essential as an organizing tool. it's the way to make calculations. again, you never want cocalculate the tray geek tear of the ball based on physics. you'd never, ever get the answer. so -- the effective theory idea is the key to progress. actually, everyone is using effective theories all the time, just physicists give it a name, and we know we are using it. it helps. it's a very systematic thing. we can say what the uncertainty is, what that allows, a finite number of parameters, make prodictions within the effective theory and tell when it's going to break down. it's a very systematic way in doing way we all do intuitively. as i said, sometimes the theory on the smaller scale is gone in which case you can derive what's

in the effective theory for more fundamental physics and other times it's not, and then you yows work in terms of quantities themselves. always keep the old ideas as long as they are correct. sometimes things could just be wrong, but if you have ideas that have to be published over time making several correct prediction, they are right in a sense, and then you can advance when you find something new and when they cease to apply. in this case, a smaller distance scale. so we said atoms inside a ball, but, of course, even within the atom, and this is also -- make sure you know what's inside an atom, there's smaller structures. when you probe inside an atom, it's not fundamental. we know it's made out of nuclei with electrons around it, and those nuclei are not fundamental either. they are protons and neutron, and the protons and neutrons are fundamental. they are octobers called quarks

that are inside the protons and new trons that are held together through a force known as the strong force, and that's what we have when we have a proton or a neutron. just a quote to point out. when i wrote my first book, i decided to glance through others to see what people do. i looked at one book, and there was funny and it was written in 1947, a good book, but there's a quote in it that's great, and i'll let you think about it for a minute to see why it's so fantastic. instead of a large number of atoms, we are reft with three essentially different entities, protons, electron, and knew -- neutrinos thus it seems we hit the bottom of which matter is formed. i hope you see the irony.

they thought, okay, wref the answer. we found the smallest scale. it's very unlikely, i would say, that we are living at the time when we really got to all the answers and we end. as we develop tools to look inside, we find that there's new structure, and that keeps happening. it would be rather incredible it we were at the bottom, and so i do find it ironic at a time he was so excited about finding the new structure, he dismissed the idea there could be further structures that we just didn't have the tools yet to find. of course, as we know, i mean not only are there neutrons, but there's quarks inside. quarks are interesting because there's theoretical motivation, but they were verified by experiment. that's the other important thing that gets lost because physics seem remote. it sounds obstruct, we believe when there's a connection between the theory and the

experiment, and we have a unifying framework for which we make many predictions that work. that's what the particles of physics does telling you about quarks, the electrons, and the forces of which they interact, and there's many ways it's been tested at a high level of precision. we're looking now to go beyond that. how do we go beyond it? we're on the new energy scale now, looking at something called the large hedge collider, lhc. large means large, and he was a strong force like protons colliding together to bundle protons at various speeds, and it's colliding them, and that's why the collider. it's not a pretty name, but it is the name, and it's the large hadron collider, the lhc. you have a huge underground tunnel. actually, there's 27 kilometers

in circumference with a few rings. the protons are accelerated in excessive waves and then collide together at high energies in the collider. my book i joke that i don't like to use sue perlative, but you're forced to referring to the lhc because it's the highest energy, highest intensity machine, and it's the coldest extended place on earth. it has amazing vacuum, everything about it is reaching extremes to try to get to as high energy and high intensity as we can do with the available technology. on an industrial scale. i'll show you a little bit about what happens through a video. it comes into the accelerator, goes around rings, the lhc ring, and then the tunnel. this tunnel you can walk in it. i have, you go into the -- here the protons enter a collision

region, and around that region, they have experiments, and when the protons collide, they go out through the experiment, and the various layers that as you go out transversely measure various aspect, and so not only is the lhc an amazing machine, but within it, there's amazing detectors. the ones i'm most interested in are known as atlas and cms, general purpose detectors with the idea if there's something new, they'll find it and know what it is. they have as much information about the particles to measure charge, and energy, and that's what the detectors do. we're excited about what's going on there, and this is the frontier energy scale. #we know about the standard model. we're trying to answer questions that go beyond this model. what are the questions? what do we think we might learn there? well, one of the things that we're pretty sure we will learn is how do particles acquire

mass? fundamental elementary particles acquire mass. we just think of thinks having mass, but turns out in the description of particles, if you didn't have the extra mechanism that you might have heard of called the higgs mechanism, you would make nonsensical predictions at high energies. it wouldn't make sense. the theory can't be that simple theory. there that has to be something more interesting going on, and that's called the higgs mechanism that i won't explain in detail here, but i have a chapter in the book explaning what it means in terms of particles acquiring mass. in addition to that, there's another puzzle, which is, okay, particles get their mass, but why are they are what they are? what sets the scale for the masses? in fact, it's a real puzzle if you just use quantum field theory, which is what we used to

combine together specific relativity and quantum mechanics to describe it, which we do and believe it's right, but if you calculated how heavy you think the masses should be, you would find a discrepancy of 16. to make the theory work, it looks like you have to do a fudge or fine tuning as we call it. [laughter] now, i mean i'm glad you laugh at that. we think it's laughable to. we think there's got to be more interesting structure there, and that more interesting structure is something i talked about in the previous book and it could be something in extension based on semitry known as super semime try, and we could have evidence of that if masses are what they are, there should be testable consequences at the lhc. those are the things we think it

will do is one understand the higgs mechanism, what implements it? is there the particle? what is it that gives particles the mass? it seems it's likely to be something rather breasting. rather interesting. we have interesting aspects to tells more about the nature of spate time. the other thing it might do at the large hadron collider is learn about dark matter. that's not necessarily true, but what it dark matter? it's stuff like we have. it aggregates, it clumps, but it doesn't interact with light. it interacts gravitationally, but not with light, which, of course, makes it hard to see. we call it dark mat e but it's really transparent matter because we see dark thing, they absorb light. dark matter doesn't interact with light at all. that's the distinguishing

feature of dark matter. new hampshire, maybe it has -- nonetheless if it has a mass we're talking about that the lhd is exploring, it looks like we might have the right amount of dark matter, and there's experiments looking for that thing, looking for dark matter with the mass being explored at the large hadron collider. it has the potential to tell us quite a bit about the nature that's out there. it's not just looking for particles, but looking for forces and descriptions that's interesting. what are the fundamental actions that govern the operation of our universe. of course, many of you have also heard about other questions, and i want to emphasize, they are questions that won't necessarily be explored experms, and we don't know how to explore them in most cases, but people nonetheless study through

theory, and the question is what would be a consistent theory to combine together quantum mechanics and gravity? now, i say it's a theoretical puzzle for the following reasons. any of the experiments we do we do without answering this question. again, we're going back to the effective field theory idea. street theory is not necessarily any impact on the any experiments we're doing because it's this fundamental underlying structure we're not yet measuring. that means that we can use quantum mechanics. we can use relativity to predict things depending on whether it's large or small scales. it's only when we get to the very tiny distance scales which is far beyond the centimeters the lhc is exploring. nonetheless, the fact that we don't know how to make predictions there tells us, at least, that there's a theory underlying what we see.

there's a puzzle, a question to be answered, but it's not a question that will necessarily have effects at the e peermts we're doing, which, in fact, it's this very invisibility that makes it hard to see, the fact that a theory can't tell the difference between fundamental strings or particles. it's hard to measure, but we can do an experiment and interpret them in terms of our effective theory, which you all understand now. there could be a final short distance frontier because we explored all the distances. at this point there's a distance scale called the plain scale, and it's often a scale associated with quantum gravity, but we don't know in principle how to go, even with a thought experiment, how do i make a measurement at a scale smaller

than this scale, the plank scale? ordinarily when we think of going to small distance scale, we think about high energies. why that? because if you think about a high energy wave, it isolates a lot. there's many oscillations. if there's a short wavelength, you can probe small structure. there's variation on a scale in order to be able to probe that structure. if you had low energy in a big wave length, you wouldn't be able to measure anything within it, so generally, we think that going to high energy we probe short distance structures. at the plank scale breaking down, and it breaks down for an interesting reason. if you were to go to a high enough energy to be able to problem smaller than the plank scale, you already put so much energy inside such a small scale that you would have a black hole, and you have a black hole and you add more energy, it just gets big and bigger.

