it comes across as patronizing and juvenile. there's some questioning whetherit comes across as patronizing and juvenile. there's some questioning whether it was appropriate for a young senator to take the lead on this, somebody who has only a couple months' experience in the senate. >> all of this is a distraction away from the point here. the president has said we're going to reach a deal or not reach a deal with one of the worst regimes in the world by march 24th that will probably
allow them to keep their nuclear infrastructure in place. this is a big, important issue not to be trivialized by the discussion that goes on back and forth among members of congress about this hugely important issue. >> isn't this a distraction of your making, that this is -- that this whole conversation is about what was appropriate and not because this is a letter that you all wrote that has raised those questions. >> well, the administration would like to have a distraction, but the point is the substance of the matter, are they or are they not about to make a very bad deal that will allow the iranians, one of the worst regimes in the world, to continue to have their nuclear infrastructure, the same country that has so many problems in syria, in lebanon, in gaza, in yemen. that's the point. the substance of the matter. this is a very, very important issue. >> many republicans agree with you and democrats agree with you as well. i want to put up another quote
explaining the backlash that's coming from people in your party. a peach writer for george w. bush wrote this. this was a foreign policy maneuver in the middle of a high stakes negotiation with all the gravity and deliberation of a blog posting. in timing tone and substance it raises questions about the republican majority's capacity to govern. he's questioning your capacity to govern. >> what we need to talk about here is the substance of the issue. apparently the administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world that would allow them to continue to have their nuclear infrastructure. we're alarmed about it. a number of democrats are alarmed about it. we will be acting. we will either be voting on a bill that would require the deal to come to congress. the president said he would veto that. or if there is no deal, we'll be voting on a bill that says the sanctions need to be ratcheted up. you know, a number of the supporters of the president said the choice is between this deal and war.
that's not the choice. the choice is this deal and tougher sanctions. let's focus on what's about to be done here. that's what's important to the american people. >> i know you want to focus on the substance and i actually have a couple of questions about what you're talking about in a second, but before that i do want to get at this because this is a very real explosion in the feeling that this was over the line. it's not just coming from democrats. it's not just partisan. and some of your most vulnerable senators are really getting hit back home. for example, mark kirk up for re-election next year in his conservative hometown paper, "p.j. star." republicans have made that better deal impossible. he has not been among the crazies in congress but he joined them here. kelly ayotte also up for re-election in her hometown paper, among the signers is new hampshire's own kelly ayotte who despite emphatic and
persuasive criticism of the letter has yet to explain the reasoning of endorsing such a dopey idea. just pure politics. i know you get pure politics. are you worried this is going to be hurtful to the people who helped make up your majority who make you majority leader? >> no. what i'm worried about is the administration entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world. members are very concerned about it on both sides of the aisle and the senate will be heard from. this won't be the last time there are senators speaking out on this issue. they'll be heard from again. >> on your point about the fact that this is a bipartisan process, it absolutely is. there are democrats and republicans who want congress to weigh in with the legislation you were talking about. i've heard from democrats that by sending this letter you've made it a partisan process and it's harder to get democrats on board and maybe even there was a possibility of getting a veto proof margin, harder to get the democrats on board because you've politicized the process.
>> i can't believe a democrat concerned about iran getting a nuclear weapon would use some excuse like this as a reason not to support legislation that they think on the merits makes good sense. there are at least ten democrats who said they felt like it was important for the congress to be able to approve this agreement. why would they use some dispute like this, some controversy like this some controversy like this which i think is a bitd of a manufactured controversy, frankly, to get in the way of their judgment about whether or not iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons. i don't think in the end they'll do that. >> let's move on to human trafficking. it's a bill that has talked about bipartisan support, broad bipartisan support to stop human trafficking. it stalled in the senate this past week. democrats say they are holding it up because they've discovered what they call an anti-abortion provision in there. they are demanding that you take it out. just sort of big picture. this is the kind of thing that you said you wanted to stop.
