tv Washington This Week CSPAN December 11, 2016 1:50pm-6:01pm EST
mines very special. who signed my constitution? >> john hancock. myjohn hancock signed declaration. [laughter] >> that's great. we have a question written here. would does congress and the trump administration do about the keystone pipeline and the dakota access pipeline? >> let's pass the stone asap. twice, mr. kerry once, all the states along the pipeline route said we are good to go. thele forget that is keystone xl pipeline that cause
the problem. there's a keystone pipeline that has gone from the tar sands since 2007. 500,000 barrels per day coming along that same route a sickly and going to illinois. makes goode pipeline paying american jobs. it helps out our allies. how about this ideas that of opec? napec,ut me tech -- north american patrol -- north countries.troleum pushed to thee side.
they've got a lot of oil and gas down there. offshore the gulf of mexico. on sure, in my own state, it goes only down to the border. it's therehat good in mexico. let's help them tap that. we can trust them. those same guys who got that thing sort of stopped right now build a pipeline from mexico to texas, west texas, they are coming down to spread their ill will in my own state. they will be successful. keep up the fight because these guys are going to come and come and come. again, with the new epa administrator, we've got a gun to ride. time for oneave
more question. >> [indiscernible] take the pressure off the minors. know, that is a real bear to kill because the corn lobby is very powerful. it comes down to ethanol. we've had some talks about that. we can't come to an agreement. but there's good news out there. again, another quote from phil gramm. [indiscernible] and on that thought, the facts are getting better and better. support climate sayge, fear climate change, ethanol makes it worse. it does.
of stream coming get that corn to market, man, you're driving tractors, having fertilizer, all of these omissions. it is even worse. so hopefully -- and that's a big hope as we don't have common sense -- we should support getting rid of ethanol. it is making the planet worse. on the flipside, how about more nuclear power? if you care about climate change, guess what. zero hydrocarbon emissions in nuclear power. and it's really, really safe. mentioned,se, as i what happened in japan came across the pacific to the obama administration to wipe out new nuclear power. -- we keepwe kicked hitting people with the facts. the american people are smart. once they are armed with facts, they will get it right every
time. and that's my mission. give them the facts. >> please join me in thanking congressman olson. [applause] ok, we are going to take a short break now about 20 minutes. the next panel will start at 11:00 a.m. thank you all. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> tomorrow, the anti-poverty policies in a trump administration. then, a look at the many challenges awaiting the trap administration. that's live on c-span starting tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern.
>> follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we will take you to key events as they happen, without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand on www.c-span.org or listen free on our c-span radio act. lisa monaco, the president's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism announced friday that president obama has asked for a full review of russia's involvement in the 2016 election. she made the statement while talking with reporters at a christian science monitor breakfast about the obama administration's priorities for stopping terrorism and other security threats. this is just under an hour.
>> ok, here we go. monaco,t today is lisa assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism. and john brennan, guests, and lisa monaco is here for her first visit to our merry band of reporters at least a speaker, she was here when the director of the fbi came a while ago, a long while ago, long long while ago. lisa monaco graduated from the windsor school where she says teachers taught us we are going to go places and they sure were right about that. just graduated from harvard with a law degree from the university of chicago and worked for judge in the court of appeals for the third circuit and is served under attorney general janet reno, works for the district of columbia and was named to the enron task force. from there she was counsel for the fbi and staff to director robert mueller, and the deputy
attorney general's office, confirmation by the senate and assistant attorney general for national security, held her current position since march 2013 working out of what she calls my cave or bunker in the white house near the situation room. and so ends the biographical portion of the program. now on so my colleagues can eat their sausage. now for the recitation of ground rules. no live blogging or eighting, no filing of any kind. give us time to listen to what our guest says. to curb that, for all the reporters here, as regular attendees know, if you want to ask a question send me a subtle,
nonthreatening signal, i will call on as many reporters as we get to in the time we have this morning. and we make some opening comments and move the questions around the table. what is a nonthreatening signal? david: it's like obscenity, i know it when i see it. [laughter] lisa: good to be here. i thought what i would do is spend a few minutes talking about the moment we are in. it is a transition moment quite obviously and also one that has given me an opportunity to reflect on the threats face and the landscape that the next team will be coming into.
let me take a few minutes to do that. on the terrorism friends, the landscape we face was addressed by the president earlier this week at mcdill air force base down in tampa and what i would say on the terrorist front is after continuing to put relentless pressure on al qaeda . we have decimated al qaeda operations from the afghanistan pakistan region, killed osama bin laden obviously. and continue to place pressure affiliate in syria. we have placed relentless
pressure on isil, which poses a hybrid threat. it is at once an insurgent army rolling through the territory we , have seen over the last few years in iraq and syria. group that mounts and organizes direct attacks that we saw in paris, brussels and elsewhere. but most importantly, and what i call the social phenomenon, and its ability to use social media to inspire individuals to act wherever they are with whatever they connect with. adnani is now deceased. extolled others to use a
knife, so to radicalize individuals to extol adherence so they don't have to travel or get training, put us in a new and different space in the tariff fight. we are making progress against isil on all three of these dimensions. than 50% of the territory once held in iraq and syria. a number of foreign fighters, paris and brussels and importantly it's ability to distribute and get its message out, the private sector acting much more aggressively to address the platforms by isis . but nevertheless, we face a very real threat, with respect to external operations for, like i
said, from al qaeda's affiliates in yemen and syria which is different and isis at directing external operations but the radicalization, isil's ability to radicalize individuals were they are poses the most immediate threat we face. and that is going to be a landscape my successor will inherit. but the president spoke to the fact that because that is the case, this is a long struggle, we have to take a long view and he articulated the sustainable approach he put forward that we executed for nearly eight years, . that's working with partners everywhere from south asia to the somehow -- whether it is
government, allies or a coalition, partners on the ground come in iraq and syria . but also means acting unilaterally where we must to address threats to the united states and us persons abroad and it means going after the drivers that have fueled the rise of groups like isis and the ability of it the greatest engine we have seen in the last century. the internet, the greatest engine for progress and free speech and modernity and going after isil's ability to abuse problem. the president talked about sustainable approach and importantly the fact that we need to execute on that
consistent with our values and as transparently as we can while maintaining the tools we need to protect the united states because that is going to insure the legitimacy of operations and confidence of the american people in those operations and our ability for a long-term -- ability to sustain those operations for a long-term threat. on the cyber front, from 2009 the president came into office and very quickly described the cyberthreat as one of the greatest national security and economic security threats that we face and i think what we have seen is frankly an approach that has been transformed. we no longer view the cyber threat as a technical problem or
an intelligence problem but rather a threat in the national security space that we need to deploy all tools against and the way i have approached is to take some of the lessons we have learned in the counterterrorism realm and apply them to how we fight the cyberthreat. the overlap is not 100% but we have learned a lot in the counterterrorism space that we can apply to the cyberthreat, that means using all elements of national power against the cyberthreat whether it is law enforcement, military, diplomacy, sanctions, financial tools, etc. we have to put all those tools on the table to combat the cyber threat.
we have been very clear that we will act to protect our interests and impose costs on a range of factors when we see -- range of actors when we see their malicious cyberactivity addressing or going after us interests. david: i'm going to -- lisa tell me to wrap it up. :david: they pay me to be rude to guest hosts. wrap it up so they don't march me out with torches. lisa: yeah, we don't want the torches. david: what a way to end a career. [laughter] lisa the next team will inherit : a rapid growing threat in the states across all dimensions. the number and range of actors we see from state actors,
nonstate actors, hactivists to criminal actors. the range and diversity through which these actors conduct malicious cyberactivity, the internet of things is a huge challenge people increasingly need to focus on and the tactics they are using, from destructive attacks to attacks that may make us question the integrity of data. last thing i would say the other area that is particular to me is a range of crisis management one has to do in my role in the white house from natural disasters shootings to pandemics to infectious diseases. thoug what you have seen acrosse
last few years is an approach that has been honed and tested across a range of crises but what we have done is shown the need for a unity of effort across federal, state, local and international actors, and the importance of resilience across all of those actors and the unity of efforts. the threat, i would highlight quite frankly is emerging infectious disease. so without any malicious introduction or origin something like zika has caused tremendous challenges to puerto rico for one, poses a transborder threat
to us. these types of things, ebola is not a malicious introduction, so that is, i would argue, the type of threat today as we transition that we need to focus on and they need to focus on very much like in 2008-2009 the outgoing team highlighted the incoming team the cyber threat. the emerging infectious disease threat to move rapidly across borders and caused tremendous dislocation and crises, something the next team will have to confront. it's a long to do list. it is growing, ever-growing, i will keep working get to the last day until we pass the
baton. david: let me ask about passing the baton. then we will go to my colleagues. jeff mason of reuters, mark thompson and phil rucker of the post and i want to disabuse you of the idea that it is a boys club. i noticed that all the questioners are men. not a good thing. let me ask you about the transition. ,olitico reported that president-elect trump's landing has been in place for a while. not all of them the necessary security clearance but have you met your successor, how is the effort going to transfer the body of knowledge from you and whoever is going to be responsible for this on january 20. lisa: i have not met my
successor. my successor has not been named yet. i am eager to sit down with that person. this role as many of you know is one that wrepost 9/11 environment and was specifically called by the bush administration and this administration to have one person focused on homeland security, counterterrorism with direct immediate access to the president. when i go upstairs 50 paces from my cave office in the west wing up to the oval office the president knows it is something ,ad has happened quite frankly domestically usually or 2 us u.s. persons abroad. that is my focus and he knows it and as a result i have immediate access to the president and that
is critically important in the world we live in today. i hope i have the opportunity to engage with my successor. we've done a tremendous amount of work to put together reams of information to carry out the president's direction which is a smooth, comprehensive and professional transition. i participated in this process. i was chief of staff to bob mueller. in 2008-2009. and what i saw was a very professional transition from the bush administration to the obama administration, something the president has spoken of that was very important to him and he told us we needed to meet that bar and exceed it. david: do you get any sense -- there's been talk about lack of interest by the president-elect in the daily presidential brief and what that might or might not say about his interest in the intelligence community. do you have a sense of lack of interest on homeland security on the cyberfront be change i have not had the opportunity to sit
-- on the cyber front? lisa: i do not. i have not had a chance to sit down with my successor. but the president-elect moving to name a range of personnel, i hope you have the opportunity to sit down with my successor. >> there's been a concerted effort by the administration to lay down publicly a lot of policies, broad, strategic things, a lot of detailed memos were kept secret for a long time are now leaking. what is the goal of that? does that make the policies more durable? how many do you think will be durable in the new administration?
given use seem to be on a real transparency kick at the moment, is the president thinking about setting in motion the release of thefull torture report that members of the senate have requested him to do? lisa: i would challenge one of your premises, that there has been a transparency kick of late. the president talked about the importance of transparency for the last eight years and you can point to a number of actions consistently across those eight years that demonstrated that commitment to transparency and we can rattle them off in the second term when i have been in the white house from commitment to disclosing civilian casualties from terrorism operations to making available
the presidential policy guidance documents in redacted form in order to protect our ability to continue to conduct operations, revisions of state secrets policy and on and on. there is a robust record of the president's commitment to transparency. i would think not transparency transparency's sake. the point here is to put down as much as possible the rationale and principles behind the operations we conduct because that will lend confidence and legitimacy and hopefully longevity and sustainability to those operations because we are going to need to continue to conduct them as a result of the threat we face and i outlined at the outset.
so the purpose for laying these things down is exactly that. i would point to earlier this week, the laying out in an unprecedented way the legal and policy framework that our use of military force around the world for counterterrorism and other purposes, whether it is detention, interrogation, prosecution, etc. and here again, that was an unprecedented move some of the commentators have said no other state has done this and the reason the president talked about this earlier this week, is to make clear the bar we have set for ourselves to try to set norms and lens legitimacy to the work we are doing. do i think it will be sustained through the next administration going forward?
that remains to be seen. the next team will come in and review operations and make their own decisions. i would say there is a difference when you are in the room and privy to the threats and understanding from the and have the benefit of the professionals who work dishes extremely hard and professionally and with tremendous integrity. that remains to be seen. our hope is when the new team comes in and confronts all the information, they will take a long view. >> to follow up on the end of that question, given the president supported the release of the executive summary, what
is the logic in not supporting the release of the entirety of the report with a parallel of actions. -- with appropriate parallel redaction's? lisa i don't know of any new : news to make on this score. when we released or other provided to the congress for them to release a redacted executive summary, it was after a careful process to ensure national security methods and individuals protected and that was a lengthy process the president supported and wanted to make sure we got done ended is important. >> those questions. the obama administration took the extra step of coming up with a legal memo in 2011 to approve killing american suspected terrorists overseas without
-- american citizen suspected terrorists overseas without trial. what things are in place as you transition to the next administration to assure our capability is not abused and , also when it comes to the use of torture, the senate report documented many cases of americans working for the government who exceeded the approved techniques and those engaged -- and those individuals were not held to account. lisa: with regards to the legal memorandum that you referenced, that, with regard to using force against americans who pose a threat to the united states or to u.s. persons, the protections and the rationale is laid out in
that memoranda. the transparency around that memorandum as persons like yourself and others to hold government accountable. in fact, one of the other comments on the presidential memorandum and report that was issued earlier this week described it as fundamentally government accountability document. in other words, a way for the public, the press, other forrnments to look at how the way the government is accounting for its actions. this is an idiot. a thin of the day, the united states has consequences.
