Skip to main content

tv   Weekly Standard - Covering Congress the White House  CSPAN  May 30, 2018 4:47pm-5:39pm EDT

4:47 pm
night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was credited by a public service by cable companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, and public court, policy events in washington dc and around the country. she spent is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. c-span here reporters expenses covering the white house turned the company menstruation. this book in a political summit in colorado springs posted by the weekly standard. this is 45 minutes.
4:48 pm
bill: thank you, steve. it is nice to be back at the broadmoor. donald trump, the swamp, chaos. maybe an easy way into some more weighty matters later on. i hope we can give you a sense of what it is like to cover donald trump's washington. i do not think they need introductions, but i will introduce them. this panel was set up basically to make fred and me feel old. it is bad enough that some have not been born yet when fred and i came to washington and began reporting or working in government, and in my case, but i am not going to dwell on this. it would be wrong to feel sorry for myself and fred.
4:49 pm
>> when i was editor under steve, we have worked hard to bring in young people and help them get going. it keeps the magazine fresh with new voices and new perspectives, so it is great to have them on this panel. they do not know anything because they are so young, but nonetheless, they will have something important to say. >> we will correct them. bill: the macro question, it is obvious that the trump administration is a little different. how much difference does that make? is the chaos a feature, or something beneath the surface. do things get done, or does the chaos overwhelm things?
4:50 pm
the truth is probably some of each. some of and also haley and john have covered congress in the last year and a half. what is up with this republican congress, the first in about a decade, and how is that working. john mccormick had a terrific piece, breaking news, on a trump decision to partially defund planned parenthood. >> i cannot reveal my sources, but a source confirmed with me that the president was going to take an action which was a high priority for the pro-life movement. it is not defunding planned parenthood entirely, what this shows along with the embassy move last week is that the legislative agenda for the republican congress and president trump is pretty much done.
4:51 pm
they got what they could. they got tax reform, repeal the individual mandate, opened up drilling, and failing to defund obamacare, that is for different reasons. but the rules are still the rules, meaning you have to get 60 votes. they have these arcane processes to pass legislation with a majority of 50 votes, and they have failed to reach consensus on things like obamacare. it is an important move, and somewhat symbolic in the fact that it is only targeting a certain percentage of the funding that you can get at, but i think that symbolism is important, because if you keep telling people things are going happen and campaign, we're going to repeal obamacare, and you do not do it, that breeds a lot of cynicism, so it is substantive.
4:52 pm
it is symbolic and a somewhat substantive win for conservatives. bill: and who drove this? was this driven from the white house, or was it an hhs regulation? >> i think from the white house. you would not be surprised to hear that ivanka trump, president trump's more liberal advisor, his daughter, was more skeptical, but ultimately, the other voices surrounding the president and the present himself made this decision to make this move. bill: it is interesting, everyone is so focused on trump in the white house, but there are cabinet agencies and more that gets done that we do not pay attention to. >> they were weighing in on tax reform, paul ryan.
4:53 pm
-- i forget when his bill was initially drawn up, but it has been several years, so they were ahead there. the white house is different because trump is different and because he is the first genuine outsider to be elected president, and the result was when he arrived at the white house, he did not know anybody. he did not know republicans all around the country, people who worked in earlier administrations, jeb bush or any of the other number of 16 or 17 republican candidates who had won the election, and they knew people. and they knew who they wanted. trump did not, and so, it is diminishing somewhat now, but it has created chaos in the white house. look who trump picked initially for the big four jobs in the cabinet, the defense, treasury,
4:54 pm
, and state.eral how can i forget? and so trump picked steven mnuchin, and he did because he knew him. he worked in the campaign. and he picked jeff sessions, someone he is somewhat dissatisfied with now, and he was the first senator to endorse him, and he got to know him well. he did not know anybody at the state department, so he picked the first guy he liked for that job, and that did not work very well. rex what's his name. [laughter] and trump did not know what to do. and as i say, that did not work well at all. he picked his defense secretary this way.