in principle, we don't know how to study short distances. it's not relevant to anything going on today, but it's very interesting that it seems there's a limit where there could be a limit to where we would talk about the space in conventional terms. completing the story of scale, i should tell you that little nugget. let's go back to what we're doing today. #we know how the standard model works, but we expect there's more that lies beyond. there's questions we don't know answers to necessarily, how to particles acquire mass, why are masses what they are? we hope that by studying at higher energies, a new regime we have not yet explored, and a greater precision, reducing uncertainty, we'll be able to see telltale signs that tell us what lie beyond the standard model. so effective theories, what's known as the tev scale, the scale that the large hadron collider is exploring. there's electron volts, a unit

of energy we choose to use, and maybe there's a more fundamental description or sub structure we have not yet explored. the challenge is to measure precisely enough that we see the effective theory field, and that's when we understand the theory when we understand what its true limits are and reveal a more fundamental dryings or evidence for that -- description or evidence for 245. so, i'm just going to say one near ri i've -- theory i've worked on, but in order to do that, i want to talk more on scale and give you a picture of an exciting thing we hope to learn at the large hadron collider, and then i'm beginning to go back and tell you why i ended up here. okay. the first question because we're talking about scale, there's an absolute distance scale, and there's general relativity, and before einstein's theory, we talked about energy differences, probably what you learned about

in high school, but the absolute value of energy is important because it tells you about the nature of space time, and it tells you about the nature of space time by telling you about the metrics, and so let's think. metric giving meaning to scale. basically, you have a ruler; right? if i say that something is two apart, that wouldn't mean anything. do i mean two miles, two kilometers, two centimeters, what do i mean? if i have a ruler, it establishes units that i can tell you. metrics sort of tells you what the number means in terms of an actual distance. there's something else going on with metric. the metric tells you about the curvature of space and the ang 8s between things. is there like a sphere? a saddle on a horse? is it just flat like the table top? that's -- it's a very important information. of course, it's very hard to picture the curvature of three dimensional space, so i don't recommend you do that

necessarily, but we can think about what curvature means by going down a dimension and two dimensional services because we can embed them and see what they look like so you can see negatively and positively flat surface, and three dimensional space can have curvature which is important because it tells us about the nature of gravity. we can think about particles going through a curved sphais and following the most sufficient path within the curved space and that mimics of effects of gravity. if i had something coming in, it's naturally attracted to the center. we understand that in warping the space time around the planet, for example. the curvature, basically energy warps the space or giving curve to the space, and that curvature tells you how gravity effects something moving in space time. that's what this is showing. if you had some ball for

example, it's going to -- again, it's a two dimensional analogy. it's not really what's going on, but gives you a flavor for what's going on. if something comes through, of course, it's attracted to the center. how attracted it is depends on how heavy it is. if there's a high mass neutron star, it's curved more and has higher gravitational attraction, and if it's a black hole, it could be even more. so the thing i'm going to tell you about briefly and probably a little confusing because i had to write a whole book to explain it, but just to give you a flavor. what we considered is the idea that there could be not just the three dimensions we know about, but actually an additional dimension of space we don't see. why we don't see it could be many different reasons, but the most intuitive is that it could be very tiny. in this case, it could be so warped we don't see that additional dimension.

nonetheless, it could have physical effects on our universe, and it could tell us something very interesting about gravity. it could be that space time itself is watch -- warped or curved in such a way that how you measure things depends on where you are, and that's what i want think about what scale is. things could be heavy so gravity would have a big influence if i'm on what's called the gravity brain here, but moving through the extra dimension, it could be that the scale changes. that's what the metric tells me, and that's what we found. we just solved the equation of general relativity in this context of an extra dimension beyond what we see and three dmengal worlds at the end of it. the brains at the end, and brain stands for membrane. it's a slower dimensional surface in higher dimensional space, and we live on the weak brain. it looks 3-d to us, but gravity

could extend throughout the other dependence. that could explain why masses are what they are. we could be living in the portion of extra space where masses are what they are, and not the much bigger value we calculate in using quantum field theory. it should be confusing. don't feel badly if it's confusing. it's an exciting possibility when we consider the field of extra dimensions. as exotic a and as crazy as the idea sounds because it answers this question about mass that the large hadron collider is exploring, really have a chance of knowing whether this is right by doing measurements at the large hadron collider even something as exotic as this fourth dimensional theory. this is just to say why do we bother considering extra dimensions in the first place? why have we got there?

as long as we're on the spirit of inquiry, babies in cribs explore the two dimensions, but my older sister tried to climb out of the crib because they wanted to explore other dimensions. that's orve it's there, but there could be other dimensions, other dependences we don't see. only going to know about them if we explore them. we adopt know for sure they don't exist. we can only find out if they do by entertaining the possibility they exist and say what would happen if they did. in fact, einstein's theory of gravity works for any number of dimensions, not just three dimensions of space. we already know how to do the calculation, and it doesn't tell us how many dimensions there are. another reason is string theory. string theory combines quantum mechanics and gravity, but it's only consistent if there's extra dimensions in space. if you're a string theorist, you are forced to consider the possibility there's extra dimensions, but the other reason

is the one i just gave you. it has the possibility of explaning connections amongst physical parameters in our universe, and that makes it worth exploring. maybe it's so hard to find the answer. people have been looking for the answer to the question about mass, and smart physicists have been looking for the answer for a few decades now, and we don't know still. there's no theory that's so simple and beautiful, and so it was worth considering a slightly more exotic possibility and telling the experimenters how to look for it. that's the role we play. if this is the answer, this is what you should find. these experiments at the large hadron collider are tough. it's good to have targets and have what it is they need to look for. this is, again, the idea that gravity could be very strong on the gravity brain and very weak on the weak brain where we live, and you know that because my cousin is there. that's where we live. gravity could be weaker than it is on the gravity brain.

here's the experimental signal to show i'm not cheating you. there's part -- particles that could be traveling in the extra dimension. we don't see that dimension. what would we see? particles with properties we know about, but they would seem to have a bigger mass because we interpret the momentum as mass because we don't see the dmemtion. these expermits are looking for particles with properties like what we know about, but they are heavier. looking for heavier particles. how heavy should they be? again, just the right mass for the large hadron collider to explore because it is answering the questions about particle masses we know about, so in the particular scenario, if it's answering this question, the large hadron collider should find these particles known as kk particles. these are a lot of ideas. that's a lot of stuff.

i think for me it was important to say how the more conceptional ideas about scale combined together with what we do all the time when we're doing science. i think it's really important, and maybe we'll show it to be real, and it's certainly the fruit of creative endurance. i'll end the talk about talking about other applications with these ideas in art projects because it was a lot of fun. i think it's a good time to think bows the intersection of art and science. not all of it is great, not all is terrible, but it's interesting. it absorbs the culture of the time. it's all scientific ideas and it's interesting to do them. i'll briefly mention a gallery show that i co-cure rated. co-cureuated.

you either take art and try to make some science thing look artistic or have an artistic idea and say is there science in it? take a theme we both can think about and scale is one of them. i mean, it's very central to the way artists are thinking, and it's very central to the way scientists are thinking, and so what we work for with the los angeles art association, we put out a call, and we asked them to try to incorporate ideas in art and also what a scientist thinks about. one of the really important ideas is that idea we saw earlier that if you look at small scale, things can look different than on large scales. when i look at the table, i see a table, not atoms, yet if i probed inside, i would see something different. here's a couple samples briefly. one is just looking at the tree itself. that's what barbara did.

