this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. we'll begin today's show with the former fbi director's extraordinary testimony. >> lordy, i hope there are tapes. >> what to make of jim comey's tough words and where will they lead? >> the russians interfered in our election. >> i have top former intelligence officials and legal minds to discuss it all. >> then, the stunning results of the british election. a dramatic setback for the conservatives and prime minister may. how long will she be able to

hold on? >> also, as america withdraws from its role as global leader, somebody needs to step in. can that be canada? foreign minister chrystia freeland gives a striking speech this week. she joins me to explain what she sees as canada's new global role. and qatar, a peninsula nation not twice the size of delaware, it's also home to a crucial american air base. so why is the rest of the gulf turning against it? what in the world. i will explain. >> but first, here's my take. the most troubling statement i heard on thursday was not from former fbi director james comey. his testimony was riveting, credible, and disturbing. but what worried me were words spoken not in the imposing rooms of capitol hill but rather across town in the windowless conference facilities of the omni shoreham hotel.

at a meeting of conservatives and evangelicals, donald trump reacted to the comey testimony and more broadly to the 0 investigations into his campaign and administration. we're under siege, he declared, and added, we know how to fight better than anybody, and we never, ever would give up. well, we now know what the first year of the trump presidency, at least, is going to look like. the administration faces serious investigations by senate and house committees. and by special counsel robert mueller. these will be long, complex, and detailed, following all leads and involving dozens of people. trump's response appears to be to fight. when ronald reagan faced an investigation into his administration over the iran contra affair, he cooperated completely. >> you deserve the truth. >> perhaps conscious of the example of nixon obstructing the watergate investigations, reagan ordered that all relevant files

be made available and allowed his senior officials to testify freely, even when the testimony was damning toward the administration and even him personally. the result -- a serious policy error was exposed and the administration's deception was assailed, but reagan was able to weather the storm. trump appears less likely to follow the reagan model. he is a fighter, but more importantly, he does not have much regard for these independent institutions that make up the american system. whether they be courts and judges, government agencies and the free press, trump has always viewed them simply as obstacles in the way of him winning. as he said on thursday, we are winners, and we are going to fight. for trump, winning justifies everything. when the conservative editorial board of the "wall street journal" asked him days after his election if some of his campaign rhetoric had gone too far, his response was simple and telling.

no, i won. in other words, the ends justified the means. but liberal democracy is premised on the notion that the ends do not justify the means. that respecting the institutions, norms, and procedures of the american system of government is more important than winning. even if you are the president. my real fear is not that the investigations will yield something. it is that if the investigations yield something, donald trump's response might be to fight and fight dirty. no matter the cost to american democracy. now, let's get started. we are going to have a debate on the legal issues that arose out of the comey hearings in a few moments. first, i want to bring in james woolsey to talk about what he heard and saw.

woolsey was cia director under president bill clinton. more recently, he was a senior adviser on national security to donald trump's campaign and transition. he quit the transition team in early january. james woolsey joins me now here in new york. jim, what was your reaction to james comey's testimony? >> i found it worrisome. because we kind of know how to argue with one another in madison structure in this country with the legislature going one way and the white house going another and battles. it's what we do. and madison planned it that way. we haven't had any dictatorships and that was the purpose. but it works partly because most americans, even if they did not support the president in an election, the person who won, they still have a certain allegiance to the presidency and

the president symbolizes the country and so forth. and that's not really functioning that way here. >> you saw that in comey's testimony how? >> well, i find it amazing that he would take detailed notes of a meeting with the president and then leak them to a friend who's %-p them to the press. >> but let me just interrupt you. >> amazing. >> he insists, i think by obligation, the word leak is not appropriate. he was a private citizen. let me present his argument. he was a private citizen. these were notes recollecting his conversation with the president. they were not classified. a private citizen is allowed to share his notes, you know, in a conversation with any government official with a friend, with the press. leaking involves disclosing classified government information in an unauthorized way, as you well know having