it was the gridlock of the old senate happening again. >> i'm glad you brought this up. the democrats are acting the same way in the minority as they did in the majority. they don't seem to like to vote. here are the facts. this is a non-controversial bill that came out of the judiciary committee. the language that they now profess to find offensive was in there from the beginning. they all voted for the very same language in a bill in december. this is boilerplate language that's been in the law for almost 40 years that they all voted for three months ago in another bill. we are not going to be able to finish the trafficking bill until this gets resolved. this will have an impact on the timing of considering the new attorney general. i had hoped to turn to her next week, but if we can't finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again. they need to come to grips with this. i offered them a simple up or down vote. if they wanted to take out language -- that they all voted
for three months ago. >> they can't win that up or down vote. >> sometimes the majority makes a difference. they all voted for the very same language, three months ago, dana. the very same language. >> you have a very good point. democrats admit they didn't do something really basic which is read the birl and understand what's in it. now that they have and we are where we are, why not take it out and continue this bipartisan process? >> because a majority of the senate does not want to take it out. all of the democrats voted for the very same language three months ago. if they want to have time to turn to the attorney general next week we need to finish up this human trafficking bill. it's extremely important to the country. >> it sounds like you are threatening to hold up loretta lynch, who has been in limbo for months and months -- >> it's not a threat. we need to finish this human trafficking bill that came out of the judiciary committee unanimously. that's the next item. it's on the senate floor. we need to finish that so we have time to turn to the attorney general.
the next week we will be doing the budget and the next two weeks after that congress is not in session. >> so unless democrats give in, loretta lynch's nomination will not be on the senate floor next week? >> we have to finish the human trafficking bill. the loretta lynch nomination comes next. as soon as we finish the human trafficking bill we'll turn to the attorney general. >> i want to ask you about the attorney general because she initially had bipartisan praise, support, and as the weeks and weeks and weeks have gone on since she's not gotten a vote, i believe maybe it was the longest in history from her post. she has lost support from many republicans who say they don't like the idea that she agrees with the president's immigration plan. what else would they expect? the president of course will nominate somebody who agrees with his own plan. that's the prerogative. >> the nomination hasn't taken that long when you see when it was actually taken up which was this year. the democrats and majority had a
chance back in december to work on it and decided to delay it until this year. the nomination is scheduled to be considered as soon as we finish the human trafficking bill. i think the attorney general nominee is suffering from the president's actions, there's no question about it. the actions he took unilaterally on immigration after the election enraged a number of members. lots of members have voted -- have talked to the nominee. she had bipartisan support in committee. we'll take her up just as soon as we get through this human trafficking bill. >> will you vote for her? >> i haven't made a decision yet. >> what's holding you back? that issue? >> i'm bringing her up. i'm not denying the administration an opportunity to have the nominee -- >> no. i mean you personally. >> i'm going to announce what i'm going to do at a later time, but the first thing we need to do is finish this important human trafficking bill and then we can turn to the nomination of the attorney general. >> just a couple of quick 2016 questions.
you have said you support your fellow kentucky senator rand paul for his probable presidential bid. you're obviously in touch with the many many many many members of your caucus who are running for president. what about people outside? i was up with jeb bush in new hampshire a couple of days ago. have you been in touch with him? >> i've talked to most all of the nominees at one point or another. they're obviously interested in what we're doing and vp opinions about what we're doing here in congress. i try to keep an open line of communication. three of them are in the senate. >> do they call for advice or for questions? >> we talk about the business of the congress and the senate. >> one thing that struck me is the way jeb bush -- i was with him on the campaign trail. every chance he got he would speak to a voter if they spoke spanish, he would speak fluently to them in spanish. i was just reminded of the lessons that republicans thought that they had to take after 2012. mitt romney only got 27% of the
hispanic vote. how important is it for the next republican nominee to connected with hispanic voters? >> it is very important. a lot of our nominees can. we have two likely candidates for president who are fluent in spanish. we have others who have been reaching out to group that we haven't done very well in recent days with. some of our candidates did a lot better with hispanic voters in 2014 than our nominee for president did in 2012. i think it is important. it's a growing important part of our country and we haven't done as well as we should have. >> thank you very much. appreciate you coming in. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. thank you so much. next up, a man who is critical of his fellow republicans' letter to iran. i'll talk to that person next.
why do any of it? why do all of it? because if it matters to you it's everything to us. the s60 sedan. from volvo. this month, get these exceptional offers on a new volvo. visit your volvo showroom for details. i bring the gift of the name your price tool to help you find a price that fits your budget. uh-oh. the name your price tool. she's not to be trusted. kill her. flo: it will save you money! the name your price tool isn't witchcraft! and i didn't turn your daughter into a rooster. she just looks like that. burn the witch! the name your price tool a dangerously progressive idea. two weeks later. look, credit karma-- are you talking to websites again? this website says "free credit scores." oh, credit karma! yeah it's actually free. look, you don't have to put in your credit card information. whew! credit karma.