4:55 pm
he did not know anybody for the job except someone he had seen a a lot and and he would have been a good defense secretary. you all know who that was, jack. he told trump he would not take the job. instead, he recommended his friend jim mattis, another general, and he called jim and said, you're going to hear from trump, and mattis got the job. he has gotten to know people better or some, so he can pick people for the top jobs, and then for state now, he has picked a guy he did not know before, pompeo, but he got to know him when he was head of the cia and would come in, often daily, to give him a daily report on what was going on
4:56 pm
dangerously around the world, so he knows him now and trusts him, so he put him in the state department. and so there is not much chaos in the cabinet. there remains chaos in the white house. because trump -- mike can answer this, but i bet most of the people, a high percentage of people who work in the white house for trump, trump did not know before hand and maybe still does not know now. there is chaos. i am not trying to dump on trump. i think he has actually done a very good job policy wise and getting things passed that are important. on the other hand, the leaking to the degree that goes on at the white house today is so much
4:57 pm
greater than i have ever seen before, and i have covered white house going back to gerald ford, a very nice man, by the way. and you worked with bush 41, and there was nothing like this. when there is this much leaking, it is poison, and trump said he is going to stop it. other presidents said they were going to stop it, they all failed. and i am afraid trump will, too. bill: mike probably covers the white house more than anyone, writing for the daily. what is it like to deal with them? how much do they stab each other in the back? why is there so little discipline? mike: yes, that is sort of a big question and sort of defines the white house, not the
4:58 pm
administration, but the white house, the way it works. i heard a lot particularly at the beginning of the white house when i started covering it. from a lot of people, this sentiment, and i heard it from one particular source in this framing, which is ask a question what is the policy going to be on this or where are we going to go on this particular policy move, and this person would say, well, we are planning on doing this. we talked about this in this meeting, but with this president, and this is important here, with this president, you never know. this is someone who works as a senior official at the white house, closely with the president, and this was a common hear,in that you still which is that nobody knew or really knows what the president
4:59 pm
is really thinking, and that, i think, is, in part, sort of what has engendered a sense of chaos in the white house, which is without that clear sense among the staff, among the advisors, whose job it is to provide the president with options to move forward on with the president's policies. that has created an environment for people to try to jockey for position to get their preferred policy goal to the president, and how do you do that? you do that by leaking to the media, because the president is certainly not unlike his immediate two predecessors. --is a full rations voracious consumer of media of obviously tv, but he also gets redoubts of articles, most of them favorable to him, brought to him, and, of course, he is on twitter, so media is
5:00 pm
the way the president sort of consumes information, and that is sort of the way that people try to reach him. that is a problem, i think, because it has created or maybe has exasperated what was already there are a lot of issues at the white house. for example, fred, you said he did not know anybody to staff the white house, and he farmed it out to reince priebus, his first chief of staff, and people were brought in very early on into the white house. who were notpeople really fans of trump including , there was one particular press aide who was actually i think let go from the trump campaign. he had been sort of farmed out from the rnc because he had been discouraging trump during the general election, and people were surprised that he had a spot. there was nobody else to fill those spots. he has had a number of personnel
5:01 pm
, he has had a problem with people having a different idea of what they think trumpism or the trump agenda should be, so in the beginning, you had reince priebus versus steve bannon, and they had a pact, supposedly, and they were trying to stop jared and ivanka. it was all of the stuff you heard about. it is all true, and i think that is what makes it so unusual and hard to cover, because you're never quite sure if you are being -- if i am talking to sources, to settle a score, and you may not be accurately reflecting what is actually happening, what the president is actually thinking. the other thing, and i remember, fred, when you when i talked about this when i first started covering the white house, you always said when you covered the white house that your job was to figure out what the president