been director of the cia. >> not all leaks have to be classified. there are a number of things that are extremely sensitive without reaching the technical requirements for classification. i just found it stunning that he would, i think, give up the secrecy of a conversation with the president of the united states. i have worked for four presidents in different capacities, and not everything you talk to them about is classified. but i think that that really symbolizes, to me, where we have come in this battle that is internal to one of the branches. it's not a madisonian struggle between, but inside the executive branch. >> couldn't somebody say donald trump is supposed to be this great leader. why can't he control his own executive branch? >> i think in part what's happened is that people who

opposed him and who opposed his general approach to things and some don't oppose his policies as much as they oppose his personality, has created a situation where we are not focusing on the things that we have to focus on. take russia, for example. we have a situation where russia is never not interfering with our elections. and with the elections of other democratic states. they call it disinformation. >> but didn't it strike you, jim, as odd? i agree with you, i thought the most interesting testimony that comey gave was when he was asked, do you have any doubt that russia was involved in interfering in the election? he said none, and he said they did it with purpose. they did it with sophistication. they did it with overwhelming technical effort. they will be back. they're coming after america. now, comey had nine meetings

with donald trump. he had only two with president obama in all the years that obama was president. in those nine meetings, in the first 100 days, he was asked, did trump ever ask him about russia and the russian interference? he said no. isn't that odd? >> well, he didn't have any precise questions on what was in front of him right at that time, but it is certainly something that we have to get our hands on. and we have to do it now because the next time the russians will try to interfere with our elections is a year and a half from now. we are going to lose our ability to elect our leaders if we don't understand this and deal with it. >> very quickly, we have 30 seconds. what would you do about this problem of leaking and things? is there some -- >> we have to get the executive branch and particularly the intelligence community and the law enforcement community pulled together, working together, and behind the president in pulling

things into a working order. we don't have that now. and i think some elements of both the intelligence community and certainly the law enforcement community have veered off looking into their own interests and not looking into the interests of the country. this has to get repaired and repaired rather quickly. >> former director cia james comey -- jim woolsey. another jim. thank you, sir. >> next on "gps," laurence tribe and elizabeth foley go head to head on the legal issues that arose from the comey hearing. could comey be charged with a crime? could the president be charged with a crime? when you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, the unpredictability of a flare may weigh on your mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go, and how to work around your uc. that's how i thought it had to be. but then i talked to my doctor about humira,

and learned humira can help get and keep uc under control... when certain medications haven't worked well enough. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. raise your expectations and ask your gastroenterologist if humira may be right for you. with humira, control is possible.

"how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business. tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass, you get time for more life. this family wanted to keep the game going. son: hey mom, one more game? tech: with safelite, you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. mom: sure. bring it! tech: i'm micah with safelite. mom: thanks for coming, it's right over here.

tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care! family: bye! kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace. you're going to be hanging out in here. so if you need anything, text me. do you play? ♪ ♪ use the chase mobile app to send money in just a tap, to friends at more banks then ever before.

you got next? chase. helping you master what's now and what's next. rumor confirmed. they're playing. -what? -we gotta go. -where? -san francisco. -when? -friday. we gotta go. [ tires screech ] any airline. any hotel. any time. go where you want, when you want with no blackout dates. [ muffled music coming from club. "blue monday" by new order. cheers. ] ♪ how does it feel the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. it's travel, better connected.

could president trump be charged with obstruction of justice? were comey's leaks totally illegal, as a trump tweet this morning seems to ask. those are just some of the legal issues raised by thursday's riveting hearings. to answer them, we have elizabeth foley who teaches constitutional law at florida international university and laurence tribe is a professor of constitutional law at harvard university. larry tribe, let me start with you. alan dershowitz has achieved some prominence recently by making the case what donald trump did may have politically deeply unwise, wrong, but it was not illegal or unconstitutional. you teach constitutional law at harvard university. what is your judgment? >> my judgment is that alan dershowitz is wrong. it's not even a close question. of course, we don't have all the facts, but his position is the facts don't matter.

