tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 27, 2014 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
say what we both just agreed you wanted to say. >> i don't think the government has conceded that. >> all right. maybe they didn't and i have to decide that. >> i don't think the government >> does that save the claim? leaving all that out, the next question would be, which i haven't heard argued yet, what more do you have to do then state a claim? five years ago i would have thought, nothing. if you have an absurd claim -- i am not saying it is absurd, but if it were absurd, a district court could deal with it. they would deal with it by
giving you five minutes of discovery and then saying, hm. or 10 minutes plus some judgment. or they have five or six different weapons. that is what you are arguing, i think. -- it is a comes long way of focusing you on that question. said to bert plausible it has to be something more than possible. but plausibility is not probability. the way we establish intent is rarely through the admission to local law enforcement or someone for anat the agent acted impermissible reason. what we do to establish intent is plead facts from which intent can be inferred. we believe we have pleaded facts
both with respect to the treatment, with respect to the time that elapsed from the president's decision to dine, from the time he sat down and then 15 more minutes until the decision was made to remove the demonstrators. >> it is more than that, not just that you have to allege facts. just quoting from page 681, the court goes on to consider the factual allegations to determine if they are plausible. giveno on to say that more likely explanations, they do not plausibly establish this purpose. based on your complaint, we have to determine whether there are more likely explanations. we have in your complaint the idea that they are at the front of the alleyway. thosetainly can look at and decide not simply whether you have pled the cause of action, but whether it is more
plausible than other justifications. once we meet a certain threshold of plausibility, unless the competing inference is so compelling to make our complaint implausible, it involves a pleading stage, such a great burden that no plaintiff could ever satisfy it. they could always articulate some rationale that would create a competing inference. >> sorry to take you back to this, but in this case do you concede that a reasonable officer might have had a terrible motivation, but that a reasonable officer could look at this and say, look at the distance between the alley and the outdoor patio. either throw an explosive in their -- that seems really bad. but get these people out of the way. could a reasonable offer have said that?
that is the proximity, certainly a possible conclusion. that, it doesn't because the answer to that is to take a response consistent with the secret service guidelines. of those firstl amendment rights of people who are demonstrating on the public streets in the center of town. >> you conceded that it would be interest.a security that people are in front of that alley where they could throw a grenade. say you concede that, you but the security interest is ithed away because in fact
was viewpoint. >> i think there is a distinction. could there be a security interest? there could hypothetically be one. was there one? we say there was not. >> i am not sure i understand. it seems to me there either is or isn't a valid security interest. whether they acted to cause that is a different question. you might say there was a valid security interest but that is not why they acted. as to the first question, there are either is one or there isn't one. what would a reasonable police officer think of the security interest? what would a reasonable police officer do? >> the question is whether proximity a loan of a peaceful group of protesters is enough to create insecurity? in hindsight, you could conclude that. i respectfully disagree that
that means there was one on the evening in question. claim thatndant's secret service agents told them the reason the secret service's request was that they did not want anyone within handgun or explosive range of the president. madee extent the agents such an assertion, the assertion was false. the defendant and police defendants knew or should have known it was false. you think it was false. they think it was true. that is: dispute of fact. the normal circumstance is that the judge has various weapons at his disposal, legal weapons to time beingent courts wasted, officers time being on factual allegations
that are unlikely to be true. that is your position. >> yes and no. case, a court said it doesn't matter -- it is not a question of whether the case is likely to be proven true. iqbal didn't precipitate the change. we believe we have pled enough facts to create a basis for the inference of intent. case but not your exactly the same, you don't plead any evidence of direct intent. you have two groups. one is pro-, one is anti-. the officers put one group in one place, the other group in the other place.
the distance from the president to the groups is not the same as someone closer. the things that are in between the group and the president are different. maybe in the group that is further away, one might think that there are fewer obstructions. maybe there are more instructions -- obstructions on the other side. you plead that the placement of the anti group was less favorable than the placement of the program. was that enough? >> we need to allege personal participation and intent. >> you plead intent. if you pled intent, would you be in violation of rule 11? >> i don't think we would be in violation of rule 11. i don't know that that would be enough. , that would have been
enough. we have pled other evidence. one is the time that elapsed from the time the decision was made. which lessens the which suggests and supports the inference supports the inference that it wasn't a securitybased determination, but, in fact, was based on a viewpoint animus. >> just to make sure, we're talking about the minutes between when and when? >> so we're talking about the time the president made the decision and and the initial security arrangements were made approximately at -- >> right. >> then the president sat down approximately, and then minutes elapsed before the decision is made to to move the anti-bush demonstrators. >> and the first they first cleared the alley, right? >> yes. >> and then the movement that you're concerned about. >> right. >> now, doesn't it make sense, just hypothetically, if you're the secret service agent and you suddenly have this challenge dropped in your lap at the last minute, you say, okay, here's the thing, the first thing we've got
to do is clear the alley, right, because that's right up against where he's standing. so you take care of that. you clear the alley. then after you have more time to assess the situation, you say, okay, now we've got to get these people who are at the foot of the alley, we've got to move them. in other words, they had to act not in an emergency situation, but reasonably quickly and they did it step by step. >> and we understand that's the competing inference that the government has offered here. we respectfully disagree that on the facts that we've alleged that that's so compelling that it renders our allegation implausible. >> but here's where we get back to iqbal. it doesn't have to be so compelling. it simply has to be more likely, is the quote from iqbal on, and it has to be an obvious alternative explanation. and that's enough, no matter what you've alleged. >> but we rely on the language elsewhere in iqbal, which we think has to be read together, which is, plausibility doesn't mean probability. and so if the contention is that if -- there's a more likely explanation, ours is then then
we're being held to a probability standard that this court said we weren't being held to on a pleading standard, and which we would suggest to the court is not consistent with rule with a short and plain statement of the claim. again, we haven't had an opportunity to develop a factual record here. >> all right. how do you do that? because i want to follow up on just what the chief justice said. imagine that what he just said is the real case. you have a client, imagine, who's quite sincere, absolutely sincere, and really feels he was very badly treated, and you can sign a rule 11 statement, but suppose that the facts are just what he said. then suppose that iqbal were not the law. forget iqbal for the moment. now, you've got my hypothetical. >> i think so. >> all right. what weapons does the district judge have, which i have so blithely been assuming, to prevent a waste of time by the
secret service, a demoralization of the service leaning in the direction of being overly careful and therefore risking the president. what procedural weapons does the present law, absent iqbal, give him to dispose of a case quickly -- without disturbance if the true facts are what the chief justice said? >> well, i think there has to be some opportunity to develop a factual record. and the trial courts have ample authority to control discovery under the rules of civil procedure. >> so discovery is your answer. and of course it is. you've got allegations. you're going to go to trial. the first thing you're going to do is file interrogatories, you're going to file requests for admission, you're going to file discovery requests to the secret service. and the district court's going to have to allow some of that, isn't he, if he's allowed your allegations to go forward? >> i think i think the court would have to permit us to engage in some discovery of the agents regarding are there
reports of the events of the evening? do they admit certain facts or deny them? should we have an opportunity to take brief depositions of the agents? and i think those are appropriate steps. that's not full and unbridled discovery. the rules already limit discovery to a certain degree. the presumptive limits on depositions. >> but what about what -- about the -- >> the first thing you'd want i say the first thing you'd want to know is whether this was a departure from established policy. so the first question in if i were drafting interrogatories would be, what is your policy with respect to moving demonstrators at a presidential event? what do you do? and i can see the secret service saying, well, that's kind of a bad thing to make it public because there are people out there who want to kill the president, and if you go through your discovery and say, this is how we look at that situation, this is what we do, that gives people a a guideline for how to break through the security arrangements. >> well, the court the trial courts, the district courts have also have ample authority to enter protective orders. there has been no assertion that
the information that would be required here, and we don't know because we haven't gotten to that stage, and i think it's premature to get to that stage whether there would be any claims of secrecy that would limit what we could or could not do in the context of discovery. but those are matters that can be best addressed by the district court in the first instance, and can be addressed by the normal and appropriate means that district courts use all the time to address sensitive information when it's presented as part of the lawsuit in federal court. >> what then what does happen if a district court does allow discovery of things what the secret service thinks are confidential? under certain how far should demonstrators be away from the president? how high must a fence be before we think that it provides security against a thrown object? suppose the district court allows discovery of all of that. what are they supposed to do? they have to file a mandamus petition with the court of appeals and get have the court of appeals try to persuade the court of appeals to review a discovery order? >> i think that ultimately is one remedy and it's a remedy
provided for in our system whenever we have an issue in which sensitive information may be involved in connection with a federal lawsuit. that's not it's not an answer to say that simply because there might be some information that the secret service would rather not share, that that should stop us in our tracks to begin with. those are the kinds of determinations that a district court should be trusted to make in the first instance and which district judges make every day in this country. >> there was in judge berzon's opinion, she seemed to think it was very important that when the president got into the motorcade to leave only one side had access. so leaving aside what happened when the group was moved, would you take the position that not
moving them back before the president left was a violation of their first amendment rights? >> we have not taken that position. we have not asserted that they had that there was an obligation to hold the president in position so that the demonstrators could be moved back to their former position. our position is they shouldn't have been moved in the first place, because there wasn't a valid security reason and that the reason they were moved was solely because of the viewpoint they were expressing. and, the fact that that's not a separate claim that they weren't moved back, but it is an indication that they were removed from where the president would be passing, in our view, that supports the inference of viewpoint discrimination. >> the question of mixed motive or improper motive, if we can get back to that for just a minute. assume that the law and this is the wren case is as follows. if there is improper motive for
an arrest, but that there was an objective basis that would have made the arrest and that did make the arrest reasonable, there is no violation of the constitution. assume that's the law and forget clearly established, forget assume that's the law. it seems to me that for you to prevail, you have to say we should make a first amendment exception because the first amendment is so important. or that there has to be, in another context, an amendment for racial profiling. so that the rule that i have just stated has to be qualified in some way. it seems to me you almost have to say that in order to prevail in this case. >> i would suggest to you that wren is the exception, that wren in the fourth amendment context, that says if there is an objective basis, i think that's reflected in reichle. but, as the court in iqbal noted, in the first and fifth amendment context, at least in the context of state actors, the
court has held that invidious intent is a basis for liability. intent to violate those constitutional rights is a basis, and so -- >> excuse me. i'm not sure. if you stop a car because you think the participants in it were coming back from a protest against president bush, is that a fourth amendment case or a first amendment case, if that's your allegation? the only reason the car was stopped was because of the viewpoint that these people have. is that a fourth amendment case or a first amendment case? >> no. that would be a first amendment case. >> yeah, i would think so. and you think that so long as you make that first amendment allegation, it doesn't matter if you have a broken taillight. >> i think for the terms of the first amendment claim, it wouldn't matter if the circumstances demonstrated and created a basis for that inference of intent. >> wow. >> just out of curiosity, was there anything to prevent someone from leaving one these groups and going over to the other group? >> there was after the president made the decision.