really. free. tripadvisor not only has millions of real traveler's reviews and opinions but checks hundreds of websites, so people can get the best hotel prices. to plan, compare & book the perfect trip visit tripadvisor.com today. with me now, michael gerson, a former aide and speechwriter and now a nationally syndicated columnist. thank you for joining me. i wanted to start with part of what you wrote this week that was really striking on this issue of iran and the senate republicans' letter. you wrote the true scandal of the tom cotton letter to iranian leaders is the manner in which the republican senate apparently conducts its affairs. clearly saying that this is a question of leadership. after listening to mitch mcconnell and the way he defended it what do you think? >> well, he defended it but wanted to put it behind him,
which i think is appropriate since this was really a stunt rather than a strategy. i think this is going to be remembered in the same category as like the 2013 government shutdown. you have a very bright freshman senator tapping into a genuine tendency in the caucus but being very counterproductive and being, you know, tactically unask your unserious. that made his party look unserious. so i think that, you know, the majority leader is trying to get beyond it now. >> and you also the way that you described it was like a blog post. you're a writer. what do you mean by that? what struck you about the way that the letter was crafted? >> well, i mean, there are a couple of elements here. one of them is just the process by which this happened, which we don't know a lot about. >> he didn't answer. >> we don't know. we do know that a lot of these signatures were hurried off the floor, not a particularly serious process by which you would convene the caucus and so a lot of senators resented this
in the aftermath where you would convene the caucus and have a real strategy session. it also undermined the corker-menendez to kind of attempt to secure a veto-proof majority for legislation to involve them in the iran process. they were two votes away from that 67. now they're reassessing this coming week. where are they in this process? also, you've got a situation where any republican who imagines himself in that seat should view this has a terrible precedent to have the congress communicating with a foreign power in the middle of sensitive negotiations. that's simply not the way you can do foreign policy. >> you are a republican, have relationships with republican senators. have you heard from any since you've written this column? >> yeah. i think -- i have. i've talked to some republicans that there are some buyers' remorse out there. they signed this in some cases because senator mcconnell signed it. and so i think that they really
do want to get beyond it. it shows, by the way, first of all, how difficult it is to be -- to conduct the opposition from congress. you can't speak with one voice. everyone from corker to cotton in this, it's hard to speak with one voice. the u.s. need to speak with one voice in foreign policy matters. you can't have 535 -- >> what about mcconnell's argument that this has happened before? he talked about robert bird going to the soviet union to explain to them how the constitution works. jeb bush, i was with him in new hampshire, he said, remember, nancy pelosi went to syria during my brother's time in office. >> of course that's true. i mean, i remember general pelosi essentially trying to undercut funding for u.s. troops on the ground in iraq. we were -- didn't find that attractive. there was also rogue outreach maybe is the right word in nicaragua, cuba, syria. >> they have a point that it's not unprecedented.
>> they have a point. this is the sad endless logic. "they did it." everyone has an argument in this case and all the arguments are bad. the president needs to be able to conduct sensitive negotiations without the congress intervening in this case. now the congress -- i think the emerging deal is problematic and i've written that in many settings, but there is a proper way for congress to do this, and it is not to do direct outreach to foreign leaders. >> michael gerson, thank you so much. appreciate it. next up, new concerns about the agency in charge of keeping the president safe. is it time to overhaul the secret service? we'll talk about that next.
...and the wolf was huffing and puffing... kind of like you sometimes, grandpa. well, when you have copd it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... doctor: symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. grandfather: symbicort could mean a day with better breathing.
two secret service agents are in the hot seat after allegedly driving into an area with a suspicious package at the white house. it's the latest scandal with the agency responsible for protecting the white house. prostitutes, drug agents and knife-wielding fence jumpers, it is the secret service that's incompetent or mismanaged? we're going to ask those questions to carolyn lennox a "washington post" reporter who broke a series of stories, and dan bongino who also ran for congress as a republican. carol, i want to start with you. you have done groundbreaking reporting. you really brought all of this to light from the beginning. you have been doing reporting also on the latest question about the two agents who drove into the white house area. what is the latest that you're hearing about that?
