tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN June 11, 2017 7:00am-8:01am PDT
introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. we'll begin today's show with the former fbi director's extraordinary testimony. >> lordy, i hope there are tapes. >> what to make of jim comey's tough words and where will they lead? >> the russians interfered in our election. >> i have top former intelligence officials and legal minds to discuss it all. >> then, the stunning results of the british election. a dramatic setback for the
conservatives and prime minister may. how long will she be able to hold on? >> also, as america withdraws from its role as global leader, somebody needs to step in. can that be canada? foreign minister chrystia freeland gives a striking speech this week. she joins me to explain what she sees as canada's new global role. and qatar, a peninsula nation not twice the size of delaware, it's also home to a crucial american air base. so why is the rest of the gulf turning against it? what in the world. i will explain. >> but first, here's my take. the most troubling statement i heard on thursday was not from former fbi director james comey. his testimony was riveting, credible, and disturbing. but what worried me were words spoken not in the imposing rooms of capitol hill but rather across town in the windowless
conference facilities of the omni shorem hotel. at a meeting of conservatives and evangelicals, donald trump reacted to the comey testimony and more broadly to the investigations into his campaign and administration. we're under siege, he beclared, and added, we know how to fight better than anybody, and we never, ever would give up. well, we now know what the first year of the trump presidency, at least, is going to look like. the administration faces serious investigations by senate and house committees. and by special counsel robert mueller. these will be long, complex, and detailed, following all leads and involving dozens of people. trump's response appears to be to fight. when ronald reagan faced an investigation into his administration over the iran contra affair, he cooperated completely. >> you deserve the truth. >> perhaps conscious of the example of nixon obstructing the
watergate investigations, reagan ordered that all relevant files be made available and allowed his senior officials to testify freely, even when the testimony was damning toward the administration and even him personally. the result -- a serious policy error was exposed and the administration's deception was assailed, but reagan was able to weather the storm. trump appears less likely to follow the reagan model. he is a fighter, but more importantly, he does not have much regard for these independent institutions that make up the american system. whether they be courts and judges, government agencies and the free press, trump has always viewed them simply as obstacles in the way of him winning. as he said on thursday, we are winners, and we are going to fight. for trump, winning justifies everything. when the conservative editorial board of the "wall street journal" asked him days after his election if some of his campaign rhetoric had gone too
far, his response was simple and telling. no. i won. in other words, the ends justified the means. but liberal democracy is premised on the nogz that the ends do not justify the means. that respecting the institutions, norms, and procedures of the american system of government is more important than winning. even if you are the president. my real fear is not that the investigations will yield something. it is that if the investigations yield something, donald trump's response might be to fight and fight dirty. no matter the cost to american democracy. now, let's get started. we are going to have a debate on the legal issues that arose out of the comey hearings in a few moments. first, i want to bring in james
woolsey to talk about what he heard and saw. woolsey was cia director under president bill clinton. more recently, he was a senior adviser on national security to donald trump's campaign and transition. he quit the transition team in early january. james woolsey joins me now here in new york. jim, what was your reaction to james comey's testimony? >> i found it worrisome. because we kind of know how to argue with one another in madison structure in this country with the legislature going one way and the white house going another and battles. it's what we do. and madison planned it that way. we haven't had any dictatorships and that was the purpose. but it works partly because most americans, even if they did not support the president in an election, the president who won, they still have a certain
allegiance to the presidency and the president symbolizes the country and so forth. and that's not really functioning that way here. >> you saw that in comey's testimony how? >> well, i find it amazing that he would take detailed notes of a meeting with the president and then leak them to a friend who's at, i think, columbia law school, and then have them give them to the press. >> but let me just interrupt you. >> amazing. >> he insists, i think by obligation, the word leak is not appropriate. he was a private citizen. let me present his argument. he was a private citizen. these were notes recollecting his conversation with the president. they were not classified. a private citizen is allowed to share his notes, you know, in a conversation with any government official with a friend, with the press. leaking involves disclosing
classified government information in an unauthorized way, as you well know having been director of the fbi. >> not all leaks have to be classified. there are a number of things that are extremely sensitive without reaching the technical requirements for classification. i just found it stunning that he would, i think, give up the secrecy of a conversation with the president of the united states. i have worked for four presidents in different capacities, and not everything you talk to them about is classified. but i think that that really symbolizes, to me, where we have come in this battle that is internal to one of the branches. it's not a madisonian struggle between, but inside the executive branch. >> couldn't somebody say donald trump is supposed to be this great leader. why can't he control his own
executive branch? >> i think in part what's happened is that people who opposed him and who opposed his general approach to things and some don't oppose his policies as much as they oppose his personality, has created a situation where we are not focusing on the things that we have to focus on. take russia, for example. we have a situation where russia is never not interfering with our elections. and with the elections of other democratic states. they call it disinformation. >> but didn't it strike you, jim, as odd? i agree with you, i thought the most interesting testimony that comey gave was when he was asked, do you have any doubt that russia was involved in interfering in the election? he said none, and he said they did it with purpose. they did it with sfusication. they did it with overwhelming technical effort. they will be back. they're coming after america.
