to come out of nowhere and six months later george bush got into office and alan greenspan shortly started to lower interest rates. i remember a quote at the time that alan greenspan on into-- which were basically low taxes,

economy to the peak of the business cycle in the 80's are the '70s and does not particularly impressive. what did increase was consumption because we had trillions of dollars, $10 trillion to stock bubble well. that collapsed in 2002 and gave us the recession in the 01 and then to keep the economy going to boost the economy. eventually but that the economy going with the housing bubble so we went from one bubble to the other. what we would have liked to have seen as the dollar falls so that our goods became more competitive internationally. when you have an overvalued currency and i will say that the

dollar is overvalued 20 a 30%, it is the exact same thing is if we had a subsidy of its one-year 30% on all the imports to come into the jana and we put a tariff, a tax on all exports. what you think is going to happen if we subsidize imports and put a tariff on our exports? rather than deal with the overvalued currency we have this talk, the strong dollar, blah, blah, blah and what that meant his we lost millions of manufacturing jobs and that set up the situation where we were losing a good thing jobs but also we are sustaining the economy with this bubble that of course is going to burst and that is what i get so mad at people like ben bernanke. most economists, god knows what on earth was going through their heads as they watch the bubble keep grow and grow and grow and said everything was okay. now they are surprised fukuda

agnone? that is a joke we have around washington. anyone who is doing their job should have known. >> host: amity shlaes anything there you want to address? >> guest: i think it is important to think about the interplay between the war in domestic policy because it is true the government can think about two things at once. it cannot walk and chew gum at the same time and when you have a distraction, whether you believe it is something we should invest then, afghanistan, iraq, the government does not think well about what is going on at home so if you called on our various leaders that the fed or at the white house over time under, in this period under president bush,'s september 11 you would say are you concerned about fannie mae? they would say absolutely, here's the data and they are going out of control, fannie and freddie and we will be have legislation about it. did the right legislation come

to pass? nolan they think a lot of that had to do with concern about international and concern about the war. one of the casualties of war is that it is hard to do domestic reform during the war but we all knew that fannie and freddie were a problem. that and the problem was uber only paying episodic attention to them instead of sustained attention and that is a matter of political will. >> guest: the worst loans or not fannie and freddie. the worst loans were coming from goldman sachs, citigroup. fannie and freddie were relatively late to the game in terms of worst loans. i was critical of them at the time, but in terms of the worst actors in this story they were the private issuers of mortgage-backed securities. >> host: ms. shlaes? >> guest: i would disagree with that. i think the notion of housing and to own a house as a

privilege but it is morphed into an entitlement in the u.s.. we speak of ownership and the general sense. we don't really take property seriously and that contributed mightily first to people being willing to take the sub-prime loans, a 40 year mortgage is assuming they would always be able to pay, assuming they could throw the keys in the mailbox and start over. it is a different notion in which we corrupt and it was central to the whole story, combining with the ratings agencies, combining with international capital with a pool of money flowing in but the ownership and the prospect of economy when it became flog that contributed to the crisis. >> guest: these loans are being backed by countrywide. >> guest: this is also about our decisions as individuals, what do we sign? are we infants or are we adults? we signed things that makes sense that to do with their financial future. we are not such fools that we

can beat dupes in we can all just assign blame to individuals. this is a lot to dean about individual responsibility. >> guest: my point is this was and fannie and freddie. it was goldman sachs and-- >> guest: fannie and freddie through their web site and culture promulgated the data leak diary of the american dream that the idea-- >> guest: if you want to blame them for promoting the dream that is fine. >> host: i think we are going to have to leave the discussion for a later time. very quickly to both of you, did you know each other before tonight and have you read each other's books are materials? >> guest: i have read some of them in the's books. i think we have been on radio shows. >> guest: i have read much of being's work and i admire his perseverance and his center. >> host: amity shlaes, the most recent book is "the forgotten man," the industry the great depression and the bacon's

most recent book is "false profits," recovering from the bubble economy and they have joined us from our new york studio here on booktv. they are both working on the books. amity shlaes.com, american prossed.org are the two web sites. thank you very much. we appreciate it. we have two more hours of booktv tonight in coming up in just a minute is tim carney on his new book, "obamanomics" and then falling back is an aftermath we just take about a book that was just released yesterday. this is called death of american virtue, clinton versus starr. it is ken marlee-- lorilee boss book. it talks about that period of history during the clinton impeachment era. so those are the next two hours of booktv coming up tonight. if you want to follow booktv update's you can go to

twitter.com/booktv. that is their address and we send out of dates throughout do we can certainly over the weekend when booktv airs on c-span2 for 48 hours. thanks for war is tomorrow night in their discussion will be on the afghanistan war from 8:00 to 9:00 eastern time and now here is tim carney. ..

regulations when that has the opposite effect. let me tell you one quick reading from "obamanomics." it says nike makes good shoes but its leadership in the market as a result of the company's image. michael jordan, tiger woods the trademark swoosh, image may not be everything but it's the biggest thing so when nike gets up its seat on the u.s. chamber of commerce in protest of the chamber's opposition to waxman-markey it would be easy to conclude the company was brash and its image. after all the firm had already invested a small fortune to replace the sulfur hexafluoride, which is a potent greenhouse gas, and its nike air shoes with nitrogen. but some inconvenient facts

belie nike's green image, mainly that emissions from the manufacturing and logistics according to an annual report went up 62% from 1998 to 2005. that's because nike is making a vast majority of apparel overseas primarily in asia and shipping it and their plants don't have the sort of environmental controls that american plans do. conveniently of these factories will be on tv, did with legislation currently before congress, the waxman-markey bill is one of them in the name of global warming. contrast, nike's competitor, new balance, makes the best running shoes in new england so waxman-markey would regulate new balance emissions but not nike's. in other words, waxman-markey, the global warming bill before congress would drive up a new balance's cost but not nike's. nike may want to save the planet but its support for climate change looks like what i call

regulatory robbery. this is where you see a company that lobbies for an environmental bill in a way that it won't affect its cost at all but affect its competitors' cost, hurting its competitors, helping its own profits and getting good press for standing up for the environment. and all the environmental types say why would i care if it's good for the planet and nike is making a profit how does that affect me? i will bring another example though, alcoa, it used to be called the aluminum company of america largest aluminum in the world. it's also lobbying for these environmental restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the name of global warming alcoa happens to make aluminum car frames, aluminum car frames just as strong but much lighter in the sealed car frames. high-quality performance the pay of four will have aluminum trays as opposed as steel, aluminum costs more to mix of the effect on u.s. consumer or auto makers

of the environmental regulations whether it is fuel efficiency standards for global warming regulations it is to drive up the cost of buying a skill card which makes you likely to buy an aluminum frame car if you are in all the maker so it makes your life more expensive and helps alcoa but it makes most of its aluminum and manufacturing most of car from down in australia where it has successfully lobbied to kill the global warming build on their and the making of follow my mom is a much more energy intensive process than the manufacturer of steel or a steel frame car and the chemical processes that go into it necessarily produce greenhouse gases so if you took the whole process of making a car from out of aluminum and then see how much energy it saves by being a lighter it might be worse for the environment and worse for the co2 emissions than the steel frame once the way the government measures it it helps alcoa, it benefits all, so the profits come in your costs go up

and the environment isn't necessarily benefit. this is what i call regulatory robbery. where you use big government regulations to hurt consumers and hurt small competitors and what i argue in "obamanomics" is that this is something that has gone on for years. business is always using government to its advantage but because obama has embraced a big government control in so many corners of the economy he ends up providing more opportunities for regulatory robbery and subsidizing big business and the nature of washington where i work i covered the street, the lobbying quarter, and the lobbying editor of the washington examiner, and i see that when government is getting bigger that provides more opportunity for the big guys using their lobbying to gain on their advantages over smaller business. so, and i will get to what i a labeth leader what i call the four laws of the obamanomics.

i call them before laws not because obama invented it. let me be clear. george bush by giving the bailouts of wall street sort of transformed our government and economy, the relationship between them to say the government is going to prop up businesses that we think are important and who does the end up being? in a sense of being the business who have access to the law makers who have the best lobbyists. so my book is about obama, he is the current president but as far as the tight relationship between corporations and big government george bush's bailouts was the biggest blow in that direction we've ever seen. but i want to tell you some facts about the 2000 election, the 2008 election so you can start to think about obama in a different light than he's presented himself in the mainstream media. goldman sachs, exxonmobil, microsoft, boeing, pfizer and general electric. these companies are the poster

children for special-interest. they are huge, well-connected corporations. they have something else in common. employees and executives also gave more, much more, to barack obama and john mccain in 2008. now a caveat. obama three's overall which more than mccain. he raised about twice more for a xp8uguds$s'sbd the history --

since i came-feingold. john mccain raised to under 30,000 so from goldman sachs he also praised obama four through kuhl one. look down the line at the wall street industry, obama raised more than any other candidate in history from microsoft and was 10-1 come google something like 10-1 so why did they give this much money to barack obama? were the body him off? that would be the accusation if a republican president every time george bush out least

somebody they said he was being bought off and maybe later in the question period we can debate whether that happened to some degree maybe it did by reporter. i have clear opinions. the mailings, a libertarian same conservative. i put from paul on the cover. i'd very clear i don't believe in government intervention and the economy and almost any situation but i also don't report on things i can't substantiate. i don't know what barack obama's motives were. i'm not going to spend a lot of time guessing. i will assume for the sake of the book for the sake of this talk he is trying to help the country but the net effect of his policies is to end up helping the business this, the lobbies, the most entrenched special interest and most importantly the policies and that hurting consumers, taxpayers from small businesses and consumers. and i guess it consumers place but it hurts them that much. [laughter] but there is behind this to put some context what i call the

four laws at obamanomics. number one, called the inside game. religiously the debate which for business as the best lobbyist is most likely to win the most favorable small print. number two, the overt expression. regulation ads to overhead, the cost of doing business. higher overhead crowds out smaller competitors, prevents startup from entering the industry. number three, bigger companies are often settled by inertia meaning robust competition is a threat. regulations are like raising the basketball hoop to 20 feet at half time protecting the lead of whichever team is ahead. and number 4i called -- number 3a call to gunning up the works. member for clich the confidence game. i write government regulation grants an air of legitimacy to businesses, boosting consumer confidence often beyond what is warranted. so i've got examples of the lot of these. but we talk about the inside game. again he was the best lobbyist

wins. if you don't bring something into the realm of washington, a lobbyist doesn't help. if washington is debating and all of a sudden your ability to afford a better lobbyist helps you saw a great extent was the current health care debate on capitol hill. you have right now the democrats are trying to piece together 60 votes and different lawmakers are asking for this or that. i promise you that at this moment there are hundreds of lobbyists on capitol hill representing mostly industries directly affected by this including employee years, drugmakers and hmos. if you listen to barack obama's rhetoric, what's happening is all the big businesses are saying no, please pass nothing that's not at all what is going on to read and drugmakers have cut a deal and the la times report today and i talk about it in the book that drugmakers cut a deal where drug lobbyists believe toes and sat down with rahm emanuel, the white house chief of staff and said we

promised to support your reform effort on health care if he will make sure the bill doesn't hurt and you won't pursue these policies that will hurt us and sure enough the bill ends up subsidizing that. watch what happens in the last couple days. the one thing the insurance companies fear from the policy is something called the public option. a government insurer to compete with private hmos. that's going to get stripped from the bill. i put 3-1 odds on that and you're going to have to have the other subsidies for insurers such as the individual mandate. so, when the students graduate and go out there if you want to buy a health care plan that is a $5,000 deductible, i will pay for all of life insurance and if i get hit by a car than the insurance will take my big expenses. something like that will become in effect e legal because the mandate that you buy insurance at a certain level and if you want to buy insurance only for catastrophe, that is the sort of

thing that could end up by deleting the individual mandate and he will have to pay a fine for it. they might allow young people to buy catastrophic plans. it would be good for all of you but they are basically -- think about this, requiring everybody to buy the product of the hmos are selling and while they are doing this they are claiming they are leading some crusade against the hmo. the rhetoric doesn't match the facts at all but that is the inside game whenever the initial proposal was from barack obama, whenever he wanted to do and initially proposed what ends of coming out the other end and he's going to sign the deal losses or the rose garden, that bill will benefit whoever has the best lobbyist. that's the way that works on capitol hill. you'll see this with global warming. my favorite example was monsanto to read a company famous for making genetically modified organisms and also -- that's

genetic frankenfood. if you use roundup they make that, they make industrial roundup for farmers where they can spray and kill the weeds that way. they also make genetically modified roundup seeds so you plant the seed and sprayed with chemicals. what this allows you to do is to kill the weeds you don't have to go and tell the feeds as much. it turns out tilling the fields, hoping it, doing whatever releases carbon monoxide into the air and that causes global warming and the sea level rise etc., etc.. so, under the global warming bill that passed the house, waxman-markey, a farmer can earn special greenhouse gas credits for not telling his fields which insured amounts to a few plant the seeds and by the chemicals and use that to control the weeds the government is going to basically pay you for the carvin offsets. carvin offsets themselves are a bit of a farce in themselves.