look at the bark on the right, it doesn't give you the feel of that large tree. it's like the eiffel tower when i started off. i just find this fantastic. they had old books so taking books to scale and carving the pictures, cutting them to become one big thing. you have to thing that's integrated union of all the little pictures. there's individual picture, but then it turns into something different when all put together, and one more, the it looks like just some pop art thing, but if you zoom in close, which i don't have here, it's pictures of her face, so it looks like someone's staring at you if you look close. it's all integrated from various features. you see something different from the tiny scale, and if you have the resolution to see that, which we don't in this light,

unfortunately, and there's other scales and pieces of art, too, that were fantastic. the other thing i want to tell you about is what we call the projective opera that we had -- hang on. okay, so when i wrote my first book "war passages" it was an extra dimension of space. he read it, and he was a composer working at air com, and he wanted to do something with the intersection of art and science and use science as innovation and he liked the idea of working with this physical theory, and you know, i just wrote this book, and i tried hard to organize ideas, and it was such a liberating thought to be able to say you can have many different voices, music, art, words, and just try to just give an idea. you're not teaching a lesson, but to try to give an idea of what physics is about, but also as important to me is why are we doing this?

why explore? systematic do we think -- why do we think there's more out there? we had this opera at the center, and it was this question of the difference between someone who thinks they have all the answers, who lives in a 3-d world and another who thinks there's more, who couldn't finish the music and went out to the 3-d world. i'll just end by playing this because it's actually kind of fun. so it was actually a stage reading, and they moved around a little, and she's able to explore the extra dimension, and he is in the lower dimensional world, and her voice is different than his, and that's what he wanted to explore, be able to go and explore, and he did this, he has a bridge image to use, and so the tone is really in the lower dimensional

world, and she impose out to ex-- goes out to explore, and he doesn't understand why she would want to do that. it's about experiments and the difference of someone who can go out and explore someone and another who stays home seeing things indirectly, and how can they piece that together to get more information and believe it when they can't go and explore. ..

to put together the story. fcc, she was visibly explained this extra dimension he can't get to. he's just home. i may actually want to be equation. i was uncomfortable, says that if you want to pick out equations, i'll put it in there. so he picked out which one he wanted. so actually one of the things that's interesting about that is a lot of the time when you see me sick about scientists, they rarely actually show them doing science. so it was fun to actually have, even an abstract way, an idea of what the science is that is going on.

so i'll just conclude, i will let it play out by saying that i think it's pretty clear and this is really one thing i like to get across. why do you think there is more there? because every time with what we find more there. it would be unlikely that there isn't. we have these definite questions that we know there should be answers to. it's a very exciting time because the hydrant collator is his work on exploring energies. dark matter science is improving or trying to fit it all together and that's what makes it so exciting. so this picture one time i saw them as there. i like it because it embraces the dimension world and this rich three-dimensional world that could be out of there and this rich world that was fair. and actually did not the time, but the pictures that really the château de leon, which is near

the collator, so it seemed appropriate. i will just let it play out and maybe you can stop it and say thank you. [applause] >> so, thank you, lisa. [inaudible] >> tanks, lisa. in a recent new scientist, lisa grossman talks about the small unexplored range at the lac between 1:15 and 1:45. even electron volts. >> you're talking about the hague searcher clicks >> takes turns out not to be there, does that affect your thoughts on a theory with an

extra dimension or two? >> well, i tried to separate out these issues. there's two issues going on. one is what is the critical mass? one thing that is interesting -- the leverage is focused on this issue first. what does it mean? right now people are worried really think they were getting worried because her cozy night on the mass range. that's what the large hedge on collator is designed to do. this has only one mass if it is out there and it's supposed to find out what it is. if you have people before they turn on the large hydronic collator what they thought tenacity, most thought would be of value not yet tested. without any additional data, they would've said, so if you really believed i was right and you wouldn't be at all disturbed now. you say this is not the mass i thought it should be and i haven't explored it yet. and so we have experiments, no one really knows the answers. so you can say, i think the mass

might be 116 ged, but you know, i could be wrong as it may be i'll feel safer america be more values. the fact is a lot of those values are now not possible. so it is out in another region we think is interesting. over the course of the next year we might actually know the answer to whether the conventional, the simplest convention of the hague since they are. why are we doing a search? we don't actually know even if the higgs mechanism that's right, we don't know what it is that implements that mechanism. it could be the simplest model that gives predictions we can really know very well because they higgs interacts with massive in its interaction is very precisely with heavier particles because they have more mass. but it could be something a little more settled that has to do with underlying this mechanism. if that is the case, it's not clear that the sophia would be testing it.

it could be something different or a bit heavier and actually has stronger interaction. so i view it that we are learning about the nature of what hicks could be. right now we could say -- i could pretend that we don't find it be and what it is that can give particles have mass. no one has an answer to it. i think a lot of people really think the higgs mechanism is ray. but the question is what it is precisely. >> if i can ask another one, in the future if at some point the lhc will probably run out of things to look for, what will be the argument for building a later excelerator? >> okay so right now i myself would feel much more sanguine that would appeal to answer all these questions about the extra

dimensions if we had three times the energy. i mean, it's a very rough argument. we know basically everything should appear. press as theorists, it's sort of the same theory. from experimenters point of view coming, from her machine we can definitely find that come into a regime we don't have any hope at all. the large hydronic collator will do a lot of exploration, but it's not clear they will actually explore everything because you need a lot of energy. so the large hydronic collator when we started making that 25 years ago. since then, we've learned a lot that things are heavier than people might have guessed in the theater and that they really could be. the real answers might be higher energy. all of the desert of the same generation and it just technology doesn't talk a lot about in my book. it is the tunnel that existed,

that determined that the energy would be for the large hydronic collator, consistent with magnets had to keep protons rotating around in those rings. but the sse, they said that is the energy based on theory? what is the energy we really would like to study? they said were going to build a ring that's big enough with existing to get there. so it was a compromise between what we wanted to do and what we could do with technology. and so, that is the argument that there could be very exciting things right around the corner. >> i have a hard time conceptualizing anything small or short as 10 to the minus 17410 to the minus 19, so what is a physicist and she's looking at when something is so small and dimension? >> so i guess the first thing is let's stop using the word look because we are not looking. we are not seen with our eyes.

we are making indirect measurements that tosa properties are what's there so we can conceptualize and work it out mathematically. i can describe it in words, but that is different from cnet. a lot of people tend to think is silly to understanding, if you see it. i'm very happy to just have everything be consistent and understatement to the fact that their predictions outwork an even worse to describe it. >> the average person is going to think -- >> well, you're wearing glasses, so you're actually seeing someone indirectly. the question is where you draw the line quite you're talking me and to a microphone. so we're used to that we think. but it doesn't mean it's not real. it just means we have to be careful when we interpret it. as we know now and understand biology better and better, our eye on certain some sense a form

of type algae, too. so we think of it as something much is happening in getting processed by by our brain. some of its deceptive in fact. so again, our intuition is guided by what we see them as we try to get at the beginning. there is a lot of stuff out there that's real, that we just don't have our intuition for her. >> high, as the mother of my daughter who is an engineer and grandmother of three daughters, wendy sardi expressed an interest in being a scientist, could you speak to women in the field of science. are they going into that field in larger numbers? >> i think they are your family.