now, comey had nine meetings with donald trump. he had only two with president obama in all the years that obama was president. in those nine meetings, in the first 100 days, he was asked, did trump ever ask him about russia and the russian interference? he said no. isn't that odd? >> well, he didn't have any precise questions on what was in front of him right at that time, but it is certainly something that we have to get our hands on. and we have to do it now because the next time the russians will try to interfere with our elections is a year and a half from now. we are going to lose our ability to elect our leaders if we don't understand this and deal with it. >> very quickly, we have 30 seconds. what would you do about this problem of leaking and things? is there some -- >> we have to get the executive branch and particularly the intelligence community and the law enforcement community pulled together, working together, and
behind the president in pulling things into a working order. we don't have that now. and i think some elements of both the intelligence community and certainly the law enforcement community have veered off looking into their own interests and not looking into the interests of the country. this has to get repaired and repaired rather quickly. >> former director cia james comey -- jim woolsey. thank you, sir. >> next on "gps," laurence tribe and elizabeth foley go head to head on the legal issues that arose from the comey hearing. could comey be charged with a crime? could the president be charged with a crime? ♪ ♪
♪ you know i'm gonna be like you ♪ ♪ and the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon ♪ ♪ little boy blue and the man in the moon... ♪ its witnessed 2 diy duos,s 31 crashes,: 4 food fights, and the flood of '09. it's your paradise perfected with behr premium plus paint. the best you can buy starting under $25. only at the home depot.
time's up, insufficient we're on prenatal care.es. and administrative paperwork... your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you, too. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country,
we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ it'that can make a worldces, of difference. expedia, everything in one place, so you can travel the world better. ray's always been different. last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques. remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and.
would president trump be charged with obstruction of justice? were comey's leaks totally illegal, as a trump tweet this morning seems to ask. those are just some of the legal issues raised by thursday's riveting hearings. to answer them, we have elizabeth foley who teaches constitutional law at florida international university and laurence tribe is a professor of kaubsitutional law at harvard university. larry tribe, let me start with you. alan dershowitz has achieved some prominence recently by making the case what donald trump did may have politically unwise, wrong, but it was not illegal or unconstitutional. you teach constitutional law at harvard university. what is your judgment? >> my judgment is that alan dershowitz is wrong. it's not even a close question. of course, we don't have all the facts, but his position is the facts don't matter.
the president simply cannot be guilty of obstructing justice because as head of the executive branch, he can completely control any prosecution. the supreme court has twice rejected that view. unanimously in the nixon case, by a vote of 8-1 in the morrison case. the fact is that the president has all kinds of powers, but if he abuses them, for example, by accepting a bribe from russia or any of a number of other things, if he does in a corrupt way or with threats of the kind that he made to comey about his retaining his job, if in either of those ways he interferes with the due administration of justice, that would be obstruction of justice, even under the federal criminal statutes of 18-usc section 1503, but even more important, it would be an abuse of power that could be an impeachment offense.