basically the idea you get paid to plant a tree or do something that sucks carbon dioxide out of the air. there's no way they found to actually got it. sometimes you pay for a carbon offset you are paying for somebody to plant a tree. the idea is it takes the co2 out of here to read my question is what of that tree happens to burn down? how are they going to come back and say your tree burned down and now you have to pay us back for that? that's probably not going to happen. this is another scam. these guys are what you used to call snake oil dealers, people dealing in carbon dioxide of sets. i am all for conservation, but, you know, offsetting the carbon emissions has nothing to do if carbon dioxide it's the fleeing a little a.q. feel good game but you're going to get the carvin offsets under the health care bills because the people who stand to profit them have the best lobbyists and best connection. the second i called the overhead

smash. regulation makes it harder, and makes it costly to do business. who suffers more from the regulations? mom and pop for the big guy? it's obviously mom and pop suffered more. my favorite is wal-mart. wal-mart comes out in the spring or the summer saying we are joining the center for american progress. that is a liberal activist group in washington and the service employees international union labor union that's been close to obama. the three of us are joining together and we are supporting the employer mandate in health care. every employer above a certain small size has to buy insurance of a certain level for their employer. so why is wal-mart the biggest private sector employes here doing this? the do something called self

injuring which means the act as the insurance company. when you pay your premiums if you are a wal-mart employees instead of going to blue cross it goes to wal-mart and when you go and use your health insurance to fix your broken leg is wal-mart not eckert, or whoever pays about. they are so big so venturing makes sense. many big employees, employers find it a good to soften share in that way. and what does wal-mart to do best? the was economy of scale to get good deals so they are getting very good health insurance deals. nobody else can do that to the degree wal-mart cancer if you have competitors such as target providing a lower level of insurance, well you get the right regulation passed but raise target's cost, you don't raise your own. wal-mart also lobbied the minimum wage. everyone complains about their wages, the p.o. for $10 an hour everywhere and $12 in a high cost nothing. who pays the minimum wage?

i works of the movie theater, a single screen 100 year old movie theater owned by some guy that lift donner and ploch when i was a kid. iran $4.50 per hour. minimum wages earned by a high school kid after basketball, practiced, goes to the store and stocks the shelf. home depot, i don't know but wal-mart minimum wage goes from $5.15 to $7.15 it helps wal-mart and it gives wal-mart good press and gets to the unions to back off of them a little bit more. mattel did another one of these overhead smash things where i don't know if you remember back in 2007 there were unprecedented numbers of toys recalled because mattel was making shlaes in china some of them had lied. other manufacturers might have had recalls, too but these players can make your kid sick etc. so, they were all recall the and

of course, this did with the congress always does. we have to act, passed the law to fix it. barack obama got behind the law called the consumer product safety improvement act, and what this did was in addition to changing the allowable levels of lead and other chemicals it said every toy that's going to be sold in america needs to get tested at a separate third-party testing facility. not every single play but every line of toys. what is a line of toys? if you produce 1 million barbie's you have to get one tested if they are identical and produced by identical methods but what if you are a grandfather who works in your garage and carved out children's toys for them to sit on? that are you using identical methods to make all of your children's plays? no, one of them and making for an 8-year-old and one of them for a 3-year-old. you have to get third-party testing support for each of those and get each component tested. depending on how complex the

product is the testing could range from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars. mattel paying $2,000 to test one darbee for one line of a million isn't a big deal. the smaller hand maker -- there's something called the and made to police allowance and this is in the sort of group that on a normally run with, it's like a free-market conservative suburban dad by model of the analysts now because i have written columns and i wrote this book that criticized consumer product safety commission act because mattel into benefitting but as the icing on the cake bill law included a provision i hadn't noticed at first that said if you can prove to the government that you have set up within your own factory a testing facility which is accurate and independent from the parent company then you want to send it out to a third party place you contested within your own factory and exactly one of weaver has been given on this and that is one company has

gotten weavers, that is matell who helped write the bill in the first place to react to a scare they caused by putting laid in their 20s over in china and this is a pattern of obama's policies. he backs the government policies that have the intention of trying to help consumers were the small guy or curb the access of the big business. the end of having the opposite effect. like all the effort law off obamanomics, gumming up the works. we know that -- why is america the wealthiest country in the world? well i'm sure lots of people have answers for that. my answer is because we had the free economy in the world. a free economy is a more vibrant economy. now, and more regulated economy is a less vibrant economy, slower economy. if you are the top business, you look around at how much you can

go from rags to riches or from the top of the mountain down to the bottom in a free market in the second. it's a scary place. it's exciting if you are an entrepreneur but scary if you are the guy on the top. anything that slows down the way the economy works is good for you if you are the guy on the top. that might be why goldman@ (bv)p west wing and probably reagan going back. these are the quintessential special interests and again this is a company barack obama raised more money from them come from goldman sachs the and anybody

has raised from any corporation since the campaign finance laws were changed. and the of course with a number one beneficiary of the wall street bailout. the final law of speed is the confidence scheme and the idea government can give people a false confidence in what somebody else is selling. wall street is another great example of this. why are we regulating financial sector? while we need to restore investor confidence. you hear every republican who supports regulation talk about the story the confidence and have the democrats talk about restoring investor confidence. i happen to believe it should be the job of the company or the broker to restore confidence. the government shouldn't be using your money to convince you that it's okay to invest in the stock market. that is a huge part of the government does. that's a huge part of -- torch push's ownership society was saying it is much better to own

stocks them not to. it's better to own a home with him not to so they set up policies that drive people to own more stock than they would have any free-market or buy a house when they wouldn't have. we saw with that created. it was a bubble. bush did it come obama is continuing the policy. mattel, the story the witold was another story of the confidence scheme. now what ways are safe. they actually said that on the floor of the house when they passed the bill. you can rest assured you're 20s are safe because the federal government is making sure that your toys are safe. but my favorite story on the confidence game comes from the world of food. i'm told that here there is in the dining hall for the cafeteria food places whatever you call them, lots of talk about sustainable local all that. i think that's great. if i had more time, more money i would do it. if i may be a hippie girl we

would be eating all of the organic fair trade stuff. [laughter] i support during that perfectly voluntarily. it obama used to talk about this. he would quote michael pollan, a food writer who wrote the omnivore's dilemma who make very important who leans about how the government and big business in supporting local food and hurting slow food is one of the terms they use now. obama's food safety director of health and human services was a guy named michael taylor's previous job was a top lobbyist for the chemical company that also loves genetically modified food. his top trade negotiator for eckert culture is a man -- the man nominated is named issy who is a top lobbyist for the

agrichemical lobbying group in washington and the pattern goes on about that and so obama has backed these new food safety laws. they're like the consumer product wall for the toys. basically these are being proposed on the food safety to require more testing. they create one of the bills create something called it regulates food production facilities which sounds like some kellogg's factory where the turnout courtships, corn flakes from who knows what. but food production facility also included farms and mulken johnny and big farms but if you had a farm and grew something that you sold under one of these bills you were a food production facility and had some of the same regulations as a joint factory. 13 article i read about this from the san francisco chronicle said testifying to congress, the

largest solid producer explained that he supported uniform government and forced to safety standards. this he argued would eliminate the hassle of different customers insisting on their own safety audits which was you had the organic food co-op over here that said we want you to certify that this food was organic and over there you had the local food co-op. we are making sali where is the lead is coming from etc. then maybe there is don't kill any of rabbits to grow our carrots -- terse lots of people who put in or maybe those parents stiffly afraid of any bacteria getting in their food and they have their own regulations. there were groups and stores setting up john and might want something god that is a d.c. grocery chain. one chain might want something one local store might want another. this was what i call private

sector regulation. admittedly they don't have the clout of government regulation but also the preserve more diversity. barack obama said i don't think government can solve every problem there are some things government can't do such as ensuring our food is safe. so she was spitting in the face of the private sector regulators. all the organic food co-ops called the grocery stores that take pride in the quality of their food, she was spitting in their face but also backing legislation that could help preempt those and make it illegal. it would save the federal government opposes x standard no buyer is allowed to -- you know, big industrial -- i shouldn't say industrial camano group is about to impose its own standards. that is with the salad king of san francisco or whatever was lobbying for. so you have private sector buyers obama said private-sector regulations didn't exist and he is wiping them out. but he said only government can

ensure your food is safe so that again is a confidence game. nobody can assure that your food is safe. and take a step back in time. who might you have bought durham meat from back in the day? maybe it was a butcher. how would you trust that butcher was getting seafood? probably because he sold to your father and his son wants to sell meat to your son so they are not going to please a new but when you have more regulations that make it harder for independent businessmen to succeed you drive business towards more centralized industries and in up in the food situation especially you had won a government report say or centralization of food-processing leads to foodborne illness is spreading rapidly. you can imagine everything is thrown in one bucket before it is sent around so this is a pattern of obama's policies.

they are big government which is what he promised but while he promised to battle the special-interest and while maybe he wanted to it hasn't worked out that way because in washington the lobbyists from big businesses, they have the most say. they get the seats at the table both in congress and even in obama's white house and he has hired many of these lobbyists in his own white house and so this is what you have gotten from obama as a gorman policy, but the vindictive benefitting big business. this is bad for the american economy but i don't really like talking to much in terms of what is good for the american economy because that is an abstract idea. this is bad for consumers. it's bad for taxpayers and for small businesses and for taxpayers obviously and we have to start with bush over spending in a bailout. we all especially younger people we will be paying the bill on the bailouts that have just gone to help wall street mostly.

and the stimulus bill again all borrowed money, an article a couple of months into the bill said 80% of the money has gone to the top 2% of the firms. why? not because the obama administration loves being out big companies but when the government is giving out money who has the apparatus to go to the government and get the money? random small joe with his corner store the guy selling fruit cakes doesn't have the ability to get the government money but the bigger corporations that already have the lobbying establishment set up they can go and get it and cash for clunkers. if you benefit from the deal benefited but everybody else this was a program if you remember over the summer if required the automaker, the car dealer who took the trade in to destroy the trade in and had to be a trade in that could run so the idea is take fuelled cars off the road, good for the environment. lots of reasons to question

whether it's good for the environment but this is true. dr. said the price of driving a car if you are destroying perfectly usable used cars. used cars go up and then there's a smaller effect of the new cars go up so if you didn't -- if you are a car dealer you might have done okay. if you trade it in and got the subsidy you did okay. if you make new cars or already had a big stock of used cars to profited. everybody else loses because it spent $3 billion in the tax dollars since you already paid for this taxpayer and cause your car goes up. but the most upsetting thing might be the way in which it hurts small business and it sounds hokey and everybody says but it's true small business is part of the economy and it's an accurate when people say small-business is the number one creator of new jobs just because there's a more precise way to break down. as of 2007 the last year for which we have these numbers, the

two-thirds of new jobs were created by the companies that for 5-years-old or younger meaning of new business is the most important thing to create the jobs that will eventually donner you guys when you get up here. you need their to be new business is being made. "obamanomics" gets in the we've new business is being made for a few reasons. for one, the regulations and to overhead and keep you out. about to come increasingly becomes obvious you need a lobbyist to get by if you can't afford lobbyists sitting of the business you're going to be crushed. number three, bailouts. belts and handles what they do the prop up failing companies, they dee dee to cut its bid if you work for the failing company. your work hasn't been producing things consumers want to buy and that's good. i feel good for those people who get the jobs saved but their job is probably being saved or created is a term used.