the allegations in the complaint state that the local law enforcement restricted movements between the two groups after the security perimeter was established. >> somebody couldn't have just walked away and taken a circuitous route and gone to the other group? that would have been the police would have stopped them from doing that? >> is it theoretically possible that they could have taken a large enough circle around there? i think that is a theoretical possibility. but the police did in fact stop movement across third street. one of the factors that we haven't addressed today is the secret service's actual policy and practice that we've alleged in our complaint. and that plausibly and convincingly supports the inference of intent here. we've alleged not less than 12 other incidents during the first years of the bush administration in which secret service agents were involved in viewpoint suppression activities. now, we haven't proven those,
but again we are at the complaint stage. that allegation, along with the official policy of the bush white house to suppress dissent at presidential appearances, also supports the inference that these officers were acting for a viewpoint suppressive reason. >> i suppose you would then seek discovery with respect to those 12 other episodes, because you're saying those are viewpoint discrimination, how can you decide until you know the facts of those? >> we would seek certain limited discovery with respect to those incidents to see if they bear out the allegations that we have made. >> the same range of things that we talked about earlier -- interrogatories, requests for production, discovery, with respect, not just to your case, but to the others? >> to the extent that the secret service denies that those allegations or that these officers deny those allegations in an answer, which we haven't yet seen >> you wouldn't seek limited discovery-- you would seek unlimited discovery. [laughter] >> you might get only limited discovery, but --
>> i'm not sure i would seek unlimited discovery, because then i might be overburdened with material that would have no relevance to the case. what we would seek is information sufficient to draw conclusions about those events and whether they are sufficiently similar to support the inference we would seek to establish in this case, that these officers these agents acted with the intent we've alleged they acted with. >> the sole. >> the sole intent. if there are no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. mr. gershengorn, you have minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. a couple of points. first, i think, justice kagan, in response to your hypothetical, the concession that in hindsight there may have been a valid security rationale ends this case, because if it was true in hindsight, it was certainly true at the time in the kind of rapid in the kind of rapid decisionmaking that was called for, as the chief justice alluded to. i think at that point the case is over in our favor. second, the kinds of discovery that my friend on the other side --
>> could i just clarify a factual matter. there are two alleyways. there was one on third street that the president went into, and then there is one by the patio dining room. what access was there between fourth street and the patio? because i thought that the alley was on california street, the entrance to the alley was on california street. >> the entry to the alley is on california street. that's the one where the anti-bush demonstrators were. the alley that the motorcade went through, which is on third street, which is neither group of protesters could get to because the police had blocked off traffic north of california street so that no protests, no demonstrators could get there at all. if i could return on the discovery point. the discovery that my colleague has suggested he would seek is exactly the nightmare scenario that the secret service fears. it's exactly what qualified immunity is designed to prevent.
when there is a legitimate security rationale, discovery into what the agents were thinking, what the secret service's policies were is exactly what there shouldn't be. it's exactly what the court said in hunter that it didn't want, which is agents hesitating before they did their job. >> mr. gershengorn, suppose it's originally set up by the police, the motorcade is coming down, each side has roughly equal access. then the secret service comes along and said -- clear the anti-bush demonstrators. suppose that, that those were the facts. would there be a valid bivens claim? >> your honor, the question would depend on whether there was a valid security rationale. i think in the context of a
motorcade -- >> the rationale is just it's more likely that the people who are against the president would be harmful to him than the people who are for him. >> your honor, i think that would be a much more difficult case in the context of a motorcade where the security of the president is much different than when the president is on an outdoor patio separated only by a small fence. and i do think that that is one of the major differences between where the the treatment of the pro-bush protesters and the anti-bush protesters here is that the an allegation that could be based on differential treatment because the pro-bush protesters were in position to see the motorcade when it left, and therefore, as the complaint alleges in paragraph 55, that that somehow undermines the agents' security rationale for moving the anti-bush protesters during the meal, it just doesn't wash. and then if i could turn just very quickly, justice breyer, to your suggestion that the district court could could control discovery. that's exactly what the court rejected in twombly, exactly what the court rejected in iqbal. as a practical matter, once that door is open, the agents lose the security and peace of mind that they need and they're subjected to the very burdens they shouldn't be subjected to. and then if i could just close
with a quick point on the iqbal. we don't think under the allegations here, as the chief justice pointed to the key passage in iqbal, that these allegations are any more than consistent with the obvious alternative explanation. i've addressed the pro-bush protesters. the diners are very differently situated for a security perspective because they had no anticipation of seeing the president, and the secret service could screen additional folks coming in. it's very different from a crowd outside an alleyway. the advance manual that the other side points to supports us, not them. what it said is -- >> you can finish your sentence. >> what it says, your honor, is that security concerns are for the secret service. if it's a political concern, that's for the advance team. >> thank you, counsel. counsel. the case is submitted. >> coming up on c-span, donald trump speaks at the national press club about politics and building the trump brand. former senator chris dodd and barney frank discuss the 2008
financial crisis. leader, president obama announces the drawdown of troops in afghanistan. >> on the next washington journal, he look at the world climate change and energy issues in the 2014 elections. of guest is elana schor environment and energy news. then, james brown, director of the stem education coalition discusses the plan to train more science technology engineering and math teachers. later, our spotlight on magazines features paul barrett of bloomberg businessweek on why gm keeps swerving from apology to aggression in the recall crisis. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 eastern. >> house armed services macittee mik vice chair
thornberry speaks about national security policy. congressman thornberry is considered by some to be the next likely chair of the armed services committee. at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> if you go back and look at coolidge, he was a conservative hero. his tax rate was a gold standard tax rate that we saw, 25% was what he got the top rate down to. he fought like crazy. it started with wilson in the 70's. when you look at what all the socialites said about coolidge in washington, how cold he was, remember that they were probably also from primaries that endorsed different policies. a let's get them, active, bully pulpit president.
coolidge was not giving out favors. they said he look as if he had been weaned on a pickle. he was from new england. farmers don't talk a lot or wave their arms about. was temperamental. he was a shy person. it also had a political purpose. he knew that if he didn't talk a lot, people would stop talking. a president or political leader is constantly unguarded with requests. his silence was his way of not giving in to special interests. he articulated that quite explicitly. shlaes will take your calls and tweets live for three hours sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2's "book tv. >> donald trump delivered
remarks on politics and building the trump brand tuesday at the national press club. he was joined by his daughter. this is an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. i am an adjunct professor at the george washington university school of media and public affairs, former international bureau chief for the associated press and the 107th president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our future through our programming of evidence such as this while fostering a free
press worldwide. for more information, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speaker. applause in our audience, i would like to note that members of the general public are attending. evidence necessarily of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. follow the action on twitter using the #npclunch. after our guest speech concludes, we'll have a question and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. i'd like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced.