it's more serious than what nixon did. it's really impossible to argue that no obstruction of justice could be present here. the facts, if they are as the very credible jim comey suggested, point powerfully to obstruction of justice and abuse of power. and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. if you look at all the facts. but i'll stop here. i know we have a limited time. >> professor foley, what do you say to that? there are these two supreme court rulings that pretty clearly say in the nixon case and in the one that essentially established the independent council, that the president can't just do whatever he wants even though he is the head of the executive branch. >> look, i tend to agree with professor dershowitz on the constitutional questions, but i look at this as a lawyer would look at it. i practice law in addition to teaching constitutional law. and there's a doctrine called the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which means that the courts will first look to the
aplickable obstruction statutes, and if they can decide the question under the statutes, they won't reach the larger constitutional question. so let's look at those statutes. for example, professor tribe cited a statute. there are two different obstruction statutes. they deal with obstruction of investigations and obstructions of proceedings. one section, section 1510, for example, deals with obstruction of criminal investigations. so you would say to yourself, hey, this is a criminal investigation by the fbi. maybe it's a violation of that statute. but no, you look at the statute, the statute requires an act of corruption that constitutes bribery that prevents the communication of information about a crime to a criminal investigator. even if you think there's an act of implicit bribery here, there's no impeding of a communication about a crime to a criminal investigator. so 1510 is off the table.
then you look at 1503 which professor tribe just cited or maybe 1510, or 1512, all of which deal with obstruction of pending proceedings. the word proceeding is a legal term of art. it does not include an fbi investigation. and every single court that has looked at that question has said an fbi investigation is not a pending proceeding within the meaning of the obstruction statutes. >> all right, let me get larry tribe in here because we're on television and this might be getting too technical. >> well, i obviously don't agree. i don't agree. i'm a lawyer, too. i have read those statutes. 1503 isn't limited in the way that elizabeth says. but there are bigger questions here. the broad question of abuse of power, to which she doesn't speak. i think clearly, there is enough here for the congress to go forward and for mueller to go forward, as i think he is doing. >> professor foley, let me ask
you about another issue. something that struck me during the hearings was the role of jeff sessions. jim comey seemed to suggest that the attorney general -- that the fbi already knew that the attorney general was compromised, that he was going to have to recuse himself. does it strike you as, i don't know what the right word would be, but a violation of his pledge to recuse himself from anything relating to russia for jeff sessions to have then involved himself in the firing of jim comey, apparently over the russia investigation. >> look, i don't know -- >> it certainly does. are you asking -- >> let's start with professor foley. >> i'm sorry. look, i don't know without knowing the parameters exactly of jeff sessions' recusal. i would like to look at the language associated with that. let nee go back to the point about the obstruction statute. you opening statement said we need to care about process and the rule of law. if you care about process and the rule of law, and this is not
just about the ends justifying the means and taking down a president that you don't like, then you need to care about what the statutes of obstruction say in this country. and i'm telling you that section 1503 has been interpreted by every court to be limited to a pending judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. an fbi investigation is not that, so there is simply no violation of any existing statute under the facts as we know it right now. if those facts on the ground change, i'll be the first one to concede that there may be an applicable pending charge. to try to trump up an obstruction of justice statue is not the rule of law in this country. >> i like the pun. professor, it's a political process, impeachment by the house is not a purely legal process, but i want to ask you about a legal issue, which is perjury. if donald trump does agree to go
through a sworn testimony, given his past statements where there have been many contradictions, is there a potential for him to perjure himself ini'm thinking of the clinton case where eventually all they could get him on was perjury. >> i think there's serious potential. i must say, just being blunt about it, that perjury about a blow job is not nearly as serious as perjury about russian attack on our democracy. talk about the end not justifying the means. it seems to me this is clearly a case where if you constitution, which you cannot avoid under some principle of avoidance, even if the statutes as properly read don't outlaw what donald trump did, there are lot of things you can do that aren't covered by statutes, violating the establishment clause with his travel ban, violating the emoluments clause,
as i think he did. even if the statutes don't cover it, we have the broader question whether impeachment should deal with a president who knows no limits of the sort we need to preserve our constitutional republic. >> i notice professor foley nodding slightly, so i'll take that temporary moment of agreement as the moment we have to stop. we will be back with both of you. this was a fascinating legal discussion. thank you both. >> when we come back, from trump to brexit. britain and unexpected election results this week. what happened? what does it mean to the future of populism? i'll talk to the man who plotted two conservative victories in a row when we come back. with roundup precision gel®, you can banish them without harming plants nearby. so draw the line. give the stick one click, touch the leaves and the gel stays put killing garden weeds to the root. draw the line with roundup precision gel®.