ultimately policy will be governed by the next team. but by putting it out there, by making it clear, there is a mechanism for the public and the press to point to it and other to hold the united states that bar. >> the vice president expressed optimism just a couple of months ago that it would be closed. what is your take on the possibility that it will be closed by jennifer 20th? how would that happen? what are your thoughts in general? lisa: on guantanamo earlier this
week, the -- is going through with the same restrictions that currently apply. nevertheless the work that has been done to go from 242 detainees at the time the president took office to today, 59 detainees remain in guantanamo. transfer efforts are ongoing, the work that has been done across the board to engage in tremendous diplomacy and security arrangements to allow further transfers, we will continue to do that. we will follow those transfers
before january 20th, but at the end of the day, the domestic transfer restriction remains in place, until congress lists that, bringing detainees even to serve a life sentence, to undergo prosecution, those restrictions remain in place and continue to be a number of detainees who, like -- too great a threat, dubbed by unanimous review by career professionals, intelligence, military, law enforcement and others, pose too great a threat to be transferred subject security arrangements so there will be some numbers that remain absent an ability and a lifting of congressional districts to the united states that will remain in guantanamo so the president is clear we will continue our efforts until the last day. and that's what we've been
doing. and we put a plan before with no receptive it into that plan that we put up nearly a year ago. add to what the president said earlier this week on that. with regards to general kelly, i and i found him , dedicatedssional military man who has german tremendous- has regard for the troops who serve under him. is there a decision-making dedicate the electoral process to cripple infrastructure?
the,he alleged hacks of hacks part of the decisionmaking process. lisa: we've had discussions about this. i think dave johnson has spoken to this. there has been concern expressed on the part of state and local electoralabout having infrastructure dubbed critical infrastructure out of concern for federal overreach. but the fact of the matter is the secretary johnson will continue to consider this.
but what we did over the summer is and in the lead up to the election is given the threat that was posed, the vulnerability for malicious cyber activity as i outlined earlier, we made available to state and local officials who, of course, the administrators are notrs and operators in federal hands. we made a range of cyber security tools and efforts to .mprove their cyber security an importantwas role and is an important role for dhs to play. dhs has the ability to provide
those services and those capabilities and will continue to do so. making it clear that dubbing it critical infrastructure is not an effort to intrude upon or take control of the state. -- state process. >> the decisionmaking process -- lisa: everything would be factored in, that is one aspect of it but these systems themselves face a range of threats as i laid out. it wouldn't become find that is be confined. david: coming up next, mark thompson, tara mckay, jeff dyer, frankie watkins, unless we repeal the law, we will do our best.
there you are. >> before your opening remarks , [indiscernible] and impose costs given intelligence community on october 7th, was confident the russians had tried to interfere in the election. how has the us government imposed costs on the russians, and continued interest in congress and investigating senators for the president last week asking to classify more information about what the -- to declassify more information about what you know russians were doing. will you be able to share publicly what happened during this election? lisa: the intelligence community is looking at that. first and foremost, the intelligence community as it was
in terms of the first stable in october because you want to do so, very attentive to not disclosing methods that may appear to identify and attribute malicious actors in the future. what i would also say is the october because you want to do so, very attentive to not disclosing methods that may appear to identify and attribute malicious actors in the future. what i would also say is the president directed the intelligence community to discuss a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. to capture lessons learned from that and report to a range of stakeholders, this is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage the congress on the threats we have seen and state and local stakeholders i spoke to in terms of them and understanding and tools to defend themselves and help them confront the risk but it is important, 2008, and to bob mueller. and met any engagement -- called him up a call from a senior
official at the fbi to talk to him about the chinese infiltrating systems in the obama campaign. we have seen in 2008, and the election system, we may be crossed into a new threshold. it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after action, to understand what this means, what has happened and impart those lessons learned and that is what we will go with. in 2008 and this time, the chinese got into the system in an effort to change or manipulate the electoral process.
and is that something he expects before he leaves office in january, before he leaves office. the chinese got into the system but they did not dump it publicly. to manipulate the electoral process. that seems to be new. you said the president asked for, is that something before he leaves office in january, before the public? get a report to prior to him leaving. we will see what comes out of the report. there will be a report to a range of stakeholders. >> with the months left in
office, i will pander if i can. >> what have we been doing? >> i would like to look back a little bit. president this week said, eight years, no foreign affairs, successfully attacked us, president bush never said that after 9/11, that is 15 years. you were here, everyone thought another huge attack come the next day or the day after, it never happened. have we been that good? or the 9/11 hijackers harnessing airplanes against our buildings, did they get lucky? is it time to step back and recount this threat given the fact we basically had white noise terrorism since 9/11?
>> with regard to your question about good or lucky, i think we have been both. there has been a tremendous effort to build up our defenses, to strengthen systems, border screenings, systems -- the ability of the intelligence community and law enforcement to interact not only domestically, with our foreign partners, countless attacks in 2006 during the playing slot which i was with the fbi and we were with british partners twice a day unsecure videoconferences to understand what they have so that we could compare it to what we were looking at domestically. and information and relationships have only gotten greater and gotten better. we have gotten better. has has often been said, we have to be right 100% of the time.
we need to recalibrate and that is what i was getting at in my reference at the top to the new face of the terrorist threat we are in. the more immediate threat we judge comes from ice all and in particular their ability to inspire individual actors and small groups to conduct less spectacular but certainly deadly attacks and real consequences, and have potential to unsettle communities quite justifiably. we have to calibrate the tools we apply, whether it is encountering violent extremism, working with the private sector and the tech sector to get them to work with us to address platforms, these are all tools and efforts we didn't talk about in the aftermath of 9/11.
we will build up those tools as we built up the tools to harden our borders in 9/11, right after 9/11. show less text 00:40:07 >> you mentioned more broadly, infectious disease is a concern. the president-elect and his team have not really acknowledged cyberattacks in the election. and security concerns, they don't talk about infectious diseases as a concern. does that give you any concern and what are the things you and your team in the white house can do between now and january 20th to bring awareness of this and
get on the president-elect's radar? show less text 00:40:50 >> it is too soon to say. only a month since the election, the president-elect and his team are working to make their appointments and no we have to see how to post these issues when the time comes and when they are in the seat. what we have been doing is carrying out the president's direction for professional, comprehensive transition and that means preparing a tremendous amount of information and briefings to be able to transition and relay a tremendous body of knowledge and experience and lessons learned across a range of crises and threats that have evolved over eight years so we will be doing that right up until january 20th and having discussions. as many as we can as people are brought on board. >> real quick politics.
>> i want to turn it around a little bit. because of the nature of the transition in the world we are living in can you describe or make an assessment of how external actors view the transition as a vulnerable period in the united states, what is your assessment of that and do you think this inauguration event, the actual event itself, because there was a threat for president obama's inauguration, is this the most vulnerable inaugural event. >> let me take these in turn.
we don't have any credible information about a threat to the inauguration for the current period. that said, transitions are, i think, reasonable to conclude and we are operating as if across the intelligence community, homeland security, that transitions are something adversaries try to take advantage of. that is the posture that would be true in 2008. 2012, in 2008, any other transition period of that is the going in proposition and we will act accordingly. we would take that approach. >> anything different in 2017.
>> a volatile campaign period. and we have to be on guard and take advantage of it. specific or credible intelligence, through the 2008 period, to the inauguration, and washed out for the intel jargon. and these threats, and the 21st, the same way the last eight years. >> some of the programs and things you are doing is a way to
help people accountable and everyone -- and accountable kind of thing. i want you to tell me when the obama administration is in office, the report they have with the media, you know how we think and i am wondering if you think it is precarious when they are put in place and you wish you made the more solid and there are a couple examples that you released about civilian casualties and drone strikes. it is great that it is out but could have included information by state but this is something you are thinking of doing and in terms of interrogation, from the outside a robust effort to hold people accountable before the obama administration took power, if you are worried about having that be defined given what the president-elect said about torture. >> a few things.
one, in my role to stay as far out of politics as possible, and office in the west wing, i can't really speak to your opening point. whether or not there is a particular understanding between the team and the white house and the press, there was -- i was in the justice department that time. john durum, a career prosecutor spent years reviewing, painstakingly, the activities in the last administration with enhanced interrogation techniques. a lengthy, robust review of that
huge but it was not looked at. i want to stress one thing that came out this week. that was long in the works before the election. a long-standing commitment to put down in one place and reflect the number of readings that i and the deputy national security adviser had with a range of groups and stakeholders who kept saying we have spoken to these issues in isolated places, speeches and various documents. it would be great to have it all in one place and that is what you saw reflected their. >> lawyers have asked for a pardon to the trump has called for his execution. what do you think the prospect is for that?
you called general kelly a dedicated military man. is a too many military men in the cabinet? >> on the bowe bergdahl matter, it has been reported there is an application for a pardon against -- that will work its way to what the purpose process is. with regard to the military and the cabinet, the president-elect will put his team in place and you should see how that is.
>> from yahoo. >> the president coming into office with a range of properties with his name on them. i wonder if you could speak, to american national security, what can or will be done about this. >> i think a recognition, certainly as we conduct the transition in briefings and discussions, that we do for the new team on threats to us persons overseas. we focus very much as we do domestically to the threat to soft targets. i can't speak to whether those properties would be specifically more vulnerable. that is going to be very with respect to those properties. >> given these properties are
owned by the president-elect, does the united states government have any special obligation as regard to other american companies? >> i don't know. >> tim johnson is watching. >> cybersecurity experts speak about what causes them to lose sleep at night, is often an attack on the financial sector. i would like you to talk about
legal restrictions, responsible for protecting the commercial enterprise like the financial sector. and what needs to be done to ensure we don't wake up and see the bank balance is 0. >> from the standpoint of the federal government's responsibility, what we have done in that regard is look at critical infrastructure. we talked about it before and financial infrastructure, is included. what we have done is prioritize our approach to protecting critical infrastructure and providing services and information to critical infrastructure holdings. several years ago the president, directed by executive order, the creation of a framework that was developed with industry in partnership with a set of best practices the critical infrastructure owners should deploy. we work very hard to get a rare thing which is bipartisan
legislation and cyber security act of 2015 to ensure greater information between the public and private sector. some of them very much directed at the financial sector as a critical piece of critical infrastructure. the other thing i day is from my experience, there -- they are focused on this issue ahead of the game than many folks in industry and that is reflected in their relationship with the treasury department, the department of homeland security, the white house, to really be focused on the enterprise risk. they are not leaving it to just their it guy. they have taken it to the ceos i have dealt with.
>> let's talk about individuals who are inspired to commit actss of terrorism here, domestically, inspired from outside. i recall a couple years ago the administration launched a very specific campaign of communication and relations with actors in the muslim community. i am interested in where the campaign stands and what impact you may have seen from the presidential campaign, where there was talk about banning muslims and different things. that constitutes a setback, what impact you may have seen from the presidential campaign.
>> on your last point, what i have seen, some communities expressing concern about rhetoric. what i would say to that is we face a very determined enemy both in al qaeda as well as in isis but they have made it very clear that they believe we are at war with islam and it is not of course the case. the words we use and the rhetoric that is used that feeds into that fuels their recruiting power. the type of recruiting message that says they want to enlist troubled souls in a clash of civilizations because they believe the united states is at war with islam. we don't want to do anything to fuel their recruiting power. with regard to your question about our efforts to counter message, as it were, we have advanced those efforts in the past couple years, the global engagement center at the state department.
we determined that the united states is not a very effective messenger when it comes to trying to delegitimize and undercut isis's narrative. what we did is brought in a bunch of tech experts and branding experts and others to say this is what is resonating in isis's message with the type of people they are trying to recruit and this is how we should go about countering that. it is not a message with a us government stamp on it but by amplifying and raising up and expanding the number and range of credible voices that might the more persuasive to undercutting isis's message.
>> that is all we have time for. thank you very much and thank you for coming. you often look at a project, you look to see whether you have achieved your objectives and at what cost. i wanted to see through the last past century of military interventions. parts and politics aside, what happens after the party is over? one of the aftereffects of war and what are the costs on both sides? >> tonight, media honcho nor and travel -- discusses his book -- "war, the after party." it chronicles his travel experiences through countries affected by u.s. involved conflicts. >> i went to all of these places. toh an open mind, trying not
understand what a partisan point might be validated, but to look at was it mission accomplished and what were the costs on both ends? >> tonight on c-span's q&a. >> the circuit court of appeals recently reheard a case regarding the fourth amendment searchinst unreasonable and seizures and amendments around police searching a car outside of milwaukee lick her store for being too close to a crosswalk. as a result, randy johnson, one of the passengers, was prosecuted for illegally possessing a weapon. this follows a previous decision by a three-judge seventh circuit panel that route in favor of the police. the argument is just over one hour.