from your right, alan schlaffer president of the wharton school club in d.c. thank you for bringing in so many alumni to this luncheon today including four at the head table. herb jackson, washington correspondent for the record. shioko, contributing editor for the globalist. matthew, president and c.e.o. of hiltsick strategies. mark, washington bureau chief and former n.p.c. president. ivanka trump, executive vice president for development and acquisitions for the trump organization, and a guest of our speaker. jerry, the buffalo news washington bureau chief, chairman of the national press club speaker's committee and a past n.p.c. president. skipping over our guest of honor for a moment, mary lou donahue, president artistically speaking and organizer of today's event.
thank you very much. david, senior vice president for acquisition and development of the trump organization. and guest of our speaker. natalie, breaking news reporter for "usa today." daniel e. lonwan, press secretary for the representative office. mark, senior associate editor for kiplinger washington editors and n.p.c. membership secretary. [applause] donald trump has become the most recognized businessman in the world. whether in real estate, sports, or entertainment, he is a consummate deal maker. his real estate holdings span the world. trump's latest project is a luxury hotel in the old post office building just a few blocks from here. millions know him from his
television programs. "the apprentice" and "celebrity apprentice," you're fired is surely one of the most quoted catch phrases of all time. he's also an author of several best-selling books, including "how to think like a billionaire." donald trump has also flirted with politics. suggesting but then dropping the idea of a presidential run in 2000 as a third party candidate, and in later years as a republican candidate. he also considered then dropped the idea of running for governor of new york this year. and most recently trump has raised the possibility that he might want to make a bid to buy the nfl's buffalo bills. through it all trump has been a careful manager of his own brand. he's been highly successful in business in part because he has made managing that brand central to his strategy.
self-branding is a concept journalists never considered a few decades ago. today, though, many journalists make an attempt to heed the advice trump outlined in a 2008 book chapter, i quote, "you are literally your own brand whether you have a business or not. if you are serious about what you are doing, take a responsibility for building your own brand, that starts now." trump is here today to tell us about building the trump brand. let me say, mr. trump, your brand i'm convinced helped generate a sellout crowd today in the ballroom at the national press club, including people standing in the balcony, we did so in the matter of days. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the national press club, mr. donald trump. [applause] >> thank you very much. this is a great group. thank you. if it sold out so fast, the
first question i asked myron today is why didn't you raise ticket prices? you could have raised money? that's all branding. 25 bucks, that's so cheap. he said it's the same whether it doesn't sell at all or whether it sells out like crazy. i think they are going to revisit that. are you going to? you're thinking about it. it's an honor to be with you. i will tell you this that our country, which i love very dearly, is in serious trouble. but the old post office building, right down the road on pennsylvania avenue, is not. it is going to be spectacular. we are building something that's going to be amazing. we are going to be spending more than $200 million. when it's completed in a very short period of time, probably about 18 months, it will be one of the great hotels of the world, and you'll have it right here in washington. it's going to be really something. [applause] we are building projects all
over the world. doral, you know about doral in miami. that was sort of a another thing. we looked to buy and fix and make them great. and we'd like to get the right ones. doral is 800 acres right smack in the middle of miami, right next to the airport. tiger woods won the tournament a year ago. he was there again this year. hurt his back, unfortunately, he will be back. i hope. tiger will be back. we have had tremendous success with doral, and we have rebuilt it. it's been an incredible thing. i just got back from dubai, and it was interesting. we were in the middle east, and somebody said a very wealthy person over there was smelling the air, you could smell it will a little sense of like a gasoline smell or oil smell. they said, oh, donald, i love that smell. it means money. now, in this country you're not allowed to have that because the
environmentalists don't let you have it. i, by the way, happen to be in my own way an environmentalist. i've gotten many, many awards. we can't go to the extent where the country suffers. and the country is suffering greatly. we build all over the world. we get to know people all over the world. and we have a lot of fun. we have a lot of fun doing it. when i spoke with the national press club, they asked me would i speak about branding and talking about branding, and what makes branding so special and so important. there are a lot of things. it started with me, very early on, by having success. when you're successful, that sort of creates a little bit of a brand. and then i get a number of billings. i started in brooklyn, with my father, brooklyn and queens, and we had some good successes. hi some good successes. it's a little bit in sports. if you sink that first three footer in golf, you have confidence for the rest of the round. if you get a home run when you are at-bat, you have confidence. well, when you have early success, it gives you confidence. i had a lot of lot of early success. hi a wonderful mentor, wonderful father, fred trump, who loved
brooklyn real estate. loved brooklyn. he spent a lot of time there. never wanted to come into manhattan. he just loved queens and brooklyn because that's what he knew. he was good at it. i learned negotiators from him and contractors and how they can rip you off. there is nobody smarter than a contractor who can't read or write. they are smarter than wharton, they are smarter than harvard. these are geniuses. you can imagine what's going on because you see what's going on in the country. i hear that the website for obamacare is up to $5 billion for a website. i do websites. and of they cost $3. you hire some guy. or some woman. they could be young, they could be old. i got in trouble, you hire some young guy. they said, well, what about older people? you can hire anybody to do a website. you know what? i have some of the best websites in the world. you can look at every one of my
projects as a website. some are very complex. they cost us peanuts if you know what you're doing. we are up to almost $5 billion and it's really -- obviously it's a very, very sad thing. so in terms of branding, you have success. whether it's doral, whether it's many, many jobs that i built, but what happened about 20 years ago i built a building, fifth avenue and 57th street, called trump tower. it's been tremendously successful. right next to tiffany. i bought the air rights over tiffany, if i had the right to call it tiffany tower, that was before people knew about trump so much. i was doing really well. real estate. the world didn't know too much about trump. perhaps it was a better place if you think about it.
i had the right to do something and a lot of people said you have to do it. that was call it, tiffany power. i bought that right. i was going to call it tiffany tower. hi a friend who was very smart and streetwise guy. what do you think about calling the building tiffany tower. when you change your name to tiffany call it tiffany tower. i gave up a valuable right and called it trump tower and it was a tremendous success. many other buildings all over new york. and then all over the world. we are doing some incredible things in the middle east. we are doing some incredible things in china and asia. we are doing some incredible -- we have a magnificent hotel that opened recently in panama. it's been tremendous. they have been successful. and it feeds on itself. perhaps the brand gets better and better. i think it all began with the great success of trump tower. best location in new york. most visible building. most -- highest retail space anywhere in the world. gucci is there, my primary tenant. nowhere in the world you get rents like you get on that one block.
i always heard the tiffany location. that's the best location. who would have thought i someday would have the tiffany location. that's what happened. so the success really fed on itself. and then i did a book thinking, you know, what's the big deal with doing a book? i'll do a book. it was exciting, and random house was the publisher. it was called, "the art of the deal." it became the number one best-selling book on "the new york times" list and every list for many, many months and almost a full year. and i remember on the fictional side it was bonfire of the vanities and us. these were the two books. the whole year. "trump the art of the deal" and "bonfire of vanities" and it was a great honor. it was great thing to have a number one selling book. it turned out to be probably, according to everybody's count, the biggest selling business book of all time. there's never been a business book that sold like trump, the art of the deal. it was such a great honor.
that's branding. then i had the apprentice. the apprentice was interesting. mark, who was hot at the time, young. smart. he was renting the skating rink. the city took eight years, couldn't get it open. i took it over, got it opened in three months for a fraction of the cost. that was a pretty well-known thing. that was pretty well-known. tells you about government. i'm talking about all government. but that was a disaster. the rink just wouldn't open. my daughter here, who is so wonderful, i wanted her to go ice skating. ivanka, she's here with us. she kept saying, daddy, do you think i'll ever be able to go ice skating? i went to see ed koch, the mayor, do me a favor. can i build it? i go down there and watch and they would have three -- massive space. they would have 300 or 400 people sitting in the rink doing nothing for years. so i said let me take it over. i took it over. very interesting story about the
rink. when the city designed it they went to a refrigeration company from miami. who wants refrigeration -- they do refrigerators but they don't do ice skating rinks. they recommended a, what's called freon, a gas that goes through a copper pipe. and if you have one little hole, there's miles of it, like a pin hole, it doesn't work because the gas escapes. so they couldn't get it to make the ice because they would have a pin hole. besides that everybody would steal it. they put this beautiful copper piping down and the tubing would be all over the rink and they go back the next day and it was gone. people were stealing it. it wasn't working. they poured it down. finally they poured and it never worked because there were like 4,000 little holes all over the place. what did i do? first thing i did was say wait a minute, there must be something wrong. so i sent up to the montreal canadiens. if you want to make ice, you call the canadians, right?
there's nothing wrong with a little canadian help. i spoke to somebody at the montreal canadiens. they were nice, sent somebody down. he said mr. trump they are using the wrong system. they are using gas. and explained how you can't capture it. what we want is brine. brine is water with salt in it. ok. and the tubing isn't copper that costs a fortune. it's rubber. so we put the tubing down. then i'll never forget, the surface is so massive, we had cement mixers backed up all the way to harlem. we did one pour. they went all the way back up to harlem. all the way through the park. and i had it built in three months. after 8 1/2 years. believe me, most of it was demolition. most of it was demolition. things can be done. if you look at government and if you look at what happens. so we are at the rink and mark brunette and cbs leased it because they were having the finale of "survivor." they built a village in the middle of the rink and it was
live television. and he said i'd like to see donald trump. is that possible? i said sure, let me see. we met. he said i have an idea i want to do but i'll only do it if it's you. and he turned out to be right about that because they had 15 copies of "the apprentice" i and i love it. all of them failed and failed badly. they failed like you never saw. don't we love that when your opponents fail? i love it. i don't know about you. i'm not sure our country loves it. i love it. what happens is so they had 15 copies. i could give you names, but maybe i will anyway. you had mark cuban copy, total failure. lasted for two nights. martha stewart. richard branson. tommy hilfiger. all these copies, they had 15 all together. they were all off. mark said to me, you know, i'd love to do it -- and i had an agent. you believe i had a hollywood agent. the biggest.