5:02 pm
was thinking or what the president was saying in these important, decision-making meetings. a great one or one of the best things you wrote about was reagan coming back on a plane, having left gorbachev, and what people were talking about, but with president trump, there is no mystery about what he is thinking or saying, because he says it all of the time in speeches and on twitter. is there anyone here who does not know what he is thinking at any given moment? just log on to your computer or the cable news. that has presented a lot of challenges for me covering it but also i think for the white house getting out of its own way to try to get something done. bill: yes, it is striking. again, this is probably my more traditional view that if you
5:03 pm
have security advisers and two chiefs of staff and advisers and bannon, top strategist, they conspire and leave, it is sort of unusual, and sometimes white houses have a bit of a shakedown in the first year or two. and not a fan, maybe you can make a case. maybe chaos does not matter that much and the people at me are overdoing how much that matters if he makes some right decisions and can mobilize the public from twitter and from fox news and through different nontraditional media. i was talking to someone the other day about the iran deal, where trump got out of it. against the iran deal. certainly people in "the weekly standard" were prominent in the opposition. pretty several people -- prominent people who get on tv
5:04 pm
and doing an op-ed. did you get a heads up? did they do something to explain what the strategy was? totally typical, routine, white house stuff. exactly how trump is going to get out of it and dealing with the europeans. i am not sure everybody knows now. i am not sure that it matters that much. all of this traditional let's have people in at 10:00 a.m. for a meeting in the roosevelt room with the 15 foreign policy big shots, and then we will have the media, and at 11:00 a.m. -- all of the things that we are used to. i don't know. maybe it does not matter, or maybe it does. i guess that is the west in. -- i guess that is the big question, i suppose. fred: if he was the only president to do this, and all of the presidents would not, if they were in the white house, on the paris accord -- remember that, that ridiculous environmental thing?
5:05 pm
that obama promised, to spend an inordinate amount of american dollars while the other countries did not? in any case, would other presidents have gotten out of the paris accord? i am not so sure of that, but others have declared they would get out of the iran deal. ted cruz was going to rip it up on the first day. there are a lot of things that trump has done that i think only he would do. embassy,he jerusalem pretty obvious one where people were saying they were going to do that, trade. i think most of trump's victories have been traditional republican ones. fred: certainly the saber rattling towards north korea. and that seems to have worked,
5:06 pm
up to where we are now. i am not sure where that is, but trump is an outsider. and all presidential candidates and presidents have said they were going to move the embassy. trump did, too, and he actually did it. bill: haley is a well-known figure. stocking fees congressman and , -- stalking these congressmen and senators. what is it like in the trump era, or what have you learned? >> it was a lot more chaotic in the first year, and it is not as chaotic. mike mentioned something that is especially relevant, which is that trump does not really know
5:07 pm
his policies on a lot of issues. there are key issues that he is determined to do, like the border wall and grade. -- trade. other things like tax reform and obamacare repeal, he did not know the policy details well enough to command the republican confidence in the house, and sometimes he would just tweet out his ideas and thoughts, and it would be completely contrary to what republican leadership was telling its members. recently he tried to pass the short-term spending bill, and trump did a tweet, like i guess he was watching cable news, the children's health insurance program, and republicans allowed lapse inng for that to the fall. so they were sort of using it as a bargaining thing when they were passing the short-term
5:08 pm
spending bill. they were going to do a six-year reauthorization of the bill, and trump had seen on tv or something the democrats arguing against that strategy, because they wanted a separate vote on chip. something completely incorrect was tweeted from the president, saying that we should not reauthorize it, that it should be separate. not only was that incorrect, but it was also different from what the republican party was doing in congress. he did the same thing with fisa reauthorization. the morning of the vote, he has caused a lot of chaos and confusion when he does these things, so there has been a lot of contention within the republican conference trying to figure out where does the president stand, how do we align with that and how do we incorporate his values into our administration?