>> so as you know from the incident that's under investigation are allegations that these officers, forgive me -- these very senior agents who dan knows well, drove on to the white house complex and u.d. officers with be who are also sort of the palace guard, believed that they were intoxicated and were told to let them go. that's the -- that's the sum total of it, of allegations that are being investigated. what we're hearing now is that congress, members of the oversight committee are very concerned about when the director of the secret service learned this information. it's a violation of the more strict policies now at the secret service in the wake of all of these flaps and security gaps. it's a violation not to notify the inspection division, basically the investigative team, if you suspect alleged misconduct. why is it something that happened on wednesday, the director of the secret service is learning about, according to him, on monday. >> we should be clear, as you said, there's an investigation
going on internally, the ig. congress is looking into it. all of the facts about whether there was alcohol involved, what exactly happened, whether or not there was a breach of protocol. that's all up in the air. >> it is. it's being investigated. luckily there's lots of tape and lots of video and lots of witnesses. hopefully they'll get to the bottom of this. >> you've known these agents. >> very well. >> you've served in the secret service. what i've heard from people who i know who were there, is that this is cultural it's endemic to the institution. do you agree with that? >> no. that's absurd. it's just not true. the secret service i remember. there are two essentially, uniformed division and agent side. the agent side where i served, i remember 3:00 in the morning in south korea walking into a workroom and seeing one of my supervisors sitting there for a rookie agent a sight diagram because he had no sleep. i'm not their paid spokesperson. i left three years ago. i really find it grotesquely
offensive saying that people have characterized or mischaracterized an entire agency whose success record under enormous threats to this president and the prior president, in the world's worst hot zones have managed to get him home without a hang nail. and all of a sudden we've become some kind of pariah. some of these incidents were very serious and i'm not here to diminish any of them. but i think this is a kind of feeding frenzy on the secret service that may have repercussions on morale that aren't fixable at this point. >> you know them well as do i. i traveled with the white house. they are all -- everybody was incredibly upstanding in their jobs. having said that, we do have a series of incidents that have come to light, in large part thanks to your reporting. the fact that, as you said, the new director didn't know about this apparently for five days, does that speak to the fact that maybe there aren't lessons learned just in terms of the protocol to make sure these things don't happen? >> so i think two things are going on that have to do with the director's knowledge or lack
thereof. one is -- dan's right -- there is a -- there are fantastic people and there is a lot of sensitivity, political sensitivity at the secret service now of like what? we had another problem? this is like almost untenable. the second thing that's going on, as we have reported over and over again, there is a huge morale problem because agents and officers both rank and file believe that there is a senior group of sort of official officialdom at the secret service that doesn't listen to them doesn't care about what they think and sort of is above reproach and can't be punished. >> do you find that? >> carol is right. carol and i have been on this network talking about a lot of problems. the fence jumper was a problem. she just nailed it. there was a management problem at the secret service. there was a cabal, a very small group, but insulated managers that grew up in the service
together that i think learned to make the same mistakes together. now having said that, the new director, joe clancey, who is a man in my opinion of impeccable character, universally respected in the secret service, really cleaned house up there. and here's a point that hasn't been stated often. i don't think anywhere. he was personal friends with a lot of these people that he had to let go at the management level. that was not an easy decision. it really was a principled decision to make. i think they chartered a better path forward. a lot of those management problem thankfully have been cleaned up. >> the one thing that everybody wants to know, certainly i want to know, as you talked about earlier, the president. this is all about the president's safety. at any point in your reporting or in your experience in all of these incidents, was the president's safety at risk? >> i think the two incidents where we should be worried were the shooting in 2011 when the secret service did not diagnose it properly. the officers and ultimately the
agents. and a man who said he wanted to take out the president was on the loose for several days and had shot at the house. shot at a house where his child and mother-in-law were inside. the other would be this elevator incident where someone wasn't screened. i don't think that person had any mal-intention towards the president. it signals that people were skipping a key step. where else did they skip a key step about screening who's close to the president. >> those were unquestionably very serious security lapses that i know the new director is all over it and trying to reform how we go forward in the process. when you think about it, the secret service, big six, tactical medical, chem-bio medical, ied, they have to have an a to z plan. at some point you have something go wrong. hopefully they fix it. you chart a better path forward. the president is fine. there is no danger whatsoever to the president's life. i am absolutely comfortable
telling you that. >> carol and dan, i should say you are the author of "life inside the bubble" a book that's out. i know you're out pushing it right now. thank you for coming here. next up, what we're going to talk about, hillary clinton, a juggernaut heading towards the 2016 nomination or will controversy derail her? a veteran with firsthand experience in the clinton drama is next. rate to severe rheumatoid arthritis like me and you're talking to your rheumatologist about a biologic... this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira giving me new perspective. doctors have been prescribing humira for ten years. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers including lymphoma have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb.