the job is probably saved or created a georgia law expense because when a failing company is propped up the pretense another company from entering the economy and those new companies are exactly what's creating the new jobs so this has sort of been a depressing talk if you share any of my concerns about ceding small business or seeking a limited government and it has been an upsetting talk if you are a big obama fan but for the first group of people who care about small business or limited government i have some hopeful ideas looking forward. the first one is the fact there is clearly anchor. but bush's the lots it was focus people's attention on the fact that there is a situation where the people with political power and people with money are getting together and taking

their money. it's not an exaggeration to say that they are taking your money. its tax dollars. sure they are taking your next neighbors money that they are taking your money more than they are taking a 50-year-old's mauney if you were a student here because it is all borrowed money so your taxes are going to end up paying for this and where did the money go from the wall street bailout? at went goldman sachs. it went to bank of america. the idea is that it trickles down at this is an idea the was blocked when the first george bush talked about it but obama full force signed on to the bailout's so people are angry people with economic power and people with political power are clearly on the same side and a regular taxpayers and small businesses are getting left out to be on the right to see this manifesting itself in a tea party movement which has a lot of good elements of the media like a lot of the battlements in there. one of the things i would like to see more from the tea party

types is not just railing against one party because both parties are spending too much and not just to real against big government but big business which is lobbying for and pushing this big government. but another thing i think is hopeful and again i am not a partisan republican, i voted for republican presidential candidates i think zero times. yet. no way the vote for bob dole in '96 because i was a college freshman and didn't know any better and i regret that vote. sorry, mr. dole if you're watching. [laughter] actually dole is one of those in my book to obama has got to support health care but anyway, moving on. [laughter] the idea is that the republicans are so far in the wilderness they have even lost the corporate supporters. this is a party where no matter how bad the bill was if there was corporate support like the medicaid prescription drug act

or wall street bailout the limited government party pushes both of these through? why? mike ury is partly with the democrats say is true. republicans have listened to much to big business. now the big business isn't giving them money anymore now that you're a minority party so maybe that is an opportunity for the republicans to start $s y are ready to blow up and get angry about that and i think the global warming bill, too will be passed and will be clear it has no effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions so people who care about that would say why did we

do that? then they will see the nike and alcoa smiling when the bill gets passed so on the left i think if you are not a partisan republican or partisan democrat if you were actually dedicated to ideas and causes such as sticking up for the little guy on the left or the limited the government on the right, then i think the anger will be so clear that it will be focused and in the last chapter of "obamanomics" wiley of an agenda that includes things like stopping the bailout in the money that hasn't gone out the door, don't send it out the door, you know, put it straight into retiring debt or cutting taxes and any money out the door colin back and have some items of left and right synergy. one of the things the left as wanted to on drugs is that canada has price controls so if you go to canada and by the same name-brand drug it will be half the price as it is here. why do the drugmakers let them

get away with it? because they make it held that costs a penny. it is the are in the end of it and the testing that costs $1 billion so basically to sell to canada they have to make up the cost of producing it and shipping it to sell to us they are making up the cost of the research and development so right now it is illegal if i were a random drug store for me to go up to canada and by yet at the price control price and come down here and sell it the sort of conservative sending argument is that you are importing price control. the drug lobby spends more than any other industry on lobbying washington. they clearly do very well no matter who is in power. why can't they lobby canada? or the lawmakers that much more intimidating and stronger than the direct and lawmakers? no, we are giving a free ride. that is the sort of thing. but then free import drugs and silver to cut five years to figure out what is it to happen but it's your job to to make sure you can still turn a profit on your drugs. it's not the federal

government's job. we are already giving your patent exclusivity where no one else can make a generic. we are giving you that and after that you are on your own. there are a handful of other items and be about constitutional amendment is one of my dreamy ideas. meek illegal for the right to own a share, on a portion of the company. try to ban corporate welfare if anything is a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a private business you have to allow for government contracts but it's not for government contract try to ban it. i'm not exactly sure how to implement these things but the main problem i guess i run into is where is the constituency for this? all of these ideas are proposing if we have abolished some corporate welfare agencies boeing might make $10 billion a year off this corporate welfare. i can see the export import bank but if you divide them among every taxpayer is what, $3.

so where is the constituency to kill the corporate welfare and smashed the government big business collusion. that is a problem and a question. i do think sea anchor and fact we are a democracy can help channel that. if you are a republican party and want to raise money and are running an anticorporate campaign it might be difficult for you to raise money but that is where what ron paul did she wrote the forward on my book and ran for president in 2008 and whatever you think of his ideas and i like most of his ideas but what if you think of his ideas you have to be impressed he raised $6 million in one day with or i should say the donors gave him $6 million in one day. he didn't organize the donation. his enthusiastic supporters set up what they call money bomb and they rose two -- raised money. the average donation was less than $100 even barack obama did this even though she's raising record money from goldman sachs that was under reported. but it was the perception that

he wasn't hillary clinton and i will say that for all of the coziness with common ground with big business here hillary clinton would have been ten times more of that. but he wasn't hillary clinton some people thought i disenfranchised because i don't have the sort of access so i will give him money and you've got people parting with the ten, 25, $50 to give to him. so, in a second i will open up for questions and i'm happy to take any questions. but i just want to restate my thesis. every time the government gets bigger somebody is getting rich. but i've done here is "obamanomics" i tried to name the names and leah out in a pattern to show that it's not an anomaly but it's actually the pattern and the affect obama is having of america is and what many people think it is. thank you very much for your time. [applause]

i'm happy to take questions. again for to be going supposed to remind you to stand up if i call on you and then wait for the microphone to get to before you ask your question. so please. yes? >> you talk about what is called the revolving door in politics and big business, the idea that when people lose an election or retire from politics they tend to go into lobbying and the idea that once they come back they are going to come back to a government position i know and bernanke and hank paulson are well known for the street to talk about that and any idea on how that could be stopped through laws or volker action? >> i'm glad you're reminded me about the revolving door. i see this happening and i see my friends to this. a dangerous kind of like me when

they are working on capitol hill and then i see them two years later and the of nice suits with french cuffs and they are offering to buy me lunch where they want because they left the job working for congress and a lobbying firm hired them because they knew when the friend calls his capitol hill to say just want to talk to you about the farm bill that his old boss is going to take the call and that is the revolving door. barack obama said i'm going to stop the revolving door to greet his white house chief of staff is rahm emanuel let's see it's almost not the right word for rahm emanuel regarding the revolving door because while he's working for bill clinton's 1992 campaign as a chief fund-raiser he was getting paid by goldman sachs has a consultant at the same time for nondescript work so he might have been getting paid by goldman sachs to work for bill clinton for all we know. then he worked in bill clinton's the five white house to read a couple of years before clinton leaves he works for a private

equity firm so you know investments, mergers. if you look at the list and i laid out in the book the list of all of his clients they were people who had business before the clinton administration so what was his skill? first he's smart, hard-working and effective. about $1.62 million and a half years is what he made. i've got to imagine the real skill was knowing who to call in the clinton white house and getting done what he wanted to get done. he makes the 1.6 million by milking the former administration confecting uses the money to run for congress and now he's in the obama white house. so the revolving door is spinning. there's actually a lobbyist now who is an ex obama administration official. yes already less than one year in somebody has gone into the obama administration, left and become a lobbyist. so this is damaging because anything that strengthens, that

gives more power to the guys who can afford lobbyists in effect takes political power away from us. it also gives perverse incentives for the people in government and it is particularly hurts republicans because they can say we are going to kill the government program or i'm going to tinker with this program that way when it gets past somebody needs to hire me to help them figure it out. that happens quite a bit. so that is very problematic. obama's some of his actions have helped where you can't become if you are at a certain senior level you can't -- use we're not to become a lobbyist for a little while after you leave or not lobby the administration at least. i honestly would say that anybody who is an elected official or makes over $100,000 in government at any point should be prohibited from becoming a lobbyist. now i don't think that would actually pass because the people would be affected by that are

the people who get to write the bills. on the other hand, that is the only lobbying regulation i would propose and in the and i probably went back because i think that is an expression of the first amendment rights so the real problem is not the lobbyists where is it, the real problem is with the government. the way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places. tim wheeler was a man who came up with that and i think that is the lesson of "obamanomics" you can't simultaneously increase the government to control for the economy and decrease the role of lobbyists. so that is one place where my only reform and this is obviously it might buy yes but my own reform is have the government have less control over the economy. happy to take another question. >> how do you think obama plans to pay for the new regulation

programs that he's trying to do? is the creation of money, the taxes or debt issues? >> to start with the spending, the stimulus bill we issued the debt on that and so what are you going to do when it comes through? a lot of that is not obama's problems lie can predict what would happen and it's like rotating credit cards probably borrow again to pay off the debt and then who knows what's going to happen. but on the other hand, the health care stuff and global warming, the health care reform has much more price tag and the history of predicting expenditures in the new government programs like medicare, social security has been very bad and it's far outpaced so whatever taxes he introduced in the new bill and there are some of those, i don't think they are going to be adequate. i think we are -- i'm not an

economist. i wouldn't be surprised if we see inflation because we print more money and the government creates money out of thin air. the federal reserve creates money so which would be a mixture of all of that. i don't think that we are going to see spending cuts or at least not significant especially because right now what is the republicans' number one object into the health care bill? the democrats are trying to cut medicare. why are republicans arguing against democrats spending money? well part of it is the insurance companies don't like the medicare. i think the most important is republicans know it is a good issues of there is no issue for spending cuts so the answer is all of the above, new money, more borrowing and more taxes. >> yes? >> hold on for this guy. [laughter]

>> mr. carney, i know that you expressed your opinion on domestic legislation that's been passed to look at environmental problems in the u.s.. but there is the g8 summit coming that in december and others proposed talk there will be legislation that would have international fact we're like you said nike example might cut down on carbon emissions and other parts of asia where they have all these manufacturing plants and i wonder if you can express your opinion with that legislation might change -- >> you're talking about the copenhagen -- is started today. the copenhagen summit and this is a sort of global get together on what to do. talking to people who go to the sort of even even know proposed regulation is going to come out of this and no even proposed

global coordination for the national regulation is going to come after what to answer the specific question of the policy on global emissions to? it would break apart the u.s. business coalition for the greenhouse gas cuts because some businesses like caterpillar which manufactures in the u.s., we already have environmental regulations to be difficult carbon regulations on top and also carbon regulations on china than all the sudden you could make the field more level between the u.s. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers but then the other is nike and alcoa, the just one domestic so you see some of the domestic manufacturers to support the cap-and-trade say that we supported and then assume we're going to have china restrain their a mission. but these growing countries come imagine this. you were dirt-poor for years

while the four rest of europe is burning coal, getting rich, building skyscrapers, you didn't get the rest of it just starting to trickle to you and all of a sudden the u.n. says that coal and oil, you can't do that anymore. you're not going to stand for that if you are most of china or india or the third world. so i don't think the prospect -- atingua we will get if there's anything of a global agreement, the rich countries will go ahead and constrain their emissions and then they will pay for subsidizing a clean energy in the third world. that is the most you were going to get as far as the cooperation. more questions. there's one in the middle. i may have answered that. i'm going to follow-up on the global warming stuff with you right now. one of my favorite stories, general electric@gb pap"s"daa)hs for the learning carbon

dioxide levels. and google is paying them to do it because they get out of this offsets, greenhouse gas credits because they are destroying the myth and that would otherwise be created. now right now what does google do with the greenhouse gas credits? degette si br carvin neutral in this way or that way. but if the government mandates to have a credit to run a factory or power plant in all of a sudden what google has and general electric is making the comes with a lot more.

so maybe that is capitalism and the environment. though. the partner in general electric greenhouse gas venture is a company called aes that is building cool -- coal-fired power plants. the cleaner planter that benefit from the tax on the cold but what else happens if you taught school effectively, you make fewer american companies by coal, for, it is cheaper for the third world so they are winning on both ends of the nuclear power plants are getting subsidized and the coal-fired power plants down there are getting cheaper coal but she and aes didn't invent this, this is the same scheme the company tried in 1990 to 2000. that was in rahm. they are not around anymore. she picked up windmills and lobbying practice and i have a chapter called general electric the for-profit arm of the obama administration. they spent more the last ten

years on lavina than any other. number to this year as far as individual corporations and lobbying and everywhere obama opens up a new policy plan you see ge opening of a new business. high speed and freight rail, g revs up its business and hires a business and linda daschle, the wife, daschle, former u.s. senator close to obama, embryonic stem cells research obama is willing to fund that. g starts a joint venture with one of the largest embryonic stem cells in the world. you see it again and again and the timing and the causality probably happens both ways. i do not think barack obama de. not even just because they still own msnbc where keith olberman and rachel mad now say there holley lu de obama songs commit [laughter] i don't think he's trying to enrich them. i think that the they see the

way in the world of obamanomics is to line up with government and what does that do? it really saps' entrepreneurship and defies the economy and means you guys won't have jobs when you get out of college unless one of these chosen few, google, microsoft, general electric, boeing that have the best lobbyists, they're going to increasingly control more of the economy. but that has a net effect of being bad on the whole economy. if there are no other questions -- sorry. i don't know if the microphone can reach that far. >> you mentioned earlier -- he

mentioned earlier you felt the american people were being left out in times in favor of big government and big business. however i believe he were speaking specifically in terms of the bailout and stimulus package which if i remember correctly work policies that the time were supported by the majority of american public according to the polls. my question to you is how do you feel the government should address those issues with the people, majority of the people are supporting the initiative that you feel in the end of will ultimately damage and give them a short end of the stick? >> i know that there were holes in the majority that had a support of the bailout, i was in washington and i know these guys got 900 antibailout phone calls for every one bailout will call and i don't pay enough attention to the polls to answer that affirmatively but i'm pretty sure most people oppose the bailout to read every vulnerable member of the u.s. house voted against the wall street bailout. on dietrich maybe people

supported that. i don't know. but i also think they should not drive policy. that i think principal should drive policy and the constitution should constrain what you do. i don't think the bailout was constitutional and i don't think by and general motors was constitutional regardless whether the people supported that. and i mean, i'm very happy to take the antibailout side against any politician who thinks that getting all that money to goldman sachs and bankamerica was popular at the time those guys just created the collapse. they voted of frequently for opposing of these measures and i want to put tolls on every highway and that wouldn't be very popular because right now our highway system and all transportation since sliced trucks make them pay for the road. that probably won't go over very well. i'm not a politician because i don't sit with is the best policy by what is most popular.