the president simply cannot be guilty of obstructing justice because as head of the executive branch, he can completely control any prosecution. the supreme court has twice rejected that view. unanimously in the nixon case, by a vote of 8-1 in the morrison case. the fact is that the president has all kinds of powers, but if he abuses them, for example, by accepting a bribe from russia or any of a number of other things, if he does in a corrupt way or with threats of the kind that he made to comey about his retaining his job, if in either of those ways he interferes with the due administration of justice, that would be obstruction of justice, even under the federal criminal statutes of 18-usc section 1503, but even more important, it would be an abuse of power that

could be an impeachable offense. it's more serious than what nixon did. it's really impossible to argue that no obstruction of justice could be present here. the facts, if they are as the very credible jim comey suggested, point powerfully to obstruction of justice and abuse of power. and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. if you look at all the facts. but i'll stop here. i know we have a limited time. >> professor foley, what do you say to that? there are these two supreme court rulings that pretty clearly say in the nixon case and in the one that essentially established the independent council, that the president can't just do whatever he wants even though he is the head of the executive branch. >> look, i tend to agree with professor dershowitz on the constitutional questions, but i look at this as a lawyer would look at it. i practice law in addition to teaching constitutional law. and there's a doctrine called the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which means that the courts will first look to the applicable obstruction statutes,

and if they can decide the question under the statutes, they won't reach the larger constitutional question. so let's look at those statutes. for example, professor tribe cited a statute. there are two different obstruction statutes. they deal with obstruction of investigations and obstructions of proceedings. one section, section 1510, for example, deals with obstruction of criminal investigations. so you would say to yourself, hey, this is a criminal investigation by the fbi. maybe it's a violation of that statute. but no, you look at the statute, the statute requires an act of corruption that constitutes bribery that prevents the communication of information about a crime to a criminal investigator. even if you think there's an act of implicit bribery here, there's no impeding of a communication about a crime to a criminal investigator. so 1510 is off the table.

then you look at 1503 which professor tribe just cited or maybe 1510, or 1512, all of which deal with obstruction of pending proceedings. the word proceeding is a legal term of art. it does not include an fbi investigation. and every single court that has looked at that question has said an fbi investigation is not a pending proceeding within the meaning of the obstruction statutes. >> all right, let me get larry tribe in here because we're on television and this might be getting too technical. >> well, i obviously don't agree. i don't agree. i'm a lawyer, too. i have read those statutes. 1503 isn't limited in the way that elizabeth says. but there are bigger questions here. the broad question of abuse of power, to which she doesn't speak. i think clearly, there is enough here for the congress to go forward and for mueller to go forward, as i think he is doing.

>> professor foley, let me ask you about another issue. something that struck me during the hearings was the role of jeff sessions. jim comey seemed to suggest that the attorney general -- that the fbi already knew that the attorney general was compromised, that he was going to have to recuse himself. does it strike you as, i don't know what the right word would be, but a violation of his pledge to recuse himself from anything relating to russia for jeff sessions to have then involved himself in the firing of jim comey, apparently over the russia investigation. >> look, i don't know -- >> it certainly does. are you asking -- >> let's start with professor foley. >> i'm sorry. look, i don't know without knowing the parameters exactly of jeff sessions' recusal. i would like to look at the language associated with that. let me go back to the point about the obstruction statute. you opening statement said we need to care about process and the rule of law. if you care about process and the rule of law, and this is not

just about the ends justifying the means and taking down a president that you don't like, then you need to care about what the statutes of obstruction say in this country. and i'm telling you that section 1503 has been interpreted by every court to be limited to a pending judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. an fbi investigation is not that, so there is simply no violation of any existing statute under the facts as we know it right now. if those facts on the ground change, i'll be the first one to concede that there may be an applicable pending charge. to try to trump up an obstruction of justice statue is not the rule of law in this country. >> i like the pun. professor, it's a political process, impeachment by the house is not a purely legal process, but i want to ask you about a legal issue, which is perjury. if donald trump does agree to go

through a sworn testimony, given his past statements where there have been many contradictions, is there a potential for him to perjure himself. i'm thinking of the clinton case where eventually all they could get him on was perjury. >> i think there's serious potential. i must say, just being blunt about it, that perjury about a blow job is not nearly as serious as perjury about russian attack on our democracy. talk about the end not justifying the means. it seems to me this is clearly a case where if you look at the constitution, which you cannot avoid under some principle of avoidance, even if the statutes as properly read don't outlaw what donald trump did, there are lot of things you can do that aren't covered by statutes, violating the establishment clause with his travel ban, violating the emoluments clause, as i think he did. even if the statutes don't cover it, we have the broader question