>> i present missed -- i represent mr. johnson. the issue in this case as it is in all cases, with the facts available to the officers, would allow a person caution to the -- that their actions are propria -- are appropriate. here are the facts the officers knew. >> i will ask you to be very clear, the stage at which he we are discussing the encounter, it matters to some, anyway. you are talking about the initial move to take a sharp and go up and find the car. not anything later. >> exactly.
>> that was found by the district court. >> that is right. the fact that the offers his new that at that moment and in front of an open store, they see a car and stop, the lights are on, it is occupied, exhaust is coming out, and it is there. a great question, your honor. .hey do not deserve that . >> no driver. mr. bugni: there was no driver do not make the opposite -- the observation. >> they are too far away to know if there is a driver. mr. bugni: the record is very clear.
i do not know if it is not in the brief. judge kanne: believe me, it is not in the brief. mr. bugni: it is not in the brief. [laughter] >> good answer. that observation, that there was no driver, that only comes after the initial seizure. at that point, all the officers know is there is a running car. feet fromoughly eight the crosswalk but not 15. mr. bugni: there is nothing illegal about a car stopped with the lights on. chief judge wood: presumptively illegal. mr. bugni: i do not think so. it is if it is there for that certain -- that purpose. >> that is the exception.
presumptively illegal under wisconsin law to park within 15 minutes -- 15 meters of a crosswalk. full stop. judge sykes: the officers are an required to negate explanation that might prove the conduct innocent. if they see a violation, they can stop the car and do a traffic stop. mr. bugni: it would run in the face of garcia. >> would in the natural assumption be that someone in the car had run into the liquor store to get something he was going to bring back? when we assume if we saw a car with the lights on next to the that istore, mr. bugni: a plausible explanation right there. that is what everyone would assume. >> given the wide number of scenarios in which parking violations would occur, is this issue capable of any categorical
resolution such as determination that parking violations always or never can support a seizure, do you think? mr. bugni: that is a difficult question. judge rovner: why do you think i asked? [laughter] i was asking earlier. [laughter] mr. bugni: here is the simple answer. parking violation, never a seizure. you are parked to close to the curb or to the curb or too far away from the curb, never will -- never. no reason officers have to at that point sees. >> but it is a parking violation. i understand it may not be common, they are empowered to do so. and i testified they to parke regularity too
24 inches from the her because -- instead of 18 or whatever it is. >> we have never contested the fact they are able to do that but you cannot seize. >> are you conceding that if officer conway had walked up to the car, granted it was a cold cart, so he walks up to the and then sees everything else he saw, johnson squirming around with a gun, and you do not have a case if that happened. walking up to the car and. to the window, it is hard to me to imagine that is a seizure. mr. bugni: the answer is yes, we would agree if it is a voluntary encounter. it is not a matter of, hey, buddy, you have got to remove the car. flips out.hnson
single officer walks up to the car and says you are parked too close, i will write you a ticket, do you think at that point, the car if there were a driver, do you think it could accelerate away and say no, you will not? i am leaving? that means you think walking up to the car is itself a lawful seizure because a lawful seizure means prohibition, walking away. mr. bugni: that is actually incidental. we all agree even the cases we say that say, the minnesota supreme court and the washington supreme court, once a ticket is being written -- >> that is where you lose me.
that is a seizure for a parking violation. if there is a legal rule against departing, then you have been seized. how does one get around that? mr. bugni: part of the administrative duty of enforcing the traffic. a guy walksbrook: up and says you are parked too close, i will issue a ticket. before he gets out his ticket book, the perp -- the person rides away. i'm guessing he cannot driveway just because the officer has not gotten the ticket book out of his pocket yet. mr. bugni: i agree with that. judge easterbrook: i suppose you are saying the seizure was perfectly lawful. if that is not a seizure, what is? mr. bugni: definitely this, driving in the spotlight -- judge easterbrook: the question is whether the very act of investigating a parking violation and walking out to the caris not also sees the
until the incident is concluded. >> we could even say the apparent -- >> no presumption of a violation. >> that is correct. our position is the 10 seconds of observation is not enough to decide whether or not they are loading or not. >> i want to focus in on how this factors into the analysis. when we determine whether a serious, i mean, whether a seizure is reasonable, under the fourth amendment, we have to consider a governmental interest at issue in enforcing the -- the
violation but we also have to consider a degree of force as part of the analysis as part of the degree of intrusion. i couple of officers stopping a person to ask questions, unconstitutional involves the full flood teens, we see down, with their guns john. mr. bugni: i don't question that. if the governmental interest is, 15eally want to keep people feet from the crosswalk, you are not allowed to come with a swat team to investigate that. it takes it outside of what you are investigating at that moment. measured with what you are investigating there. >> is an important part of your theory that even if in the beenhetical we have talking about, walking up, the difference is not just could you
write the ticket, but that there independentan component in the fourth amendment that relates to the excessive dimension of this particular seizure? mr. bugni: i think that is always balanced or you have to balance the governmental interest with what you are investigating. if it isge wood: underway and the officer decided, i will actually shoot you in the thigh because i know that will disable you, you would say even the load -- the legitimate pat down would be ok, that is excessive force. i should take nothing for granted today. seizureu concede that a akin to that would be appropriate for these theations, in particular violations that would raise serious safety concerns stopped
in a no parking zone, or a populated event like times square? would it be constitutional to seize the individual and investigate that kind of working violation? mr. bugni: ordinarily, we agree and say no, but those in the court would have to balance, the safety interests of times square on new year's eve, you have got to find out what are you doing here. every factor you have to look at -- not advocating a blanket rule. you are saying there are whereions to the rule there is public harm, essential public harm. mr. bugni: i think you also have to wed that to the fact it is just cops trying to direct traffic. one big main boulevard goes
through. 8:01, everyone is getting towed. officers are not going to allow that to obstruct the traffic. gridlock, everyone has a bad day and you are upset and everything else. officers are normally just trying to address traffic. >> away from the curb into the street? r, yougni: exhibits f and can see it in we come from the midwest and we have different concepts of how high a snow pile is. [laughter] mr. bugni: this one is clearly a snow pile. very convenient when the a snow globetore, for one of those walkways. that is where the car is parked. >> it is not along the curb, but in the street. mr. bugni: i know exactly what you mean.
intos not pushed over traffic. you can see the curb. inches.thin the 18 >> in front of the car? >> i have got a picture if you want me to pass it up. it is right there. then there is a second path. you have two paths. a person is going into the .iquor store goes right there >> did someone going to the liquor store? mr. bugni: yes. the driver of the car who they did not know about until after, it was my client'sister, the other sister was in the front seat. comes out moments later and says hey, what is going on? to the core
question, and i do not want to lose this. they want to address this, if you look at shields, shield seems almost unremarkable. doing whenthey're they seize the person come the court finds a seizure, the need to decide that seizure, it looks like a voluntary encounter. the defendant says it was a voluntary encounter. i was not seized. i voluntarily got in the car. it will be indecipherable from a seizure. many of the same aspects. that is where when you have that and you say, this is legitimate, i usually respect a cup and do whatever i am told. on the high-end when you say, teamannot come with a swat
and four cups, a parking violation -- >> would it be fair to say if it had been five civilians in two cars with those lights, the approach would have amounted to assault? putting people in fear, and intimidating show, if it is private civilians of really intimidating people without the bad? mr. bugni: no question it would be a scary scene. you look at being boxed in, and it is all, "hey, buddy, come on, seven more feet to go." >> what time of day it was, and it was a liquor store? mr. bugni: it gives benefit to he was going into a liquor store. a high crime area?
and it is a liquor store? and there is a car parked out front, 7:45. it was dark. normal hours when people get liquor on wednesday evening. >> how much time needed to pass before the officers rule out the passenger discharge exception? reasonably, two or three minutes. some cases may take five minutes. jimmie johnson was time on top of the car, starbucks, how long does it take for a latte? >> a half-hour. [laughter] my lights are on, my car is occupied, and i'm just standing there and that is perfectly legitimate. to take the effect that that is the oxygenjob,
exactly what we want. he observed 24 trips. he did what he should do. he waited and observed. >> that is not a traffic stop case. we in a traffic stop domain here. it does not require a criminal activity. parking -- parking violation enough to an estate -- initiate investigation, that is what happened here before the gun was noticed. mr. bugni: i agree you have the but it isnvestigate, just observation. it does not need to be a seizure at this way. you have suspicion but not reasonable suspicion. >> you accept that a traffic the and a parking stop are same thing, or is there a reason to distinguish them that you can find? mr. bugni: i think they are distinguishable. here is the big one.
a traffic stop goes to an individual. i was speeding. you do not have your seat so on. but you do not get a parking violation -- you get a beat up honda accord. in, so thectly going ability unlike a traffic stop for u.s. meeting, you can arrest them. a parking violation, the same thing does not hold true. it is not just a crime in wisconsin. a forfeiture is not a criminal act. it takes it out of the realm, this is exactly what you are dealing with here and it is --logous >> there are all kinds of different noncriminal traffic laws and noncriminal parking violations of a whole different variety. there is no wait and see requirement before the officers
are to investigate. there are tollways owns. all forfeitures, all noncriminal, the officer does not need to let a certain amount of time passed to determine whether this is an explanation. it does not require that nor does a general understanding of reasonableness of the fourth amendment bar that. mr. bugni: you can see it right away. i see the red flag is up. so i am like, ok, your meter is expired, buddy. or shields, your part in the middle of the crosswalk. i can see it right there. you will never be there. here, you need to do some investigation. what am i doing, texting or going on google maps. one is illegal and one is legal.
>> a lot less clauses in tollways zone clauses. and see a car,it a tollways zone, they have to wait and left all of the innocent explanations that might take it outside -- mr. bugni: there are two different -- kinds of tollways owns. i want to make sure i do not get trip to. got the fire department and you're not allowed to be right in front of their. it does not take much to knock on the window and say move it along. >> and a second delay, a five second delay. mr. bugni: it is in part. guysbody's in there, the homeless and sleeping in the backseat, the car is parked. it is not standing or stopping so someone can load or unload. here, you have none of those. my point, it is
not that you are doing a criminal investigation. you are saying, i have just got to move the traffic alone -- along. they will be there in two minutes and move it along. >> right. what they think they're stopping for does not really matter. they think they're stopping to move the car along, do a community caretaking kind of investigation, or they think they are doing an investigation for drug dealing, it does not matter. mr. bugni: that is what you need. you need the objective. we're just saying you have got .o play by the rules make your suspicion reasonable. when you do not get there, you're not objectively reasonable. you have not been allowed to
develop the facts you need to make the call, whether there is reasonable suspicion that person is not loading or unloading. you cannot until you observe longer and go and see, whether it is to trips around the block or sitting there across the street of irving for two and it's, whether it is just walking up as a casual encounter. we're not saying it has the one or another. we're just saying that has to be done. but somebody in after five to 10 seconds. >> it has been an assumption in this part of your argument that if the use of two cars was an excessive show of force, since no force was actually used, it ,s an sessile show of force then exclusion of evidence follows. does any case for the supreme court support the opposition, if the same evidence would have turned up without excessive force?
the officer walks up to the car and you can see the car driveway. support for the supreme court in saying if excessive force is used, the evidence must be suppressed among rather than use as an award for damages. mr. bugni: i know there is no answer, walking up. i am justerbrook: interested in whether the supreme court has ever held that any it's of use of force justifies exclusion of evidence as opposed to award damages? mr. bugni: never. judge easterbrook: the theory is that it is unreasonable seizure. in january of 2014, we know mr. johnson could not lawfully possess a firearm.
someone's criminal record in january 2014, was it lawful for residents to have handguns in a car? mr. bugni: yes if they have a permit. not a newsy or an assault rifle. i do not believe that in itself is illegal. the clip itself is not illegal. >> was the sidewalk itself cleared through the snow? on google maps, probably an extra 10 or 15 feet up. it is a corner. the car is actually covered up at that point temporarily.
the cut through the store owner made -- >> two cut through this, the angle right where the streets come together, then there is a second cut through four feet over. >> the car covered that. mr. bugni: yes, nothing illegal about covering that. to get back to your restaurant though, though the supreme court is not -- it goes back to the basics. the police are engaged in illegal activity and the evidence is derived directly from that. it is not that they could have gone and gotten a warrant and gone through his paper is, -- >> actually, counsel, case we're they have is houston against michigan, where unlawful force was plainly used to enter the of knocking and announcing as the constitution requires. the police just not down the door.