he said, don't do it. i said it's too late. i shook hands with mark brunette. he said what difference does that make? it's hollywood. handshake doesn't mean anything in hollywood. i said but i shook hands. he said, donald, 97% of the shows that go on television fail. i didn't know that. what do i know? i never did television before. he said, of the one that is make it they don't make it big and you'll have a great embarrassment. in the history of television there's never been a business-type show that worked. so i said i still have a problem. i wish i knew this before. i would have never done t i shook his hand. it means a lot in life. it means a lot even toward branding. i don't want to do it. i called mark, i said do you think i could get out of it? he said you shook my hand. so we did it. so the show opens. and it opened at number 10, which is massive. when you're number 10, that's a big show. it opens at number 10. it goes down to number eight. it then goes down to number five. in three weeks. it then goes to two and then
goes to one. and i knew how big it was because the head of nbc television and the head of nbc called me up. i never met him. he said, it was 7:00 in the morning. and he called me up he said, donald, hello, i just wanted to wish you happy birthday. i said i never spoke to the guy. called me for a happy birthday. he's showing weakness. you have to remember. i get call from the chairman of nbc, fantastic guy, he calls and he said, happy birthday, donald. is everything good? i'm feeling great, thank you very much. my wife said, who was that? that was the chairman of nbc. they wished me a happy birthday before you did. so i knew that i had a big hit. and it went on and on, and the interesting thing is that was in the age of friends. that was the last year of "friends." we started and took their place. i'm just saying to myself this is something. and it just tells you about
branding. you never know what's going to happen. you have to take risks in life. you just have to do it. the end result of that story, though, is the agent called me. he goes, mr. trump, i'd like to see you at your earliest convenience. about what? i think i'm entitled to a commission. your show went to number 1. you have the number one show on television. and i honestly think i'm entitled to a commission. i said, jim, you didn't want to do the show. you told me don't do the show. you told me break the deal. what are you talking about? i said, by the way, what kind of money are you talking about? he said, would $3 million be fair? i said, jim, you're fired. i fired him. that was the last i ever heard about the guy. but it's all about winning. like i'm watching over here and this guy, buffalo news, he's telling me buffalo news is doing great. good, right? i'm seeing these questions. hundreds of questions coming.
and a couple of them i see, couple of them, i said please don't ask that question. but i'm looking at him. i was saying to myself as i'm watching, that leadership and branding and all of that kind of success to a large extent it's about winning. if you don't win, people aren't going to follow you. now, there are other qualities and i believe strongly in compassion. a lot of people don't know that about me. but i have great feelings of compassion for people and helping people. making people thrive and love their life and take care of people. and we need great health care in this country. obamacare's not working. it's a disaster. we need great health care. you can have great, great health care much better than we have now for much less money if you have people that really have compassion and really know what they are doing. i was thinking to myself as i was looking at all these numbers of questions about leadership, because one of them was about leadership, i said to him, you know, it's about winning.
vince lombardi was a great coach. i'll never forget, i was in a room with one of his players, four times the size of vince lombardi, and it was at a club, and i'm sitting with the player. the player was full of bravado. all of a sudden vince lombardi, a small guy in stature, walked in. and this football player was petrified. petrified. i said, are you ok? he looked like he was ready to have a heart attack. young, strong guy. petrified. you have had other coaches that were rough, tough guys. but you know what happens, you see it all the time, you have seen it here, right in washington, when you don't win, they don't get away with being tough. when you win, they can be as tough as they want. it's about winning. now, you look at branding and you look at what's happening and i told you the story about trump
the art of the deal, and "the apprentice" and i'll tell you today you have twitter, facebook, and instagram, and all these other amazing things, i have millions of followers. millions. i don't do a press release. if i do it i put it on twitter. i have a press release. it's like owning "the new york times" without the losses if you think about it. you have millions of people watching. if i want to say something, i just put it out. i'm reading stories about it the next day. it's fantastic. i love it. i sit there at 3:00 in the morning, ding, ding, ding. our country is going to hell. we must stop t we need leadership. i keep saying the same thing. nobody's listening. it's largely true. you look at the united states and let's look at branding. we haven't had a success in years. where have we had a success? i wrote down just a few things coming down. we have nothing. the v.a., the veterans administration, catastrophic. benghazi, catastrophic.
russia. putin has an 80% popularity in this country. i thought they didn't like him a year ago. but he's so outsmarting the united states. all of a sudden the people in russia like him. you have us, we are fighting, and another country wants to come in -- they love russia. we send in our pollsters. guess what? they want to form with russia. how are we involved? we are involved in this. isn't europe supposed to be involved? they don't want to get involved because they don't want to anger russia. we get it. why? then you have china. now, the old time curse, i love politics and i have been studying politics, and despite what myron was saying, i never said i was running, other than i said i might run, i never did. but everybody thinks -- i made a speech in new hampshire years ago for a friend of mine, because i made a speech, everybody said i was running for
president. which i wasn't. i did give it serious consideration. i don't know what happened to mitt romney. it looked like he was doing fine. i was leading in every poll. i love what i'm doing. i love building the old post office. i love building doral. i love building panama. i love building all these buildings we are doing. i just love it. i love what i'm doing. it's why do i it well. i tell it to people. what's the secret to success? you got to love what you're doing. i would prefer not running. and i did prefer not running. i'm the only person -- i'm a private company. nobody knows what i'm worth. nobody has any idea. forbes, nobody knows. some people say $10 billion. they say $2 billion. they say $3.9 billion. so accurate. 3.9. they have no idea. and i'm the only candidate in history -- because there were a lot of people -- do you think trump is really rich? i'm the only candidate in history that filed a financial disclosure statement that wasn't running. think of it. i'm not running.
a lot of people said, he'll never run because he doesn't want to reveal his finances. i said, hey, i'll reveal them. i'm proud of what i did. i built a great company. very proud of it. one of the reasons, i think ivanka can tell you this better than me. we won for the old post office. i think we had a better concept. that was a highly sought after project. everybody wanted it. obviously it's pennsylvania avenue. it's an amazing building. i think it's the tallest building in washington because they have the zoning restrictions now. that was in the 1880's. you know one of the reasons we won is because my financial statement was so strong. they want to make sure it gets done. the g.s.a. did a very professional job. i have to tell you. they want to make sure it gets done. for us it's an easy project. you have people bidding that couldn't handle it. others that could but we are going to do a fantastic job. when i look at what's going on
and when i see the country -- where, just tell me where -- i wrote a couple other things down. china, russia. they just got together. i have always heard the big curse on this country will always be if china and russia unify and get together. they just made one of the biggest deals ever made. china, our great friend -- by the way, i have great respect for china. i have many chinese friends. they live in my buildings all over the place. they give me $30 million, $40 million, am i supposed to dislike them? i like them very much. i have more oligarchs living in my buildings. i bought a house in palm beach, ivanka can tell you, i bought $40 million, and i fixed it. i call it -- you have a $40 million fixer upper, that's what i have. i bought it as a real estate deal. a mile down the road there was a house of a man who fell on very hard times, nice guy. he fell on very, very hard times. went down the tubes to put it mildly. and his house was sold by the
bank. it was sold at a bankruptcy auction. i bought it, i paid $40 million, i sold it for $100 million and sold it to a russian who then announced his wife is suing him for divorce and wants the house. she just won $4 billion supposedly in the proceedings. i looked at it and i see that. and i say to myself, where is the united states doing well? russia and china now are unifying and they are getting together. then you have iraq. ok. we spend $2 trillion in iraq. $2 trillion. think of this number. this number is not even a number -- 10 years ago you didn't hear the word trillion. we spend $2 trillion. more importantly, thousands of lives, including lives on the other side, by the way. ok.
some people say, who cares -- i care. destroyed. and what we did is we took this country and so weakened it. it was always iran and iraq. they fight. one country would go two feet over here. then after 10 years it settled and start over again. they had -- we destroyed that country. but we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, tens of thousands of wounded warriors all over the streets you see them, we can't even call them. they won't even return our call because china's buying their oil, china thinks we are truly the dumbest people on earth. china now is buying a big portion of their oil. they are being controlled by iran, which i said a long time ago, and then when i said the statement, because it looked to me like it was going down the tubes, why don't we take their oil? we are at war. people said what a terrible thing to say. now you call iraq, they won't even take our phone call. think of it.