5:09 pm
i think they are frustrated with the lack of policy coherency, and, you know, the meeting they had on daca, and they had a similar one on gun control, where the president will sit down with a group of lawmakers and will sort of go from end to end of the policy spectrum, and it sort of throws republicans into a panic. he will endorse taking away guns before doing due process, and it is just a situation in which republicans are uncertain of what he is going to say and what he is going to do. they do not enjoy that. they do, on the record, they say that they like him, and some of them do. like kevin mccarthy has fostered that relationship with president trump, and some of the other ones have, too, and like steve king, they agree with them on certain issues. like the populace sector agree with him, but those disagree
5:10 pm
with him on trade and immigration, they see issues in the white house, for sure. >> this is about where trump is consistent on his policies views. and there was a story that steve and i wrote about last summer. last fall. something that happened last summer regarding the iran deal. of course, he filled that -- he fulfilled that promise, and that is kind of where he has been. he has been consistent. that was his view. but there was a problem in getting rid of the iran deal. there was sort of a mechanism that congress set up when president obama got the iran deal through, whereby august -- whereby congress basically
5:11 pm
has a review every 90 days or , the president has to make a decision every 90 days about whether to recertify iran's compliance with the deal. he did it sort of early on, and the first deadline was really before he got the white house really together, march or april, and then the next deadline, the next 90 days rolled around, and the president was of the position that he should not recertify iran. maybe they were in technical compliance with this terrible deal, but they are a bad actor, and they were causing all kinds of chaos in the middle east, and it is iran. a nuclear deal is a terrible deal. we should just get rid of it. he was very consistent on that. he had his advisors, secretary of state rex tillerson and jim mattis were trying to get it recertified, to keep it, but the president did not want to do
5:12 pm
that. he was convinced in june of 2017 to do it again, to sort of stave off another deadline. this is with steve i were hearing and reporting that he had made the decision, and he was going to recertify against his gut instinct, and so we got it. we got the email on a monday morning. the decision on the day of the deadline, that said we were going to get a briefing for reporters on the president's decision, which we knew what he was going to be, and then all of a sudden, the briefing got pushed back, and it got pushed back and pushed back, and we finally got the briefing like two hours later, like we knew what he was going to say during deal andn the recertify, but what we later
5:13 pm
found out was that for about three hours, trump had changed his mind and had read an article by john bolton that somebody had given to him that said, mr. president, we have got to get out of this deal. and he said, to hell with the plans, we are going to decertify. scrambling, and they eventually prevailed on him for that and got the reversal of his decision, but this is kind of an example of how the president's sort of that feeling on these things, he eventually wins out, and he has actually been really consistent. it is just a matter of his staff sometimes, his advisers, pushing him in a direction that they wanted to go rather than where he ends up going. fred: the press loves to write stories that trump is going to do something that his aides do
5:14 pm
not want him to do, and the washington post is indignant about that. he defy his aides? and washington does not like trump, and they particularly do not like that he has turned out to be a lot more conservative than at least i had any reason to believe beforehand. bill: one last question. then won't take comments and questions. will take comments and questions. mitch mcconnell, you are pretty close to him and have been over the years and talk to him. i think you could make the case, couldn't you, that given the margins, given the chaos in the white house to some degree, mcconnell, given that trump does not like mcconnell much, and oftentimes the trump supporters are dumping on mcconnell, he has really gotten a lot done as the
5:15 pm
majority leader of the senate. the tax bill and all of the nominations, judicial nominations, in particular. people do not like him, maybe an unheralded story. fred: there have been some important things that have been done, and one of them, of course, was the appointment of 20 some appeals court judges, federal appeals court judges. these are the ones on the second tier. a lot of them are auditioning for the supreme court, or at least they hope they are, and he has done an incredible job to get them all passed. and everyone who has reported out by the judiciary committee, he will make sure that they get confirmed, and the circuit court judges have been flipped to become more republican oriented now, and it has been remarkable. he has a very fine touch.