z286oz zwtz y286oy ywty that's why this control enthusiast rents from national. where i can skip the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. on average, four out of every five rentals at national is a free upgrade. getting a full-size and paying for a mid-size? ♪ whoa, oh, whoa, whoa, lovin' every minute of it... ♪ as the boys from loverboy so eloquently noted...
i'm lovin' every minute of it. go national. go like a pro. it's ok that everybody ignoit's fine.n i drive. because i get a safe driving bonus check every six months i'm accident free. because i don't use my cellphone when i'm driving. even though my family does, and leaves me all alone. here's something else... i don't share it with mom. i don't. right, mom? i have a brand new putter you don't even know about! it's awesome. safe driving bonus checks, only from allstate. sometimes i leave the seat up on purpose. switching to allstate is worth it. i decided to see if there was a way for design to play a... ...positive role in what was going on in the world. there's a jacket that's reflective for visibility... ...a sleeping bag jacket, jackets that turn into tents. i usually do my fashion sketches on the computer. i love drawing on the screen. there's no lag time at all. it feels just like my markers. with fashion, you can dress people and help people.
i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. in april, prime minister theresa may called for new parliamentary elections expecting her conservative party to gain more seats and thus give her a stronger hand in executing britain's exit from the european
union. well, when brits went to the polls on thursday, what she got was a weaker hand, much weaker. her party lost 13 seats and with it their majority status. she is still cobbling together a coalition. what does it all mean? joining me now is the man who brought the conservatives to victory twice, the first victory for david cameron into 10 downing street. the second kept him there. cameron, in turn, made george osborne the uk's finance minister. he's now the editor of london's evening standard, and he joins us now from london. george, let me ask you, may seemed to be riding a wave of populism. she distanced herself from cameron and you. presented herself as in favor of brexit, against some of the excesses of free market capitalism, as she saw it. what went wrong? >> well, good to be on the show, fareed. i mean, a number of things. the campaign was very wooden.
she didn't connect with voters. the party's platform had a couple of policies in it which really put off elderly voters. but i think the big picture is the conservative party, and ymg a conservative, i voted conservative. i wanted the conservatives to do well, but the conservatives made a pitch essentially for the white working class who had previously been labor supporters but may have voted for brexit. in reaching for those voters, a, failed to get them, and b, put off metropolitan small l liberal minded voters who previously supported us, and the consequence was, as you say, a political gamble that spectacularly misfired. >> what happens now that she has allied herself with a small right-wing party that is socially very reactionary and sort of runs against the entire 15-year project of modernizing the conservative party that you
and david cameron engaged in? this is a party that a conservative columnist today called homophobic, creationest, you know, will that tar the conservatives' image? >> you're right to say that the british conservative party and this doesn't always translate across the atlantic, but the british conservative party has been very socially liberal. for example, we introduced gay marriage, and as a result, more than half of the gay population in britain voted conservative at the 2015 election. as i say, not something that is widely understood in the united states, but i think has been a key to our success. the problem is the current conservative leadership was taking our party away from the socially and economically liberal kind of european sense free market, pro-business but also not socially conservative platform that i think had done us very well. we're now in a situation where it's a hung parliament. no one has an overall majority,
and the only way the conservative party can stay in office is to ally itself with a small northern irish party that is quite socially conservative, as you say. there's not as if there's another government out there. the math doesn't work for the labor party. what i think this really means is unstable government, unfortunately. it probably means the end of mrs. may as the conservative party prime minister, although that won't necessarily happen immediately, and it will mean a lot of hard thinking in the conservative party about how to recover all of this lost ground. >> and what do you think it means, joergeorge, for populism? has populism peaked? you think about the dutch elections, the french elections and now these ones. it does seem that some of the fire has gone away. >> well, it certainly in britain seems to be more of a return to classic left/right politics. although the left leader, the
labour leader is similar to bernie sanders in his approach, and you could call that left-wing populism, although i personally believe if labor had a more credible and centrist candidate, there would now be a labor prime minister in britain. one piece of good news is this whole election has put pay in my view to the idea of a hard brexit. i don't think the votes are there now in the house of commons because the conservatives have lost their majority for taking britain out of all of the economic arrangements we have with the european union. it's not clear what takes its place, but certainly, i think we're now on course for a softer brexit than would have been the case a week ago. >> is that possible? because the europeans certainly want it to be a hard brexit as well. they want to make clear there is a difference between being in the european union and out. and they will not give britain a soft deal, something that is almost the same as having been a member of the european union.