now an interesting thing happened in afghanistan. nobody knew that afghanistan has tremendous minerals and tremendous wealth in minerals. everybody thought this was a country that didn't have that. but they have tremendous wealth in minerals. we are fighting over here and on the other side of the mountain china is brilliantly, i didn't say negatively, they are smart. they are brilliantly taking the minerals. we are fighting here. big mountains. china is take the minerals on the other side. and i say to myself, how is it possible that we can be so stupid? an interesting thing happened the other day. i'm reading the front page of the "new york times." number one story, we can't make a deal with japan. for agriculture. think of this. we can't make a deal. japan will not allow our farmers to put food and sell food in japan. i like the japanese, too. i like everybody that buys apartments from trump, ok? i respect them. i respect people.
the fact their leaders are much smarter than our leaders, doesn't make me dislike them. i'm reading this article that japan won't let us even think about putting our food in japan. and then i'm looking at boats. millions of cars pouring into this country, tax free, made in japan, and i'm saying, who are our negotiators? if i was negotiating i'd say fellows, you're going to take our food and you're going to love it. you're going to love our food. i mean, the food is peanuts compared to what we are talking about. peanuts. so you say to yourself, how is it possible that japan would have the nerve to say, we are not going to take small potatoes, farming goods, from united states farmers, great product, everybody admits that, it's not like it's tainted or problems, it's great product, better than what they can do, so they say we are not taking your product, but by the way we are
selling you millions of cars. look at the size of these massive car companies. and it's because of the united states. no tax. so all you have to do if you're sitting down -- i guarantee you this. if i was the negotiator for that deal, you would be -- you would have so much food pouring into japan right now they wouldn't know what to do with it. they wouldn't know what to do with it. i say to myself, why aren't we smart? we used to be brilliant. we used to be a brilliant country. we are not a brilliant country anymore. we are a foolish country. we are a dumb country. we have leadership that is either something wrong with them or they are not intelligent or there's something wrong. maybe it's lobbyists. i hear the lobbyists are so powerful in washington. maybe it's lobbyists. maybe you have to do something about that because maybe japan and maybe the middle eastern states. look at this i heard a number today that since 1931 we have
more oil reserves in this country in terms of storage reserves than we have had since 1931. think of that. yet the price is at an all-time high. i went to wharton, greatest business school in the world. did i say a good thing? the wharton club, great club. i went to wharton. i will tell you that the very basics of that are that prices come tumbling down. here we have and we are buying from opec, and we are buying from saudi arabia also great relationships with the people in saudi arabia, they cannot believe, by the way -- they are friends of mine. they can't believe how stupid we are. they tell me, hey, donald, we are getting away with it. i say you're right. saudi arabia's making, think of this, a billion a day a balance a day. so much money what they are doing there is unbelievable. you look at our airports. you look at your airport here. you look at your airport la guardia and kennedy and newark
and l.a.x. in los angeles. they are like, third world country airports. falling apart. they have floors inside that are so old. when they fix them, they don't fix them with terrazzo, they fix them with asphalt. so you're walking, you have terrazzo that's tired in the main terminal. then they put black asphalt from a road. our roads are falling apart. our bridges are falling apart. in china they are building 24 bridges, most of which are bigger than the george washington bridge. massive bridges, massive construction. they are taking our jobs. we don't even know it. then the president of china comes over. we have a state dinner for him. honoring him. he's laughing all the way back to china. it's all branding. when you look at the things going on -- in afghanistan we are spending tremendous amounts of money and president karzai,
as you know, our president flew in to afghanistan, and president karzai, who is getting sacks and sacks of cash -- they are getting $50 million in cash. i mean green. and i want to know who is the soldier that's delivering the cash? that's what i want to know. do you trust somebody -- they are carrying satchels of cash because they are paying off the tribal leaders and warlords. it's incredible. 50 million i want to know who are these people doing this. karzai said, i won't meet with the president and won't meet him at the plane. you have the president of the country who spent i guess close to $1 trillion there also, lands, and the president doesn't have the decency to come and pay his respects, even to just shake his hand. and i say to myself, that's very bad branding. because when you get right down to it, that's what we are talking about.
that's pretty bad. it's pretty sad. so you look at libya, you look at syria, the line in the sand. remember the famous line in the sand? nothing was done. not that it should be done and not we should being involved, because we shouldn't. you don't say we are going to do this and do that and then they do it and then you don't follow up. by the way, i don't want them to follow up, but you should have never made the statement. so, we are in very, very serious trouble. i just ask you what positive thing has happened to this country in the last 10 years? it includes bush, i'm not a bush fan, believe me. he got us into iraq. i think obama should have gotten us out faster. bush got us into iraq. i am no bush fan. anybody that knows me knows that. but what's happened -- can we say that the economy's booming? no. can we say unemployment --
unemployment is a totally phony number. if you stop looking for a job they take you off the unemployment rolls like you have the job. we don't make our products anymore. they are made mostly in china and other countries. mexico is doing phenomenally well. phenomenally. that's going to be the new china as far as making products. look what's going on in mexico. and you say to yourself, isn't that sad? isn't that a shame? now, the good news is we have tremendous potential. tremendous potential. we have power over china that you wouldn't believe. china sells their product to us, no tax. no tax. and yet they'll manipulate their currency so that our people cannot compete with their product. we make better products than them, by the way, but we can't compete because of the manipulation, which is in the history of the world, there has never been a better or smarter currency manipulation than that done by china.
all you have to do is say, folks, it's going to end. it's going to end now. and if it doesn't end, we are going to throw a little tax on you that every product you sell in this country it's going to be a 25% tax. the number should be 48% based on their manipulation. i want to be nice. we'll settle at 25%. you won't even have to do the tax because everything would stop. same thing with japan with the cars. i mean it's the same thing. so simple. but we don't have the right people. i don't know who these people are. where do they find these people? i assume they are diplomats. they are incompetent. we have incompetent people running the country. now, obamacare is having a devastating effect on the country. and they say whoever becomes president 2016 is going to be a catastrophic year for the economy, because you know all of the problems of obamacare and other things were delayed until 2016. somebody's going to have a real
problem. they better get smart. and the republicans better get smart because they are going to inherit a mess like has never been inherited before ever, ever before. so the good news is we have tremendous potential with proper leadership. tremendous. we can turn it around so fast. we are sitting on energy that's bigger than all of them, almost. we are sitting on massive amounts of dollars coming out of the ground. we don't use that. even the pipeline, keystone pipeline, i don't even care that much about it. i say build it because it's jobs and all that. but we don't need canada's oil. we don't need canada's oil and gas. we don't need anything from anybody. but build it anyway. it's jobs. it's environmentally very good. and it should be built. it's amazing that it hasn't been built. and obama's having a hard time with it. some of the people that don't want it to be built, they are people on wall street. i know them. you know why they don't want it to be built? they are invested in oil and gas
and they don't want to bring down the price. it's not that they are great environmentalists. look at these people. they couldn't people -- people couldn't give a crap about the environment. they are invested heavily in oil and gas. they don't want the competition. our politicians sit back and say wow, he gave a lot of money in the democratic party n this case. gave a lot of money to the democratic party, we have to be nice to him and others. so it's a very, very sad thing. i would say that i very proud of am this country, but i would say if we don't act quickly it's going to be very, very hard to bring it back. we are very, very far out on a limb. something has to take place and it has to take place quickly. our people have to be taken care of. in order to take care of people, we need wealth. we don't want to cut social security. we don't want to cut medicare or medicaid.
i'm different from a lot of republicans. they keep talking about budget. i keep saying, build the country up so you don't have to worry about social security. it's peanuts compared to the numbers you are talking about if we knew what we were doing. we have to take our business back from china and other countries. we have to take it back. and you will see, i said it, winning. it's about winning. we've got to start winning. not one -- i searched everything. we haven't had one good story about this country being great for years. and it's about time that we started getting the good stories. and we can do it but you need proper leadership. and with that i will take some of these killer questions that i have been viewing. let's go. go ahead, myron. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> i already had one note saying, why are we showing mr. trump the questions in advance?