of whether the political process of impeachment should deal with a president who knows no limits of the sort we need to preserve our constitutional republic. >> i notice professor foley nodding slightly, so i'll take that temporary moment of agreement as the moment we have to stop. we will be back with both of you. this was a fascinating legal discussion. thank you both. when we come back, from trump to brexit. britain and that nation's unexpected election results this week. what happened? what does it mean to the future of populism? i'll talk to the man who plotted two conservative victories in a row when we come back. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home...

...with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. neulasta helps reduce infection risk by boosting your white blood cell count, which strengthens your immune system. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. peobut they're different.ind it's nice to remove artificial ingredients. kind never had to.

we choose real ingredients like almonds, peanuts and a drizzle of dark chocolate. give kind a try. ♪ so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian. i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most

important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.

the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. in april, prime minister theresa may called for new parliamentary elections expecting her conservative party to gain more seats and thus give her a stronger hand in executing britain's exit from the european

union. well, when brits went to the polls on thursday, what she got was a weaker hand, much weaker. her party lost 13 seats and with it their majority status. she is still cobbling together a coalition. what does it all mean? joining me now is the man who brought the conservatives to victory twice, the first victory for david cameron into 10 downing street. the second kept him there. cameron, in turn, made george osborne the uk's finance minister. osbourne is now the editor of london's "evening standard," and he joins us now from london. george, let me ask you, may seemed to be riding a wave of populism. she distanced herself from cameron and you. presented herself as in favor of brexit, against some of the excesses of free market capitalism, as she saw it. what went wrong?

>> well, good to be on the show, fareed. i mean, a number of things. the campaign was very wooden. she didn't connect with voters. the party's platform had a couple of policies in it which really put off elderly voters. but i think the big picture is the conservative party, and i'm a conservative, i voted conservative. i wanted the conservatives to do well, but the conservatives made a pitch essentially for the white working class who had previously been labor supporters but may have voted for brexit. in reaching for those voters, a, failed to get them, and b, put off metropolitan small l liberal minded voters who previously supported us, and the consequence was, as you say, a political gamble that spectacularly misfired. >> what happens now that she has allied herself with a small right-wing party that is socially very reactionary and sort of runs against the entire

15-year project of modernizing the conservative party that you and david cameron engaged in? this is a party that a conservative columnist today called homophobic, creationist, you know, will that tar the conservatives' image? >> you're right to say that the british conservative party and this doesn't always translate across the atlantic, but the british conservative party has been very socially liberal. for example, we introduced gay marriage, and as a result, more than half of the gay population in britain voted conservative at the 2015 election. as i say, not something that is widely understood in the united states, but i think has been a key to our success. the problem is the current conservative leadership was taking our party away from the socially and economically liberal kind of european sense free market, pro-business but also not socially conservative platform that i think had done us very well. we're now in a situation where it's a hung parliament. no one has an overall majority,

and the only way the conservative party can stay in office is to ally itself with a small northern irish party that is quite socially conservative, as you say. there's not as if there's another government out there. the math doesn't work for the labor party. what i think this really means is unstable government, unfortunately. it probably means the end of mrs. may as the conservative party prime minister, although that won't necessarily happen immediately, and it will mean a lot of hard thinking in the conservative party about how to recover all of this lost ground. >> and what do you think it means, george, for populism? has populism peaked? if you think about the dutch elections, the french elections and now these ones. it does seem that some of the fire has gone away. >> well, it certainly in britain seems to be more of a return to classic left/right politics. although the left leader, the labour leader is similar to

bernie sanders in his approach, and you could call that left-wing populism, although i personally believe if labor had a more credible and centrist candidate, there would now be a labor prime minister in britain. one piece of good news is this whole election has put pay in my view to the idea of a hard brexit. i don't think the votes are there now in the house of commons because the conservatives have lost their majority for taking britain out of all of the economic arrangements we have with the european union. it's not clear what takes its place, but certainly, i think we're now on course for a softer brexit than would have been the case a week ago. >> is that possible? because the europeans certainly want it to be a hard brexit as well. they want to make clear there is a difference between being in the european union and out. and they will not give britain a soft deal, something that is almost the same as having been a