>> s. president obama says, what do you think is going to be the outcome if we fail to do more investment in education and science as well as suggest research and science is a country? >> well, that's an easy question to answer. we couldn't even figure it out scientifically because we can look around the globe and see what happens in this country is that they don't invest in science and education? most of us would not like those results. so i don't think we even have to do that. in many cases they can do the measurements and see what happens. i think it's incredibly important we do that. i think there are more. i think in physics it still hasn't changed is not just in some other field. and i don't have a great answer to why that is. i didn't know i wasn't supposed to do it. so i think to the extent that people don't know they're supposed to do it that's very

hopeful. as long as you're not properly socialized to do really well. i don't really have an answer. >> what would you say encourage you to go? >> i liked it. i was good at it and i liked it. but they said, i didn't know i wasn't supposed to do it, so i did it. >> t.j. maxx. >> hi, i was just wondering, has there been anything that the lhc, anything new that you know now since it started working? >> mostly what we knows a lot of things are wrong. and this is important because when you do experiments, they really do have to be relative. even galileo knew when he first started doing experiments that you can verify a theory, but it's important to progress as ruling out theories.

in some cases it's actually without ideas in some cases it will so various regimes of parameters, massive, interaction strengths. but all that is progress because it is telling you can't get away with just anything at all. so we know a lot more. it should be borne in mind people don't all seem to it. it's not running at full energy and full intensity. it's going to close down for a year or so. so right now, we are not yet at the energies we were completely confident. it's actually remarkable how much it is done given the energy that it has given the way it's going. the fact i will deal to cover the entire regime is a real -- at least as a possibility is really a surprise in some ways. it's doing incredibly well. one is a higher energy, will it for two discoveries like that. [applause]

>> is interesting. we started that we knew what the commission's rules might be a lie down now that i could go anywhere beyond the bewilderment commission you've taken. and so now we have no idea. >> the commission's indecency related have a safe harbor for

programming after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. the fact is in a broadcaster is under confusion in their own minds about whether a particular broadcast would be found indecent by the commissioner is simply tedious but the programming of the safe harbor. >> we are going to take a look at rick perry surprising comments and research. >> their pairs scientists who have manipulated data. >> what i do is i read different comments by politicians on a one to four scale. if you say something really outrageous that the inaccurate. if you say something is slightly misleading or out of context to me like might get as low as one pinocchio.

>> six >> whether or not they are deliberately lying, i do think that if a politician says the same thing over and over again can even when it has been pointed out that it's not true that they know they are seeing something untrue. and they're just going to say it anyway. >> jodi kantor's new book, "the obamas" describes between the first lady and the white house. she sat down for an interview tonight with columnist david brooks at this sub six sixth and >> mak i synagogue in washington. this is just over ano hour.t toa >> welcome. i just want to savor the c-span on his one minute about where we are. we whe are sixth and i synagogud

which was one of the oldest conservative synagogues in oldet ynagoguees n was washingtonlong time and then the confirmation live to cleveland park on a few master at this year and became a baptist church i believe. there was a baptist church for quite a long time and then it was the congregation said they should move it and they were going to sell this building. it is going to become a nightclub. immediately as that news came out, too plans including zuckerman said we can't make it a nightclub. let's make it a synagogue again. a they refurbished it to its original glory based on some old photographs and we were fortunate because my son, my oldest son who is now 20 was the first boy in 50 years to be part of such from this puma and was the first person since world war ii to use one of the tour is set

us back in their so we are celebrating those two gentlemen in all the people who brought this back to life. so from the sublime to the polemical, let's start with today. you've written a book about the obama is. i like most people find it on the whole it. my rebook. the administration has a guest disagreed. they've come out with some comments about you. what is it like to be in the middle of a political firefight? we are not used to being in the middle of it. and what do you make of what is happening? >> well, it is a little strange because the boat -- you know, i've been covering a promise for for five years and it really started with a series we get the paper called the long run. it is about trying to capture the lives of the candidates. and especially because candidates are so restricted now, it's so hard to get access

to them. one of the ways we learn about them is through their biographies. their paths and cared tears and really look at the whole karzai. so this book in a way as an outgrowth of those stories, which have been doing for years and years. and so the goal of this book was to really write about what i would call the big change when i started covering barack and michelle obama, they really were barack and michelle and the extraordinary thing that was watching have been was watching these two regular people become president and first lady of the united states. and what i was seeing was that it was in a process that happened on inauguration day when somebody takes a nose, but it is a huge learning curve made all the more dramatic in the obama story because of their freshness to national political light and also because of the fact they are the first african-american president and first lady. so we see a couple things happening in this book.

we see a few people taking their partnership, which used to be this private thing and turn it into a white house partnership. we see michelle obama had a tough play and an initially white house and then actually turn it around. and that the in the book is really the most fascinating things that i find about barack obama, was just his struggle with politics. after all these years i can't get over the fact that the top politician in the country has a really complicated relationship with the business that event. so anyway, i worked on this book for two years and i published it and peered white house collaborated. lots of people in the obama inner circle gave me interviews. they knew exactly what they're getting into. i mean, they never misrepresent what i was doing. and also, i sat checked the book was an assistant before publication to publish an

excerpt in the times on saturday. mma kids to have to be the interesting things happen. the first thing is that people started discussing the book without having read the book. that's never really happened to me before because of the newspaper everyone reads your work. and the other thing is that the white house did start pushing back and simulate interesting ways. they haven't really challenged the report in the book, like i haven't gotten a phone call from david axelrod saying you got it all wrong. but some name that really surprised they happened yesterday, which is michelle obama went on tv and she said -- i'm paraphrasing, she said i'm really tired of depictions of myself as an angry black woman. and she also protested portrayals of her fighting directly with rahm emanuel. so that was kind of fascinating to me because the book that

really does not portray her in any stereotypical way. i'm also very clear to mention that the clashes between her and i were really philosophical in nature. i mean, maybe i shouldn't undercut my own reporting and talk about their differences in approach to political life that's really what they were. she did acknowledge she didn't read the book, so i have to imagine that she's responding may be that the coverage of the book and site of the book itself. the part of the reason i'm really excited to be here tonight is to talk about the actual thing with you. >> now let's go to that political thing because that is one of the themes running through the book. when peter roosevelt went into politics, everyone around him said you don't want to do politics. that's the meat people like us. if that sort of the attitude? what are the qualms about politics the abundance have? did not part of the reason they're qualms are important and not to be dismissed is that they

are similar to the qualms that a lot of us have about politics, rate? we'll see what is wrong with the political system, what is ugly about it, whether it can really address social needs and what not. but you know, this is one of the many things about obama and that was such a big asset in the campaign that ends up being somewhat inhibiting and the president sees time and time again and my report income is sometimes a simple way sometimes and complicated ways. i found he had trouble acting like a politician. a small store in the book is about the first super bowl party in the white house. you know, he is kind to everybody. he greets everybody, but he doesn't want to walk the room. he's got this principled objection. he doesn't want to be the guy spending the entire super bowl schmoozing. and he has this idea that he wants to still hang on to a normal life in the presidency.