the supreme court assumed that ,as excessive force unreasonable entry, and nonetheless held that the evidence must not be suppressed, that the remedy is damages. they would have found the same stuff. the question i am asking his lies that not the general approach? or excessive force come we have damages remedied. differentask you a way around the question. suppose you agreed with judge easterbrook. case, is it of the clear the gun would have been found anyway? mr. bugni: definitely not. establish anto effort of discovery, they need to set forth the causal chain. to -- to try to
second-guess, what would the thatnse to being seized, is for the government to do in front of the district court or they never did it. we do not have a record to be able to make the inevitable argument. >> i will warn you you are in rebuttal time but feel free to answer judge easterbrook's question. down,gni: it does not go and in that case, they had a warrant. court'swas not the point here the point was the unlawful entry with the unlawful force was not in the chain of causation to finding the evidence. that drives us back to chief judge woods. out whether that is unlawful as a show of force, if that was in the chain of causation. mr. bugni: there, they have a
warrant. >> the supreme court tosses decision has nothing to do with a warrant and everything do with causation. >> when you answered my question, you set the record is said as i he understood you, that the record in this case is not there, that the gun would have been found the net for the cars assuming an. >> that is correct. >> are you challenging the fact that he does patrol cars in a high crime area are traveling together? mr. bugni: no. flaum: you keep harping on them boxing him in. with that somehow be a lesser show of force?
it is like two man cars instead of one man cars. if they wanted to park across the street and walk over and engage in a -- in a cap -- in a casual encounter, that is one thing. reasonables what is when it comes to a parking violation. no problem with the labor -- neighborhood task force. they are allowed to look around and drive around. when they have that, they engage in parking violations with that >> officers you can see the shapes of several individuals. they say they can see them. mr. bugni: your question is a good one. there is the liquor store license.
and we have two squad cars. the windows just the liquor store, probably not. i'm just hypothesizing. point, that is when they say, we can see it at that point. he has thet was flashlight. that is when they see everything. they say hey, what is going on? that is a moment of seizure. >> johnson, a passenger, leaned back and move both hands toward the waste.
randy johnson inside the suv with age -- with a gun. my statements where this is all post seizure. >> ok. he is walking up. all the lights are on and they have squad lights on, then they can see it. --o not think you are seeing one, -- >> one carton -- a seizure. think one card could be a seizure. it deftly can. it is a show of force. the court has to measure -- >> a spotlight on the car at night. , because show of force they have the lights on?
one car pulls up behind the suv, i guess that is a show of force? anytime. if you're on the highway, highway patrol comes up behind you, it is a show of force? mr. bugni: exactly. it makes a reasonable person leave. judge flaum: a high crime area where it is not unusual to have police -- extra police, youth and suv witht, five people in it. mr. bugni: that is correct. just trying to pull a view of how we will analyze force on the seizure question. mr. bugni: a parking infraction. one officer look for smaller infractions. that is where this case is about.
because you think there is something amiss going on of a criminal nature. we all know that is what they were doing. looking for bigger and better things. about rigor and better things. is that what kind of force the officers use for the parking violation and how much do they need to reserve? seems like heit is there, and everything else goes against it, the reasonable thing is he is in the liquor and heetting a sixpack will come out in a second. if we erase all of that, in the fourth amendment means nothing at that point, it is no longer reasonable. a high crimeit is neighborhood, then we have two fourth amendment. that is why we are all here.
>> let would you have done as a reasonable police officer? parked -- mr. bugni: parked, i would have for two or three minutes and see what happened here that is what i would have done and that is exactly what a reasonable police officer should have done. there was no need to seize the reasonable parking violation. i think you have one, the driver of the car. the one guy who wants bigger and better, no one else is going out on the streets right now in the high crime neighborhood, i will create something where i can go and look for something bigger and better. up, so're all bundled they go and find a parking infraction. if this case got to the supreme -- bending backwards, 24
trips with officers -- that was for a stick of robbery. they said that is what a reasonable officer would do and it is good -- good police work. 1968. no one said man, you know what, that seems reasonable. >> your position would not preclude a police officer on a highway heading toward what we call star city. and a tail light not as bright as it should be. he is a courier. allowed, still be right? a police officer in the middle of illinois. even though it is a minor infraction. he believes it is a drug career.
yes, not changed by the case. the license plate, that is one thing. if it is a burnt out tail light -- >> you will need to wrap up. thank you very much. mr. alexander. mr. alexander: i represent the united states. if this were to go to the bereme court, this would not they specifically said the courts should not try to distinct between more and less important violations to justify the stop.
him and put to remake of hemsley? -- what do we make of hemsley? to balance the nature and quality of the intrusion. all heard the details against importance of the government interest. justifying this intrusion of the occupants -- alexander: it's interesting. for vehicle standings, it is interesting. different concepts
. standing is the temporary halting of the vehicle. the parking is halting your vehicle. some it isou think pulling their teeth out of the car walking away. people in the car, may driving with your wife or .omething she runs into get something. violating the law by stopping for a minutes someone can run in and buy something? is that a violation of law or not? answer my question. mr. alexander: yes, that would
be. posner: that is ridiculous. to alexander: if i pulled up a store and let my wife get out, when she is walking to the store, that is permitted because the statute says you can leave if you aree standing actually engaged in the receiving or discharging. i can't just stay there until .he finishes judge posner: what are you supposed to do? alexander: will the four -- the car forward 10 feet and park it where it is supposed to. judge posner: everybody is doing this stopping and letting somebody off for a minute or so. alexander: that's right, if i were to pull up to this, crosswalk so she could walk into
the store and go in there and shop, she would close the door and i would drive forward. no person shall leave their vehicle standing. actually engage in that activity. >> given that the parking prohibition in this case is generally enforced by the department of public work, not the police, that it can only and noin a $30 fine criminal liability and cannot be basis forthat be the it -- isn't it clear that the government interest is clearly minimal?
intrusion -- when the less intrusive means this is first.n attempted immediately see these occupants. alexander: part of your question is answered. he was an undercover officer who was attempting to pull over somebody for a civil traffic violation. >> there was actually even probable cause. a downshift to reasonable suspicion. the backdrop against which the that thel all of that officer have probable cause.
>> the police manual says that the undercover officers were typically not supposed to be making traffic stops. only in an urgent situation. it shouldn't matter here. : your argument is the level of government makes no difference. to crack down on jaywalking, so we are going to -- the little white light , so we can all be stopped. up to including some buddy is planning a murder, that the government interest means nothing.
>> it would be apparent where that is probable cause under extraordinary circumstances court shouldn't be balancing. >> it seems to give the police a blank check for no reason at all. the other thing that worries me is there is no correlation between the level of force police are allowed to use and significant to the government interest. the police could have shot out all the tires of this car, they could have tossed a grenade into it. as far as you are concerned that doesn't matter.
>> that is not my position. in extraordinary circumstances like that -- >> the lights. >> the stoplights? >> all of a sudden there are lights flashing, people would be very upset by that. there is no other way to find out what is going on? they could have walked into the liquor store to see what is going on. they could have sat there for a little while. the spotlights were used to see
if people were inside the vehicle. from randy johnson's perspective -- judge posner: maybe there is somebody in there. that would be the right way to run a police force. i can understand why when they overreach like this. mr. alexander: officer safety is critical here. why don't they just sit in their car on the opposite side of the street and wait to see if
somebody comes out of the liquor store? if there is a delay it should probably just going to the liquor store to see somebody shopping here. make your purchase and go back to the car because it is sitting there for a long period of time. mr. alexander: the magistrate finding the court was very clear. a clerk's office had to do was get out of his car, cross the street, go to the liquor store, see what is going on, peak in the car. why is this a big deal? x -- mr. alexander: there is no requirement.
judge posner: that is your position. mr. alexander: my position is based on the investigatory stop, to resolve any ambiguities. they don't need to have anything close to the preponderance of the evidence to conduct an investigatory stop. judge posner: what do we think is going on? mr. alexander: there was no ambiguity because the clear was clearly's -- because the car was clearly stopped. someone was going to buy liquor. what is the mystery? mr. alexander: the fact that somebody went into the liquor store to purchase liquor, that was not on the record.
secondly -- posner: it is nice. i think we better stick with the rhetoric. >> is your bottom line that anytime a police has a parking violation like this, they can surround the car and do that? they just wait a few seconds and they are in there, they can go in and surround the car and do whatever they need to do? that is what you'd want us to adopt? alexander: given the circumstances the officers observed here. judge williams: it is three seconds. and saw the car was parked it was in that 15 --
that 15 -- that was it. that is all they had. know ifwhat i want to there is a rule you want us to adopt. all they need to do is wait three seconds and then they can take further steps to investigate. mr. alexander: they also did not see anybody approaching. >> it was only three seconds. >> i want you to clarify what your position is on this. when they make the initial acision, they do not have site line to wonder whether there is anybody sitting in the driver's seat, whether there is anybody in fact inside the car. it is only when they get out they see there is nobody on the driver's seat.
>> they saw that the vehicle was on. all they knew baby there was a person sitting behind the serum will -- behind the steering wheel. would you agree those are eveloped facts? mr. alexander: and the point they saw was very clear on the record. randy johnson pulled out a gun before any officer -- >> i think you are right. the stop is ok. officer conway made those observations. i know there is a contest about that. unless the stop is wrong, it is hard to see how it unfolds. >> i just want to emphasize that
point because a lot was made about excessive force. randy johnson's perspective, he is sitting in the middle of this window.ting by the he might see the other one behind it. he might notice the spotlights shining in. last seconds before officer conway -- this is not an accepted display of force. considering the fact that officers can direct people, all of the people out of the vehicle for nothing more than a minor traffic violation. concern for officer safety. a's -- have a situation where the streets in
any number of our cities, cars are going to be overstating the welcome and a parking meter, that the officer can just go down car by car and command everybody to get out of the car? he might be violating the law after all. >> if they observe somebody violating the parking lot, they can stop them for a long enough period of time. >> if they order them out of the car and also block the cars and take the road other forceful measures. officerander: the directs all passengers out of the vehicle. >> we obviously have special wilson for moving violations.
to stretch those two harking practices is something the supreme court has never done. it could have been on the streets of our cities. mr. alexander: i don't think it would be an extension at all. every federal circuit that has considered the issue has held ift a parking violation -- we start doing what the court stripped as not to do, which is distinguish between what is more and less important, we come up with workable standards. >> it tells you to worry about governmental interests. what i'm suggesting is that analysis takes on a special tone
in moving violations and extending to a lot of traffic stops. but a more fundamental approach in the fourth amendment that is protected of individual liberty would say we do not want to go to the scenario chief justice to describe. >> if this car was operating and it wasn't a license plate, the officers would be able to conduct an investigatory stop. the fact it is moving or not -- an investigatory stop of a crack in a windshield. if a person's operating and
happens to have their car stopped and notice is a tenant crack in the windshield, they can do an investigatory stop. this particular statute prohibits parking and standing. standing is treated as a moving violation, parking as a nonmoving violation. if we try to draw these distinctions to become the first federal court, we are going to come up with all kinds of unworkable tests that will not when the violation gets serious enough or not. i think this court should take that into account. the ninth circuit cases also instructive. those are also clearly parking violations. the question is what is the traffic violation under the state law and whether the officer had authority to investigate or enforce that law.
the answer given those particular state statues was yes. this law is a state statute under chapter 346 entitled rules of the road. same chapters that govern stoplight violations, lane deviations, other traditionally understood violations. and the officers clearly had authority to enforce it. following the reason and following the reason of copeland , not trying to embark on the exercise distinguishing between what is more or less serious, particularly here when this statute was in the chapter of regulation. >> could be deemed a traffic violation? >> i don't know for sure. i would think not.
>> you have jaywalkers, cars screeching to a halt. jaywalking interferes with smooth traffic management. if it did and the officers were to stop somebody, prepare to stop somebody there would be a significant difference. they would be able to see their hands. it is marilyn versus wilson. 11 officers were killed, over 5700 were assaulted and traffic related stops were pursued. case.s a 1997 but it illustrates something
that i don't often consider. they are facing an inherently dangerous situation. that is by the supreme court has should takeficer unquestioned command for the situation, for their safety. they can direct passengers who aren't committing any violation whatsoever. never even gotre to the point of ordering randy johnson out of the vehicle. he immediately showed the officers that he was trying to hide his gun. and that completely changed the landscape. it would be a much greater conclusion.