member of the european union. >> well, i certainly agree with you that the europeans aren't going to cut any special deals for britain. although i think it would be helpful if everyone took in a deep breath and thought what was the best thing for the continent of europe given that britain is such an important economy and such an important security partner. that's not the atmosphere of the moment, partly because britain has adopted a very aggressive stance, or at least the british government has, and the europeans have responded in kind. it is worth remembering you can be in the european union, you can be out of the european union, but you can also be in the single market and not in the european market. norway is a case in point. you can have bilateral agreements with the european union, as switzerland does. you can be in the customs union as turkey is. there are a number of different options out there that other european countries not in the eu have adopted and it's worth britain now exploring the options, something theresa may and her team were not prepared to do just a few days ago.

>> the "wall street journal," which i realize is nonvoting media in britain, recommends that you take over, that theresa may has shown that her brand of conservatism doesn't work. and suggested you should essentially quit your job, probably run for election and challenge her for leadership. will you? >> i'm enjoying editing the london "evening standard" which is a big newspaper over here in britain. i want to go on making the argument with the newspaper and on programs like this, essentially for a british conservatism that is outward looking, internationalist, is optimistic about the future. whilst at the same time helps those who feel left behind by globalization, but doesn't completely reorientate itself towards their concerns. i think if we do that, we will lose the urban support that has been so important for the success of british conservatism. so i don't really mind which platform i make the case from.

but i'm arguing for that kind of conservatism. >> as a private citizen. pleasure to have you on, george osborne. >> thank you. next on "gps," a new middle east crisis. arab nations ganging up on one of their own. what in the world is going on with qatar? i'll explain when we come back. so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited.

plus, get our best smartphones for just $15 a month. with all the things you'll never learn from a book. expedia. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better. fromi wanted to seeved, this great country. my last wish is for you to do it for me, as a family. love, grandpa.

♪ let us be lovers, we'll marry our fortunes together ♪ older grandaughter: it'll be alright. i know. grandson: how did you meet grandpa? grandmother: actually on a blind date. [ laughter ] i wish he was on the trip with us. he's sitting right between the boys in the back of the car. [ laughter ] ♪ america ♪ all come to look for america ♪ all come to look for america life's as big as you make it. the all-new 7-seater volkswagen atlas with america's best bumper-to-bumper limited warranty.

i am totally blind. i lost my sight in afghanistan. if you're totally blind, you may also be struggling with non-24. calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com. rumor confirmed. they're playing. -what? -we gotta go. -where? -san francisco. -when? -friday. we gotta go. [ tires screech ] any airline. any hotel. any time. go where you want, when you want with no blackout dates. [ muffled music coming from club. "blue monday" by new order. cheers. ] ♪ how does it feel the travel rewards credit card from bank of america.

it's travel, better connected. the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. i decided to see if there was a way for design to play a... ...positive role in what was going on in the world. there's a jacket that's reflective for visibility... ...a sleeping bag jacket, jackets that turn into tents. i usually do my fashion sketches on the computer. i love drawing on the screen. there's no lag time at all. it feels just like my markers. with fashion, you can dress people and help people. it's really cool to see your work come to life. now for our "what in the world" segment. donald trump returned from his first overseas trip convinced he had unified america's historic arab allies, a blow against terrorism, and calmed the waters of an unruly middle east. since then, we have seen a

series of islamist terror attacks in europe and the middle east and an open split within the arab world with saudi arabia leading a group of countries to break off relations with qatar this week. what is going on? the premise of trump's strategy was to support saudi arabia fully in the belief that it would be able to fight terror and stabilize the region. in fact, trump gave a green light to the saudis to pursue their increasingly aggressive sectarian foreign policy. the first element of that policy has been to ex-communicate its longtime rival qatar. the saudis have always viewed qatar as a troublesome neighbor and are infuriated by their efforts to play a regional and global role by hosting large american military bases, founding the al jazeera television network, and planning to hosting the 2022 world cup, and punching above its weight diplomatically. it's true that qatar has supported some extremist islamist movements. so has saudi arabia. both have within them extremist