and so, in my reporting, i just watched that idea get tested again and again and again. >> there's another story in the book where he insists on having dinner every night at 6:30 in the which means he can't schmooze with other power brokers and that's the other side. is that a constant theme of wanting to reserve a domestic life as opposed to being full-time? >> iakovos certainly wanted to preserve a domestic life, part of the problem is barack obama gets to washington and not only does he have not so much managerial or executive or national security or economic experience, but he has also never lived in the same house as his family full-time. in the house they are going to listen for the first time is the white house, which is not in any way, shape or form like a normal house. i think the 6:30 world and obviously is going to miss dinner with his family for

important situations and is willing to us tonight that we cared but i do my reporting that the obama's are constantly seeking ways to kind of limit and protect themselves from political life. >> so why do you think he ran if he's ambivalent about politics? >> i think it was a rushed decision. and i think it was a hard decision. now, his aides say that the summer of 2006 he was still really dismissive of it and it was only -- you know, they began to sort of test the waters then. you think about it, their decision-making process only went from maybe the summer of 2006 to the fall. and what people kept telling him lies, you know, your time is now, rate? if you miss this window of opportunity you may never get it again. part of the drama of the situation is michelle obama is initially very imposed because of the issues and in part

because she's worried about attacks and she thinks the public hears may benefit him. what leader of her cheeks of her chief of staff said to me is the decision just really weighed on her peer i find her situation at that time so dramatic because the way people describe it is she really did husband had been exceptional president. and yeah, she didn't feel is the best thing for her family. so how do you choose between what you think might be good for the country and what might be good for you? >> ms. daniels didn't run for president because his wife had veto power. do you think they had those discussions, arguments back and forth? >> well, yeah, the president and first lady have talked about it. also, the physical white house is almost a character in this book. has been a lot of a lot of time describing what it's actually to live they are and what the structure is like in all the

restrictions that come with that life. and i will admit that that is fun to report on and read and that there is a little bit of, you know, exploratory pleasure in getting inside the house. but i think they're also two very sensitive things about it and this to me is the sort of media argument of the book, which is that the confined isolation of the president he has to really important effects on our system. one is that it really limits the number of people who are going to run for office along with all the other fat is. but you know, the number of people who are willing to go through a presidential campaign and then let this incredibly restricted life is pretty small. and then the other and as we consistently see these presidents get cut off in the white house and they'll say it's not going to happen to them and it happened to all of them. >> i michelle obama is one of

the first -- she's certainly the youngest person to have served as first lady since the revolution. did she because of a generation she's from being second title says the right word? >> well, it is funny because she's such a pupil of hillary clinton's in that way. and my reporting i found again and again that she and everybody else in the white house have one eye and hillary clinton situation and said the attacks she went to in the 28 campaign were really pretty painful for her and everybody around her to be coming in now, that's new to public life and to watch her self caricatures that way was really, really hard. and no, they twist, i think to it though is what her aides talked about was that the traditional nature for first lady hat, which was so exciting that for us and for protecting

her a little bit because political life is so scatters and so difficult that it's another way of limiting and saying i the policy. i don't have to be part of this kind of discussion. i'm not going to get engaged in these kinds of debates. i think there is something very protective about that traditionalism that the world. now of course to spend much much more prominent role, which is what she wanted in the first place. >> there are moments of major injuries, moments of toughness she displays, but almost a real vulnerability. one episode you describe where she is very normal short to go to the grand canyon and i guess robin givens of the posts made fun of them said that the shorts are normal shirts and she wondered if she was letting the team down. how do you sort of weigh the balance of vulnerability and

fierceness that sort of alternate in the book? >> that is part of what i think is so fascinating. a part of the reason i think that -- i mean, let's just finish the phrase a great black women from the culture. you know, not only from this book, the part of the reason that caricature of her so rock if it misses the vulnerability and it misses the anxiety. , that is the work that her aides use. they don't call her angry. the caller anxious. the point in my writing where i found a really fuming with after the second round -- scott brown victory. the senate seat was devastating consequences for the president's legislative agenda. it's all in jeopardy now. and you know, she has two issues with their husbands team.

one is that she doesn't understand how they could have let this happen. you know, how they could have dropped the ball in the race. but the other issue, which is more understanding and goes to the heart of the role she plays in the presidency is that she is always sad had this idea that her husband is going to be a transformative president, rate? should never likes politics of the deal has been if you are going to go into politics, you know, rate? should never likes politics of the deal have been if you were going to go into politics, you know, rate? should never likes politics of the deal have been if you were going to go into politics, you know to have this plucky vision of who you are going to be. and the administration had maybe hoped her deals like the nebraska when they were very unpopular and didn't look that great and barack obama starting to look like a more ordinary politician. and that is really what she was react into. and that is part of why the partnership is so interesting. it's not that we are delving into the secrets of their marriage. we are looking at her vision of the presidency and what she

stakes tend to end the standards that she has been whether he can meet them. >> does their influence have a philosophical or ideological direction? issue to a left or not or whether? >> and outcomes of a asked that because it goes to something you've written a lot about. i think you and michelle obama had a little bit of something in common. i think based on -- based on my reading of your work, you both have -- neither of you put all your faith in government. you know, she, michelle -- to me, the philosophical difference between the schellenberg obama is that she is always ultimately put stock in the legislative process to get a ton. in very early on, this goes back to springfield. she looked to what was going on in springfield and that i don't

believe that the legislative process can produce the kind of systemic change we need in our society. and you know, there's a lot of stories i've heard over the years of her just looking at what's happening in springfield and good legislation that got voted as political garbage or was defeated and that reason. and so, the interesting thing issue is to be nongovernmental approach working with the community more, working on sort of partnerships and business is. and so, part of i think the contrast comes back in the presidency because the president is doing health care reform in the fall of 2009 and is obviously having a really hard time with it. it's not as popular as he wants it to be. its legislative torture. and she starts her own initiative. and what did she start?

for childhood obesity initiative. and really, what is the result of eliminating childhood obesity in america? you have a much healthier population and he would lower health care costs because you would diminish diseases like diabetes and heart disease, you know, that really bog down our health care system. and so to me, she's got this nongovernmental answer to the problem. >> i do think she is the person who in the middle of that site is at night when they register's together same time you got to keep the public option, barack. or did she get to that level -- >> now, what her aides say she doesn't get bogged down in policy details. she is not fluent in the language of washington policy details. what they do say, and this is where anything liberals then progressives can take her with her is that she really keeps them focused on the reasons he ran in the first place and the

two issues that come up in my reporting, where she wrote back senecas political advisers are health care reform and also immigration reform. >> i once was interviewing someone in the white house and the president was leaving it at the moment to go in the helicopter. my interview was interrupted as the guy got up and stood at the window just to watch the president's back for 15 minutes and then came back and finished. in that story typifies to meet the love affair that staffers have. they just want to see the guy. as this love affair changed them? as the process they've gone through, do you think it is changed them? >> well, absolutely. i said the book is really a story of transformation. and i think there's a lot of political education involved in that. and there's a lot of them becoming more sure in their

roles in more sophisticated and better attuned to the ways of 10. and then i think there's a kind of loss, too. because part of the reason that the apartments were so interesting in 2008 throughout the ways they resisted political culture in all the reasons they wanted to do things their own way. you know, there was once a barack obama who refuse to wear the little american flag lapel pin all the time because he said never in these words, and this is kind of cheesy, right? and that is barack obama, you know, that was several verses ago. you know coming a question about whether infielder nature of the white house and the deference that staff has for them is an interesting question. and now, with the first lady, people in the white house tuesday that people can be very hesitant to confront terror.

but then there's people who say that's completely wrong and as long as you may know, approach things with the logical way and they do not explain. >> there's a pattern of every white house i've covered that the president is always afraid of confrontation and the first lady is not. is that a pattern that appears here? >> i -- so much so in a critique at you that the history so can this get, that it is beginning to cease to me and there are exceptions here, but it seems like you almost cannot be president without a spouse who is willing, right, to the village on, tout and to really watch your back. >> one of the great mysteries of how barbara bush got the reputation of the kind of

grandmother. >> i have to tell you, i think would've the greatest profiles of her written and this is really sending you back to the archives, but i have to give a shout out to marjorie williams because her profile of barbara bush in "vanity fair" that she wrote late in the first bush administration is one of the great, great classics of political journalism to me. >> i should mention marjorie williams has since passed away can negotiate to collections of books which are available at politics & prose probably, definitely worth reading if you care about this stuff. a profile where she whacked around the house, certain parts of the house from the record. certain parts off the record. at that table is was off the record, fantastic. lessig and continue with the theme of insularity, which you mentioned. the rule that they think he said she had no new friends. >> they established that will in 2004 when he became famous in that kind of reiterated it.