>> residence of high crime, low income areas that are underutilized to pursue interests that certainly seem to be unrelated to any concern with parking violations. shouldn't we at least refuse to to such situations and prohibit seizures in which the parking violation certainly seems textual. mr. alexander: they address that a very question.
that was a concern for any traffic violation. the supreme court unanimously that it is an equal protection violation. it simply wasn't present the law based on race or investigating based on race, that is violation of the constitution. successful cases can you think of? xl is my next question. questionat was my next -- >> that is my next question. topics are out of town the amendment. whether those lead to probable cause on whether there may be a
traffic violation occurring. regard to balancing. i think it is instructive that the supreme court doesn't seem to be backing away, but seems to be embracing it. they are a supreme court in at 81 decision when the officer was wrong about the law. the officers -- officer thought when one brake light was out, that would be a violation of north carolina law. the court said so long as the wasake was reasonable, that an 81 decision, there was no alan singh of the government interest in the understanding of the law that the anderson -- that the officer was trying to enforce, versus the intrusion of the person's liberty. simplythe question was whether the law was reasonable
based on the observations of the officer. and that was a reasonable suspicion. suspicione reasonable case, the supreme court did not do this balancing that they challenged this court to do, to look at the seriousness of this particular violation. the question how much do they really encompass and how much are we being asked to push them boundaries,original is the question are there any meaningful limitations on police behavior? i take it from your argument the answer is no. we just have to have good and trustworthy police officers. yes,think the answer is there are extraordinary cases. >> what is an extraordinary
case? is that 1% of cases? test this is an objective and subjective motivations don't factor into this, there are certainly no limitations. >> the officer shot out all the tires they threw it in. those are examples you raised earlier, those would be extraordinary. that will be something that we should look into. typical traffic stop, that isn't the case here. the fourth amendment doesn't specify how many officers are supposed to enforce a parking violation. path, int down that this particular circumstance we would create an unworkable rule.
less -- ise is the less the number of officers and cars as the show of authority that makes it clear that nobody is free to walk away. that is the critical point, it seems to me. there a seizure, was foundation for it? >> showing they were not permitted to move prior to randy johnson showing the gun was the following. two police cars make a left-hand turn. they pull up to the car. did you jump out of the car? no. officer conway testified to this. he observes randy johnson with the gun. he is not completely out of the
squad car. >> those are the findings. movement,ffered of the critical point is there is a seizure of everybody in the car, including johnson. is thestion is what factual legal foundation for that? what i'm saying is ready johnson completely changed his fourth amendment interests, when he was observed with the gun. that occurred ask officer -- as officer conway was getting out of the vehicle. >> he was already seized at that point. >> was your best argument of the gun would have been discovered if the seizure had been less aggressive? we don't know whether he had it in his pants were under his coat
-- in his pants or under his coat. mr. alexander: i think the panel's decision on >> get that done all of his person. that was his first reaction. whether it was one squad car or two squad cars or three officers lashing a light, one can reasonably infer that he would have done the same thing. what would have been the next step? >> the next seven would have been to ask what you are doing here. if they would have said a somebody was in the store shopping, the option is to issue a citation for legal standing or say whether you just move forward?
they could have been over in a matter of a minute or two. randy johnson did not even give him a chance to ask those questions. one of the occupants had a drivers license. >> somebody other than the driver? >> that is correct. i would ask the court to affirm the district court to deny the motion. >> you would then ran out of time but that was because we were asking a million questions. if you want to take one minute and one minute only, i will give it to. >> i appreciate that. i will keep it short. i would ask, i know we got here late. i know it was thanksgiving
weekend. i think he is wrong. i think we were pretty firm on this point, there was a parking violation, there is no reason to analyze it as anything else. >> we thank you very much. thank you to the government as well. we will take the court under advisement and we will a recess. journaln's washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, policy reporter stephanie armour. and washington post reporter amy goldstein. they will look at changes under the truck administration and the republican led congress. scully and former
administrative for the health care financing administration risk letting. flattock. watch c-span's washington journal. join the discussion. monday night, on the communicators, verizon's executive vice president craig talks about the recent changes over the years and the proposed acquisition of yahoo!. he talks about a major fiber buildout. he is interviewed by john mckenna, technology reporter for the wall street journal. >> we are building the fiber deeper and deeper into the networks. it means that the increasingly, when we talk about our wireless
networks, 80% of that is fiber. you look at what cities are trying to do and you need a passive -- massive fiber infrastructure to do that. >> watch the communicators on c-span2. and pullingt data from the 20 16th election. -- 2016 election. this was hosted by new york university law school. it is about 45 minutes. [applause] fred: good afternoon everyone. her today.to be i apologize for sitting down. it has been a long year. it is been a long year. there are other parts of my body that may need rest. thank you very much. ands an honor to be here
help walk all of us through what happens on november 8 and what it means going forward. ,f i am a little distracted i might apologize. the only thing that might be more important to me than talking about this is my daughter's middle school basketball game. they are playing right now. i in the unofficial statistician for the team. i told him i wasn't going to be there today because i was doing this, they said oh yeah, you're the guy who said hillary clinton would win. maybe we will get someone else to do our stats from now on. a couple of things and then i would average all of you -- heard all of you to speak when the mood strikes if you have questions. here not toi come praise pulling per se but also not to condemn on public
polling. got theonal polls numbers almost right. at the end of the day mrs. clinton will win the popular vote by two points. an aggregation of all the publicly released polls before the november 8 election had the average clinton margin of 3.4%. polls had, those same at average for johnson-stein 7%. they ended up getting or .2% in real life. factor that was part of life and pulling is that the national polls, even the ones at the end had an average undecided of 5%.
thatis the one advantage an actual election has over polls. when you go to a polling booth or when you sell out your ballot options,you have two voting for one of the candidates or not voting in that race. we offer the undecided option. there was no undecided on election day. there was 5% average undecided in a national poll. plus the 3% ort more than johnson and stein got on election day and added to the volatility of the national polls and in particular if you take it one level down, obviously we don't elect presidents by the popular vote, they are elected by electoral college, if you factor, if you think about those dynamics in the national polls,
they were even more prevalent in the battleground polls, especially in wisconsin. -- michigan and pennsylvania as well. number two, when you look at the three states where the presidential campaign was one, or audio the side lost. wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania. in addition to the volatility of public opinion research, there was volatility in real life. one statistic among the many that i've tried to remember is that in the exit polls, and the state of wisconsin, 10% of voters who were surveyed in days of polls said they had made up their minds on who to vote for president in the last couple of days in the election. so in the last couple of days in the election, it could've been tuesday, he could monday -- it
could have been monday, the second coming letter hit on friday afternoon. in the state of wisconsin, among the 10% who said they voted in the last couple days of the election, i would wager that most of those people were after the second coming letter. trump was ahead of clinton by 27 points. one of the understated questions i'm answering is what happened with the point. what happened with the polling is that the margin of error, the undecided, the fact that johnson and stein got 7% -- 4% in real life. it is the normal volatility in a public opinion survey. and the volatility of fluidity in real life. that we would be having a slightly different
conversation, regardless of what party you are for it 52,000 or so has switched between wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania. ms. clinton lost those three states by roughly 106,000 votes total. 53,000 had changed hands. maybe we would be talking about how close the election was but the election that she had been ahead. a couple of other things about how to read what happened on election day. analysts fromhat both parties will spend time going through the numbers and the results because i really believe that what happened on november 8 isn't something that was short term. it didn't happen in the last three or four days. it didn't happen in september, it didn't happen in 2016,
arguably, a lot of what happened or didn't happen on november 8 2016 was a result of long trends. we were part of the polling team . our national surveys which do with the republican pulling from show that the wrong track was in the 70% range. if they wanted to elect a president who would make major changes, even if they don't know what those changes may be, or would you like to elect someone who will make steady progress? in the last poll. they wanted major changes. they are biased against people like me. i am toward the end. we are getting 60 or 65% of americans. i am saying that these -- system
does not represent me anymore. thatgh the same service, suggested that ms. clinton had the advantage elect orlie -- elect orlie. you can see signs of discontent within the electorate. , ihink one of the things will speak for myself and not necessarily for my republican colleagues, one of the things that we are really trying to believeith is that i do there are some things that polls got right. one of the things that polls got right is that i do think donald most unpopular person to run for president as a major party nominee. i believe that is true. show that a lot of trump voters voted for him not because they were voting for againstwere voting somebody. that is the thing.
how can someone with numbers and -- his negatives were 50 8, 50 nine, 60. those are tremendous negatives. the fact that he could win despite that is something that i think we are still trying to figure out. you want to give the trump campaign and donald trump there do. this was not just people voting against something. there was clearly something they might have been voting for. that is one of the things that we are trying to figure out. the other interesting thing about the selection is that there are some states where it is not clear that there was a so-called trump phenomenon. , nevada california where we picked up a u.s. senate seat and two congressional seats, my home state of 2016,nd, in maryland in
chris van hollen one that seat by 25 points. there are areas in maryland blue-collarof voters lived for example, baltimore county. voted for thety republican candidate for governor by 20 points. that if thereing was a trump phenomenon nationally, you might see it in a place like baltimore county. that voted for the republican candidate for governor by 20 points. ago, all the more county, that same place that voted for the republican candidate by 20 points voted for hillary clinton over donald trump i-17 points. a pundit and analysts and as
people who are interested in politics, you want to see uniformity or you want to see a trend. i do think that it is one thing to look at the numbers nationally. you really do need to look at individual localities. uniformhere is not a --nd as to what happened in on november. one thing that i think is something to look for is what a lot of the analysts and pundits have noticed since november. the increase in -- higher turnout in small-town, rural america. read america getting better. we need to bet
careful about applying a uniform theory to the entire country but there are parts of the country where areas that romney, mccain, other republicans did well. trump did even better. were a in those areas little higher. one of the areas like that that comes to mind to make, i think i will close by saying this really speaks to what happened to democrats in 2016. elliott county in kentucky. it is in eastern kentucky. kentucky is very democratic. there is party registration and kentucky. some states don't have that. and elliott county, for every one republican, there are 10.5 democrats.
hadott county, kentucky voted for every democratic candidate for president from 1868 to 2012. so every single presidential election, elliott county kentucky had voted for the democratic candidate. in 2008, barack obama defeated john mccain in elliott county, percent-30 9%. barack obama beat mitt romney. defeateddonald trump other clinton 70%-20 6%. 26%. when you get his summers in elliott county kentucky, it feels like montgomery county, maryland.
they are 48 hundred registered voters. is a small sample size. closing, people ask me in particular as a democratic strategist what happened. what happened in michigan. what happened in wisconsin? i would argue that we are still looking through all of the results. i think that the anecdote of iliott county, kentucky and know this because i studied pennsylvania was replicated in elliott county, kentucky, michigan and wisconsin. 4800 votes by themselves doesn't but there areot 30 counties like that. it does make a difference. was a would argue again historically close election. things that one of the
on our side of it i'll that democrats will look at is not only the lower turnout in some of the urban areas of the country which hurt democrats but also the issue of a place that voted for barack obama by 33 points, just eight years ago, what happened to make them turn around and vote for donald trump by 44 point one month ago russian mark --? thank you for much. >> we have time for a few questions before the reception. i thought that if you would like to put a question over, we have to tear on the side who could take some questions and bring them to us. if i could. start i will encourage anyone. if i understood you correctly, that is the analysis.
how could it occur? if look like that. i don't want to hold you to your own theory about that. what are some of the competing theories about that? another we are talking specifically about elliott county, kentucky. what might have driven the politics of that kind of electorate? fred: elliott county is in eastern kentucky. it is not close to the region that pours west virginia. i think a lot ofelectorate? this was economic. i think a lot of people saw job loss over the last few decades. and that had not come back look, i think there is a famous thing from 1992 that the economy
is stupid. i think that a part of what happened in the elliott county, kentucky's of the world was economy. that is not the only thing. one of the interesting questions from the national exit polls was that the exit polls asked the electorate what the most important issue was to them. how people voted who picked those issues. the top issue in 2016 nationally was the economy. the 2% of americans said that the economy was the most important issue. who picked people the economy, they voted for hillary clinton by 52-42. that is a good margin. if the economy positive one -- she- you kind of had
knew to win the economy more. we would have hoped that the advantage on the economy would have been greater. they asked another question. which one of the following doracteristics or approaches you want the next president of the united states to have? the number one answer was changed washington. --ng those voters who spent said the top quality was change, they voted for donald trump by 84%. there are competing variables. was about the economy, jobs and in particular, job loss. there was another strain out there that i was referencing at the beginning that what happened on november 8 was not just november 8, it was a combination of things.
every poll shows this. the satisfaction with washington. not just democrats, not just republicans that both parties. the sense that the political and economic system was not working for people like them. , and i believe this is true that donald trump was the most unpopular president to run for president, he also clearly was one of the most unique people to run for president and if there is a strain out there of voters, americans want dramatic change. what better way to express that than voting for someone who was as different from anybody else who had run from president -- one for president. regardless of how popular or unpopular he was. >> thank you, we are getting a lot of questions. he will be here until about 10:00 p.m.
without knowing which order to get -- that the polls were more or less close, there was an impression that people received. was on thery clinton road to a certain victory. i whatever margin one might imagine. is there an issue of concern that you have and other pollsters would have about polling data and how it is communicated to the public? that is a great question. since i have been relieved of my duties as official statistician to the middle school team, i have a lot of time to talk about this. >> which came first question mark the chicken or the end? fred: it is true that if you are a political analyst, if you are broadcast or
newsprint, you look at a lot of different factors to help you basically understand was going on and look ahead to what will happen. polling clearly plays a role in that. the 10 national polls that i looked at to come up with , there were 10 national polls that i'm referring to. only one had trouble ahead. -- trump ahead. of the last 10 polls that were released, nine of them showed hillary clinton ahead. you're going to say that hillary clinton is probably going to win. there was onek poll who had trump ahead.