>> well, i certainly agree with you that the europeans aren't going to cut any special deals for britain. although i think it would be helpful if everyone took in a deep breath and thought what was the best thing for the continent of europe given that britain is such an important economy and such an important security partner. that's not the atmosphere of the moment, partly because britain has adopted a very aggressive stance, or at least the british government has, and the europeans have responded in kind. it is worth remembering you can be in the european union, you can be out of the european union, but you can also be in the single market and not in the european market. norway is a case in point. you can have bilateral agreements with the european union, as switzerland does. you can be in the customs union as turkey is. there are a number of different options out there that other european countries not in the eu have adopted and it's worth britain now exploring the options, something theresa may and her team were not prepared to do just a few days ago.
>> the "wall street journal," which i realize is nonvoting media in britain, recommends that you take over, that theresa may has shown that her brand of conservatism doesn't work. and suggested you should essentially quit your job, probably run for election and challenge her for leadership. will you? >> i'm enjoying editing the london "evening standard" which is a big newspaper over here in britain. i want to go on making the argument with the newspaper and on programs like this, essentially for a british conservatism that is outward looking, internationalist, is optimistic about the future. whilst at the same time helps those who feel left behind by globalization, but doesn't completely reorientate itself towards their concerns. i think if we do that, we will lose the urban support that has been so important for the success of british conservatism. so i don't really mind which platform i make the case from. but i'm arguing for that kind of
briathe customer app willw if be live monday. can we at least analyze customer traffic? can we push the offer online? brian, i just had a quick question. brian? brian... legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday?! yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. (woman) there's a moment of truth.etes, and now with victoza®, a better moment of proof. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill, which didn't get me to my goal. lowers my a1c better than the leading branded injectable. the one i used to take. victoza® lowers blood sugar in three ways. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight.
non-insulin victoza® comes in a pen and is taken once a day. (announcer) victoza® is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or if you develop any allergic symptoms including itching, rash, or difficulty breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis, so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. now's the time for a better moment of proof. ask your doctor about victoza®.
in the mirror everyday. when i look when i look in the mirror everyday. everyday, i think how fortunate i am. i think is today going to be the day, that we find a cure? i think how much i can do to help change people's lives. that helps me to keep going to cure this. my great great grandfather lived to be 118 years old. i've heard many stories from patients and their physicians about what they are going through. i often told people "oh i'm going to easily live to be 100"
and, uh, it looks like i might not make it to retirement age. we are continually learning and unraveling what is behind this disease. i may not benefit from those breakthroughs, but i'm sure going to... i'm bringing forward a treatment for alzheimer's disease, yes, in my lifetime, i will make sure. now for what in the world segment. donald trump returned from his first overseas trip convinced he had unified america's historic arab allies. a blow against terrorism and calmed the waters of an unruly middle east. since then, we have seen a series of islamic terror attacks in europe and the middle east and an open split wen the arab
world with saudi arabia leading a group of countries to break off relations with qatar this week. what is going on? the premise of trump's strategy was to support saudi arabia fully in the belief that it would be able to fight terror and stabilize the region. in fact, trump gave a green light to the saudis to pursue their increasingly aggressive sectarian foreign policy. the first element of that policy has been to ex-communicate its longtime rival qatar. the saudis have always viewed qatar as a troubled neighbor and are infuriated by their efforts to play a regional and global role by hosting large american military bases, founding the al jazeera television network, and punching above its weight diplomatically. it's true that qatar has supported some extremist islamist movements. so has saudi arabia. both have within them extremist preachers.