i know there have been questions about my e-mails. i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account. at the end i chose not to keep my private personal e-mails. i fully complied with every rule that i was governed by. i have no doubt that we've done exactly what we should have done. we have more than met the requests from the state department. >> hillary clinton stepped in front of reporters this week to answer questions about her private e-mail use at the state department. republicans said they're not buying a word of it. here now jack quinn who was in the trenches with the clintons in the '90s as white house counsel for bill clinton. thank you very much for coming in, jack. let's start with what hillary
clinton said about her deleting 30,000 e-mails that she deemed private. was that a mistake? >> no, that wasn't a mistake. they went through -- to hear what she said about the process they used, it certainly sounded very thorough. you know, this whole story involves two different kinds of double standards. on the one hand, one thing that i think has really been obscured is that every day every single federal employee is empowered to use his or her judgment to decide what e-mails and other records are personal and what are official records to be maintained. we trust them to do that. here we're saying, well, can we trust hillary clinton to have done that? why not? why should she be subject to a different standard? moreover, as this story goes on and on, we learn that not only did she use private e-mail, but her predecessor colin powell did the same thing. were his records preserved?
apparently not. apparently not a single one is left so we'll never recover those. hillary clinton, on the other hand, maintained the records, preserved them, and turned them over after a determination as to which were official and which were personal. >> well, you say that it's a double standard, and fair or not, you know, you lived through it, you helped prepare are the clintons during the ken starr investigation, you worked with her even before she went before grand jury. you know what it's like to be in the clinton trenches. so given that, and maybe the knowledge that there is a perception, fair or not, that they think that they play by their own rules, should they have taken extra precautions especially since she knew she was going to run for president? >> i'm not going to second guess. she herself acknowledged she
could have done this better. she was implicitly confessing error here. she wished she had apparently done it a different way. she didn't. but that doesn't mean that the way she did it was wrong, let alone worse than that. you know, we can all get -- look. with the clintons, you hear these stories all the time. i picked up "the washington post" this morning and i started reading this story. you know, hillary clinton used her private e-mail account as florida governor -- whoops. it doesn't say hillary clinton. it says jeb bush. you know? and here's a guy who said he was baffled that she would have used private e-mail to discuss matters of national security. what was he talking about? troop deployments in the middle east and the lack of protection he was providing to nuclear plants in florida. >> he argues it's a different standard, a different responsibility when you are governor and when you are in a federal role as secretary of state. >> let me respond to that. >> please.
>> it doesn't matter that he was the governor of florida. he was talking about the protection of nuclear facilities in the state of florida and his determination not to provide additional protection in the face of threats from al qaeda. that's pretty remarkable. >> do you think though given what you said but just knowing the political reality right now that just to try to put answers -- questions to rest here there should be an independent review, independent counsel, for lack of a better way to say it? >> well, again, you know, we apparently trusted governor bush. we trust federal employees every day of the year to make these determinations. why would we think it's important to bring in a third party to make a determination when she has outlined -- i didn't go through these records. i haven't discussed this with anyone there.
but they outlined with great clarity the methods by which they sorted these e-mails into personal on the one hand and official on the other. on the surface it appears to be thorough. and let me say this. dana, you know what e-mails are. they go to other people. once they leave your device we don't know where else they go, people forward them, people preserve them. if there was any kind of systematic wrongdoing in the sorting of these things into personal and official it will come out. so i very very seriously doubt any of the lawyers involved in this could have screwed around with that determination. >> one last quick question. take me inside the clinton camp right now. you know what it's like to be in the bunker. >> but i'm not there. >> you're not there. you're not there but just sort of culturally. culturally. is it let's just get this all out there or let's just wait and finish it now or let's wait and see how this goes? >> again, i honestly don't know
what it's like today. i do know having gone through the things you alluded to in the '90s with them. you know the incredibly disproportionate reaction of republican congressional leadership to things like this. we had investigation after investigation, untold millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in all of those investigations. was anybody ever determined to have engaged in wrongdoing let alone criminality? no. was it all political theater? i think so. you know, apropos of this whole discussion about whether things are personal or official i remember having to go up to the hill and telling one of these republican congressional committees no your request for the guest list at chelsea clinton's sweet 16 party, we're not responding to that. i mean, it got that silly. and, you know, i'm not saying
this will get silly, but i will tell you this. the election of a president in 2016 will not turn on this issue. i believe that with all my heart. >> thank you, jack quinn. appreciate your time and insight. >> any time. thank you. >> thank you so much. from the streets of ferguson to college campuses, america's racial divide seems as wide as ever. next up, four college students and leaders in their campuses talk about the new generation and how they can fix a very old problem.