again, i am not saying that we should rerun the election. i'm not saying us to a do over. that poll that had trump i had was actually wrong. ms. clinton did win the popular vote. bob and everyone, the one critique i would make of polling and those who analyze polls is that when people see a 44-40, to think -four -- meansns error -- margin of the other way of answering the question is, what if we had no polls?
don't everyone clap. polling,n't have any where would that leave us? i am not as old as i look but i've been doing this for 30 years. it is amazing when i started out with peter and jeff 30 years ago. when there is a poll, remember i'm a poster. i got excited. i said there is a poll. it is in illinois. let's look at it. 2016, there was a poll every day. i think that not treating every poll the same, it will help. what of the track records in the various states? how long were the polls in the field? that there was
volatility with voters. even to the end. pollsf the reason why the missed the election. pollingor polls stopped saturday, sunday in the election. i know, that is late. i know people are thinking, saturday, sunday, the election was tuesday. know, public opinion can move very quickly. i don't think is the only reason why but i do think that the fact that the second coming letter came out on friday afternoon and then there was a saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday, i think that did have some impact in changing. i bet if we pull tuesday morning, we would have found a slightly different result. up, that is the next one.
the coming letter. how do you see the impact of that letter? his strengths russian mark the second coming letter -- comey letter. how did that work against hillary clinton? that there are going to be lots of theories about what happened. some of them may even be sure. in the wall street journal poll,
we had missed clinton ahead by -- mrs. clinton ahead. -- ooked like she was it was a national poll. it looked like she didn't have it locked up, but it looked like she was headed to win. but even in that poll, she had dropped from a previous poll. in polls is not just what are the results now, but what were the results previously? the trend for her was the race was narrowing, but at that point, not that trump was gaining, but that some of her johnson,going to stein, or undecided. a second comey letter was
exculpatory. especiallyaigns, when you are a candidate with a strong headwind, 70% in the wrong direction, the majority wanting a president who would make major changes, two thirds or so saying the political system was biased against people like them, conditions that would favor an insurgent candidate. se was in the incumbent, per , but she was. trump was the insurgent. you could see all of those things making life difficult for the clinton campaign. this is something all of us will be thinking about and analyzing for the weeks to come. i think the second comey letter put the whole issue back on the
public consciousness. it, it isnk about like a courtroom. voters heardment --m both sides was emails she didn't do anything wrong, but the email, once again. this is something where people should check the record. one thing i noticed was how someone seems to have taken away his twitter account. i don't think he commented personally on the second coming letter. trump campaign manager going to wisconsin and the she pennsylvania and that was his closing argument.
a couple of theories and all could be equally true. it is really not one thing you can point to, it is a combination of things. system answer, but i happen to think that's the reality of what happened. >> next question -- this is about delegate kentucky. how would you estimate the --ential role of the system the first presidential nominee that was a woman, how did that figure into the account? i believe at some level, it had to be a factor. think it was a number
one issue. i think there was a lot of strength and weaknesses hillary clinton brought to the campaign. gender had been reversed, what would have happened in kentucky? the resultink probably would have been the same. but youhange gender change the party? the experience and resume? all of the things you could see in the polls, the headwinds she was dealing with, the dissatisfaction with government, happiness with the status quo, voters wanting change, i think gender might have been an issue
but there were other factors that were equally more important. >> thank you. the median income of trump 71,000 voters and rural noncollege educated voters only made up 17% of the electorate. how does that square with the narrative of how trump one? >> those are broad numbers nationally. in some of these battleground states, there were higher proportions of those groups plus i think the numbers might have changed a little bit. which state of wisconsin mrs. clinton lost by 11,000 votes, there were 30,000 fewer votes in the city of milwaukee
in 2016 than in 2012. i think the proportion in wisconsin of that last group, it was 17% nationally, i think it was maybe 21% in wisconsin. that, take the lower turnout in a strong democratic area like milwaukee and all of anse small things add up to 11,000 vote defeat. whereou have a situation of 12 millionout or 14 million cast in pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, i don't think there's just one thing you can .2. ofs not like 100%
wisconsinites were rural, noncollege educated white voters . but if they were one out of five lower turnout in urban areas, that adds up to a narrow defeat. >> i have two questions. you longernt to hold than i think is fair given how we are planning the day, do you think a general population to urban areas make it less likely for this kind of result to occur and related to that, what about the apparent absence from the levels of participation among young people? i think one of the disappointments on the democratic side of things was how we were hoping and expecting
or robust turnout with millennials, for example and it didn't happen. we know they are out there. we know that when they vote, one vote him a credit, but of the challenges of 2016 was they did not vote in the numbers -- is it a message issue for the democrats? was it a candidate issue for the democrats? was it organizational or realistic? i don't know. talk about a lot of the analysis on national terms. california, if you look at all the california results, you would not know donald trump had been elected president of the united states.
turnout among latino was fairly high and i think as evidenced by , both parties but in particular, democratic parties are going through a time of self-interest section and analysis. we have the votes to win elections, especially national elections. to in 2016 weist can avoid in 2018 and especially 2020? >> thank you. 30% oflls suggest latinos voted for trump. do you have confidence that number is within the ballpark? >> we are not quite sure yet of
the 30% number if it is quite right. they are the growing demographic group in american politics. 30% would seem to be a high number for me. especially given the things he said during the campaign. i was fortunate enough to work on catherine cortez masters campaign in nevada and i'm sure hillary clinton one nevada and at least in nevada, he did not get 30% of latinos. he did not do that well in california. maybe texas is a different high, but 30% would seem
to me, but we have to look at it state-by-state. you for hanging in there. the question is not whether in fact people see the polls nationally, whether what we have is a problem with the numbers or the way the numbers are red. i suppose your answer to that is interpretation has a lot to do with it. >> i would say both. polls had anational clinton advantage of plus 3.4%. as of a couple of days, she was ahead in the national popular vote. that is not that far off. but there was a sense from the analysts that it was
an election mrs. clinton was very likely to win. a normal human being and see nine out of 10 polls say , we are going to draw the not an obvious conclusion that she's probably going to win the election. other think the intangible -- and i hate to keep that i'm ato this -- pollster and like a good candidate stays on message, one you cook all, if of us up to a lie detector, we would have said yes, we believe she is going to win. but it's going to be difficult. and there are things where you could see donald trump when.
sticking point to going over the other side, which is where we are now, that he could win, was how unpopular he was. i think one of the things we underestimated as analysts and maybe i should say me and not we so as not to condemn everybody else, but we said this in our analysis, but it's not as provocative as saying he was the most unpopular person to run for president. mrs. clinton was the second most unpopular person to run for president. at the end of the day, the analysts probably should have given that more weight. coin, whereip of a -- were there other things that should have and looked at?
the right direction, wrong track, the fact a lot of americans still believe they had recovered from the recession. said theg majority who thismic situation of economy were biased against them. thee took advantage of signs that were plainly interview but were distracted wide donald trump, not only the most unusual person to run for president but the most unpopular, we could have given a clear view of what could have happened. is combining 2 -- responding to the experience, whether it's structuring turnout or trying to decide how to accomplish with the number of voters and the number of cell
phones, do you think more generally there will be a movement to find a way to adjust to this kind of issues? is the lastis question but i feel like i need a couch. to lie down on. the short answer is yes. industry goes through this because as you will it was more012, that the republican pollsters had quote unquote got the race wrong. if one side or the other gets it wrong, we are professionals. if anyone getst it wrong because our job is to get right whether you are a democrat or republican pollster and we did do a reflection as the industry after that. it wasn't just a republican thing, it was the polling
industry. i know some people may not believe this, but every pollster out there, whether you are democrat or republican, we really do want to get this right and one of the challenges for tries tois a good poll eliminate bias. a particular bias and who is being selected to take the poll, it's a heck of a lot easier in the good old days 10 or 20 years when the predominant indication device of the american public was a landline. it's obviously gotten a lot more complicated and a lot more diverse. still has a role. it is important to know what not justink, but starting on november 9, we
started to, 4, 6 years ago, what is going to be the best? what's going to be the most efficient and effective way to truly get a random sample of people that insurers if you are talking about a national poll that has as much chance of getting contacted if they lived in anchorage, alaska as if they lived in annapolis, maryland? when my mentor and your friend, ater hart, was doing this, lot of the polls were done door to door. face-to-face. , if you're trying to probablyple, that's the best way of conducting research because even if you don't have a landline, someone can get you.
that, when i look bad -- look back at our old polls and it was considered state-of-the-art, a typical statewide survey would take 30 days. if bob bauer is not home, i have to schlep five walks over and talk to someone else. it is a time-consuming process. one, polling needs to be accurate. .ulling needs to be effective pulling needs to be efficient. 15 days or 20 days just is not practical. given where we are now in technology,we have it sounds like the nine from -- for the line from the $6 million man. figure out what
this new polling world looks like. maybe it's a blend of different technologies. maybe it's something else. we are all striving to figure out how to do our jobs better. you are one of the nations premiere cultures and we are grateful you could be with us today. thank you very much. [applause] we are moving to the reception upstairs. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tomorrow, a discussion on the anti-poverty policy and the potential impact the trump in ministration could have on working class emily's on the
center for american progress. watch live at 10:15 eastern on c-span. ther in the day, a look at presidential transition process and the many challenges awaiting the trump administration. speakers include josh bolten, chief of staff to george w. bush and jen sake. that's live on c-span starting tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cap -- his cabinet keywe will take you to events as they happen without interruption. listen on our free c-span radio app. >> present elect trump continued his thank you tour friday with a visit to grand rapids, michigan. .t is one of several stops made
mr. trump: i'm here for one reason -- to say thank you to the wonderful people of michigan. you went out and pounded the pavement, organize your fellow citizens and propelled to victory a grassroots movement will like of which, actually the world, we have to say the country, the world has never seen. never seen. now, we are going to bring back your jobs. we're going to bring back your jobs. thanks tot to give our veterans who have been so incredible to me and to you. our service members and military family, boy did we get their
vote, thank you. big numbers. america's men and women in uniform are the finest and bravest the world has ever known as far as i am concerned. so to all who have worn the uniform, i say right now on behalf of all of us, thank you, take you very much. great people. where in your debt, and we will never ever let you down, believe me, and you will see that with the vets. he will honest or sacrifice, and that begins with respecting the american flag. respect the american flag. that is the flag that our soldiers fought and died for, can we're going to protect it. you will see, we are going to protect its.
one man who understands the meaning of service is general mattis. earlier this week, i formally announced my plans to nominate him as your new secretary of defense. and everybody is happy about that. even the democrats are loving him. isn't that nice? what can you say question he has a record of winning. we want to win. when he had to do battle, whether he agreed with it or not, but when the he had to do battle, he won and he won fast. and there were no games. there were no games. he is going to be great, secretary of defense.
i believe we are in the process of putting together one of the great cabinets that has ever been assembled in our nation's history. you are seeing that. and you will be seeing some more names coming out next week that are phenomenal. one of the most critical issues we are going to tackle is education. you know about that. you know what i am about to say. america spends more on education than any country by far, and yet our results are terrible. we spend more per pupil than any nation in the world by far, and you look at sweden and denmark and norway and china and japan, and they are all the top, and you look at us, spending much more per pupil, and we are down at the bottom. we are going to change that.