i said it by what i think will do the best and also by some moral principles. and it's wrong to take money from regular people and give it to the big corporations. that should be enough to settle the fact not to do the bailouts. >> thank you very much for your time. i appreciate. [applause] our special primetime book tv continues

.. >> coming up next booktv present "after words," an hour-long program we invite just goes to interview authors. this week constitutional law professor ken gormley discusses his new book, "the death of

american virtue: clinton l1)vs.l0 starr." an examination of the scandals that led to the impeachment of the 42nd president. mr. gormley energy to keep others in the national drama and putting president clinton, kenneth starr and monica lewinsky. >> host: my name is greg craig. time here with ken gormley and we're talking about his new book, which is "the death of american virtue: clinton l1)vs.l0 starr." before we get into this book, let me find out a bit about yourself. where did you grow up? >> guest: i grew up in pittsburgh, and went to the university of pittsburgh is somehow went astray and went to harvard law school.

after cut out of law school i went back home and i teach currently i am the interim dean at duquesne law school at pittsburgh. >> host: what kind of law do teach? >> i teach constitutional law primarily. i've been teaching pretty much about 20 years. i did practice law, also. but during that time i kept writing. i've been writing throughout my career. i find that it keeps me kind of energized and so this book projects take a little bit of time. they're different from writing for newspapers and magazines and things like that. but i enjoyed a lot. >> host: have you done that as well, writing for newspapers and magazines? >> guest: i've done that throughout my grew. i've done feature stories to newspapers in pittsburgh and the kind of character studies. i find it helped a lot in tackling these big books of nonfiction because you learn dialogue, study people so it was very helpful. >> host: now this is not your first big book. i say this is a big book. but it's not your first one.

you wrote a biography of archibald cox, did you not? >> guest: yes, archibald cox was the principled and famous watergate special prosecutor who was fired rather than act down from president nixon and that led to the unraveling, as you know, of the nixon presidency. 's cox was my law professor at harvard, and i wrote that book fairly earned on out of law school. it was another big project, took about seven years. it was a lot of fun. that when i have to say was easier in the sense of one life you kind of door you're going from start to finish. this would have so many movable parts. this was scary at first because it was just such a big project. >> host: that raises the question about why you did this. obviously this was a topic that was front and center in the newspapers and on television for many, many months, if not years. you wanted to go back to an reef is all those exciting days?

>> guest: well, i never stop revisiting it in many ways. my book on archibald cox came right as the lewinsky scandal was blowing up in the national media. and so i became one of the many talking heads on that subject at the time. and i was you'd as an expert on special prosecutors because i've done a lot of writing on that. and so i followed this thing, i wrote op-ed for newspapers all over the country. i attended the first day of the impeachment trial in the senate. so is almost as if i was destined to do this. so i began work on this in january of 2000, and i was thinking my littlest, my daughter was born two months after that. she's about to turn 10. so this been a long project. >> host: a lot of people comfort on a regular basis ended up writing books. peter baker from the new times, a couple of others. but you're not really coming at the time. you were watching it and talking

about what you were not writing a regular newspaper column for. >> host: in fact, that was one of the things that i wanted to accomplish, is i knew from working on other projects that the impeachment of andrew johnson, people are still writing about it 100 usually do. and some of the best accounts were written by people who lived through it. i wanted to write the book. most of the people you refer to, peter baker wrote primarily about the impeachment. jim stewart wrote about whitewater. there are books about politics. there are books about monica. no one had the whole story and showed how it was all interconnected. and no one really got access to both sides. that's what i wanted to do. i wanted to be able to talk to both sides. this was something that really, as you know because you lived through it, consume the country like nothing other than in our lifetimes perhaps, watergate and nixon's ultimate resignation in disgrace. and the assassination of john f. kennedy.

everyone was fixated on this. everyone had a strong opinion in the country. the country was divided. and i wanted to write the definitive neutralist oracle account that people would look at 100 years from now and say, this person got it right. >> host: it's interesting you mentioned the very stories and parts in their kids. and i mean this as a conflict. the book seems to be structured very much, really easy to read, very much like an international spy thriller. on the one, we start off with the impeachment and the vote of the impeachment. there we go back to the beginning of watergate, and then we start -- >> guest: white-water. >> host: please correct me. i mean whitewater. but the narratives are woven together so they are never completed until the very final days of your book. was that intentional? was there a readability quality to this? >> guest: sure. i set out, i will take this

little story and i haven't told anyone else, but i actually had sitting on my desk when i started, and this was before this had become re- popularize, a copy of truman capote's in cold blood. and i wanted to take -- the store you could not have made up, greg. this was so crazy, all of the pieces of it. with your wildest imagination, if you write fiction you could not have made this story up. so i wanted to capture in a way that was readable for a completely broad audience. but i wanted to get it right. and so early on in the process, i remember having a little talk with george stephanopoulos, as i was getting started tuesday in formal chat and he said anyone can get all of these pieces and show how they're connected, which no one had done before, and who had treated it separate, you would have something. that's what i tried to do. >> host: let's begin with some of this because some of those

characters, particularly in arkansas, that predate the clinton's arrival in washington, d.c., are absolutely fascinating. you spend a good deal of time explaining this context that sets the stage for what's happening in washington later on. and the story of jim mcdougal is really extraordinary. why did he play such an important role in this? >> guest: without jim mcdougal, you didn't have any of the rest of the scandals getting any traction. and it was also, arkansas, as you know, was always in the background with all of this stuff. i spent a lot of time in arkansas to try to get the story right. my dad was from kentucky. so i loved being in arkansas. is like seeing all my answer vocals and spending time with folks. but it is a very much a small town sort of place. and until you practice of around that, you don't understand where it all goes.

what ultimately was the problem, in my view, wasn't that the clintons were involved in criminal wrongdoing with respect to whitewater. i mean, there were lots of issues, was this person telling the truth about reconstructing this fact. but they were tied up with this guide who ended up having extraordinary problems, in terms of unorthodox business practices, who ended up a popper, who ended up a convicted felon. and this was bill clinton's business partner. that was a problem. and you can't understand the story that some people who i trust very much on both sides said you cannot understand the story unless you understand where it starts with whitewater. and they were right. >> host: there's a magnetism, strangely, about jim google. that maybe explains why a president clinton became a partner. clearly a smart man, well read. clearly loving the limelight.

what was it about jim mcdougal that really attracted the clintons to him, do you think? in the early days. >> guest: people don't understand is. bill clinton was a young aspiring politician, and jim mcdougal was a more established older guy who worked with senator fulbright from arkansas. so the way that susan mcdougal described it, when she first met bill clinton who was running thin for attorney general, he looked up to jim mcdougal because jim was, you know, known as a great entrepreneur and he was a smart fella. he was a charming fellow. it turned out he had serious problems. he was, i believe, manic-depressive. that's what the psychologists discussed with me. but he had serious problems. he bottomed out when he started having financial difficulties, and so it started spiraling downward. and he come it turned out, was a con artist. there is no question that jim

mcdougal could spin a story, and as james stewart explained, the bigger the lie, the greater the thrill for jim mcdougal. so he could lie at any moment. this was a very complicated thing that the clintons into that being tangled up with. >> host: it was in the. briefly tells the nature of that partnership in the early days. >> guest: the whitewater project as you know came to symbolize this but it was a real estate investment. i went fishing with joe, one of clinton's childhood friends on the white river to see it, had the fish fried in peanut oil. that was one of the perks of this project. but it was a harebrained plan, actually at the time. it turned out it was on the wrong side of the river. it was not a good location. it lost money, but it really was a whitewater. it was the madison guaranty savings and loan. it was part of the snl failures all over the country. and jim mcdougal was just playing games and cooking the books in all sorts of directions. i do not believe the clintons had anything to do with that,

but given tangled in it. it came to be. >> host: he spoke about the psychologists from the present, richard clarke, talked about jim mcdougal. mr. clarke got to know him during the last years, or months of jim mcdougal's life. explained. that store is very unsettling and brand-new i think. no one is ever told a story about jim mcdougal's death. >> guest: i got you to a psychiatric records and his history and the present with the permission of his estate. and doctor clarke, a wonderful person, really cleared about him, spent a lot of time with him in prison. there is no question that he came to believe that there was some grand conspiracy by the clintons and others to get him in this prison. but his death was just tragic, and it was -- there were a lot of on expense or can get us. i do not believe the clintons

had anything to do with his. incidentally, this is during march of 1998. and you know because you involved with the clinton white house, they were focused completely on the monica lewinsky matter. they weren't worried about jim mcdougal in prison in fort worth, texas. over, did people in the present play games with this guy and give him a hard time? he ended up in solitary confinement, dying there under some fairly unusual circumstances, separated from his medications. there were bodies littered across the road in this story, great, from start to finish. and it's a tragic story. the story should not be allowed to repeat itself because jim at google was kind of symbolic of all of the tragedies that littered the landscape in the story. >> host: he died on the verge of being considered for parole. you report that he went to his death be leaving that within a matter of days he would be

released. tell that side of the story. was her truth is believe or do you think he was misled? >> guest: a lot of people in prison believe that he was going to be paroled. that was what the psychologists were led to believe. susan mcdougal, when i told her and showed her the note from doctor clarke, that he was told after mcdougal's death by a prison official, that mcdougal was never going to be paroled, she -- she just, you know, almost lost her composure and said that explains it. jim died because he lost the hope, that was going thing keeping him alive. but of other factors coming into it. i believe that until those, that final month, everyone expected jim mcdougal would be paroled. >> host: let's talk about susan mcdougal. completely different story, related obviously to her

husband, jim mcdougal. she played a real interesting will come again as backdrop to the impeachment and to the washington, d.c., story. tell us about susan mcdougal and her relationship with president clinton. >> guest: very colorful character, very likable and interesting person. in the book, as you know, and as politico reported first, i report categorically that there was an affair between susan mcdougal and the president, at some point during his governor years. i believe it was brief. i am not saying i believe this to be the case. i am saying it is the case. however, i cannot disclose my sources and i will not disclose my sources. but i also conclude that, although the star operation spent a lot of time and money trying to figure out that piece of things, that it was not the

missing link that explains everything or really much of anything. would have been uncomfortable for her to testify about that in the grand jury? he is. which looking forward to that? no. was that the reason she did not testify and went to prison instead? i do not believe so at all. at that point, she had seen jim mcdougal turning to what she described as a liar. a turn into a cooperating witness with a starr and was making up the stores to try to save himself from going to prison or to get out of prison. and she believed, because she didn't have any incriminating evidence against the clintons, that she would end up going to jail no matter what she said. know whether that was right or not is another question, but did she go to jail because she was hiding the fact of this affair with clinton? i don't believe so at all. i think she went there because she hated ken starr and his

prosecutors more than anything in the world. whether that was justified or not is a different question, but it is a very interesting piece of this story. because susan mcdougal in set two years in prison as a result of this. >> host: and the reason she spent two years in prison and was? >> guest: for content for failing to testify in front of the starr grand jury. >> host: that raises one of the first what it is because as you know, that that was very volatile. you did know was going to happen the next day, the following day. you go back and was struck renewable, how many times the development or the outcome could have been changed is something different had happened. that's one of the what is. what-if's is the mcdougal had cooperated with the council? >> guest: i don't know if that would've changed anything at all really, because you would not

have testified as to any knowledge the clintons being involved in anything. and so at that point, i mean, maybe she would have gone to -- i don't see the starr team is being vindictive, and we should talk about ken starr some point. i have great respect for ken starr, and i don't think he was about to just put someone in prison because he could or wanted to. but with that itself had changed anything? no, i think that probably they would've turned towards towards some of the pressure point. ultimately, what the office of independent counsel is trying to do was to figure out was -- who was telling the truth there, was clinton involved with these madison guarantee scams with mcdougal and david hale. and if she was going to talk, i think more pressure would have been put on webster hubbell, for instance, to try to get him to talk. >> host: that's another arkansas figured that came to washington, d.c., that gets a good deal of attention. it strikes me that as these

developments occurred in real-time, those of us who are watching them were eager to know what was really going on. and i think this is something you achieved. you talk to mr. hubbell and number of times, obviously. he was prosecuted almost three times, is that right? >> guest: correct and indicted three times. >> host: and serve time in jail as well. what you think about their relationship? >> guest: obviously they were close friends. hillary clinton worked with the web rose law from. that was vince foster, webb hubbell, bill kennedy, hillary clinton. it was a shock when the clintons, when it turned out that he was looking the rose law firm. don't forget hillary herself was with that. that was a total shock. to his credit, webb hubbell is one of these people who i spent a good bit of time with him, you know, he has really come to grips with his mistakes, i think

and just acknowledges them. one of the passive things about webb hubbell though is, i believe the most compelling proof because he kept saying i don't know what the starr people thought i was hiding. whatever was there looking for, i don't know but i didn't have it. but proof of that, stop and think, great, because whether raise this himself, if he was hiding something, could bill clinton have afforded not to pardon him? if you was hiding something, you do, that would be the surest way that he was going to blab. so that where nobody stayed there because as webb said he would have shortly told the story than we did get pardoned. >> host: any other arkansas person to join clinton up in washington, d.c., was vince foster. that tragedy, that suicide occurred within the first months of the administration. and had a devastating impact on the white house, did not? >> guest: it did it was tragic, and you know, i first are working on that because on the

way back from visiting the whitewater site and fishing up there, joe who was very close with vince because they had grown up along bill clinton, told me about the months leading up to that. he had lots of conversation with vince that he was according to press. and one of the things i tried, i was finally able to get bill kennedy, people did not want to talk about this. bill clinton came to washington to work alongside this in the white house counsel's office right next door. and he was the person who went and identified his body at the morgue. and he told me of that story. i put in only to show to the extent people try to create conspiracy theories, the clintons are somehow involved, they killed vince and rolled them up in a rug or whatever, that was just so over the top and so inappropriate because they had all lost one of their closest friends.