meet the world's newest energy superpower. surprised? in fact, america is now the world's number one natural gas producer... and we could soon become number one in oil. because hydraulic fracturing technology is safely recovering lots more oil and natural gas. supporting millions of new jobs. billions in tax revenue... and a new century of american energy security. the new energy superpower? it's red, white and blue. log on to learn more. when it comes to good nutrition...i'm no expert. that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female
>> officer down. officer down. shots fired. >> the heinous and cowardly attacks that occurred against two brave law enforcement officers in ferguson, missouri. >> shots fired. shots fired. >> he was unarmed. >> the systematic targeting of young black males. >> whose street? >> our street. >> whose street? >> our street. those are just a few scenes from across the country this week.
videos like this, they remind us how far we still have to go with race relations in america, so what can the next generation do to make things better? joining me are four of the country's best and brightest young minds. elliott spillers, student government president elect at the university of alabama. rusty mao, student body president at nc stat. julia watson undergrad student body president at northwestern and jaylin ross. thanks all for coming here. i appreciate it. i want to start with you, elliott. you were just elected the sga president at university of alabama. the first african-american in 40 years. just happened around the time of the selma anniversary, which is kind of cool. you got votes from across the social and -- socioeconomic, i should say, and racial spectrum. what does that tell you about where your generation is with regard to -- >> i think it tells that we're moving forward and that our generation is willing and wanting to kind of make the steps to progression.
alabama does it so well. i think with me getting elected, i got to bring people together from all times of backgrounds and diverse cultures. in alabama we are very fortunate that we have a history that we are able to look at and critique critically. as well as willing and wanting to move forward from that. know that we don't want to re-invent the past for anybody. >> rusty, i want to go to the frat video from university of -- from oklahoma, i should say. were you surprised by that given your experience on your college campus. >> well, the incident on oklahoma's campus is absolutely disgraceful. it's probably not surprising for us across the country that these issues of racism exist. >> do you hear the same things among friends and frat brothers?
>> on campus we have a great culture at n.c. state and we always need to take steps to go further. a critical challenge is to overcoming the issue of race in america is we have to acknowledge it's a problem. we have to come to a table with all groups, recognize implicit biases, all sides have to be involved in the situation. the first step is we all have to admit this is a real problem. >> i think that's one of the many reasons that the video in oklahoma took people by surprise that are older, because older people think of you all as post-racial. there was an article by a a researcher and he talks about specific data points. he said millennials are more racist than they think. what do you think of that? >> nobody wants to read that headline. i remember reading it. being upset. but this idea of post racialism in our generation is good news and bad news. it's good news because it's possible to think that. if the oakklahoma bus incident
were happening on every bus every time it would be impossible to overlook it. the bad news color-blindness is still blindness. we're missing the subtler bias. i think really where the problem happens. every day a black name resume is 50% less like lie to be responded to than a white name resume. every day racism. a problem, a little distracted by the big things you can see, point to that bus in oklahoma. the everyday things we can work on, we can do that. >> you work at northwestern with students about awareness and trying to stop this or at least make changes, step by step. >> yeah. actually one of the things we were looking at is how do we change the structural institution elements of racial biases. for us we've incorporated talking about social equality within our academic system. this will be something students across six different schools, our. diversity council has actually asked that we do a social
inequalities distribution requirements which is focused on u.s. inequalities which is really important. we're also supplementing that with co-krir collar socialcurricular social justice training. so by the time you graduate with northwestern, you're having these conversations that are so important. we really want to make sure within higher education you're graduating, becoming a better citizen and being able to talk about these really difficult issues. >> talk about social media. i know you guys don't know a time when there wasn't social media. i just know in my own world people have an ability to reach other people in an anonymous way and they can be really, really ugly. how do you see the social media effects on your campuses, and do you see a big ugly? >> absolutely. the veil of anonymity allows those with opinions to voice those. it shows there's a lot of work we still need to do. you can look at twitter right now. you can look at yik-yak right now and you can see countless examples of explicit racism.