5:16 pm
he generally ignores the tweets of trump, but i give trump credit on judges. he has to appoint them in the first place, and trump has not , i think. the judges when he tweets, it causes trouble and anger and so on. but trump i think knows how important he is, and i think it was also true, and you can probably correct me on this, about tax reform. i do not think he tweeted much on that, did he? >> no. fred: i think trump's inclination is to tweet, and when he does not, that is significant and helpful. bill: haley? haley: i want to say that republicans like to credit trump
5:17 pm
for passing the tax bill. and what i think they mean is they want to congratulate trump for helping them. bill: a couple of questions, some good ones off of the top. not much legislation the rest of this year. that is probably true. there could be a supreme court appointment. what could happen the rest of this year that could be important? are we sure there will not be immigration legislation, for example? haley: some moderates are trying to force a debate in the house because speaker ryan has told them that they might get a vote, and then he has not done anything on it for months. they have a lot of signatures on the discharge position. i have to check on this, but right now, they are trying to negotiate a deal on pieces of legislation in exchange for support on the farm bill, which is supposed to come up for a vote soon. so it is really up in the air right now, but a lot of republicans would like him to do
5:18 pm
something on immigration before the midterm elections. >> >> probably the biggest news. you can call around, legal types, talk to former clerks, no, it is all speculating, and one plug-in guy says it is like 60/40. at the end of the day, you are speculating, and ruth bader ginsburg, a total ideologue, has chosen to stay even though she could have had obama replace her because she liked the job. you never know. bill: you could have a kennedy appointment, immigration reform, escially daca. i guess obamacare is here to stay. that is something. they got pretty big tax reform but almost nothing on obamacare. fred: well, they got the individual mandate out, but that happened in the senate.
5:19 pm
that was senator tom cotton's idea, and he sold it to mitch mcconnell, and it is gone. i thought that was something that could not possibly happen, and it did. and that, i think, has really put obamacare on a pretty short road to collapse. bill: we have no progress on entitlement reform. senator corker was quoted today about what happened to fiscal responsibility, $21 trillion in debt. that was a big talking point under obama. the debt is coming up faster under trump than under or obama, even though we are at the top of a business cycle, and we do not have a recession to sort of legitimized spending. thatr said we are beyond fiscal responsibility, , entitlement reform, none at all, i suppose, right?
5:20 pm
>> there was the important part of obamacare, and when it collapses, that means peoples ternium's co-op. peoples premiums go up. so if you see someone in the individual market, hey, you got a tax cut and are saving thousands of dollars the year, and they reply, my premium just went up $3000, but at the end of the day, republicans in congress and president trump are responsible for the failure to fix things. bill: going into the election. >> there is also going to be no infrastructure bill, which the president thought he would get through. and publicly, no new nafta. bill: on trade, do you think trump -- will we have serious changes in trade policy? or is it pretty much the same structure we have had? fred: mike, would you know? mike: i don't know, because
5:21 pm
talking to trade experts, they sort of following that my new nutia of whati mexico wants, what canada wants, and trump is staying firm, but there is a lot of pushback, particularly in the senate. trump threatened to pull out of nafta, and there would be a lot of outcry from republicans in the senate. i do not know how it will manifest itself, but i find it hard to believe that he would do that because he would get so much pushback from republicans in the senate. bill: it could be that the next six months will be very foreign policy heavy, with north korea, -- two kimnyn, maybe
5:22 pm
jong-un -- maybe maybe trump's threats produce something. as silly to talk about later, not in great shape, i am afraid. you could have a pretty foreign policy heavy 2018, i suspect. pompeo is a friend. he was a congressman from kansas, very thoughtful. he graduated from west point, if i am not mistaken, in the 1980's and then successful, a very, very impressive guy. i saw him at the cia in mid-2017, i went over there for breakfast, and they let me in. they did not waterboard me or anything. the security falling apart there. trump appreciated and did not pompeo is a thoughtful guy.