this up in bill clinton's friend since he had been four years old. this was a horrible time for all of them. and so that be something i think is a very sad piece of this story. >> host: and in the final arkansas personality that we can talk about in the context of arkansas is paula jones. and apologized store, whitewater story, they got intermingled. did you talk to apologize? >> guest: yes, i did. >> host: did you learn anything new from hollinger was other than what were and the nurse papers over and over again? >> guest: i think i got a feel for what may paula jones kicked, and she is a likable person. you know, it is in fact the last piece of it because you see what happened is we have whitewater bubbling back up backup. whitewater had been dead in arkansas for years, as you know. now it bubbles back up it gets connected somehow with the vince foster suicide. at some sad people are connecting the dots.

and then comes a spectator story talk about trooper gate and this woman named paul. and everything comes together and creates this kind of hysteria that propels forward, deployment of the special prosecutor. we don't have 10 hours to talk about. but i do, let me just say this with respect to paula jones. i spent a lot of time on this piece of the story. there is a lot of material in there. i got access to raw footage of the film that was shot as part of the clinton chronicles which was is very anti-clinton movie. and the very early stages, when paula will still time to get the story to go national, which wouldn't -- would've been used by hurdler as exhibit a at trial and would not have been flattering. would not have painted her in a sympathetic position, i believe that 95% upper story of what happened in the hotel room is true. it's the 5% i have a problem with, and that is what bush her vote in these events.

and one of the key facts that was emphasized by president clinton's lawyer but others was, at the time she went to the hotel room at the excelsior hotel, she was engaged to be married to steve jones. they got married seven months later. well, when this came out that was a big problem for paula, because teachers was a fairly hotheaded fellow as described by others, and hated bill clinton. so there was definitely a motive to color this story in her favor. and that was, in fact, what trooper danny ferguson, as you know, testify to. >> host: a willing volunteer. >> guest: correct that there is only pieces to this. but the other thing is our own lawyers, the virginia lawyers back out of this case and quit because she wouldn't settle for the full amount they asked for in the complaint that they thought they had this case settled in 1997, i believe it was. and in this remarkable letter that i got my hands on, the

lawyers begged her to settle this case, it said that at most it was worth $50,000 if she got anything at all. there is a lot here about the poltroons case. >> host: that's another what is to come is it not? and was an opportunity to settle it even before the lawsuit was brought. that's true. and for that part i think president clinton deserves, you know, that was the best decision on his part but i have to do that president clinton's lawyers, and paula jones' lawyers made very clear to me, they believe they had the case settled. this was not something president clinton didn't agree to. he did agree to it. they thought it was settled, and that the last minute pollock jones, her advisor, susan and her husband steve jones wanted more than what they had asked for, wanted an apology, wanted more money or whatever it was. and the whole thing was scuttled. and judge was none too happy with that i learned from others

as well post back let's get back to the lawyers a little bit and into washington, d.c.. the office of independindependent counsel had been created. the special counsel had been appointed. bob fiske. the statute then pass congress and the question was whether it is going to be a replacement for robert fisk. and you go into the details of this quite carefully, and it is to me, extranet to see the road that the department of justice played as well as the panel of judges with david to tell, judged until, involved in the. can you tell us about that event, the event of substituting ken starr for bob fiske as the head councils be? >> guest: yes. clearly, president clinton believes now that it was his biggest mistake of his presidency to sign the reauthorization of that independent counsel. but once that was done, that imparts his pledge during the

election, during the campaign that he would sign that, it was used as good government law. everyone expected that robert fisk would be reappointed. that's what attorney general janet reno asked for. asked the three-judge panel, and so it was just a jolting, joint event when he was replaced. because fiske was viewed as straight down the middle. he was a republican, but it was used his investigation was really balance at that point. he was moving along quickly, and then to have ken starr interjected into this, brought to the washington side of things, especially in terms of democrats. what i was able to show here, which had been known before, was publicly it's always been said the three-judge panel unanimously wanted ken starr. in fact, i was able to get papers, internal court papers and talk to the lone democrat on that panel, judge john boxer

from virginia, from richmond. and he adamantly was opposed to the appointment of ken starr, for the very reason in the previous panels they had steered away from anyone linked to the washington beltway. they didn't want anyone who could have any connections to the political establishment on either side. and ken starr seemed very much connected to the republican elite, you know, establishment in this town. and so he was adamantly opposed to the appointment of ken starr, and throughout the whole time in fact i found a memo in his final indicate he wanted to pull the plug on independent operation on the impeachment proceedings. or shortly thereafter. under the theory that his work was now complete. >> host: had the panel known about ken starr's parental involvement in republican activities in the past, even the

paula jones case? >> guest: the latter, probably no. certainly i don't think ken starr was hiding anything. it was well known that he was involved, he had considered a run for the senate in virginia. he was actively involved, you know, he was very close friends with robert bork who was kind of an icon of the conservative republican elite in washington. the paula jones duff was the sore spot, because later, boxer said he was not apprised of the fact that ken starr had appeared on television and taken a position that the president could be sued civilly. a very strong position and it turns out was prepared to write briefs for the supreme court case if it got to that or india public course. again, i don't think ken starr was hiding that. and tuesday was this was public, anyone could have found it. but it wasn't brought up. to forget, the whole point of an

independent counsel, gray, was to have someone who was beyond reproach, beyond suspicion of having any dog in the fight. and that was troublesome to judge buxner and he had notes scribbled on his pad of paper indicating he was extremely upset about that. >> host: that was generally unknown, buxner's reservations about this. should that have been disclosed to the public at the time? >> guest: well, he injured himself chose not to disclose a. he ended up signing onto the court's decision to make it a unanimous decision. acting as a judgment in the sense that he wanted to make this above politics, he did not want to create the impression, here's a democrat who is against this and here are the republicans who are in favor of it. so he tried to do it to protect the corporate and i can understand it. you can understand that. >> host: we've got to go to a breakdown. we will be right back in a moment.

>> guest: excellent. i appreciate it. >> sometimes i think history has asserted the backs of its is like a pileup of cars in a snowstorm. >> how did the u.s. and that in vietnam? sunday pulitzer prize-winning author ted markon on the valley of death and the battle ended french colonial rule in indochina. q&a sunday night on c-span. >> host: welcome >> host: welcome back.

you spent a good deal of time with ken starr in writing this book. one of the things you did in the early part of the book was to compare the family life and the origins of the bill clinton and ken starr. talk about how these men that were such adversaries had many similarities. >> guest: they did, and in fact, i think that there's more similar about them than do similar, even though i'm not sure if the passionate either of them like to acknowledge that that is so coincidentally many ways, but they were born within a month of each other, and born within a couple hundred miles of each other. bill clinton was from the lower part of their, the southern part of arkansas. ken starr was from texas nearby. and they grew up in many ways -- well, they grew up at the same time, but in many ways with similar upbringings, very prodigious, but slightly different.

so they take these paths, each of them, coming to the peaks of their careers at this moment. ken starr having been solicitor general of the united states, federal judge. bill clinton becoming president of the united states. i like, have to take him and i do want to say this. both of them deserve a lot of credit here, because when i went to ken starr, he was the first person i went to when i decide to write his book because i figured i'd written something that could have been viewed as a proclaimed during the impeachment because i didn't think it was an impeachable offense. and i conclude if kids are wasn't interested in talking i didn't want to write the book. i want to have both sides and i wanted it to be balanced. ken starr knew what i had written, knew about my background. but he cooperated fully. he gave me access to personal papers, which i try to weed in there, you know, letters to the kids that i think show the human side very much. he is a wonderful person, a very thoughtful person.

bill clinton knew that i had spent time, a lot of time with ken starr. and i've made it very clear in talking to him and his lawyer, your former partner, david kendall who i've great respect for, that this was not going to be a ken starr bashing book, that i was not going to be portraying him as a person with horns coming out of his head, because that's not what i believe. so both of them went into this project or that's how i was going to tackle it. and i think both of them understood that there was a done deal and having someone write an objective, historical account of all this. but they were very similar in many ways. and they are both very -- bill clinton, again, his public persona doesn't always capture this, very thoughtful considerate person. i may, i saw that over and over again talking to people who grew up with them. went to the nursing home, his mother's, one of his best friend, marge mitchell, and

visited marge was 90 something old in the nursing home. and she told me about, she would get a call from bill clinton on her birthday every year to get he would say look, i'm wearing the coat you gave me. and she would be in egypt or wherever he was. i can do remember my own kids birthday. this was a common theme. there was nothing fake about that at all. and extremely considerate, thoughtful person who you almost, he is so convincing because he is speaking from the soul in many ways. ken starr is also a gentleman. you don't get to be solicitor general of the united states by just being some rabid zealots of any kind. and he wasn't i don't believe. and a really kind of person. and they brought him to duquesne university in 2001 at first are working on this book. and all of my democratic friends are saying what are you doing bringing ken starr? what's wrong with you? then they came and saw him and said he is really impressive

fellow. this is what i tried to do is judge people on my own. i try to talk to everyone myself, not using these one dimensional, dimensional caricatures that the media often creates. >> host: why do you think he took on the task? >> guest: i don't know. that's a great question. i will tell you, in his mind, can said that he was called acerbic and i believe that. he was implored to do this, just as when he was implored to be solicitor general and give up his seat in the u.s. court of appeals and he told he would back into his chambers and wept like a baby. >> host: you love being a judge. >> guest: i believe that on one hand but i still have a problem with the fact that ken, like many of the republican intelligentsia at the time, thought that the independent counsel was a disaster, was a monstrosity. and i still don't understand why

he took the job and devote all of his talents and energy to this we didn't even believe in it in the first place. i think that was a recipe for not a good result. >> host: at a time to was a consensus that this was doing a bad job. disc was widely respected person. so the question remains why do you think ken starr took on that task? >> guest: at the time you have to remember if you go back, there was a portion of the republican party that was insensitive to robert fisk that thought he was doing a whitewash job, he had already written a report that vince foster had been murdered -- i'm talking had committed suicide. not been murdered. that was what was being portrayed in some books in media accounts. and so there was a lot of pressure on the three-judge panel and others to switch at that time. >> host: from the republican

party. so from the outside, one might be forgiven if the perception were given that not only the three-judge panel, but judge starr, were responded to the pressures from an extreme element of the republican party. >> guest: again, i think, don't forget ken starr had done the investigation with the diaries matter. i think he saw it as, there was a moment of crisis here, people wanted a change. there was an unsettled feeling. >> host: all pre-monica. >> guest: away before monica. and i think he just decide this was the right thing to do, even though, i get it i introduced his wife, her view was why would you do this, ken? and i think he really felt called to do this. i think it was one of the most significant media mistakes he made in his career to take this on. >> host: the interesting thing, because you really cover his life during this period as

independent counsel in great detail. the interesting thing is that this was not fun for him. something he did not enjoy. obvious, neither the president. by ken starr was in agony for much of that time as well. did you ask you if he regretted taking the job? >> guest: well, i did in a number of different ways. and of course, ken being ken, just had he still would have done it because he was called to do this, and he doesn't look back over his shoulder. he did -- i had a number of conversations with him where i told him my view, that i thought it was the biggest mistake, was expanding into the monica lewinsky matter. i think he was the last person in the world who should have handled that, because rightly or wrongly, as large segment of the population at that point get him as partisan. whether that was true or false, he should not have done as an independent counsel. and he has come to acknowledge

that that was not a good decision. i'm not sure for the same reasons exactly, but i think if he had it to do over again he would have ended with whitewater. and i think he did a pretty creditable job as whitewater special prosecutor, although it took too long. and he would have stayed far, far away from the monica lewinsky matter, left it for someone else. >> host: final question, does he, looking back at his career as an independent counsel, recognize where he made mistakes or his office made mistakes, but aside question of taking on the monica lewinsky matter. whether he was too slow in coming up with the results of the whitewater investigation, whether he should have testified in front of the committee. to what extent has can start looking back and said, these were some mistakes and i could have done better, or the officer got another way? >> guest: well, i would have to go back through and see if there

are two specific examples. i mean, i think in general, ken to is that his office did the best he could with an impossible situation. i think that's the fairest way to sum it up. so i think that he would not agree that his office made terrible mistakes. i think even with the starr report, which is something you're very familiar with because you worked with the clinton white house when that arrived on the scene. i think ken felt there was really no way to avoid putting all the detail into this thing, and as you know, that may have been a single event that galvanized the clinton forces to defend the president at that point. because it was so over the top. >> host: let's talk about monica lewinsky and the cast of characters that monica lewinsky introduced into the story that you write. you had a chance to talk to her. what does she think about this expect in her life?