both are widely believed to have armed islamic groups in syria and elsewhere. their differences, in other words, are really geopolitical, though often dresses up as idealogical. the open spread between the two countries will create much greater regional instability. qatar will move closer to iran and turkey, forging deeper alliances with anti-saudi groups. the battles between various factions of militants and syria, iraq, yemen, and north africa, will heat up. the terror attacks in tehran on wednesday for which isis has claimed responsibility, are viewed in iran as being part of a saudi-inspired campaign against it. we should expect iranian-backed militias will respond somewhere and some way. so much for regional stability. and america is in the middle of all this, keeping close relations with saudi arabia and the united arab emirates while directing u.s. regional military operations out of its base in qatar. trump has issued anti-qatar
tweets and complained about the country at a press conference on friday, but american troops will have to live with the reality that qatar is their host and close military ally in the war against isis. for a superpower, the best policy in the middle east has always been to maintain ties with all regional players. one of the great successes of richard nixon and henry kissinger's policies is they wur able to you them into the sphere their simultaneously preserving an alliance with the shah of iran. the first was the iranian revolution of 1979. which ushered a radical revisionist power into the region, and then triggered a reaction from countries like saudi arabia. iran's promise to spread its version of islam led the saudis to ramp up their own efforts to spread their own ideas and influence. the next earthquake was the american-led invasion of iraq in 2003. which destabilized the
fundamental balance of power. you see, iran's ambitions had always been kept in check by iraq, which had fought a bloody eight-year war against it. with saddam gone, iran's influence begand to spread in the region, especially within the shiites of iraq where it is now the most important external influence on the baghdad government. if the trump administration wants stability in the middle east, it should help to broker a new balance of power. this cannot happen purely on saudi terms. iran is a major player with real influence and its role will have to be recognized. the longer washington waits to do this, the longer the instability will grow. donald trump recently learned that health care is complicated. well, welcome to the middle east. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed, and read my "washington post" column. next on "gps," as america withdraws from its role as global leader, somebody needs to
briathe customer app willw if be live monday. can we at least analyze customer traffic? can we push the offer online? brian, i just had a quick question. brian? brian... legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday?! yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. i was thinking around 70. to and before that?re? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that.
do you have things you want to do before you retire? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change with investment management services. listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies and data without insights. and fragmented care- stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.
last week, when president trump decided to withdraw from the paris climate change agreement, i said the move symbolized that the united states was essentially retiring from its role as global leader. i was intrigued this week to hear somebody essentially offer to take up that mantle. chrystia freeland is canada's foreign minister. in a strong, important speech to her nation's parliament, she said canada was deeply disappointed by the president's climate decision, although she didn't mention him by name. and provided a solution. minister freeland suggested the ways that canada could step up
its global leadership. she joins me now. welcome. >> great to be with you, fareed. >> you spoke in the speech almost eljieically about the important role america had played in creating and sustaining this open international order. but do you think it's basically moved on, that america has withdrawn from the world? >> it's not my job to make predictions, fareed. i did say in my speech, and i mean this so sincerely, how grateful i am, how grateful canada is, for the tremendous role the united states has played over the past 70 years in building this rules-based liberal international order. and i think that, first of all, i think we maybe don't say that often enough to our american friends. and i also think that people of my generation and perhaps yours,
fareed, we were lucky to be born into these 70 fat years. i'm not sure we always fully appreciate what the peace and prosperity was that that liberal rules-based international order created. and the horror that came before it. and really, what i said to canadians this week is, let's not take that for granted. as a country, we canadian said, we have to set our own sovereign course, and our course is to double down on that rules-based international order. we as canadians helped to build it in the post-war period, and we're really committed as a country to doubling down to help to renew it, to help to make it even stronger in the 21st century, doing things like bringing the great emerging powers, including china, in and certainly, fareed, doing things like being strongly committed to the paris accord and to fighting
one of the great new menaces we're aware of today, which is climate change. so that's where canada absolutely stands. >> why do you think there is such resonance for the idea of america first? of withdrawing from the war? there's always been an isolationist streak in the united states. you're a student of this, but you're also dealing with the political system in canada. do you feel that same pull where maybe working class people feel the system hasn't delivered for them recently and so they just want to tear it down? >> i think that is an excellent point. and i actually addressed domestic economic policy in my speech this week, which is not that usual for a foreign policy speech. but i really strongly agree with what you said, fareed. i think that the middle class here in canada, as in many other western industrialized countries, including the united states, is feeling hollowed out.