we are to reform our broken education system to put students and families first. so importantly, this includes providing great education to students living in our inner cities. you know, i talked about the forgotten man, the forgotten women. they are not so much forgotten anyway. they are still trying to figure it out, the media, where did all these millions of people came from? i knew they were there. they did not have the incentive to go out and say i like this person, but they came out in big-league numbers. our plan includes eliminating common core and providing school choice. we want every child every single child, low income, we do not
care where they are, where they live, every child in america to be able to attend a public, private, charter, magnet, or religious school that is right for them. choice. the person i have selected to lead the department of education, in my opinion, one of my most important decisions, is a native of michigan, of all places -- michigan. and considered by everybody to be one of the top education reformers in our nation, someone totally respected, someone devoted and devoting decades to helping disadvantaged students. i am thrilled out to welcome to the stage your next secretary of
education, betsy devos. come up, betsy. ms. devos. thank you. thank you, thank you, thank you, mr. president-elect. what an amazing leader. west michigan, aren't we proud of president-elect trump. the so-called experts did not think we could win it, but we did. we believed in president-elect trump and we went to the polls and changed the world. it is an amazing thing what can
happen when someone believes in you. and nowhere is that more true than in our schools and in the lives of our kids. i am so excited and huddled to be nominated as secretary of education. and -- and in deference to the u.s. senate confirmation, i am not giving interviews. but just between us, let me share this -- it is time to make education great again in this country. this means putting kids first every single day. this means expanding choices and options to get every child the opportunity for a quality
education, regardless of their zip code or family circumstances. this means letting states set their high standards and finally putting an end to the federalized common core. for me, it is simple. i trust parents and i believe in our children. but it will not be washington, d.c., that unlocks that potential. it will not be a giant bureaucracy or a federal department. nope. the answer is not bigger government. the answer is local control. it is listening to parents. and it is giving more choices. and if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed as your secretary of education, our kids, your kids will have someone fighting
for them every single day. i have been involved with education issues for 28 years, as an activist, a citizen volunteer, and an advocate for children. i have the experience, the passion, and the know-how to make change. still, there are many of you here and many in the emea, the senate, and the education community who may not know me. in fact there is a love of false news out there. to view, all i ask for is an open mind and the opportunity to share my heart. together, let's make education
and you are going to be even more proud as time goes by. she is going to do an incredible job. and with betsy at our site, i know we will make great strides in fixing our broken schools all over the country. it is going to be a beautiful thing to watch. just hold on and watch, because she will do it. i have no doubt. the commerce articles for this country, government must listening to the special interests and start delivering for the national interests and for the people. have to. it is time to deliver for you the american people our plan begins with bold reforms to create millions and millions of great-paying jobs. whether it is building cars, producing steel, or curing disease, we want the next generation of innovation and
production to happen right here in america and right here in michigan. and, you know, so i won michigan. as michigan has not been won for many, many years, a long come along time ago, and i felt i was going to win it. you know when i felt i was actually going to win the whole thing? i do not have michigan on our list of stops until that final day come and i did the speeches, i did six of them -- that is a lot. i did three a day for a month, and these were big speeches. and we did not need any entertainers to come in to entertain her. we needed no entertainers.
nope. we did not need anybody. we had packed houses, thousands and thousands. i set at 95 in the evening, let's go to michigan, ok, because i heard my opponent had scheduled michigan unexpectedly. it was like all of a sudden, with president obama and michelle, and bill and hillary, and they were going to michigan. now, forget it. that place great before the election. now we do not care, right? but i said let's go to michigan, and some of you -- i see some faces -- some of you were here, and tell me. so we had between inside and outside, we had 31,000 people, and i started speaking at almost 1:00 in the morning. so now it was election day, right, because now it was tuesday.
i left on monday. by the time we got here, it was almost 1:00 in the morning. we had 31,000 people at 1:00 in the morning. and i said, we are going to win michigan. i felt it. i said, how does somebody else win it? and i heard half an hour ago that the courts stopped it, it is totally over. not that we care about that. that was just a way of somebody trying to raise the money for themselves, because they were not very successful during the race, that i can tell you. but the courts, we had great people, and the whole group -- you spoke very well. i was very impressed with you. she did not sleep for about six months, i will tell you that. and merry christmas, everybody. merry christmas, right? merry christmas. that reminded me, we are going
to start saying merry christmas again. how about all those department stores? they have the bells the red walls and they have the snow, but they do not have merry christmas. i think they are going to start putting up merry christmas, merry christmas. that is very good. that is a big group of people that said that. i just want to gradually everybody, because really it was that evening which turned out to be election morning. and i got home at 4:00 in the morning, and i said to my wife, i said, honestly, i do not see how we are going to lose, and we did phenomenally in michigan. and then we won wisconsin. we won wisconsin. and of course we won
pennsylvania. did you see the look in their face? you know, it started with ohio, that we won by almost nine points which was much more -- we were expected to win ohio, and we cannot have any support there, except for the people. the people were our support. we were expected to do well in ohio. we won by nine points. and then iowa came in and we won by more than 10. and then we won almost every single county in iowa, and we won one county that had not been won since 1952. that is a long time. and by the way, the governor of iowa, has a great relationship -- because they sell so much product of china -- governor terry branstad was just made the ambassador to china. that is a smart move.
he likes china. they like him. that is a good move. he is going to be fantastic. so what happened on the evening was incredible. the espn people and so many of the people said that might be the greatest legal sporting event we've ever seen. so it started with ohio and iowa. it also started -- remember, they said texas was in play. texas is not supposed to be. for two months we have all been hearing texas was in play, and we heard georgia is in play. i said, man, we are in play. if georgia is in place, you tend to believe these people, even though -- right? so the polls opened and closed, and now we go live on television with the numbers. and we got lousy exit polls. the exit polls -- i got a call from ivanka, and he said, dad,
not looking good. it does not help your you do not have to get bad exit polls. in two hours you know they will not have to do that it she said it is not looking good. his exit polls are not looking good. they put bad questions in the exit polls. like many people say donald trump is a very, very bad person. do you agree that he is a harmful human being? yes or no? and people go, yeah, i guess. boom. so, you know, so we go out and immediately -- no, the election is over. that was a bernie fan. no, the election ended three
weeks ago, darling. someday soon she will be on our side. you watch. so it was so exciting. so i guess these horrible calls. i get a couple of them, but ivanka said, you really have worked hard and you know, ivanka, as that is it maybe, i left nothing on the field, right? i left nothing on the field. get them out of here. where do these people come from? where do they come from?
unbelievable. >> usa! usa! usa! mr. trump: is there anything better or safer than a trump rally? your rally. it is a movement like they have never seen before. look at this. look at this place. it is packed right to the corners. i was the cameras would show it. he never did. a big room, this is a big place. this is a big, big place. every place is packed right to the rafters. they never show it. they never ever show it. but that is ok. but they hear it.
you know, they will never show it. they never do, but you know what i do what i say? they hear it because it is a big difference between a massive crowd like this and having like 250 people in a room. big, big difference. people say they never solve the cut them up but that's out of like michigan or she can stay, right? which to me like? i will not say it sounded like ohio state. so the polls close, and i'm hearing the texas is close. but i'm getting all these harmful calls for my kids. they had me written off and i lost.ou know, i may have based on what they were saying,
it was going to be an early evening. they did not realize is going to be an early evening for us. it should have been an early evening. i said i left nothing out there. it reallygood because sounded like it was over and i said like a team, i left nothing out there. i couldn't have worked harder. we outworked anybody that ever ran for office. nobody ever ran for office like that. so i was ok with it. i would not say i was thrilled, but i was ok. then the polls closed and we get the real numbers. that is one ohio came in, i love ohio, they are great. i know you have a little competition. that is when iowa came in, 10
points. all these counties, they have not been won since the 1950's. and then i hear breaking news, donald trump has won the state of texas. and i could not understand. when we went to texas, we had massive auditoriums and stadiums filled with people, lines 20 blocks along, you could not get in. the people left outside. so i won texas, they said it would be close, but it was a landslide. and then in play means a could go either way. donald trump, breaking news, has won the state of georgia. right? this is like, in the first two
seconds. these are the ones that they are saying for two months, georgia is in play, and texas. great states. then they have this character nobody had ever heard of before, from utah. i love you talk, and they had him tied with me and beating hillary. and i said, who the hell is this guy? [laughter] mr. trump: i hate to say it, has anyone ever lost utah? they said utah is in play for months. i said, is he going to beat me? where does he come from, who is he, who is he? if he wins, we lose the supreme court, what is he doing? right after texas, breaking
news, donald trump has won the state of utah. by 25 points. and in all fairness, hillary came in second, and this guy nobody had ever heard of, he fell off the planet. so we won all the states. and a very important person said to me, when did you think you won? and i said, when did you think you lost? well, florida was looking ok. and all of a sudden, they had not counted the panhandle. what is that, 91%? those are great workers. we were doing well in florida
and they were not liking those numbers, we were even and had not gotten into the panhandle. all of a sudden, breaking news, donald trump has won the state of florida by a lot. and then we just went right up the coastline. we won south carolina and a big one, because they put all their eggs in one basket. they interviewed people on television from the other side. they said, you just lost florida. they said, we have no problem because north carolina is our firewall, he cannot win north carolina, will not happen. two minutes later, breaking news, donald trump has won the state of north carolina. we won it big. and i knew they had problems
because they took the convention center and i just took a ballroom. if i lost -- thanks everybody, i will see you next time, i am out of here. but they spent like come a million dollars on fireworks over the east river. so they have the ballroom, and they spent millions on this massive fireworks display, the barges in the river. that was a month before the election. three days before the election they canceled the fireworks. i said, that is a good signal. i said, is this supposed to be inclement weather? they said, actually it is supposed to be a beautiful night. i said, why did they cancel the fireworks? and they were in for a lot, like $7 million. i think they raised like $2.2 billion.
what it we spend? a little more than $300 million. in the old days, you get credit if you spend less. today, -- they say she spent more money, like it is good. no, it is bad. if you can spend less money and win, it is good. we have to remember that it is good, not bad. when i heard they spent $7 million on the fireworks, and i did not know if we would win, we sent them a nice verbal statement. we will offer you five cents on the dollar for the fireworks, because it was only a few days. they never responded. i thought i could buy the fireworks cheap. just like i do not want to buy
an airplane for $4 billion. [applause] mr. trump: even if i do not get to use it, who the hell cares? i am not paying for billion dollars for an airplane. so we had an amazing night. >>[chanting trump] mr. trump: thank you. they forgot about you people. by the way, for years, they are not going to forget. because you are not going to forget. we just went up and it was amazing. and we won michigan. these folks have done an unbelievable job. ronald mcdaniels, what a great job you and your people have done, an incredible job. then we won wisconsin, which was so incredible. that is not one we were
expecting, necessarily. incredible, hard-working people. and it was over. it was an amazing experience. and winning pennsylvania -- for 38 years, they did not win it. and it was o is the one that got away. every republican said, we are going to win pennsylvania. and it never happened, they say the bride the got away. everyone said they would win it. not only did they not win it, -- we would have these massive crowds, but trump-pence sign. and by the way, how good is mike pence? what a good choice. what a good choice, he has been great. he is a great guy, but i just want to say thank you to mike
pence, he has been amazing. it has been an incredible experience. pennsylvania, they could have called it around 12:00 or 11:00. remember the states, the red was starting to get big, that was a lot of red. remember when they said at the beginning, there is no path to 270. the amazing thing about the electoral college is that, i was going all over the place, and in many ways i would rather have it the other way, to campaign in new york and california, you stop in florida and texas, and it would be easy. but i was never as much a fan, this gets you to stop -- that is what our founders had in mind, and that is what people had in mind.
it is an amazing thing. i went to maine four times. i needed one because they said maybe i can get to 269, they did not know we would break that beautiful blue wall. so i went to maine four times. under the other system, you would not do that. so it was an amazing evening, we ended up with 306, which was a landslide. some states we won by 30 and 40 points. it was just an amazing thing. we are going to work really, really hard for you to justify what you did. so we're doing our little tour
at one of the places i had to stop, michigan. we are going to bring our michigan jobs and michigan workers back to work. we are going to bring them back to work. i have been here many times, and even before i was running. i got word four years ago, man of the year. and i talked about the cars, they are taking your car manufacturers like ford out. and i said that long before i said i was going to do this. and the people in michigan remembered i had been talking about this for years. ford made a promise to me, and hopefully at the beginning of the year they will honor that promise about something they will do that is very big, and they will do it in michigan, not in mexico. it will be great. [applause] mr. trump: we want to thank you. taxes, we are going to undertake
one of the great tax reforms and simple for patients in american history. at the center of this plan, is a massive middle-class tax cuts. middle-class tax cut. we are also going to lower our business tax rate from 35% all the way down to 15%, bringing new companies to our country and to your states. so we go from the highest taxed nation in the world, to one of the lowers. not the lowest yet, but let's not get greedy. one of the lotus -- lowest. we will get rid of job killing regulations that undermine the ability of our workers and companies to compete with the rest of the world. big things, bigger than the taxes. i think it is bigger than the taxes. we will cancel the restriction on the production of american
energy, including shell oil, natural gas, and clean coal. we will put our miners back to work. we love our miners. i think it was my highest percentage, the opponent almost did not register in the state of wyoming. all those that did not register in the state of west virginia, which we love. we love our miners. i will ask congress to pass legislation that produces $1 trillion of new investment in america's crumbling infrastructure. that includes major new projects for our rural communities and our inner cities. our inner cities are like the forgotten man and woman. we have forgotten about our inner cities. no longer. and the african-american community was great to was, they
came through, big-league. and frankly, if they had any doubt, they did not vote, and that was almost as good because a lot of people did not show up because they felt that about me, and, the hispanic community. really great. and, women. thank goodness, women. [applause] mr. trump: the women, that was the other thing with the polls. i would go to these rallies with pink signs going crazy. we did great with women, so i want to thank the women. we are going to put our people back to work, it is time to help get americans off of welfare row and back into the labor market. rebuilding our country with
american hands and american workers, and they are going to be so thrilled, they will make so much more money than they have ever made. they will love adding up in the morning and they will love what they do. my administration will follow two simple rules, by american and hire american. -- buy american and hire american. from now on, it will be america first, america first. our trade deficit is now nearly $800 billion a year, can you believe that? any business people in the room? think you can do slightly better than that, i think so. it is a constant drag on growth and a destroyer of our country's wealth and our country's jobs. $800 billion a year.