does she regret anything she did? does she look at this as a positive experience, how did you look back at this moment in her life? >> guest: i don't think anyone could look at this as a positive experience. and i have come to have a great deal of sympathy for monica lewinsky and her family. and i have to say i went into this not knowing what i would think about her, not on what i would think about paula jones. monica is a very, very smart person. one of the most difficult interviews in many ways, because she knows exactly what she will talk about and what she won't talk about. i spent a good bit of time with her. i sat on folding chairs in a storage room in greenwich village going through documents with her when i finally convinced her that i should see some of the documents from this thing, to help me tell the story. it was clearly a very painful day for her.

this was not a joke in any way for monica lewinsky family. it was the worst experience in their lives. there's no way to undo it, but i will tell you this is what i to respect, she's one of the few people in this whole saga who just openly acknowledged that she made mistakes about things that didn't try to justify, rationalize that in any way. but nonetheless, when you stop and think about it, often people say, well, if you're having an affair with a married man who you know also happens to be the president of the united states, you have to assume this sort of thing is going to happen. she just wanted the attention or whatever. well, my answer to that is, if you have this kind of a relationship, you certainly know that if things go wrong, your picture may appear on the cover of a tabloid magazine in the supermarket. what you do not expect that you're going to be, no, cornered

by fbi agents and federal prosecutors, and told you my go to jail and that your family is in jeopardy. you would never imagine that in a million years. this was a nightmare for this family. is a very sad part of the story. and i think she gets a lot of credit for behaving admirably in the same because it was just a terrible experience. >> host: one of the moments in the investigation that you focus on, is the moment that the fbi and the lawyers of the office of independent counsel confront her with the possible that she is filing false off of david. she is misrepresented the truth about her relationship with the present and connected with apologetics gave. and the details of that and the story of that particular narrative and that incident, i think you told the story. you have got a. i visit, the independent

counsel, people spent time with you as did ms. lindsay and her parents. what was the significance of that event, that moment at the ritz-carlton hotel where you call it the bracing of monica lewinsky. tell us what the significance of that event was. >> guest: it turned out to be very significant, because this is the part where the whole thing kind of comes together. one of the great ironies in this story is that on one hand, monica lewinsky was the office of independent counsel's starr witness. they needed her. they had to take the position that everything she said was the truth. except for one thing. and that was their treatment of her when they first confronted her in the ritz-carlton. on that confront, the our article had to argue she was not telling the truth. and if not, she was allowed to talk about that during this whole time. in the end, as you know from

later on in the book, i disclose that to was an internal investigation by the justice department. >> host: rejoinders. >> guest: was appointed by ken starr successor, robert ray, to conduct an investigation against ken starr's office about a host of things. and the one piece of it where joe and here's concluded there were problems was their handling of this embrace of monica was the. and that was first of all, there was no real planning. i mean, the prosecutors told me they thought naïvely, this happened very quickly that they would in their thinking they would be there for 50 minutes talking to monica and she would agree to cooperate or whatever. they didn't have a plan of what happens if this young woman did not want to cooperate and not only that, as to talk to her lawyer, frank carter, who'd written the affidavit. and as joe and harris told me,

she would have gone nowhere near this want of monica start asking for her lawyer. this was not one of the high points of the cancer operation. and it has been buried all of this time. and joe and giving is about everything else has, about the story. it doesn't seem appropriate to hide the one piece of evidence and facts that do not necessarily paint to start operation in a favorable light host back before she wrote that report, she interviewed all the participants on the office of independent counsel of. >> guest: every one of them, fbi agents have everyone. >> host: has that report been published? >> guest: it is still under seal. i was not able to get the report. i just got joanne harris', as the author told me a comedy central is in the report, but that has been hidden for all the stuff that was placed under seal by the court. but under thes the circumstancey judgment was that was important

for the public to know because lord knows that everything else, jury testimony and virtually every detail about people's lives was made public here. and i did agree with her that that was something that the public deserve to know. >> host: you've got to tell our viewers who joanne harris is a we get a sense of who she is. >> guest: joanne harris is a very common at low, now law professor. had been head of the clinton administration under janet reno. and the state because she was viewed as neutral, unbiased, and a very, very thorough person. >> host: let me just say as a lawyer looking in, it's a little surprising that the prosecutors, when they were organizing and thinking through what they're going to try to achieve with ms. lindsay and the ritz-carlton hotel, had not develop a strategy sufficient to deal with the question of immunity to really think through the various

scenarios that might come out of that. were you surprised at that? >> guest: well, don't forget, this is happening so rapidly, it goes to the question should they have gotten involved in this in the first place. should they have wired linda tripp after going to her house and jury that she was going to meet with monica lewinsky, and within 24 hours wiring or without first getting permission from the attorney general, or the three-judge panel. so it all goes to the fact that at this point, this is where i feel that the office of independent counsel kind of loss it's, you know, its composer as prosecutors. and wanted to come as jackie bennett, tony get ahead of the curve ones because they thought of getting stonewalled by the clinton white house. it's not your job to get ahead of the curve when it comes to something like this. and it led to problems i believe, because it had not been thought through correctly. >> host: one of the facts that was in dispute about what occurred in the ritz-carlton was one or not the office of

independent counsel asks monica lewinsky to wear a wire going into the oval office. did you bring clarity to that question and what do you think happened on that issue? >> guest: i think they clearly want talk about her wearing a wire to record some conversations, as to who, i am not sure. i don't know that you were talking about going into the white house to talk to bill clinton necessary. maybe to betty currie serve a. may be to burn in jordan. but it is very clear. at one point jackie bennett called him to make sure that they had the equipment ready in the office, if she was going to wear a wire. said they were talking about that. both she and her brother were adamant about this but as to what the specifics, did they really think she was going to go into the oval office and talk to bill clinton, i'm not sure that was what they had in mind. >> host: and then the request came to the sentelle panel to

expand the assignment, the mandate of the office of independent counsel. and before they went to the panel, they went to the department of justice and talk to the attorney general and the dead as to whether not they would support it. and the d.o.j. supported the expansion of the mandate that didn't have any regrets about that? you talk to the attorney general and to eric holder who is now the attorney general. didn't regret supporting giving the office of independent counsel this additional assignment? >> guest: well, they get. i interviewed janet reno at her home in florida, and as you know she is a very -- she thinks carefully before she answers. and/or answers are very short. but she said i would have done things differently, but i think they felt him did that and we have the presence of newsweek year who had called the office of independent counsel and said that he was going to have to contact vernon jordan and monica lewinsky to confirm the story.

to get the information. they felt pressured that they had to act quickly. so there were a lot of events. and incidentally, i do think that this is what journalists do. there was anything wrong about putting pressure. the question was, should the justice department had dictated its behavior by what a journalist was or not going to publish that i think that was a mistake. but both eric holder and janet reno clearly felt troubled. they clearly felt if they had more facts, particularly about some of the involvement with paula jones lawyers, they may have easily appointed someone else. but would they have appointed a special prosecutor? yes. which is an interesting part of the story because just because you get rid of ken starr doesn't mean the locomotive still isn't coming down the track at president clinton. and that locomotive was the paula jones deposition. for example and you talk about

this with the media. there is a constant theme of your bucket how to import and the media's role was in the development of the history of this in the decision-making was influenced by the media. and of course mike isikoff played a central role at that particular moment because he was threatening to publish at any moment. corsi geldof publishing a little bit and when the questions i got is what it is a cop had just gone ahead and publish what he knew according to the timeline that he had laid out for himself? would that have made a difference? >> guest: that is one of the questions i asked tarek the justice department had just said we don't care that is the interesting question and i do raise this in the book because i popped a lot of judges and prosecutors. the prosecutor at the job is not to encourage people to lie and if that had happened is quite possible that president clinton

would have figured out how to tell the truth because he knew what was about to hit him over the head. that could have changed things considerably. >> you described in great detail the president's deposition in the paula jones case which was played at the impeachment trial with a description of the definition of sexual relations. another key moment in addition to the paula jones definition was the president's appearance before the grand jury and his appearance there. that is where some great lawyering from david kendall occurred. can you describe what happened and how his presence on the scene and his preparation of the president made such an important difference? >> first of all the whole grand jury event was set up in a way that greatly favored president clinton with him just filling the camera and kenneth starr's

prosecutors being muted voice is in the background. but also, they had president clinton read a little statement where he admitted generally to some wrongdoing and didn't get into any details and in many ways the grand jury testimony cleaned up many of the problems that had been created in the paula jones case. i have read that holding. i have watched it many times and there are some things that are false. you can debate whether was intentionally false or shading and monocle wednesday concluded there is no way around some of them being fault but president clinton did a masterful job. they walked out of that thing totally depressed. it was like trying to nail jell-o to the wall but president clinton clearly dominated. his big mistake was going on television that night and

chewing out kenneth starr. >> you remember what the vote was alleging perjury in the grand jury? >> that is correct. >> two things to talk about. one was how close hillary clinton came to being ignited? and secondly, briefly, the secret service, lisa two themes you develop and it has never been discussed in your book and they are extraordinary stories. let's talk about the indictment -- proposed indictment. >> no one has ever seen this indictment to my knowledge except myself and i got my hands on it somewhere where it shouldn't have been. i know president clinton and mrs. clinton have never seen that yet. it was going to be an indictment of the first lady and webster

hubbell and it was going to relate to all of the early whitewater stuff. it was being mainly sponsored by the one in charge of the arkansas phase of things who honestly believed mrs. quinn had lied in her answers to some of these things. that is what most of it had to do with, the conduct itself was less significant. >> he was talked out by the office of independent tell. >> the office of the independent counsel was so focused and thought they had the president in their sights, they thought this would be a distraction and their assessment was that at this point chances of actually convicting even if they indicted were very low. but that was going on right at the time they were pursuing the president on the monica lewinsky

trial. >> the agents to testify and the secret service institutionally resented and resisted that. you tell that story and it devolved into where fbi agents were accusing the director of the secret cerus in participating in conspiracy to cover up. >> < a lot of time on this in the book is you know and it is a remarkable piece of the story. the head of the secret service happened to be from pittsburgh originally decided to break his silence and talk to me and it was remarkable. he did believe she's -- most of his story a checked out but he believed the fbi was trying to set him up to get him to agree that he was somehow facilitating liaisons with the president and young women in the white house. >> and hoping he could find out the false information to some other --

>> there was no dna on address. is a remarkable piece of the story. >> after the president was acquitted in the peach and keys people said at least the system works. if you look at the entire story and the role that the institutions of government played the you think the system worked at the end of the day? >> the system worked in this case? this is a work in the sense that the american public put a stop to this finally. it was the pressure of the american public that said enough, we have had enough and this trial has to come to an end but both sides in this and i don't mean tennis star personally or president clinton personally but both sides got this is a the that they really were ready to win at all costs. there was not restrained and this is what produced the collision that occurred here that was not good for the company. one of the reasons are spent so

much time trying to get this right is i do think we have to learn from this that we can never let us get to this point again in the country. it was a devastating event when so many other things were neglected, so many things were happening, terrorists starting to think about attacks on the u.s. and this is what we were focused on. >> henry hyde, chairman of the judiciary committee, probably as responsible as any single individual for the impeachment of bill clinton, was defeated in the trial and the senate but when you talk to him he took pride in one fact. my last question. he said, quote, george w. bush would not have been elected if we had not impeach president clinton. that is an extraordinary statement. obviously the election of george bush was a turning point in the

history of the country. do you agree with that? what was the basis for him to make that argument? >> i do for different reasons. henry hyde was a likable fellow. but i do think by the time we got to the election people were so exhausted that they had had enough of this and one of the people who comes out very well is al gore. he doesn't get credit for this but when he stood up for president clinton after the house impeached him and stood in the rose garden he knew that could wreck his chances of becoming president and he did it anyway because he was vice president and that was his duty. i think it was very likely that al gore would have been president but for all these events. >> a terrific book. thank you very much. good luck with it.