we don't show mr. trump the questions in advance. he was sitting next to our chair of the speaker's committee, who was trying to organize the cards. we'll ask the questions. and i know that mr. trump can't wait to answer them. let's go right into politics. you have flirted, i think that's the right word, you have flirted several times with a possible run for the presidency. why have you never run? >> again, i didn't flirt. people were asking me to run. they wanted me to run for a lot of things, including governor. i kept saying no, no, no. they want immediate to run for governor of new york. finally i just said i'm not doing it. i didn't flirt. people wanted me to run. we are going to see what happens in 2016. we are going to see what happens. i want to see what's going on. this country is it in serious trouble. i didn't flirt. and i think i probably during the speech cleared it up pretty much. i love what i'm doing. i would rather do what i'm doing than do that. but i also love more than what i'm doing, more than virtually
anything else other than family, which includes my beautiful ivanka, i love this country. i love this country. i hate to see what's happening. if i don't see the right person, i will do something in 2016. i will do it as sure as you're sitting here. thank you. [applause] >> do you think chris christie is too damaged to be a viable presidential candidate in 2016? if not, who is the best gop candidate at this stage? >> chris is a friend of mine and a good guy. he's got to get his problem cleared up. no question. you have to get that cleared up and it has to come out very, very good. obviously it was foolish. i have spoken to him about it. it was a crazy set of events that took place. and i would say to chris -- and i will say to anybody -- you
have to get that whole thing straightened out and behind him, in which case he would be a viable candidate. certainly he's been devastated by it and hurt very badly by it. you have to look at the polls. at some point it will come out. there are many people looking. i made the statement, i didn't mean it as a negative statement or positive. he's one email away from having a big problem. that has to disappear. it has to go away. then certainly he would be viable. >> going back a few years, do you regret questioning president obama's citizenship? why or why not? >> not even a little bit. i don't regret it. why would i regret it? he came out with a book that wasn't published, you remember the famous book. it said a young man from kenya. he -- i was offered -- i offered him a tremendous amount of money just to -- didn't want to see his marks. i just wanted to see place of birth. there are three things that could happen.
and one of them did happen. he was perhaps born in kenya. very simple. he was perhaps born in this country. but said he was born in kenya because if you say you were born in kenya, you got aid and you got into colleges. people were doing that. so perhaps he was born in this country, and that has a very big chance. or, you know, who knows. maybe it was all right. i have offered $5 million to see the records. he would have done a great service, because there are -- there are people in this country -- i walk down the street they say please don't give up. please don't give up on the whole thing with the birth certificate. i hope it's 100% fine. a lot of people are questioning the birth certificate. they are questioning its authenticity. i say this. i offered $5 million to see basic records. not the marks. nothing. just some basic things on applications to colleges.
i'd love to see what's put down. why didn't a man take $5 million for his favorite charity? what wasn't reported by the press is some time just prior to the expiration date of that offer i raised the offer to $50 million. $50 million. for charity. pick your charity. $50 million, let me see your records. and i never heard from him. so i would take it, i mean i would take it -- i'd give it to chicago charities and give it to all sorts of charities, and they could use the money. so it's one of those three things. either it's fine. or it's born in kenya. or in my opinion there's a very good chance he was born here and said he was born in kenya. because if you were born in kenya, you got into colleges. and you got aid. very simple. >> perhaps ivanka would like to answer this.
what will the new d.c. hotel be like? >> thank you. well, thank you, everyone, for welcoming us here. we plan to spend much, much more time in d.c. i personally have been down every week for the past year and will continue to come down as we start the development of the old post office building. this is an asset that i don't need to describe to anyone. it sits on pennsylvania avenue. at one of the great addresses of all time. it's a landmark building, a building, the likes of which one could never replicate today. unfortunately it's full potential hasn't been materialized for a long, long time. we are going to change that. we are going to develop super luxury hotel, 272 rooms. the largest ballroom of any of the luxury hotels in all of d.c. unbelievable meeting space. unbelievable spas. restaurants. and really bring in tremendous amounts of life and vitality to pennsylvania avenue.
and to the hotel itself. we love d.c. we love this building. for many, many years, for decades my father's been looking and waiting on exploring various opportunities in d.c. but when he came here, he wanted to do it the right way with the right location with the right development. and that's the old office building. we are incredibly excited and we'll start construction soon and be opened in 2016. [applause] >> 2016, in time for the next inauguration. [laughter] thank you, ivanka. we appreciate your coming here and sharing the podium with your dad. a few more questions, mr. trump, because i think as the more you are being so elucidating, we are
getting more questions. what would you do if you were dealing with president putin? >> well, in negotiation the primary thing that you have to do is to get the other side to respect you. and president putin does not respect or like president obama. so you have a problem. i'm not sure that's a problem that's easily solvable. there is a dislike. but russia does not respect our country any longer. they see that we have been greatly weakened, both militarily and otherwise. and he certainly does not respect president obama. what i would do would be, as an example, i own the miss universe. i was in russia, moscow recently, and i spoke indirectly and directly with president putin who could not have been nicer. we had a tremendous success. the show was live from moscow. we had a tremendous success there. it was amazing.
but to do well you have to get the other side to respect you. and he does not respect our president, which is very sad. >> we'll turn to sports. you said you are interested in buying the nfl's buffalo bills, and i hope we have that correct. you have even spoken with nfl commissioner roger goodell about that possibility. do those conversations give you any sense as to how intense the bidding for the team will be? >> i have no idea. i have no idea if i will be able to. i would keep it in buffalo. we are just discussing it. we had a great discussion. buffalo news is a terrific paper and they treated us very fairly, i will tell you that. we are going to put in a bid. if the bid's not the right bid, i buy a lot of things, but i buy them if the prices are reasonable price or fair price. i don't know what's going to
happen with buffalo. if the price is not the right price i won't get it and i won't , be ashamed. i am not going to be forced into paying too much. if i did, i would do probably a good job. i think the people in buffalo, they already like me. i have a great relationship with the people of buffalo. we'll see what happens. it's about price. i don't know how many bidders there's going to be. probably a few. but we will probably put in a bid and we'll see how that goes. >> one more sports question, do you feel that some nfl owners might still hold a grudge against you because of your involvement in the usfl or because of casinos bearing the trump name? >> as far as the usfl i did a great job. the league was failing. i came in way late when the league was failing. and got a team for peanuts. it was a very small price. because it was failing. it was a failure. and people don't know that.
because i came in, it became really hot and people started seeing it, but i came in on the basis you go to fall football. i said i'm only doing it if it's going to be first class football. i consider spring football not to be first class. i don't think it could work in the spring because your television audiences in the spring -- learned a lot about ratings through "the apprentice." your television audience disappears in the spring. just disappears. i said to them i will do this but -- when i wanted to go to the spring, when they wanted to go to the spring and keep it there and stay that way, i think the opposite. i think the nfl owners, there aren't too many around that remember that because i think six or seven, but i think they gained a lot of respect for me. i actually think -- i have been told by a couple of them, it was amazing the job i did. i got lawrence taylor and sold him back to the nfl. i got lawrence to sign a contract, one of the great linebackers of all time, i sold him back to the nfl. i actually think they respect what i did.
and i think they respect it a lot. i don't see that as a problem. as far as the casino business, we got out of atlantic city about five years ago. we sold, our timing was good. atlantic city is having tough times now. our timing is good. essentially i'm not too much into gaming. would i go in later on? yes. but if i did an nfl team i wouldn't. >> do you ever worry about your brand becoming damaged? what could damage it? >> i don't worry about it. if it happens, it happens. it's sort of interesting. the beautiful thing, again we'll go back to twitter and facebook and instagram. somebody -- instagram, somebody says something about me that's false i will hit them hard. a lot of times they disappear. amazing. i have these wise guy reporters, probably members of the national press club, they always say, trump filed for bankruptcy. excuse me, buffet has used bankruptcy, it's a tool. it's a tool.
when i use it, i buy a company, i throw it into a chapter, i then negotiate the hell out of loans and all the problems they have, it comes out, it's a good company. they say trump filed bankruptcy. they don't say that with these other guys. i let people know, it's not right when you're saying. they attack my hair. my hair. it's mine. come here. would anybody like to inspect -- [applause] >> is there a nice woman that would like to inspect it in the audience? it's actually my hair. they say, you wear the worst hair piece i have ever seen. what a horrible wig. so i put on twitter, i don't. it's funny, when people want to keep -- but i like to defend myself. and the beautiful thing about the new media is that you actually can. if you have enough followers, i certainly have a lot. many, many millions.
you can protect. it's interesting. sometimes i'll be attacked. then i'll attack back really viciously. i never hear from that person again. especially if it's a famous person. if it's not a famous person, they continue because what do they have to lose? i was attacked like by cher. she didn't like my politics. i hit her so hard, she still doesn't know what happened. the last i heard of her. i don't know. rosie o'donnell has gone around saying the worst thing i ever did was to attack donald trump. she attacked me. a young woman of miss u.s.a., lovely young woman, she had an alcohol and drug problem. she was going to be fired from miss u.s.a. they came into my office to get the final blessing. there was a news conference downstairs which was packed, it was a big event. and i met the girl, she was a nice girl. i said, don't fire her. you'll destroy her life. it never happened where we fired the winner. they are going to take her crown away, humiliate her. she's already got a problem with
drugs and alcohol. don't fire her. rosie o'donnell's on "the view" who is he who give somebody a second chance? i get a call from entertainment tonight, and i said, did you hear about rosie o'donnell? i have other things to do. tell me. they told me. and i hit her like nobody's ever hit her before. and that was it. and she goes around telling people that was a mistake. but you know when somebody attacks you, attack them back. stop it. get it stopped. it's so important. in my opinion, it's so important. so that's the way it is. go ahead. next question. >> personal question, mr. trump. what do you do for relaxation? >> i build buildings. it's funny, ivanka said the other day, do you ever go away, daddy? i do a thing in dubai, but we
are doing a massive job, phenomenally successful, i was in scotland where we were doing something big, in ireland where i bought property. different places. that's for me relaxation. when you love what you're doing. if somebody said you are going to take an enforced vacation for two weeks and go to some beach and can't use your phone, it would not be good for me. it would not be healthy for me. so what i do and what i really like doing is working. it's been a lot of fun. the great thing, i put a lot of people to work. i have thousands and thousands of people that work for me. health care, education, they are not worried about obamacare because i take so good care of my people. but so many different people are working because i love to work. so that's the thing i like doing the most. [applause] >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question we have a couple
housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i'd like to remind you about our upcoming events and speakers. tomorrow, dr. ben carson, neurosurgeon and author. june 11, hollywood writer-director m. night shamalan. --will discuss his canteen campaign to close the american achievement gap. we have other ones before august 1, but let me tell you we just finalized on august 1, the president of the republic of congo. we'll discuss peace, security, and stability of the central african region and oil investments in the country. next i want to have for the first time that i can recall a double presentation of our brand, the national press club mug, to ivanka and donald trump. [applause]
thank you. how about a round of applause for our speaker and ivanka. [applause] >> thank you-all for coming today. i'd also like to thank national press club staff. that's the last question, and jerry always reminds me of that because i skip over the script. i want to finish with the last question. but like to thank national press club staff, including the broadcast certainty for organizing today's event. for our last question we have two minutes, you can make it short or take the full two minutes, if you had the power to fire one person on the planet, who would it be and why? >> this is such an easy one, isn't it? but i won't do it. i won't do it. too corny. look, we are a great country.