who is making these deals? you look at deals that mexico and other countries have with other countries, and the deals they have with us are the worst. but that is going to change. we have the professionals lined up. these professionals know what they are doing. america has lost one third of our manufacturing jobs. we have lost 70,000 factories. we have lost 70,000 factories. i always say, it is a typo. you mean 700 factories, you mean 70? 70,000. think of what 70,000 factories is. no state has been hurt worse by our trade deals than the state of michigan. that is why i knew that i would wind michigan.
that is why i knew i would win. the car industry, but t hey will come roaring back and you will be happy. you have lost more than 40% or your automobile jobs. notll you what, if i were 40%ted, you wish you had two years from now. we did a great job with carrier. gothave to understand, we to that table late. theirad already built actory and yet we saved tremendous number of jobs and the rest of the jobs have to be prepared that when they make
those air-conditioners, or whatever they are making, -- it was going to be pumps. whatever they make, middle have to make a tremendous -- pay a tremendous tax to get those products back into this country. the point is, the jobs that are done will be coming back soon too. it used to be that the cars were made in flint, and you could not drink the water in mexico. now the cars are made in mexico and you can't think the water in flint. we're going to change that. hadould have been nice if i help from your governor. it would have been nice. it would have been nice if i had help from your governor.
we are going to withdraw from the transpacific partnership, renegotiate, stand up to foreign cheating, and fight for every american job and every last job that belongs in michigan. if the company wants to fire their workers, lead michigan for another country, or anywhere else, and ship their product back into our country, there will be consequences. it's not cannot be like, we don't know what we are doing, go ahead, fire everybody in michigan, or indiana, or pennsylvania. build someplace else and sell back. no more, not going to happen. a messenger,, i'm if we didn't come along, our country would be totally
drained. there are thousands of companies ago shooting the two get out of our country. for one reason the taxes are too high. there is no 35% tax, only if you leave is their attacks. but we are lowering taxes. the pink we will have to use that 35% much because when we lower taxes to 15%, or thereabouts, nobody will leave. lower our regulations by 80%, these are regulations. farmers,a disaster for manufacturers, everybody. i have an important announcement and i will make it tonight. we will keep it low-key.
they are turning off some of the cameras because they are so honorable. we have a great, great business leader with us tonight, one of the foremost leaders in manufacturing and in the world of business. a man who cares greatly about this state and this country. even though he does happen to come from australia. he is here with us this evening, he has done an incredible job. he has helped build an unbelievable company. he has been the chairman and ceo of dow chemicals for 13 years. one of the truly great companies that is based right here in michigan. and he is staying here. he is also a fantastic family man, i just met his son, and someone who is committed to returning jobs to the united states of america.
his name is andrew liveris, one of the most respected businessmen in the world. and i am asking him to come up and head up our american manufacturing council, and he has agreed to do it. they will be tasked with finding ways to bring industry back to america. industry and manufacturing back to america. nobody can do it like andrew. andrew, please come up to the stage. [applause] mr. liveris: doesn't the president-elect sing music?
it is music, it is kid rock, it is detroit motor city music, it is michigan music, it is american music. i am very proud to be here. we love him, too, and we are proud is a michigan-based company, we were founded just up the road in midland. we are global, but we have been expanding operations here in michigan and the united states, over 7000 jobs, factory and construction jobs, technicians, engineers, service jobs, over $7 billion in the last four or five years. and we are not stopping there. we are not stopping there. we will add value by getting this incredible workforce in front of me, this incredible american worker, this incredible michigan worker, and we will put you all to work. we have ideas, and we have
plans. tonight, in honor of the president-elect and his being here to thank you all, we have made a decision. we are going to invest a new state of the art center in michigan, a research and development center in place. [cheers and applause] this decision, this man, these policies, we could have waited and put it anywhere in the world, but we are going ahead. we will use hard work american -- hard-working american brains and fight for the dow company in the united states.
american manufacturing counsel, to put in place the investments you talk about, you're paving the way with your administration in your policies to make it easier to do business in this country. not a red tape country, but a red carpet country for american businesses. america first, as you said. that is what we have to do. and you can count on me and the business leaders that we will put on the team, this'll be america's finest and brightest to help us solve these problems you all have. we need to employ our youth and help all our citizens. we need to give you hope, we need to find a way back to believe in ourselves again. as you rightly said, i may have a funny accent, we aussies love america a lot. i bleed america and i bleed michigan.
[applause] thank you, sir. it is an honor. let's make america great again, by building great things in america. [applause] mr. trump: so great, thank you andrew. well, isn't that great? that is what is going to happen, folks. we are getting jobs, they will come back to michigan, we will come back to pennsylvania, all these places. new york state, you see what has happened in new york state, we will bring them back. andrew will announce the names of the great business manufacturers, the best in the world, and he is setting up his counsel next week and they will announce them next week. they will be like him, the
greatest leaders. i want to thank andrew and dow chemical, and that is really great news for michigan. the military, we will show the whole world that america is strong again. we will rebuild our badly depleted military and are sure that our service members have the equipment, training, technology and resources of that they need to get the job done and done correctly. [applause] mr. trump: but i always add, we will have the strongest military in the world come the most updated military in the world, and there has rarely been a time when we needed it as much as this. i like to add, we will never have to use that power, i hope. we are building tremendous
power, and hopefully we will never have to use that power. we believe in peace through strength. we will, however, get rid of isis. i am sorry, isis has to go. at the same time, we will ensure our veterans have the best medical care in the world, it is about time. [applause] and health care, we will repeal and replace obamacare. [applause] we will have health care that is much less expensive and will be much better, much stronger. the murder rates our country has experienced is the largest increase in 45 years. you do not hear that. we are going to support the incredible men and women of law enforcement and we're going to bring this crime wave to an end. [applause]
mr. trump: on immigration, we will build a great wall. and we will put an and to illegal immigration and stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth and many other people. got to stop the drugs. and we are going to have people come into our country, hundreds of thousands of people, we want them to come in, because we will have big, beautiful doors in that wall. but they will come in legally, through a process, legally. [applause] mr. trump: during this campaign, i had a chance to meet the amazing families of the remembrance project. parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants. a trump administration will and
this long and horrible nightmare of violence. [applause] we will fight to protect every american's life. during the campaign, i also spent time with american workers who were laid off and forced to train foreign workers that were brought in to replace them. that will not happen anymore. the company that is out there right now, they say you are going to train the people that will replace you, and if you do not do it, you're not getting your severance pay -- not going to happen to our people anymore, ok? one of my first executive orders will ask the department of labor to investigate all these abuses that undermine jobs in wages for the american worker. to protect our country from
terrorism and extremism, i will stop immigration and refugee admissions from regions where they cannot be processed and vetted. we will have extreme setting. -- vetting. we have no choice, we have enough problems. we will do everything in our power to keep radical islamic terrorists the hell out of our country. [applause] i have no choice. ethics reform will be a crucial part of our 100 day plan, as
well. we are going to drink the swamp swamp in the washington, d.c. i will impose a five year ban on executive branch officials becoming lobbyists, and a lifetime ban on the coming lobbyist for a foreign government. [applause] since i have become involved with cost, business people understand it. these people they give out billions and billions and billions of dollars of contracts to companies should never be allowed to leave and go to work with any of these companies. no more. got to be a lifetime ban. then you wonder why it is costing so much, why is it so
high? you look at some of the fighter jets and things that are happening, and i am not just talking about the military, i am talking about other purchases. when they are in charge of purchasing, they should never during their lifetime be allowed to go to work for those companies. they should not be allowed to do it. all of a sudden, they will start negotiating a little bit harder, right? you know the game, come to work for us, let's finish this contract first. he's going to negotiate tough, right? we face many challenges, but this is truly an exciting time to be alive. there is never been anything like what we have done. the script is not yet written, we do not know what the page will read tomorrow, but for the first time in many, many years,
what we do know is, the pages will be authored by each and every one of you. [applause] the american people will be in charge. your voice, your desires, hopes, aspirations, you will never again fall on deaf ears. you saw what happened three weeks ago, it is not going to happen. people are paying attention to you now. these people are talking about you every night, they never talked about you. they said, they are not going to show up. they are talking about you again. we have sanity back. [applause] you will be the captains of your destiny once more. together, we will raise income
and create millions and millions of new jobs. you watch andrew and his friends, you watch what will happen. we will lower taxes, unleash american energy, bring new companies to our shores, and stop the company's already here from a viciously leaving. we will reestablish the rule of law, and appoint justices to the supreme court of the united states who will oppose and defend our constitution. [applause] defend ournd constitution. [applause] we will heal our divisions and unify our country. when americans are unified, there is nothing we cannot do, no task too great. no dream too large, no goal beyond our reach.
my message tonight is for all americans, from all parties, all beliefs, all walks of life. no matter your age, your income, your background, your race, i am asking you to join this incredible movement. this movement that nobody has ever seen anything like it before. i am asking you to dream big and bold things for your country and for yourself. i am asking you to believe in yourself, and i am asking you to believe once again in america. if you do that, then altogether, we will make america strong again. we will make america rich again. we will make america safe again. and we will make america great
we also heard from representative adam schiff and republican senator john mccain, both of whom voiced concerns about the report. >> i don't believe it. i don't know why. they talk about all sorts of things. every week it is another excuse. we had a massive landslide victory in the electoral college. i don't believe that at all. >> you said that you don't know what? do you think the cia is trying to overturn the result of the election or we can you in -- or weaken you in office? >> there is great confusion.
nobody really knows. hacking is interesting. ck, if you don't catch them in the act, you will not catch them. they. don't know if it is russia or china. it could be some of the in a bed someplace. they have no idea. >> why would the cia put out a story? >> naturally put it up. i think the democrat -- i'm not sure that they put it out. i think the democrats put it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of this country. >> you are getting the presidential daily brief once per week? >> i get it when i need it. these are very good people giving me the briefings. if something should change from this point, call me, i am available on one minute's notice. i don't have to be told the same
thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. i don't need that. i say if something should change, let us know. in the meantime, my genitals are pence isefed and mike being briefed and he is terrific. also, but ifiefed me thee going to tell exact same thing, it doesn't change necessarily. there might be times when it might change. the sameeed to be told thing, every day, every morning, same words. i don't need that. >> is no doubt that the russians hacked our institution. making a public statement awaited in october without there being a broad consensus of all the intelligence agencies. i don't know a democrat or
republican who has heard the intelligence and would concur with those conclusions. or china,ot russians this was -- this was not some guy in his bed, this was the russians. it was not alone sewing discord. they had a candidate with pro-putin, pro-russia views who belittled nato and they had secretary clinton, a candidate who was very tough on russia whom they blamed for the protest against the corruption in the russian elections in 2011. you would have to believe that the uniformed nature of the hacking and dumping of
information that was damaging to secretary clinton and helpful to donald trump was both coincidental and accidental and the russians didn't know what they were doing to believe they had no interest in helping one candidate. >> in terms of this investigation into russian a regularo you want senate investigation? do you want a committee? >> i would like in an ideal world to have a committee. >> why is that important? >> i would want it to be either the senate leaders and foreign relations. that takes a long time and a lot of negotiating. i worked very closely with richard burr, with senator .ardin, and senator clark
we will have a subcommittee on the armed services committee and senator lindsey graham, who is as smart as anybody on this issue to be the chair, along with a smart democrat, and we will go to work on it. the issue of cyber is not a static issue. >> on the question of the election? he said he wanted to be bipartisan. how you squeeze the politics up? >> -- out? >> i'm confident. chuck schumer -- in the statement we made this morning, chuck schumer said we will be working in a bipartisan basis. you cannot make this issue partisan. it is too important. a fundamental of a democracy is a free and fair election. >> other members of congress echoing that same sentiment. republican senator lindsey graham saying i am not challenging the outcome of the election but am very concerned about russian interference and actions at home and throughout the world.
representative robin kelly, as the top democrat on the investigative information and technology security subcommittee says, we will get to the bottom of russian hacks. here on c-span, "newsmakers" as next. andill look at the life legacy of late astronaut and former u.s. senator john glenn who died thursday at the age of 95. later our conversation with brian gruber on q&a. joining us on newsmakers this week is the representative john yarmouth who will serve as the ranking member of the budget committee. welcome to you, congress and. -- congressman. --ning him welcome to both of you.
>> congressman, this is billy house. next year will be controlled in the senate by republicans, in the house by republicans and there will be a republican on the white house -- in the white house. what are the mechanisms you can use to be relevant or even matter? >> we don't have a lot of tools in the house that are readily deployable, we have one thing going for us which is a divided republican party. pass many of the things that republicans want to pass, they will need to find 218 votes and they have had trouble doing that in the past. caucus that freedom sometimes votes in lockstep against the majority of the