>> coming up next on c-span2, gov. gary herbert delivers you talk's state of the state address and live coverage of the justice department complex on public defenders. attorney general eric holder is scheduled to give the keynote address. >> our companies, providers of video, those who create the content, are working overtime to figure out how to get consumers all of the content they want on every device they may own as quickly as possible. >> the head of the national cable and telecommunications association on what is next for the cable industry. the communicator's saturday on c-span. your 1-stop shop for everything c-span is at c-span.org/store.

we will find our capital, supreme court and white house, our series on presidential libraries and every c-span program and a collection of books, ball prince, coffee mugs and other accessories. >> gov. gary herbert's state of the state address. he became governor last august when his predecessor left to become u.s. ambassador to china. gov. herbert who is running for reelecti thi year spoke about the economy. from the state capitols in salt lake city, this is a half hour. >> i am honored to be here. lt. gov. bill, speaker clark, members of the utah legislature, members of my cabinet, utah supreme court justices, the

state's first lady, my wife, my children, my mother, i am humbled and honored to stand before you tonight as you talk's seventeenth governor to offer this annual report on our great state. i paid tribute to those who have entered the nation's call to surf weather as a soldier in afghanistan, you saw and national guardsmen in iraq, humanitarian volunteer helping in haiti or ambassador john and mary kate of the people's republic of china, we give them all our heartfelt thanks. [applause] are also recognize those who put their lives on the line every day to protect hours. we suffered a great loss when military sheriff's deputy lost

her life in the line of duty. family is here with us tonight. please join with me as we remember the life of service and pay tribute to the entire law enforcement community whose sacrifice helps to keep us free and safe. [applause] in my inaugural address i spoke about the importance of and need for unprecedented partnerships. this will be a continuing thing

for my administration. our success will be measured by the way we unite people from across the state and across the aisle. we must join together to combat the challenges we face and to seize the opportunities ahead. over the last four months we have formed several such partnerships. let me highlight two of them. first, we created the advisory commission of my state government. the goal of this group is to help the state to do more with less in order to benefit all. it is heading by the former governor and is divers and bipartisan group of civic and business leaders taking an inside out look at all areas of the state. their efforts will improve our well-managed states and now more than ever we must achieve new levels of efficiency in state government. [applause]

seated next to the governor in the galley is former salt lake city mayor ted wilson. he is leading my resource council. toucher charge this group with building consensus on important issues such as public lands, water, conservation and resource development. these are matters that have become so polarized that progress has become all but impossible. this unprecedented partnership will provide a much-needed new state of mind regarding environmental issues. this new mindset was recently successfully demonstrated by conservation groups the bureau of land management, local governments and oil drilling companies. these groups came together to protect priceless indian rock art in nine mile canyon while still allowing for responsible development of natural gas resources. this is a prime example of how

partnership combined with leadership can achieve measurable results for our state. [applause] unprecedented partnership are essential because we are facing unprecedented challenges. we continue to undergo tough economic times, our state at its core is strong. the economic tide is turning. we are poised for progress and are well ahead of most other states in the nation. for the first time in three years we are expecting an increase in revenue for the upcoming fiscal year. housing is beginning to stabilize. the state's labor market is resilient and our unemployment rate is below the national average. this is a small consolation to those who are out of work but we will continue to make sound policy decisions to move this

state and your families back to solid economic ground and toward a more hopeful future. [applause] we are already taking the steps necessary to keep us in control of our own recovery. state agencies have implemented plans to overcome projected budget shortfalls for the current fiscal year. cabinet leaders are carefully managing reduced budgets while maintaining a vital services for you talk. we are exercising fiscal restraint in all branches of government. we recognize that the tough times are not entirely behind us and our future success is in large part tied to how we respond to these difficulties over the remaining 43 days of this legislative session. past sessions are best remembered for the creation of a

university or implementation of a new program. in these challenging economic times the 2010 session will primarily be remembered for the adoption of a balanced and responsible state budget. [applause] how we accomplish this in a way that provides adequate funding for education, human services, transportation and other important programs will be as challenging as any task faced in generations. tonight i ask you to a join me in this unprecedented partnership because by working together we can, me must and we will succeed. [applause]

first and foremost we must protect public and higher education. utah have long been committed to funding public schools and colleges and universities and technical institutions. few states in the country spend as much of their overall budget on education as we do. our unique demographics which is a way of saying we have larger families means we must continue this tradition to support and maintain and enhance the education and training our students receive. in spite of our difficult budget situation, i call upon you, our great legislators, to maintain our current level of commitment to education. a [applause] secondly, we must

balance our budget responsibly and in a way that does not stifle an economy that is finally showing signs of recovery. we need to support our hard-working citizens and businesses, not stifle them with new tax burdens. we need to help them succeed, not hamper their success. and we need to think towards the future, not just to day. we can accomplish this and the but i have submitted to you offers a framework of how it can be done. at this point in time i strongly believe the best thing we can do

for our state, for our citizens and economic recovery is to exercise continued fiscal restraint and to not raise taxes. [applause] there are many positive things happening throughout the state. utah is one of the best states for business. whether it knows the small family-owned company or a cutting edge medical device manufacturer like edward's life sciences or an international company, businesses have confidence in utah as a safe and dynamic place to invest. a key area of emphasis is going

to be growing businesses from within. i am pleased the majority of our economic developments are on protecting and expanding ut business. last month, a homegrown medical record management firm announced it would expand its operations adding full-time positions over the next several years. this is but one example of what is happening right now in utah. a healthy economy is imperative to our quality of life but another factor that makes living here so rewarding is our access to the best healthcare in the nation. our medical professionals that hospitals are widely recognized as among the best in the country. we understand public access to these services is critical. rather than simply talk or more

accurately sometimes fight about health care reform, utah has the forward with solutions. thanks to the efforts of medical professionals, citizens like lt. gov. greg bell and legislative leaders like dave clark, the utah health exchange is open for business. [applause] >> this is an innovative approach to control costs, increase access and expand choice. hundred have coverage but they chose for themselves. this helps health benefits that will lead be available to even more. our exchange is simply one example of how states can and should lead the nation on health care reform.

we don't want or need a 1-size-fits-all program that will balloon our national deficit and provide questionable care for our citizens. several weeks ago i travelled to washington d.c. and met with top leaders in congress and at the white house. i strongly emphasized that the federal government should not do what many governments are already doing in areas like health care. the continued encroachment of the federal government into our businesses and lives and pocketbooks must be challenged. [applause] >> the voices of fiscal restraint on critical issues like health care cannot be

ignored. we simply can't spend what we don't have and the tax and spend mind set is so prevalent in washington is not acceptable here in utah. [applause] government closest to the people is most effective. i have been fortunate to serve on that local level for the past several years and bar have served in state government. over those years i have worked with hundreds of hard-working employees and elected officials who carry out their duties with honesty and integrity. very seldom have are encountered situations where the ethics of those who hold the public trust has been called into question. but breaches' do occur and questions do arise. better charity would have provided better guidance. to set the standard for the

executive branch on signed an executive order that clarified guidelines about accepting gifts and participating in lobbying efforts and identifying conflicts of interest. this session i encourage you as lawmakers to remove any perception of possible ethical issues by implementing meaningful and substantive ethics reform. i know that the work is already under way on these bills and are look forward to signing them into law this session. [applause] also good news for drivers. congestion will be reduced on your daily commute. construction will begin on the expansion of i 15 and southern salt lake county. road and bridge improvements are taking place to st. george.

our investment in a solar transportation network will eliminate congestion on roads and highways saving time and money for businesses and commuters and improve opportunities for mass-transit. with a growing population we must do even more. thousands of additional cars and trucks on our roads leads to higher levels of air pollution especially in beautiful cache valley. later this week elected officials from across the state will delaine salt lake city mayor ralph becker and me as we address our air quality issues. we will ask for your help because this is a 2-part issue between government and the people but between friends, neighbors and co-workers and even strangers. it is a partnership where people realize they have a responsibility to reduce pollution and increase the quality of the air we breathe.

[applause] on the subject of protecting you talk's extraordinary environment let me be clear, i remain opposed to the importation of nuclear waste into utah. [applause] certainly the challenges of being a state with a federally permitted nuclear waste disposal facility are complex and ongoing. my responsibilities are quite simple and will not be compromised. as governor i will take and use all available state resources to protect the health, safety and welfare of all utahs for now and

regeneration to come. i would like to expand our focus beyond the legislative session. when the budget is adopted the session has ended and the bills have been signed or vetoed another important work will remain. i cannot say enough about the importance of supporting public education. i am bringing together individuals and groups from across the education community to craft a new and innovative solutions to significantly improve the education we provide our children. utah's teachers work hard but face classes that grow in size and complexity. they need new tools to continue to be successful. the solutions to some problems come down to dollars and cents but there are other solutions that rely on common sense, not just more funding. [applause]

i am optimistic that the governor's educational excellence commission which i will personally share will find, develop and implement these solutions. our state deserves a blueprint for success in education and i believe this group can get us there. we'll it to our students and the future of our state to provide an education that prepare their youth to compete in the global marketplace. this will not happen without renewed and sustained emphasis in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math. many of the jobs that are available today knows that our students will seek in the future require these skills. i call on students, care givers, parent people will educators and business leaders to join me in addressing the critical need to emerge our students in these fields of study. if we all pitch in with the spirit of commitment this state

is known for we can be leaders in providing the most productive work force in the nation. this is not just an investment of dollars but of time, energy and innovation from all of us and tonight i also call upon the utah board of regents and commissioner of higher education to present me with a report due this fall that shows how our colleges and universities plan to move the growing demand of students to meet the growing demand of employers in the twenty-first century. ..

>> let me offer just one example. utah's aerospace and defense-related industries generate billions of dollars in revenue annually and employ tens of thousands of utahans across the state. this is good, but we can do even better. private and public leaders have teamed up with the state university to increase the size of the aerospace cluster in utah by focusing on work force needs in this area. we will develop the talent and innovation necessary to become a premier player in the aerospace industry. utah becomes more than a place they would like to be, it becomes a place they need to be. [applause]

long-term planning is critical to utah's continued success. i've outlinedded initiatives for education and economic development. and i would like to conclude with my plan for energy. tonight i'm announcing what i would hope will be one of the most impactful economic initiatives ever undertaken in our state. it is one that we in utah are uniquely positioned to accomplish. it is the utah energy initiative. i'm assembling the best minds in the state and charging them with creating a ten-year strategic energy plan whose purpose is threefold. one, to insure utah's continued access to our own clean and low-cost energy resources. two, to be on the cutting edge of new energy technologies. and, three, to foster economic opportunities and to create more jobs. [applause]

we have a rich abundance of diverse natural resources, everything from traditional fuel such as oil, gas and coal to renewables such as solar, wind and hydroelectric. two new wind projects are now producing electricity. geothermal is rapidly coming online. existing generation sites show great potential. simply put, few other states have the energy resources with which we here in utah have been blessed. but it is the innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit of utah that truly distinguishes us. we have some of the best research and technology minds in the world. we must further harness and empower them. we must be also engage utah's rural areas in this effort as there is no one who has more know how or more at stake than

most communities in utah whose life blood is and has historically been the energy industry. just three months ago utah state university announced a partnership between the state, the department of energy and basin communities to construct a 70,000 square foot entrepreneurial and research center. the funding included a $15 million donation from mark bingham. what a perfect illustration of how government on all levels can work together with universities, industry and the private sector -- >> we're going to leave the last few minutes of this recorded speech and take you live to a discussion on the public defender system. in 1963 the u.s. supreme court overturned the felony conviction of clarence earl gideon after he is denied a -- courts are required under the sixth amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who can't afford it.