5:23 pm
he has figured out how to get along with trump and test his patience, and so forth. mcmaster is a wonderful man, in my opinion. i am worried mcmaster's departure, we will pay more of a price for that than people think. whatever, trump did not like the way he presented things, which was fairly lengthy, detailed, scholarly memos and briefings. pompeo somehow was able to convey the stuff to trump in a way that trump liked. trump is unusual in so many ways. when i was in the white house, the president's daily intelligence briefing comes first. security advisers sit in, the cia director comes over. in the old days a staffer from -- and there was a team of people who did the presidential daily briefs, and
5:24 pm
on occasion the director would news, andsome big after 9/11, thanks changed. -- things changed. but those were always at 7:30 when i worked -- or 8:00 when i worked for the vice president. trump gets up pretty early, judging by his tweets, but he likes to watch "fox and friends," so he does not like to have his cia briefing. he has his cia briefing at 11:30 in the morning. which is fine, it doesn't matter, the world is not running on american eastern standard time, so it probably does not change things. i will say something off the record, pompeo told me it meant that his whole day was like, key
5:25 pm
-- they had to go to the white house, and there was a lot of traffic around 10:00, 10:30. trump only liked to have pompeo, or the deputy director to brief him. he didn't think it was appropriate that some staff are what brief the president. basically the whole schedule they have worked -- and this is a classic washington thing -- they would open up a certain schedule for decades. some people got to the cia very early to do the daily brief at 4:00 a.m. there was a whole system set up overturned,y got but it does not mean it is not working perfectly well. pompeo will be an important figure, i think. he is an upgrade. bolton to mcmaster's work obligated. john is a friend of ours. contributed to "the weekly standard" multiple times. national security advisor is a tough job.
5:26 pm
especially managing the relationships in the department. it will be an important job for the next few months, i think. anything else we are not thinking of that's coming up in the next few months? >> you are asking me? bill: i don't know. >> i think john is basically right. they've gotten their big thanks, -- things more quickly and easily than it looked like it was going to happen. look at the obama administration. obama was there for eight years, had these great democratic majorities in the first two years. then you had the 2010 election where republicans were robbed 63 seats in the house and so on. the next three years, obama faced a hostile republican house and ultimately the senate, and he gave up on doing anything
5:27 pm
with republicans in congress. he did not want to compromise. he did not want to see them much, as little as possible. he was going to do everything on pen and paper. and he did. he did all these things by executive order, which i get the trump administration credit for in nullifying those things. you can nullify them with an executive order. it was a huge mistake by obama, of course, he admits to know mistakes. but it has allowed a republican administration to wipe out so much of what obama did. bill: this is a couple of questions i will put together. it will point towards other discussions. how much has the character of the republican party been changed by trump, or how much
5:28 pm
has trump been normalized, so to speak, and the republican party? debt, limited government spending does not seem to be a big part of trump's thought, and it does not seem to be a big part of the republican party right now. maybe that is fine, people say, because it was never popular and never going anywhere. but it is kind of unbelievable but paul ryan, who made his name with entitlement reforms, courageously leading republicans to embrace something politically difficult, that's just gone. and foreign policy, how much has the america first replaced more traditional reagan/bush/mccain kind of -- do you all have a sense of two to three years out? are we looking at a different republican party in concern of movement because of trump? >> i think the 2020 election will determine a lot about if trump wins reelection, and
5:29 pm
depending on what he really pursues on trade or foreign policy. i think he has been, in some ways, brought to yield to more a traditional foreign policy. take afghanistan, for instance. this was something he was adamantly opposed to keeping troops there, and he was convinced otherwise by more traditional republican foreign-policy and national security figures. but on trade, for instance, he is firmly on the extreme side from where the republican party has been for a long time. there is still a group in the senate mostly of pro-free-trade republicans. if he can't get anything done on trade, that probably stays the same within the party, but it
5:30 pm
will be determined by trump's successes on pushing the policy. this is actually a problem, i think, with some of trump's efforts on immigration. they have been done through executive order and not codified into law, because it is more difficult to codify. just as we have seen trump undo a lot of what president obama did, it is very likely that there will be a democratic president sometime in the future and they could undo all of that which he can't get through in congress. of course, if he wins reelection, there is a lot more to undo, as we are fighting with obamacare. bill: haley, on the hill, are republicans traditional republicans or trump republicans? haley: on a moral level, trump has really shaped congress. i have had members of congress