the fact is that a good rule in your view? >> well, we see is an essay. i'm the one hand they have this really close nurturing group of friends from very similar backgrounds. african-americans from chicago, very similar patterns coming from working-class families all went to elite universities and did extremely well and all these people ended up in height dark and really bonded together. at the one hand, they've had the smartly protect the function for the obamaspirit of the trade descriptions at the eponymous around their friends because du pont is there different. they let their guard down and they are relaxed in the sand and funny and say the things they can't be in public anymore. you know, it does become an issue in the presidency because

the group -- you know, i interviewed members of this group. first of all, they don't want us have the president about his job. they say that the only reason when he does. and they also -- they have such a perfect understanding amongst each other, right? i mean, they are from the israeli special background and they've had a unique set of life experiences. but from us like the understanding among that group is so perfect is sometimes as a journalist and i talked to them it was almost like they couldn't believe that an outsider, you know, could understand them. and you know come to does become an issue in the presidency that the president and first lady are not reaching out a little more and watch in. one thing i found a little surprising if they've never had

the clintons did there come at least a couple months ago when i left, that's obviously a complicated relationship for a lot of reasons. it speaks to be fairly introverted approach to the presidency. >> well, what is the relationship between barack obama and hillary clinton? dimension of the 50th birthday party you have a phrase that has become warmer. farmer from what? [laughter] you know, the way most people the white house describe that relationship is kind of two professionals on their best behavior. but you know, there's always the sense that the really fraught relationship is actually between barack obama and bill clinton. and especially if you're going to to talk about barack obama's objections to politics, some of those are his objections, which

he starting back in the 90s in chicago, you know, he's a critic of clinton is them. he's a critic of the clinton ways, you know as doing things. and i think that is part of why the relationship with rahm emanuel is difficult. it would be time to to just describe it as these two totally different guys will of course work very well in some ways together a 900 complexities the relationship. i think part of it is the manual was trained in the clinton white house. that's where he's from and how we tested this. it's not how barack obama does business. >> if you ever want to see someone who's served in both administrations squared ask you smarter. i'll play what they say. what about valerie garrett? what is her role? >> herbalists really complicated and fascinating. valerie garrett is an old friend

of the eponymous from chicago. she is their mentor. she really helped them get started politically in chicago. and she made out in the wake of a transition as a probable is the one the obama stated fish tissue does have a real estate vacated in chicago who she has in city government experience to going in the next senior aides in the white house. and you know, if the theme of this book in a way is what is public and that is private and the presidency, valerie is a great -- her role they are really captures how complicated it is. because i'm the one hand she's a senior adviser in the west wing just got this outreach portfolio of her own. and on the other hand, she's one of the president and first lady's closest friend. she often represent michelle obama's views in the left wing. she's also the highest level african-american in the obama

singer circle, so she's often responsible for matters of race. and you know, the sister of the presidential campaign and still true in the white house. she was kind of a newcomer to national politics and came from a very different case. and you know, in my reporting, i have seen that the tremendous -- it is funny because some people in washington talk about valerie s. kind of a hanger on. i don't see her that way because she's given the president and first lady so much i think she would run it in every truck them. and she almost seems necessary to this trend -- and they're going through. i mean, from 2004 at 2008, they have, you know, their daily decisions around this one but two people can do it then she's helping them transition. but at the same time and the west wing she sort of constantly

under suspicion u.k. she is such a close friend and people are afraid that she is reporting back to the obama's. i mean, you say she doesn't, but it's not clear where she sits in the system. and it seemed though i think about valerie story that is important to remember is that the president chose to bring her there. you know, there is this very tense blowup with robert gibbs and he is frustrated at michelle obama and later says that he misdirected his rage and it's really a valerie. part of the real significance of that story is that the president thought he could at the very nontraditional management structure. and not only a traditional -- untraditional management structure, but his best friend in the equation becomes very complicated for us than. >> now, you mentioned how does one they are his politics may be valerie garrett is, too.

some of the people might has to complete political creatures. do you think there is an invisible wall or retention or ambivalence between the ambivalent political creatures and the political animals they've hired to just do the job? >> well, i guess part of the answer to me is the change you've also written about, which is that after the midterm elections we suddenly see the white house depends so much more overtly political, not that they've ever not been political. we don't want to be negative about it. but the president too early in the presidency wants to be authentic and do things his way and has this kind of vision from different presidents and always becomes a much more conventions. and some that come from such outward ways at the super bowl party where he doesn't want to

shreds. by the spring of 2010, believe me, he is no longer watching the game during these kind of watching sporting events, social event they have. and the other thing is even the teams that he roots for changed early in the presidency. the first super bowl after they got to the white house, pittsburgh steelers are playing. he always loved the steelers because of all those great stories about this dealers in the early days of the 70s and the roomies, the family that owned the steelers campaigned for him and it's a point of pride because he's real sports fan is not going to find neutrality. and then we see two years later in the white house after he's been beaten up in the midterms that totally changes. now, he says he is going to remain a chill in the super bowl. and you know, there's kind of a game and a last day because i'm the one hand you see he really

understands this is what it means to be president if you don't want to trash somebody, and entire states football team. on the other hand, there is something very appealing about deal of barack obama who doesn't want to give himself over entirely to this. >> is that a session we pulled columnists and there is a bunch of visiting with officials and obama comes in in the middle, sort of a surprise. it's a routine out it's not a surprise under having this high-minded discussion about policy and he comes and like you've been somewhere and is connectix announced. he's one of the most competitive person i've ever met. another thing i want to ask you that it is also one of the most competent people to think of ever met. my joke is obama will be the unit of measure for self confidence. [laughter] do you think that has

maintained? or the observed the same thing? >> well, part of the change i think we've seen is that there are moments, pretty recently, where that confidences seem to diminish. i'm thinking of the debt limit crisis. and you know, there is some insight reporting in the book about what the president would send. he lives on tv at these press conferences and the guy is just so incredibly frustrated with what is happening and not demeaning cj, he was upset about what it had and what the times that the tea party and also about -- i think things have changed now, but over the summer it was really hard for him to do with the massive support from 2008 and beginning a campaign that felt so very different in

eight states page he seemed kind of sad enmity felt really misunderstood. and so, i think part of the question for 2012 that we are all watching his canny sort of assimilate this and reboot the vision for what the obama presidency was supposed to be his god now. and he has to come up with a kind of affirmative decision of where he wants to take the country is still realistic, realistic enough to be persuasive. >> tc process -- i can remember to stop reporting, but you see a process around that time? >> well, i definitely the whole strategy has aroused the white house and are also telling a much more coherent stories on their work, especially economically and it was clear that they were very worried by the league chess and confusion

in the republican field, and the hits that romney has taken on the fact they were beaten up romney behind us seems to have contributed to that. but i haven't yet heard -- i haven't yet heard him and tell me if you have, why he wants another four years in a way that is truly stirring and convincing >> they're thinking about it, but i agree. i mean that as a compliment at the end on this subject. adults think they've achieved a message that equals the hope and change message they have. as you read in the book, they can't say that again. the couples are subjects of them will have questions from the floor. we got microphones here. one remarkable one that is delicate to talk about is everyone who has any contact

with their two are absolutely tremendous kids, completely and touched by all of this. how have they done that? >> well, i think that the sheer force of michelle obama's protect the power does have a lot to do with it. now, she was always intensely committed to motherhood and attempt another. even back in chicago, chicago friends say this is not some on who is sitting in the stocker stands with the lochhead gossiping. this is the mom who stood on the sideline and said this is what is going on with malia's defenses of footwork. so we are talking about -- just remember almost everybody who runs for president, you know, and their spouses, and these people are much more competitive than the rest of us generally. i think she's always been a pretty intense mom.

but then i think when they went to some extent been an also the presidency, she poured the full force of her conviction in personality into making sure their lives are structured and normal. and this is where marian robinson comes in, too. marian robinson has refused every media requests. oprah wanted to have her on and she said no, no, no, no. i like being able to anonymously go on connecticut avenue north of the white house. she's had everybody there thinks i'm another little old lady who works in the mansion. meeting everybody thinks i'm a housekeeper. and in fact, she's the first lady's mom. and you know, what i found in my reporting is no way she has to

do that because she is malia and slashes ticket to freedom. their parents can't take them to get a cupcake and georgetown after school or whatever. and she's the person who can do that. >> i should say that's closed. she's going to have to go and spend $14 on a share. while were on the subject, one of the themes running through especially michelle obama story is luxury. so there's a question about whether she should appear in the , conqueror of go where she is in a soup kitchen and she's handing out things and she's wearing $500 sneakers from france. who buys $500 sneakers? what is that about? does she have a definition genuine face where luxury?