this is a discussion with a number of justice department officials including the attorney general, live coverage here on c-span2. >> i'm so pleased to see so many friends and so many people who are involved in this issue. many of you may recall that some of us met here in washington at the behest of attorney general janet reno back in 1999 and again in 2000. and here we are having this next meeting in 2010 because of the support of our new attorney general, eric holder, who will be introduced shortly by loy robinson. i wanted to say a couple things to welcome you here. it's been a long time since we had a gathering like this, and i hope we can use this occasion as the attorney general has said to talk seriously about the issue of defense not just in terms of what's happening today, but what it means going forward. and i bring my own history. i started my career right here 32 years ago with the d.c.

public defender service, and in 1978 we were talking about this issue of indigent defense, and we were celebrating 25 years of cases like gideon and galt. now here we are 50 years later from those decisions talking about what it means to talk about indigent defense many the 21st century, and i hope you'll hear two things. one, this is not our last, but our first meeting to talk about these issues. the attorney general's been involved in this very seriously. [applause] and secondly, i don't want some of you to be upset, but the department of justice did pay for 200 people, public defenders from every state and representatives from every state, and that making sure there are 200 people here. some of you had to pay your own way, but the 200 people are here because of the generosity of the department of justice to make it possible for every state to be represented in this forum, unlike some of the others. [applause] i brought just as a mow men toe

for people like norm and steve bright and others, remember the 1999, 2000 books? i have them here. [laughter] the good news, we made a little bit of progress. because of the institute i now direct for race and justice, we'll have all that information on these. do all of you have one of these? everyone should have a thumb drive. we have all of the attorney general's speeches that he's given on this issue, documents from indigent defense communities around the country. we hope, we have computers here that you will add additional material from what's going on in your office, but here's a way with this very small item you can take back new, improved, innovative reforms that are critical to the indigent defense community. you should have on the one side the logo of the institute for race and justice, and on the other side the department of justice symposium onty gent defense. if you've got a low doe on

one -- logo on one side, you got the wrong drive. if you have a blank thumb drive, give it back. we'll give you one loaded with all the material that's important. so why is this important in the year 2010? we have more people without lawyers, we have more people in jail, we have more lawyers without resources, we have more challenges. we have the results of the great work of people like barry she can and peter new fed to find hundreds of people who have been appointed lawyers, taken to trials, convicted and sentenced -- in some cases -- to die who were completely innocent, wrongfully charged. that's the change we have made from 1999 to the year 2010. we have not been able to celebrate the fact there is a gideon or a galt in the 21st century, a case that gives us hope and confidence that we can make an enormous amount of difference. our work today is to start from the ground, to start talking about indigent defense, start

making sure whether it's in iowa, ohio, mississippi or tennessee or massachusetts or new york or the district of columbia that every client has a lawyer who has the resources to effectively represent him or her, and that's what we'll be doing today. judges are here, prosecutors are here, public interest organizations are here, we have a phenomenal group of people who have done incredible work. we're going to have loy robinson who's been with us from the very beginning, many of you may remember that loy has been involved in criminal justice matters for decades. she was work withing with attorney genere know in the 1990s. she served in the office of justice programs, and she also helped convene the 1999 program, was instrumental in the 2000 program that i mentioned earlier, and she's done a tremendous job making sure that indigent defense is on the radar. she also made it possible for us to have a remarkable conference

on indie jet justice for -- indigent justice for two years at harvard before the reno administration left washington. and we're very fortunate when this idea was mentioned, the attorney general embraced it immediately, and lori has been organizing it, and we are here because of the leadership of someone who for decades has been a warrior in the interests of indie gent defense. please welcome to the podium to introduce our attorney general, lori robinson. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. and before going forward, i want to just recognize charles ogiltree. flunk, when he said -- you know, when he said about three decades since he had served at pds, you know, i was thinking i've known you about two decades, and then

you talked about the three decades that i'd been work anything the field, and you had to really rub that in, didn't you? [laughter] but it has been three decades of charles ogiltree that you have been out there, really toiling in the fields and making a mark, and you have become an icon in working in this field. and the work with you have done, and i want grow stand up and be recognized -- i want you to stand up and be recognized for what you have done. [applause] and we are so incredibly fortunate to have him over these next two days as the moderator for this event. and let me welcome all of you on behalf of the department of justice and on behalf of the office of justice programs to

what i think will be, i hope will be a landmark symposium. i'm excited about the next two days. i think we have a great program, and i think we have a superb lineup of speakers and presenters. i think we have a great opportunity here to share ideas, to share information and to really make a great contribution to getting work done in an area where a great deal of work has to be done. and i have to admit that i have some sense of déjà vu here. charles alluded to the fact that we were here originally 11 years ago back in the reno days. we were, in fact, here in this very same hotel, the mayflower. many of you were here, and we were here for a second indigent

defense conference the following year. and, in fact, my principle assistant deputy attorney general mary lou leery was leading ojp at that time. and, of course, our keynote speaker, eric holder, was deputy attorney general at that time. so all of this is looking a little familiar to me. and this is an issue, i have to tell you, which i feel very passionate about. if my many years -- in my many years in the criminal justice field, i have certainly observed that the criminal justice system only works well when every part of it is working effectively. and that's why addressing this crisis is a critical, critical, important thing not only to me, but to this attorney general and to this department of justice.

and we know that after the two conferences back in 1999 and in 2000 that the department of justice went silent on this issue for many years. it went silent until eric holder resurrected it as a priority last year. but forchew that itly -- fortunately, many of you kept the ball rolling. you kept doing outstanding work in your states and in your communities. and i want to say thank you for the progress that you kept underway. you kept those wheels in motion. and i'm so pleased to see the number of people who are here shot just interested in the topic, but committed to creating real change. and as charles ogletree said, we

have defenders here from every state, and we have them from some of the territories, from across the pacific ocean, in fact. we're also extremely pleased that we have in addition to defenders we have other leaders here from other parts of the system, and we have representation not only from criminal justice, but from juvenile justice systems which i think is very important. [applause] and your presence here speaks volumes about your commitment. as i'm sure you've noticed when you go outside, this is not the ideal time of year to be in washington. that white stuff out on the mall is not the dropping from the cherry trees. but you came here, every one of you, because you recognize that a strong public defense bar is vital to a legitimate system of justice in the united states of

america. the idea behind these two days is to build on that energy and interest to create coalitions of stakeholders that can affect lasting change in your jurisdictions. and i hope that you see this symposium as more than just a chance to share knowledge, and i think this is important, but as an opportunity to really change the way that we do business in your communities as far as justice in america is concerned. now, before i move on to introduce our keynote speaker, i really do need to thank some of the people who were instrumental in planning this symposium. first of all, i want to thank my counsel, marlene beckman. marlene, why don't you stand up. [applause] marlene was the organizer in chief. she's been just indispensable

more broadly as an adviser to me, and, marlene, i don't know what i'd do without you. i also want to recognize the six ojp staff who did the bulk of the work here. if they can stand as i name them. eileen gary, kathy grasso, danica and linda truitt. [applause] and there were a host of others outside ojp who were on the planning committee, too, and i can't recognize all of them individually, but i'd like to recognize collectively all of those both inside and outside ojp who were on the planning committee. if all of you could collectively stand up, let's give them a round of applause. [applause] we also had significant partners

at nlada, the president and ceo jo ann wallace, the directer of defender legal services, richard goman, both of them close partners and instrumental this this organizing this event. if they would both stand. [applause] and likewise, if patty would stand, patty was very instrumental as the directer of the national juvenile defender center. patty's work has been critical in improving the state of juvenile defense, and i think we owe her a tremendous thanks in spotlighting the needs of juvenile defendants. [applause] and finally, i want to thank my colleagues jim birch, the acting

directer of the bureau of justice assistance, and jeff, acting administrator of the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. many people think ojp only supports prosecution and law enforcement. but these two individuals have gone over their, out of their way including in recent years in the last administration to look for ways to support public defense. and this symposium happened because they found the resources to bring you all together. now, you should know that the guy sitting over here has the power, but these guy cans have the money. [laughter] would they, please, stand? [applause]

let me now turn to introduce the guy who does have the power. i am so very pleased that the attorney general was able to be here this morning to help open this important event. i'm sure you all know that eric holder has spent his career in public service. he began his career at the justice department in the public integrity section of the criminal division. he later served as a superior court judge here in d.c. and then returned to the department of justice as u.s. attorney in the district. while in that position, he had the benefit of good tutelage. jo ann wallace was head of the public defender service at the time, and i suspect that anything that eric holder didn't grasp intuitively, jo ann was

there to offer guy dance. -- guidance. [laughter] eric holder knows the importance of the three-legged stool. he knows the court can't run without a strong defense as well as prosecution. he carried those beliefs into his role as deputy attorney general when he helped to launch the department's indigent defense initiative back under janet reno in the '90s. and he certainly brought that attention and interest when he returned to the department last year. you can rest assured that you have a resolute champion in eric holder. so, please, welcome the attorney general of the united states of america. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. i'd like to say it's good to see you all here, except i can't see you with all these bright lights. [laughter] i was in detroit yesterday, and we have substantially more snow here than in the midwest, and if you know anything about washington, d.c., 2 or 3 inches is something we can handle. we've got 2 or 3 feet, so it's ap amazing thing -- an amazing thing you were all able to get here, so i thank you for joining us for this very important conference. i want to thank you, laurie. it's an honor to join with you and my old friend, tree, in welcoming our participants. many of you have traveled mr. all across -- from all across the country, and i want to thank each and every one of you for your engagement and for your commitment to the principles that define who we are and who we can be as a

nation. for well over two centuries now, we as a people have been striving to build a more perfect union, an america that lives up to the vision of our founders. a country where the words of our constitution can finally reach the full measure of their intent. it is no less than this ongoing work, the fulfillment of our constitution, that brings us together here today. now, i'm here to discuss a responsibility that we as stewards of our nation's criminal justice system all share. a responsibility to insure that the fairness and integrity of that system is paramount. i would argue that our criminal justice system is one of the most distinctive aspects of our national character, and i would also argue it is one of the most praiseworthy. now, that said, we must face facts. and the facts prove that we have a very serious problem on our hands. nearly half a century has passed

since the supreme court's decision in gideon v. wane wright. the court followed with other decisions reckizing the -- recognizing the right to counsel in juvenile and misdemeanor cases. today despite the decades that have gone by, these cases have yet to be fully translated into reality. that is a fact. but you already know this. all of you have read the reports, and all of you know the data. and many of you have learned this truth in the hardest of ways, by experiencing it on the ground. you've seen how in too many of our counties and in too many of our communities some people accused of crimes, including juveniles, may never, may never have a lawyer either spirally or during -- entirely or during a critical stage of the proceedings against them. in fact, juveniles sometimes waive their right to counsel without ever speaking to an attorney to help them understand

what it is they are giving up. this is simply unacceptable. and our courts accept these waivers. meanwhile, recent reports evaluating state public defense systems are replete with examples of defendants who have languish withed in jail for weeks or even months before counsel was appointed. when lawyers are provided to the poor, too often they cannot represent their clients properly due to insufficient resources and inadequate oversight. that is without the building blocks of a well-functioning public defender system, the type of system set forth in the ten principles of the american bar association and the national juvenile defender center. now, as we all know, public defender programs are too many times underfunded, too often defenders carry huge caseloads that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fulfill

their legal and ethical responsibilities to their clients. lawyers under these caseloads can't interview their clients properly, can't file the appropriate motion, can't conduct fact investigations or spare the time needed to ask and apply for additional grant funding. and the problem is more about anything than just resources. in some parts of the country, the primary institutions for the delivery of defense to the poor -- i'm talking about basic public defender systems -- simply do not exist. now, i continue to believe that if our fellow citizens knew about the extent of this problem, they would be as troubled as you and i. public education about this issue is critical. for when equal justice is denied, we all lose. now, as a prosecutor and a former judge i know that the fundamental integrity of our

criminal justice system and our faith in it depends on effective representation on both sides. and i recognize that some may perceive the goals of those who represent our federal, state and local governments and the goals of those who represent the accused as forever at odds. i reject that premise. [applause] although they may stand on different side of an argument, different sides of a courtroom, the prosecution and the defense can and must share the same objective. not victory, but justice. otherwise we are left to wonder if justice is truly being done and left to wonder if our faith in ourselves and in our systems is misplaced. problems in our criminal defense system aren't just morally untenable, they're also economically unsustainable. every taxpayer should be seriously concerned about the

systemic costs of inadequate defense for the poor. when the justice system fails to get it right the first time, we all pay, often for years for new filings, retrials and appeals. poor systems of defense do not make economic sense. so where do we go from here? i want to speak with you clearly and honestly about this. this in the last year, i have thought about it, i have studied and i have discussed the current crisis in our criminal defense system. what i've learned and what i know for sure is that there are no easy solutions. no single institution, not the federal government, not the department of justice, not a single state can solve the problem on it own. progress can only come from a sustained commitment to collaboration with diverse partners. now, i expect every person many this room to play a role in advancing the cause of justice,