that's something we as student leaders have to educate our peers to not do. >> okay. you can also educate me about yik yak. >> yik yak is an anonymous social media site. i don't typically use it but i know it's a way for students to kind of talk about the issues across campuses in an anonymous way. >> it's anonymous twitter. youp loads and uploads and downloads. >> it's huge. it's growing i think in the last year it's gotten monstrous. we have the same thing. i'm sort of thankful we have that because you can share to people, look, this is what happens. people actually still think this. it helps you fight the idea of being post-racial, point, as somebody did yesterday, to ten examples. >> by the way, it's not just race that's an issue. there's an away about what happened with ucla with a jewish student running for office and she got put off explicitly because of her religion. there's reports of swastikas on college campuses around the country. again, this is not something that we, as americans, as older americans would expect to be
happening on college campuses in 2015. this the area where it's supposed to be the most progressive in the country. >> i definitely think the key is, first of all, we have to acknowledge these different privileges and biases students are having. you talked about kind of the different projects take exams o and see where biases are. it's important to be able to acknowledge those and actually have a dialogue about these. definitely we've been doing a lot of things that are like teach-ins. so it is really important to bring people to the table. if it's a conversation you've had before or never had it's really important. >> lightning round fast. president obama excited young people when you guys were back in diapers -- no, back in 2008, which potential president excites you now? which candidate. go? >> hillary clinton. >> hillary or elizabeth warren. >> elliot. >> oh, wow. i don't think he's old enough. >> i'm excited to see somebody
who reaches out to the youngest generation and takes these important issues and engages our population. i think that's what we're lacking in politics right now, someone willing to reach out to the future leaders, to students like us all across the country ready to face issues head on. >> the thing is the torch is passed down to us. listening to president obama in selma a few weeks back it truly reminded me honestly the work is still yet to be done. there's a lot we have to do as leaders and that's empower our generation and our people to rise of rise up from complacency and address these issues head-on and to educate people. >> all i can say is if you are our future leaders, we can take a breath. you're amazing all of you. thank you so much for this wonderful discussion. next jeb bush. he cranks you were the 2016 campaign machine. my look at his campaign debut in the nation's first primary state. go ahead... step on it. yeah? yeah! that turbo engine packs a punch, right?
oh yeah. pinch me. okay... and on passat models you can get a $1,000 volkswagen credit bonus. one more time. pinch me. it's not a dream. it's the volkswagen stop dreaming, start driving event. stop dreaming, do it again. and test-drive one today. hurry in and you can get 0% apr plus a $1000 volkswagen credit bonus on 2015 passat and jetta models.
this was a big weekend for two republicans testing the presidential waters. scott walker and jeb bush both men made debut 2016 appearances in the first of the nation primary state -- new hampshire. i spent the day on friday with jeb bush who made his first political trip to the granite state in 15 years. >> how are you? hello, everybody. >> reporter: when your name is bush this is what a maiden visit to new hampshire looks like. there were probably more reporters than employees at this small business. >> back up, back up, back up. taking a turn here. >> he tried to stay focused speaking spanish, which he does fluently, more than once. [ speaking spanish ]
>> reporter: on substance he signaled how he planned controversial positions with conservatives like supporting common core. >> i think you need to be genuine. i think you need to have a backbone. i think you need to be able to persuade people. >> i'm doing well. how is everybody? >> reporter: the good news for us reporters, so far he's accessible. two press conferences in one day. the second close to 9:00 in the evening. there were glimpses of what even his friends call a lack of patience sometimes. >> look, the book i wrote is a path to legal status. >> you were more -- >> that was a comma, not a period. >> reporter: at this intimate house party many told us they were surprised how long he stayed and worked the room. >> been on the school board? how long? you're on it right now. >> reporter: engaged in q&a the way voters here demand. >> i'm honored to be here. thank you all for coming.
>> i should say someone offered cheesecake to jeb bush at that party but he turned it down saying he's on the paleo diet. let's say if he can have the same restraint with grits and biscuits when he heads to south carolina later this week. thanks for watching. "fareed zakaria gps" starts right now. ♪ ♪ >> july 16th, 1969 "apollo 11" saturn 5 rocket longer than a football field, brakes free of the launchpad. its destination, the moon. the