preachers. both are widely believed to have armed islamic groups in syria and elsewhere. their differences, in other words, are really geopolitical, though often dresses up as idealogical. the open spread between the two countries will create much greater regional instability. qatar will move closer to iran and turkey, forging deeper alliances with anti-saudi groups. the battles between various factions of militants and syria, iraq, yemen, and north africa, will heat up. the terror attacks in tehran on wednesday for which isis has claimed responsibility, are viewed in iran as being part of a saudi-inspired campaign against it. we should expect iranian-backed militias will respond somewhere and some way. so much for regional stability. and america is in the middle of all this, keeping close relations with saudi arabia and the united arab emirates while directing u.s. regional military operations out of its base in qatar. trump has issued anti-qatar

tweets and complained about the country at a press conference on friday, but american troops will have to live with the reality that qatar is their host and close military ally in the war against isis. for a superpower, the best policy in the middle east has always been to maintain ties with all regional players. one of the great successes of richard nixon and henry kissinger's policies is they were able to would egypt into the american sphere while simultaneously preserving an alliance with the shah of iran. two seismic events altered the middle east. the first was the iranian revolution of 1979. which ushered a radical revisionist power into the region, and then triggered a reaction from countries like saudi arabia. iran's promise to spread its version of islam led the saudis to ramp up their own efforts to spread their own ideas and influence. the next earthquake was the

american-led invasion of iraq in 2003. which destabilized the fundamental balance of power. you see, iran's ambitions had always been kept in check by s saddam hussein's iraq, which had fought a bloody eight-year war against it. with saddam gone, iran's influence began to spread in the region, especially within the shiites of iraq where it is now the most important external influence on the baghdad government. if the trump administration wants stability in the middle east, it should help to broker a new balance of power. this cannot happen purely on saudi terms. iran is a major player with real influence and its role will have to be recognized. the longer washington waits to do this, the longer the instability will grow. donald trump recently learned that health care is complicated. well, welcome to the middle east. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed, and read my "washington post" column. next on "gps," as america withdraws from its role as global leader, somebody needs to step in.

can that be canada? foreign minister chrystia freeland gives a striking speech this week. she joins me to explain what she sees as canada's new global role. think again. this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.

daily life a guessing game. and bloating made will i have pain and bloating today? my doctor recommended ibgard to manage my ibs. take control. ask your doctor about nonprescription ibgard. last week, when president trump decided to withdraw from the paris climate change agreement, i said the move symbolized that the united states was essentially retiring from its role as global leader. i was intrigued this week to hear somebody essentially offer to take up that mantle. chrystia freeland is canada's foreign minister. and in a strong, important speech to her nation's parliament, she said canada was deeply disappointed by the president's climate decision, although she didn't mention him by name, and provided a

solution. minister freeland suggested the ways canada could step up its global leadership. she joins me now. welcome. >> great to be with you, fareed. >> you spoke in the speech almost elegiacally about the important role america had played in creating and sustaining this open international order. but you think it's basically moved on, that american has withdrawn from the world? >> it's not my job to make predictions, fareed. i did say in my speech, and i mean this so sincerely, how grateful i am, how grateful canada is for the tremendous role the united states has played over the past 70 years in building this rules-based liberal international order. first of all, i think we maybe don't say that often enough to our american friends. and i also think that people of

my generation and perhaps yours, fareed, we were lucky to be born into these 70 fat years. and i'm not sure we always fully appreciate what the peace and prosperity was that that liberal rules-based international order created. and really what i said to canadians this week is let's not take that for granted. as a country, we ca nad yannadi have to set our own sovereign course and that is to double down on that order. we helped to build it in the post war period and we are really committed as a country to doubling down to help to renew it, to help to make it even stronger in the 21st century and doing things like being strongly

committed to the paris accord and to fighting one of the great new nemesis we're aware of today which is climate change. that's where canada absolute stands. >> why dow think there is such resonance for the idea of america first, of withdrawing from the war? there's always been an isolationist streak in the united states. you're a student of this. but you're also dealing with the political system in canada. do you feel that same pull where maybe working class people feel the system hasn't delivered for them recently and so they just want to tear it down? >> i think that is an excellent point. and i actually addressed domestic economic policy in my speech this week which is not that usual for a foreign policy speech, but i strongly agree with what you said, fareed. i think that the middle class here in canada as in many other western industrialized countries, including the united states, is feeling hollowed out.