we have great potential. let's live with that potential and let's make that potential come true. we need fantastic leadership. we have the people in this country that have the potential to be fantastic leaders. let's use our great minds. we are smarter than anyone. we can do what nobody has ever done before. but we need great leadership and we need it quickly before it's too late. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] >> if you would like to get a copy of today's program, please check out our website at press.org. thank you all. we are adjourned.
the drawdown of troops in afghanistan. followed by a discussion on the challenges of training afghan police forces. >> on the next "washington journal," a look at the role climate change and energy issues are taking in the 2014 elections. of guest is elana schor environment and energy news. then james brown discusses the obama administration's plan to train more science, technology, engineering, and math teachers. later, paul barrett of "bloomberg businessweek" on his recent article of how gm keeps swerving, as he puts it, from apology to aggression in the recall crisis. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. andednesday, neurosurgeon author dr. ben carson speaks
with the national press club. the former director of pediatric surgery at john hopkins university will discuss his new book "one nation." live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> the problem now is future pace. that is your job in germany. by your conduct and attitude while in germany, you can leave a -- lay the groundwork of a key that can last forever, or just the opposite, the groundwork of a new war to come. just as american soldiers had to do the job 26 years ago, so could other american soldiers, your son, have to do it again another 20-odd years from now. germany today appears to be beaten. hitler, out. swastikas, gone.
nazi propaganda, off the air. camps, empty.n you will see ruins. you will see flowers. you will see some mighty pretty scenery. do not let it for you. you are in enemy country. be alert, suspicious of everyone. take no chances. you are up against more than tourist scenery. you are up against german history. it is in good. >> in the first of a five part look at hollywood directors who made government films during world war ii, reel america features academy award-winning director frank capra, and commentary from journalist mark harris, part of american history tv this weekend on sees and -- c-span 3. >> former senate banking
committee chairman chris dodd frankrmer chairman barney on the financial crisis and their work to create the bill that now bears their names. this is just over one hour. >> i want to introduce the moderator for this session but before i do, i want to point out that everything we discussed this morning and after this session is moot because the dodd frank act resolved all of those issues and we do not really have to deal with them anymore. [laughter] i also want to thank barney frank for getting with the spirit of the program. he knew we were going to heaven abraham lincoln look-alike contest so he grew a beard. [laughter] we are delightful for that. amy friend -- take no offense but if you read "an act of
congress" she and jim siegel are as responsible as that statute as dodd and frank. amy is the senior deputy comptroller of the currency and chief counsel. this is her second session at the occ so you can say she is occ through. with a brief stop seriously, if at the promontory group. you get to read that book, you will have great admiration for somebody who acted in congress in the good old days when people acted as though there was a tomorrow. when they had to deal with the same people the next day and sadly, those days are gone. hopefully just temporarily. i am not going to occupy any more of your time other than to say welcome, amy. welcome, senator. welcome, barney.
good to have you here. we appreciate you taking the time to be with us. >> thank you. it is really my pleasure and privilege to be joined by senator chris dodd and representative barney frank. former members of the u.s. house and senate, and of course they are well known to his audience for many reasons but particularly as the architects of the sweeping financial reform bill that bears their name -- the dodd-frank consumer protection act or dodd-frank. today, we have dodd-frank on dodd-frank. it is a real treat. for me in particular having , worked so closely with both of them and enacting this legislation which is truly historic. chris dodd is a senator from the neighboring state of connecticut and he was the chairman of the senate committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs all through the crisis and the year leading up to the crisis, and through the passage of dodd-frank. barney frank is a former
congressman from massachusetts and the former chairman of the house financial services committee. you know them well from dodd-frank but also as the chairman of the banking committees in the house financial services committee. they were responsible for the tarp. for the credit card act which overhauled the credit card industry. the regulation of the credit card industry. they also worked on and passed the housing and economic recovery act which created the federal housing financing agency. it provided the authority for government backstop but beyond that, they are rate legislators. -- incredibly accomplished legislators for so many other reasons. congressman frank worked on for housing, equal treatment and antidiscrimination issues. senator dodd was the author of the family act and work on a number of children's issues and latin america.
it is really exciting for us to have you here today. and having worked with you on all of these banking committee issues, felt i had a front row to history and got to see your skills in action. we are six years to the month when bear stearns collapsed. in 2008 was when the crisis september really came on full force. we are close to four years from the passage of dodd-frank. i am wondering if you could talk about whether the confidence in the u.s. financial system that we saw that great really quickly -- that we saw evaporate really quickly during the crisis whether it has been restored. , >> well, first of all, thank you for inviting us. it is a pleasure to be with amy and jim and the introduction is appropriate. we were blessed to have remarkable people on our staffs that did a tremendous job in putting this together.
the names dadd anne frank -- dodd and frank are on the bill, but the reality is a lot of people, including our colleagues, contributed significantly to the legislation. the staffs deserve a lot of attention. thank you. i think it is coming back. i still think we have a long way to go. it was shattered by the events beginning a lot of earlier than 2008 with bear stearns. going back in fact, jim bunning, the republican senator from kentucky, along with jack reed of rhode island, held hearings in 2005 and 2006 on the residential mortgage crisis. while people paid attention to what happened with bear stearns and september of 2008, the problems began a lot earlier. the difficulty was getting people to pay attention to the problems. the shattering of confidence -- i will tell you one quick anecdote. that relates to the subject
matter. i recall having a conversation before these events with the manager of a fund. i was curious why he parked much of his nations wealth into the united states. i will never forget his answers. they were reflective in terms of where we are. he said, to reasons. one, no other country in the world is as good as making money as u.s. financial institutions are. but he said the second reason for doing it is more important in the first. he said he never lost the moment -- a moment's sleep worrying about whether or not the integrity of the financial structure is sound and safe. i lost money and made bad bets along the way but i have never lost sleep over the confidence in the financial architecture of the country. that was shattered. no question in my mind, it is coming back, but we are still not there. >> in my mind, i agree. i would make a distinction. i think there is more confidence in fact reflected by people's behavior than there is in their opinion.
that is as i look at the , financial structure, i don't see people sending the money elsewhere are putting it under the mattress or any kind of broadscale disintermediation. but there is still this perception. there are two reasons for this. the main one i think is self-fulfilling prophecy on a particular issue and that is on the question of the too big to fail banks. i am convinced chris worked on bipartisan things with dick shelby. although shelby later disowned his child and paraded -- berated it. but i did -- we did i believe the maximum you can do legally to make clear that if a large financial institution had debt that it cannot pay, it is out of business and no taxpayer money will be used. in fact, the most interesting
critique i hear these days and tim geithner repeats it in his book which i saw an early copy of and others is is that we were too tough on the anti-bailout. we didn't leave the successors enough flexibility to bail out the system in general. what we have is a self fulfilling prophecy. we have people that argue that somehow our system for putting these banks out of business will not work. they then point to the fact that they still enjoy some people argue a kind of edge in financing but to the extent that they do it is because people denied that they are there. i look at the reasons why it won't work. one is one of the stupidest arguments i have heard. it is that if a large financial institution got into trouble, despite a law that in maine to -- despite a law that says it will be a felony for the secretary of the treasury to use
public funds, there will be overwhelming public pressure on the administration in power to bailout that institution and keep it alive with public funds. i have only one question to those people. in what country? anybody that lives through what we had in the united states, how they would argue that is inexplicable. but i think, as i said people's , behaviors show confidence is coming back. if you ask them they still say they are worried, etc. but i think the behavior is more important than the attitude. >> just to make a point on the too big to fail. the first amendment on the floor of the united eight senate as we began consideration of the legislation, and dick shelby offered the amendment. shelby-dodd amendment on too big to fail. it carried 92-5 on the floor of the senate. it was the first of 60 amendments on that debate over it. clearly, that bipartisan effort on that language that was designed -- today, but we did in
the fall of september 2008 is against the law. not only is it against the law, i would defy anyone to stand up and offer on the floor of the congress of the senate to give billions of dollars the financial institutions. >> we specifically, two things. first of all, the secretary of the treasury, it is now against the law for him to use public funds. he has to recover them. secondly, the statutory authority that under 90 used, section 13-3 of the that -- that number 90 -- ben bernanke no longer exists. so the argument is that the chairman of the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury would he pressed by overwhelming political pressure to violate the law to give more money to a large failing bank. no. >> do you think that congress would support something right now? >> they would impeach and convict of impeachment any official who did that.