>> she says a couple of things. and know, what she said to neighbors in chicago when her husband is starting to become famous and go to washington issued basically say, if i have to go, i'm getting an address saturday. and so, i think it is a compensatory pleasure that she is to do this. this is one of the fun parts. i think it's armor she has said looking good gives me confidence and also, she is so aware of the power of an image in a way that i'm not even sure her husband is. and she is highly attuned to both the pressures and possibilities of being the first african-american first lady. what she is up against is so big. when she had image problems in the two dozen a campaign and has been caricatured as an angry black woman, the advisers did do

a little image makeover on her. we wanted to describe it it to me later was were just going to make her more like a mom on the cosby show. and that line really struck me because i said to myself, wait a second, in this country are we so allow on positive, warm, loving, accomplished images of african-american women come into it so few famous african-american women who are not either like sports or entertainment celebrities that they've got to haul mrs. cosby who is a fictional dirt and hasn't been on television for 25 years or something, like this is the model they have to turn to. so anyway, mrs. obama, you know, the vote story is about her wanting to represent and her young gross to see an

african-american women on the cover of the read the fascinating thing is rather, not specifically with developing but other areas like that, robert gibbs is so concerned about that because he said the public resentment about the economy and bonuses and really became concerned about that image of luxury. >> okay, to my topic some of the questions. this is equally a shallow, something i've always wondered about. you get as close as anybody of fred here this is about barack obama's actual basketball abilities. [laughter] you describe the game on his 49th birthday, where he invites like all these nba stars. there's actually a great season. oakland tell your story for the brawn and they put the all-stars on different teams come a combination of athletes and hangers on and lebron is on the c. team. who is on amv quakes so he

allegedly -- barack obama allegedly wants these people to play as hard as they can. can he really keep up at that level, a 50-year-old guy? >> well, he wins the entire tournament. >> that's not an answer. >> well, exactly. but remember the story told a couple minutes ago about the time you're in the white house and the guy like stood by the president for 15 seconds just for the proximity. it's the same issue because our people treating the president like a normal human being? can anyone just forget that he was president? about that birthday party, i asked michael tomaso helped organize the game, he said what is the deal with him winning this entire thing? because we know he's a good basketball player, but come on, lebron james. so you know what, book, it was the president's birth day.

nobody's really play in their defense on him, et cetera, et cetera. >> this assume it's a mystery when john edwards as running may be time. he is from north carolina obviously in north carolina won the championship one year and the next data point guard for the team, the tar heels played them one-on-one and edwards told me i'd be damned. now you didn't. you did not beat that guy. edwards actually believe he did. that's what disturbs me. and that is the segue into sort of the final subject which is really some nation, which is really about the souls of the people who are in this freakish circumstance. i want to start with edwards because they think you and i met on a bus on john edwards is best with elizabeth and their two kids. you were doing a similar story to this really. and there was a case and what was weird about that episode and

i guess it was the second time he ran, was that the parents disappeared in the middle of the day a couple days and the kids for that. i remember ever going with them. but there is a case where you say that the marriage was all about the public. maybe you disagree. and this seems to me what the opponents are trying not to be. >> ready. >> if you could just have some thoughts, so my thoughts and i will go to questions for the fuller. the soul of people in the brutality politics, obesity, falseness of universal love. do they -- do you think their spiritual lives are still healthy? is there any religion and their spiritual lives -- desk in this room. how do you evaluate that? >> it's a great question because religion like marriage is simply not have been kind of this contest that whether it's a

public or private and for them. i'm barack obama first ran for president, he really put his religiosity out there. in june 2006 he's making a call in telling people he's going to be a democrat who can win over evangelicals. how is he going to do that? is going to read this book and title after a sermon by his pastor jeremiah wright. and we all know how that story ends. and so, religionist after the jeremiah wright a fair something uss a li,sory to take back into ..tt but not that much anymore. they don't want to showcase the washington church that they're going to join. i guess, you know, a white house aide once said something that really see with me. what he said was wants to put some part of your personal life, like your religiosity out there

for people -- and what he meant when you kind of >> it there ever -- can you ever truly put back, and what's interesting about what's happening now with the obama marriage is that they are putting it out in the public sphere because the president's personal ratings are higher than his ratings with the economy, and one of the things his advisers are resting 2012 on is the appeal of the obama union, and the obamas have learned how to go out there together in public and do this public political performance rather than have an awe ten tisty -- authenticity, and it's designed to earn votes and so i think, you know, i don't know that i can answer definitively for them, you know, but you're asking, i think, exactly the

right question which is, you know, can someone be shared with the world so totally and used for political gain, and then can you take it back and make it private entirely private again? >> if i could add, too, because i'm opinion writer, i personally think -- the second thing is when -- >> what if it was parol? >> there's a book on the subject of what happens when red sense is surrendered in when eisenhower, the last day in office, he was asked if the press corp. was fair to him, and he said, oh, there's nothing a reporter could do to hurt me, and that's absolutely the right attitude, and i'm not sure for this president, if he surfs the web at night, and the reaction to the book may not be the

attitude they have taken, but should take. it is an admiring portrayal of the obamas and their marriage. let's go to the floor, and if anybody wants to come up to the two mics in the aisles. >> hi. >> hi. >> how are you? >> i'm great. >> a quick question for you. what do you think michelle allows president obama to do after the presidency? >> great question, and i think it's a real source of suspense because as she's discussed, and there's more reporting in the book about that, equality is a real issue in the obama marriage. the best question i've ever asked either of them by far is in the oval office, and my colleague helped me write the question that said how is it possible to have an equal marriage when one person is president, and you can go read the answer in the "new york times" magazine, but, you know, basically the president couldn't answer the question and ended up

saying, actually, my advisers care more about what mental myrrh shell thing -- michelle thinks than what i think. there is a real question, especially since, you know, this is the clinton history too, right? that bill clinton after the presidency decided it's hillary clinton's turn. i don't think michelle obama will ever run for office, and if she does, i'll eat every page of this book. [laughter] but i do wonder if it will be her turn to decide on the next step in their future. >> if i could interject, one story of the bush administration, the senior staff was with the two bushes visiting on a state visit, and george w. bush was bored and wanted to sneak around the palace to check it out. [laughter] he said to this guy, let's go, i want to sneak around, and laura said don't you dare move.