it's feeling betrayed by this global economic order. and what i believe, what my government believes, what we say to canadians is it is not, you know, blaming foreigners is always easy. foreigners always make an easy target. but whether it is trade deals or immigrants, they are not to blame for the problems of our middle class. we really believe that the solution lies in domestic policy. if you are shooting for the wrong target, you're not going to get a solution that works. >> do you worry that as the united states does seem to be retreating, you know, america first, it will cause a lot of instability? there are parts of the world where america's guarantees, its activism has had the act of calming the waters. if it withdraws, are we in for a

rocky ride? >> we recognize the role the united states has played in maintaining this rules based liberal international order and in building it. and, you know, as canadians, the argument that i want to make, you know, to my american friends is to say we know that for canada this international order has hugely benefited us and we are committed to building it to restoring it for the 21st century. we think that it has brought great benefits to the united states too. and we really think it's too -- it benefits the united states to really stay at the table. and as you said, fareed, our prime minister said we're deeply disappointed about the paris accords. we just look forward to continuing to work with our american partners. the world needs the united states and we think the united states stands to benefit a great deal really by maintaining its leadership role in the world. >> but if not, you think countries like canada and

britain and france might be the new leaders of the western world? >> well, what i said to canadians this week, fareed, is we need to chart as canadians, our own clear and sovereign course. every country makes its own national decisions. we're lucky to live in a democracy, america's lucky to be a democracy. it's for the american people to choose their course. equally it's for the canadian people to choose our course. >> foreign minister of canada, great to have you on. one nation as a plan to get rid of the gas guzzlers by selling only electric cars. it will surprise you to learn the name of that nation whch. when we come back. okay. got it.

rumor confirmed. they're playing. -what? -we gotta go. -where? -san francisco. -when? -friday. we gotta go. [ tires screech ] any airline. any hotel. any time. go where you want, when you want with no blackout dates. [ muffled music coming from club. "blue monday" by new order. cheers. ] ♪ how does it feel the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. it's travel, better connected. peobut they're different.ind it's nice to remove artificial ingredients. kind never had to. we choose real ingredients like almonds, peanuts and a drizzle of dark chocolate. give kind a try. ♪ ♪ ♪ isaac hou has mastered gravity defying moves to amaze his audience.

great show. here you go. now he's added a new routine. making depositing a check seem so effortless. easy to use chase technology, for whatever you're trying to master. isaac, are you ready? yeah. chase. so you can. ♪ i wanti did my ancestrydna and where i came from. and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american.

i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.

yogig-speed internet.me? you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh. sure. still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too. . now for some good news for the environment for a change. one country, the world's third largest oil importer, and a top coal consumer, recently announced an ambitious plan for electric car sales.

it brings me to my question. which country recently announced plans to sell only electric cars by 2030? china, india, russia, or japan? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is graham allison's "destined for war". the biggest question in international affairs is will the united states and china clash in the way all rising and established powers have done through history? an imminent harvard scholar considers this question, examines the history, and comes to some fine conclusions. a very smart, well written and important book. the correct answer to the gps challenge question is b, india. by 2030 every car sold will be l electric. if india is successful it will

save the country $60 billion in energy cost. they will facilitate the switch by offering subsidies until the cars pay for themselves. some are skeptical that india will achieve such a lofty goal, but we have to wish them well. thank you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello, everyone. thank you so much for joining me. i'm fredricka whitfield. u.s. attorney general jeff sessions getting ready to be in the hot seat this week testifying tuesday before the senate intelligence committee. sessions will lyingly face tough questions over his alleged contacts with the russian ambassador. the big question now, will that testimony be public or private? cnn has learned the attorney general testimony will likely be in a closed session, but the committee will make the final determination. the move comes as the white house continues to deal with the fallout from james comey