we had a hard enough time getting the tarp past. we had a republican president, a democratic congress. that was before bipartisanship ended. what ended it was the election of barack obama and the republican response. , we worked hard on something that was essential. and i think it is very clear. history will record that the tarp program was the most highly successful, widely unpopular thing the federal government ever did. the notion that you can do it again is bizarre. >> we have definitely had a conversation this morning about too big to fail and the remain some skepticism. one of the things that has been discussed is breaking up the big banks, restoring -- there were amendments to the nature during dodd-frank.
now there are bills in congress. i am wondering if you could talk, why they did not gain traction then and why we should , be discussing that. >> breaking up the banks is entirely a reasonable idea. i do have questions for those who ask it. a, to what size? if we are going to break institution so no one institution is big enough to threaten us, then they all have to be no bigger than lehman brothers was in september of 2008 because that failure was one of the precipitating causes. secondly, how are we going to do it? who is going to buy them? i don't understand what the mechanism is. there is the volcker rule. other things in there that do move them in that direction. as a glass-steagall, as i look at the causes of this i think , 100% securitization is a big part of the problem. nothing would've prevented it -- nothing in glass-steagall would have presented -- prevented countrywide from
making all those lousy loans and securitizing the 100%. nothing would've stopped a idea -- nothing in glass-steagall would have stopped aig from screwing up as badly as it did with derivatives. i don't think last and steagall heard of derivatives unless they were very foresighted. if people want to break up the banks -- they may be too big to manage. we did not deal with that one way or the other. as i said, there are things that shrink it. on glass-steagall, elizabeth lauren, who is a proponent of putting back glass-steagall, she acknowledges the repeal was not the cause of the crisis. >> i agree with barney just said as well. my view is that the issue is not so much the size of the institution but rather the risk that institutions take on. to that extent, whether it is capital, liquidity -- other measures determine whether the institution is in good shape. merely making the assumption
because of the size it poses risk does not hold water. i am inclined -- first of all, the banks and neighboring countries of ours that are much larger than u.s. banks. i think we need to focus on the attention of risk rather than size. secondly, if you are that interested in doing it, we have provided the authority to breaking up the institutions in the bill. they have the power and authority to break up institutions. we provided for it under certain circumstances. it ought to be very rarely engaged in my view but nonetheless the power does exist in the legislation that we adopted. >> i would repeat, how small is not too big? what is the biggest we can let them go? i assume it is below lehman brothers. to what maximum size if we were going to take deposition should -- take deposition should we allow a financial institution to be?
>> glass-steagall, i agree with barney on this. i voted and supported as did 90% of the congress. the issue on that bill had to deal with the community reinvestment act. it was a huge debate during that bill. there was general adoption of the notion that somehow we can create firewalls in the 21st-century and we didn't need to have the kind of separation. my own view is you do not want to go back to glass-steagall. as tempting as it would be i , think it is a mistake. we need to have 21st-century ideas on how we deal with these matters. as bonnie pointed out even if , you did today what we went through in 2007, 2008, it would have done a thing. -- glass-steagall would not have done anything. youhe volcker rule moves significantly. >> let me pick up on that. dodd-frank deliberately pushes risky activities out of the banking system like the volcker rule.
we have seen mortgage servicing assets move out of the banking system because of higher capital, which is directly aligned with dodd-frank and -three.ed by basel does the act sufficiently address the buildup, the potential buildup of risk outside of the traditional banking system such as through pb? cf >> with the consumer protection every, particularly fsoc, time a new product line emerges or new institution emerges, you cannot go back and pass legislation every year or two. changese pace of globally. we are talking about a global market. one thing barney and i care deeply about someone is going to , lead on these issues around the world and if we didn't, someone else would. we would have to play by someone
else's rules. not something i want to see happen. tothe united states wants lead in this matter. we are getting some compatibility. it is a harmonization of rulemaking in the european market particularly as well as here. the idea of pursuing that approach may tremendous sense to me as we went forward. so, again, my hope would be that what we have done was provide the ability to look over the horizon where you can watch product lines and respond to it in a timely fashion. in fact, it is amazing to me it took legislation to create a. it should have been occurring naturally. we had regulators meeting up periodically with each other and talking about what was occurring. not only here, but are on the world -- around the world. in this case, you have the crisis of september 2008. that made an awful lot of sense. consumer protection -- to me was stunning in a way of the
objections to having a place where consumers of financial products can have some regress -- redress for problems. in this day and age, the fact that was such hostile opposition to the creation of a place where consumers of financial products could not find summer dress of their grievance was stunning to me. >> we did actually deal physically with two important risks. you mentioned mortgages. we are pro-market. i find myself more pro-market than some of the people we were regulating. we affirmed my view. senator warren magnusson once said, all any business wants from government is a reasonable advantage over competition. [laughter] i talked to two insurance company executives.
they came to lobby me against requirements to make derivatives trading more transparent and put it in markets. one of them pointed out, if you do that and we have a deal, we have to publish our price, somebody can come in and undersell us. his older colleagues said, that is not our position. but it was. we did only one thing, which we banned, giving residential mortgages to people who could not possibly pay them back. i believe the mortgage thing -- that when we plug. -- that one we plugged. the other great risky area we did it was substantive rules requiring derivative trading to be moved from almost all one-on-one into a more marketplace situation. one of the people would've been -- one of the heroes of the implementation was gary gensler , who did a very good job of it.
i think in those two areas we did some substantive things. we don't regulate institution so much as activity. even though the activity is moved out of the bank, they are still regulated. you can't be sure of all this. but particularly, there is one lasting i'm worried about. one part of the implementation that troubles me. i think what one of the most important things we did was to say there has to be risk retention when you securitize. that was the transformative thing. when the lender-borrower discipline was done away with. to get the bill through, one of the things i would hate to hear was when chris called me and said somebody has decided that he or she was the 60th senator. chris had this terrible filibuster rule. there were a lot of people who became the 60th senator. to get the bill through, we had
to weaken somewhat the requirement for risk retention. we adopted a section that had super-safe mortgages to be safe from risk retention. to my dismay the regulators at , one point were proposing to have the exception eat up the rule. only two classes of mortgages. mortgages too bad to be made, and warpage is that could then be made without risk retention. we wrote comments to object to that. that troubled me. if we could get some risk retention in there, think we could build systemic protection. >> that is very much a live debate among the regulators. it is in the middle of a pending rulemaking with some on the other side expressing concern that that may impact credit availability. >> that is one of the things i want to talk about. transitions are hard. i don't know about chris, because he took another real job, but the transition from
having hundreds of thousands of people aggravate you to private life is a good transition. that is not hard. [laughter] have a lot of mortgages made in america before the results a thing as securitization. you have to people who are convinced that they had to do any risk retention, they won't give mortgages to those people. i don't believe that. i know it is uncomfortable now but i believe if we have a 5% risk retention there would be a demand for mortgages. there will be a supply of mortgage holders and you would get over it. that is my answer to credit availability. >> i have a comment now that i have changed jobs. now that i am head of the motion picture association. out, i left one group of bad actors for another group of bad actors. [laughter] >> transitioning now. during the formulation of
dodd-frank, there was some discussion particularly in the senate about regulatory consolidation. senator, you at a proposal that would have taken the supervisory authority from the fed and the fdic and consolidated it along with the occ into one federal supervisor. leaving the dual banking system at the federal level. congressman, i think that was something you decided not to pursue. can you both talk about why you went there or why you didn't and what were the impediments? >> let me start, we did abolish the ots, which i had two alternative proposals. they were the regulator of aig. i had an alternative proposal. one was to abolish it. secondly, if we could not do that, change the name to the office of figment dispensation. [laughter] fortunately, we voted to do the first. they had identical function.
the next big thing, chris talked about taking it out of the fed. alan greenspan always argued if you did have some regulatory authority over the fed, you would not be able to have the input you needed for monetary policy. i talked to two former fed presidents to talk about what they thought. that was not the major problem. the major problem came -- and the representative of one of the groups is here -- the state charter banks came to us and said, we do not want to be regulated by the occ because you will be throwing us in the same arena as the big national banks. the big national banks had very little political -- they only had representatives in a few cities. the problems we had to deal with came from the credit unions, the insurance agents, in the