it's feeling betrayed by this global economic order. and what i believe, what my government believes, what we say to canadians is, it is not blaming foreigners is always easy. foreigners always make an easy target, but whether it is trade deals or immigrants, they are not to blame for the problems of our middle class. we really believe that the solution lies in domestic policy. if you are shooting for the wrong target, you're not going to get a solution that works. do you worry that as the united states does seem to be retreating, you know, america first, it will cause a lot of instability? there are parts of the world where america's guarantees, its activism has had the effect of kind of calming the waters. if it withdraws, are we in for a rocky ride? >> we absolutely recognize the central, indeed the
indispensable role the united states has played in maintaining this rules-based liberal international order, and in building it. and you know, as canadians, the argument that i want to make to my american friends is to say, we know that for canada, this international order has hugely benefitted us. and we are committed to building it, to restoring it for the 21st century. we think that it has brought great benefits to the united states, too. and we really think it's -- it benefits the united states to really stay at the table. and you know, as you said, fareed, our prime minister said we're deeply disappointed about the paris accords, and we just look forward to continuing to work with our american partners. the world needs the united states. and we think the united states stands to benefit a great deal, really by maintaining its leadership role in the world. >> if not, do you think countries like canada and
britain and france might be the new leaderof ers of the western world? >> what i said to canadians this week, fareed, is we need to chart as canadians our own clear and sovereign course. every country makes its own national decisions. we're lucky to live in a democracy, america is lucky to be a democracy. it's for the american people to choose their course. equally, it's for the canadian people to choose our course. >> foreign minister of canada, chrystia freeland, pleasure to have you on. >> great to talk to you, fareed. next on "gps," one nation has a plan to get rid of the gas guzzlers on its highways by selling only electric cars, starting in just over a decade. it will surprise you to learn the name of that nation when we come back. that's why this control enthusiast rents from national. where i can skip the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle.
on average, four out of every five rentals at national is a free upgrade. getting a full-size and paying for a mid-size? ♪ whoa, oh, whoa, whoa, lovin' every minute of it... ♪ as the boys from loverboy so eloquently noted... i'm lovin' every minute of it. go national. go like a pro. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪
which country recently announced plans to sell only electric cars by 2030? china, india, russia, or japan? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is graham allison's destined for war. can america and china escape the few sistied track. the biggest question in international affairs is will the united states and china inevitably clash in the way that all rising and established powers have done through history. an imminent harvard scholar examines the history and comes to some fine conclusions. a very smart, well written, and important book. the correct answer to the "gps" challenge question is b, india. the government has said by 2030, every car sold in that country would be electric. the world economic forum says if india is successful, it would save the country roughly $60 billion in energy costs by 2030. india's energy minister says the
country will help facilitate the switch by offering subsidies for a couple years until the cars pay for themselves. some are skeptical india will achieve such a lofty goal, but we have to wish them well. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hey, i'm brian stelter. welcome to our viewers in the united states and all around the world. it's time for reliable sources. this is our weekly look at the story behind the story. and how the media really works and how the news gets made. ahead this hour, president trump spinning up a story, hurling insults at james comey, calling him a liar, a leaker, a coward. will those words come back to hurt him? i'll ask reporter and trump biographer who faced his own legal battle with the now president. and speaking of leaks, the justice department filing charges against alleged leaker reality winner. is this the first of many cases to come? and later this hour, a funny interview with t