5:31 pm
who are republicans say, who cares about this? it is unimaginable, under any other administration -- if it were a democrat, i think republicans would be up in arms about this. on that level, i have seen a lot of changes in the values of the republican party. fred: they haven't endorsed adultery. i think that is peculiar to trump. we have not had other republican presidents who have specialized in such moral hijinks as trump before, and i suspect we won't again. i don't think it has changed the republican party. trump has adopted the republican domestic agenda except for smaller government, but other republicans are talking about -- are not talking about that either. trade, you can have a big difference, particularly with nafta. i think nafta was a good treaty,
5:32 pm
and they are trying to get a new one. i am afraid they can screw that up. china is a big problem, the one thing steve bannon was right about. china had so many different trade barriers, and the u.s. does get a bad deal on it. but the chinese are not going to give away anything easily. trump is right. i read these things about foreign-policy, the europeans are going to stand up to trump. no they aren't. they are going to find a way to deal with him. europeans -- what have they done? i don't want to give them too much credit. [laughter] >> in terms of policy, i think the party has changed more than
5:33 pm
trump has. there was already a big fight on immigration inside the party. if you want to look at the future and see how that can be sympathized -- someone like tom cotton, who is a little more of a hawk on immigration without the temperament problems of trump. but what is happening to the republican party? is it shrinking so badly? that is why i think you should read this issue of "the weekly standard." ben schapiro does a good job of laying this out. they focused on policy, policy, policy, and voters under 40 are pretty appalled by the erotic temperament for my moral character and they are fleeing the party. -- erratic temperament and immoral character and they are fleeing the party.
5:34 pm
is that going to happen in 2018, and 2020? do things snap back because we are so polarized over policy and that eventually people -- i don't know. we don't know. bill: policy is not were most voters decide to go and how to vote. ben made a point that the party you affiliate with in many ways states your values. i think for young people, it is certainly true that these moral questions about affairs and about lying about them have an impact on the way young people who are coming up into politics and societies and looking for direction, it turns them off. that has implications beyond whatever tax policy is today, because it could always change with a new president, a new
5:35 pm
congress, whatever. i think longer-term problems are something that are not necessarily -- i don't think the republican party has internalized the effects that trump will have on them. bill: immigration would be a very good issue where a huge generation gap appears in the polling, and it would seem that trump has a diminishing coalition of older people on his side. that's where i think trump on daca, on the kids, could actually go liberal and cut a deal and i would not be that surprised. fred: the democratic resistance is about not cutting any deals with trump. bill: they are foolish. we talk about that on the next panel. the democrats get a say too here. how crazy do they go? are they clever in triangulating? john: on immigration, that is something where trump would have made a deal.
5:36 pm
he would have given anything for the wall. give me my beautiful wall. i think democrats would have given him that. he would say we have to curtail chain migration. this is a bigger priority. this is one instance where a close advisor to trump convinced him to insist on this policy where the democrats were to blame for it. i am not passing judgment. fred: i am willing to. [laughter] bill: let's stop here. this will segue nicely into the discussion into the future of the conservative movement on our next panel. [applause] back next week from its memorial day work period. the u.s. senate returns monday to discuss president trump's
5:37 pm
judicial nominations. the house is back tuesday to work on its first federal spending bills for 2019. funding the energy and veterans affairs departments and house operations. members will also work on legislation to reauthorize water infrastructure projects. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and of the senate on c-span2. c-span's "washington journal." live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, discusses u.s.n transatlantic relations. bloomberg's suzanne woolley talks about retirement planning and financial literacy. utah republican senator mike lee discusses his new book.
5:38 pm
be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal." live thursday morning. join the discussion. >> now a discussion on a mental health and the criminal justice system. analyst looked at judicial reforms in indianapolis and heard from the cities that the police chief, director of public health and safety, and a criminal court judge. this was hosted by new york university law school's center on the administration of criminal law. >> we are going to get started. you know what they do at my three-year-old school? this anybody else have that two fingers? i want to introduce this next panel. i think if i set it to most of the folks sitting in the room today, when you think about criminal justice reform, was the first place you think about? i don't know that anybody would say indianapolis.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on