he had to decide, do i obey the president or the first lady. [laughter] he said it was not even close decision there. [laughter] >> i was wondering if you could talk more about president obama's relationship with rahm emanuel and how that affected his presidency and starting on his third chief of staff, the ability to find a chief of staff that he can relate to affected his ability to accomplish things. >> glad you asked because in part, i think, dave, has, you know, his own perspectiven't issue, and it would be -- we have not talked about it, but it would be interesting to contrast it. so what i would say is the partnership with emanuel was strategic from the beginning. there was never any pretense these two men were vastly alike or had the same philosophies, but the president had an ambitious agenda and chose

emanuel in order to pass it, and so the first couple of months of the -- for the first, you know, nearly nine months of the presidency when the legislation is really moving ahead, you know, it works pretty well. there are some managerial problems that rahm emanuel has, and he can be quite abusiving and that has a real effect in the white house. the white house aides told me they just didn't come to rahm so it inhibited him as a manager. there was not a clear management structure where everybody reported exactly to him, and then upwards, but the real stress comes around the time that scott brown wins that seat because although they squeaked health care through, the obama presidency is last of like this forward legislative drive, and

it becomes something else, and at the same time, the midterm elections are coming up, and that puts tremendous stress on the relationship because emanuel was the chair of the dccc and his mission before he was chief of staff was getting them to pass in congress, especially in these competitive districts and keeps people in congress, and yet, you know, in the presidency, you still have a different agenda. you have to make members of congress make hard votes. for example, i mentioned immigration as a sore subjectment one of the sore subjects between them is the president reallimented to push for -- really wanted to push for immigration reform although there was no legislation on the table, and that was a big problem for emanuel in the summer of 2010 because he was acutely feeling these vulnerable democrats, you know, especially in border states, and so the

relationship did eventually become quite complicated and strained. david axelrod by the summer of 2010 felt that rahm should leave, and incidentally once he ran for mayor of chicago, the relationship improved. it was like the burdens and strain of the relationship lifted somewhat. >> i would add our long national nightmare of having a non-jewish chief of staff is over. [laughter] several times over. [laughter] >> given the setting, i'll start with a confession. i have not read your book yet. >> we're thrilled to have you here. >> they are for sale. [laughter] >> i'd like to comment on something i read or heard and that is you did not interview president obama or michelle? >> yes, for -- >> is that true? >> oh, well, yeah, absolutely.

i interviewed them or bunch of times over the course of writing for them, and i had an interview in 2009ings and when i started the project, i was clear with the publisher i didn't know exactly how much access we'd get, and i pushed for interviews throughout, and they eventually said no, but what i really found in the reporting is the friends and aides were able to tell stories presidents and first ladies do not tell. if you see huh mrs. obama gives interviews, yesterday was an exception, but it's a limited interview on a subject like child obesity for 20 minutes at a time, ect., ect., and one thing i feel -- i basically write profiles for a living for the time, and one thing i believe in strongly is that you can't practice access journalism, meaning you can't let whether or not somebody will

talk to you govern whether or not you're going to write about them because none of these candidates or leaders really want to talk to journalists that much anymore. fewer and fewer give interviews, and they are giving interviews less and less in depth than they used to be. you can't let the question of whether or not somebody will sit down with you for 20 minutes control the entire story. >> i know you touched on this earlier about how you were surprised at the white house reaction, and, you know, today they say they have not disputed the facts, but since then saying they didn't try to cover up the halloween party and point to the media coverage and whatnot. what's your response to that? >> so the halloween party exists

in that the "washington post" did a great story about this a day or two ago that was entirely correct. just to give you the context, this was in the fall of 2009. it was the first halloween in the white house. there was an outside component to the party that was pretty public, it was washington area school kids trick or treating and the president and first lady were there, and there was a reporter, but the thing they kept quiet was the party inside the white house, and it was a pretty flashy party. there was tim burton and johnny depp there doing the alice in wanderland thing, and i think the coverage is distorted because the "new york post" made it sound like it was this thing for kids or something, and they were actually trying to do a pretty nice thing, and a lot of the kids invited were kids of

people serving in the military, but the white house was very nervous as anything seen as too hollywood and too flashy, and so they kept the inside of the party quiet and didn't distribute photos of that. they didn't acknowledge burton's and depp's contributions. >> i think i read a white house blog that was called gossip and wanderland. >> they respond in part -- like the new york post loved this story and went for it, you know, for days and days and days, and they actually published these really over the top pictures of the president dressed as the mad hatter, so there -- remember the fact they are focusing, you know, as much on that i think, or more, than what's in my book. >> it's more of reaction to the

media's reaction? >> i mean, that's what -- yeah, that's what dave said, and what people told me that they're worried a couple of white house people told me they are less worried about my book itself than sort of sensationalized coverage of stuff i described accurately. >> thank you. >> sure. >> time for three more. >> okay, great. >> hi. >> hi. >> so you spoke about kind of the transformation that obama made to accepting the political side of things a little bit more and operating in that style more, which is kind of at the same moment that his legislative agenda kind of stalled because of the scott brown and midterm elections and everything else. if he's reelected, do you see, you know, this continued

transformation continuing to happen and, you know, on the political side of things, do you think that that can contribute to him being maybe more effective publicly? i mean, he's been seen as kind of being weak compared to the congress, so do you think that that transformation can occur? >> you know, i think you're asking the right question because i think a very big question i have about this president is how creative his conception of presidential power is; right? because we know what literal presidential power is, and he's lost some of that both because of legislative and economic circumstances, and so part of his challenge is to come up with more expansive, creative, and flexible sense of presidential power, and, you know, that's part of why i -- this was sort of an unexpected contrast, i

think, that started developing in the reporting with the first lady because the first lady doesn't have any official power, so she had to be extremely creative in a way in terms of establishing influence over the public for herself, so i can't answer for you how he's going to do that, but i think you're asking the right question. >> hi. with this transformation you're talking about from being very personal and authentic to being more politicized and political as a person and as a politician, do you think that voters as they are today are going to be turned on by that ability to take control and make change, or is it going to sort of alienate the young and a-political voters that really came to the

forefront in his first time around? >> good question. i remember you wrote a column around the spring of 2010. it was becoming much more overtly political, and i can't remember the specific examples you cited, but i remember the st. patrick's day thing where he visited with john boehner, and he told this like jolly st. patrick's day story about how, you know, we may haggle over issues during the day, but at night we're such good friends. i was like, woah, you know, like, i've been covering this guy for a long time, and it just doesn't sound like him, and so i think part of what you have to do is find a way to set aside political requirements in a way that's authentic to him and

appeals to people who found him to be an original and unique voice in american and political life. >> thank you, both, for coming. i feel everyone is asking what i'm asking. i hope it's not making you repeat yourself, but i also wanted to ask about obama's political instincts because my impression about him in leading about him is he's very intellectual like a law professor in approaching policy issue, and i was wondering, and you also see stuff in the news about questioning what is the obama doctrine in looking for common threads policy-wise, and so i was wopped -- wondering if you could talk about how he approaches policy issues and also his relationship with politicized aids like emanuel who might be looking towards the political effects of his decisions. >> well, the thing i really saw

in the story about immigration reform is about how frustrating the kind of rationality of politics can be for him because like if you -- the story in the book is that he wants to give immigration reform a push in around june of 2010. he gives a speech in july, and emanuel thinks it's a terrible idea for the reason i mentioned, but he really wants it to happen, and, you know, i've seen this not only with this, but a series of problems for him that there's a series of problems in the world that have very rational solutions on the table, but the solutions are not happening for political reasons. like immigration reform. there's been a consensus in the country for what basically reasonable solution would be to

fixing our immigration system. you know, basically revamp the system so it's more fair and less capricious, better enforcement, but allow people a legal way in, and a lot of republicans agreed on that in the past as well, but it's not time for political reason, and another example totally different is i think the israeli palestinian conflict, because in the same way, there's been a road map for peace in the israeli-palestinian conflict on the table for 10-20 years now. maybe the border goes here. maybe the border goes there. everybody basically knows what a potential deal looks like, and yet it's not happening and i can't happen for political reason, and, you know, talking to white house aides and watching the president even talk about that on tv, i think it's really hard for him because he's such an analytical person. he sees the solution to the

problems is no mystery, and yet somehow we can't make it happen. >> okay, thank you, jodi, the book is "the obamas," and the author is jodi kantor. >> and thank you, dave, for -- [applause]

>> in this place, we'll stand for all time among monuments to those who fathered this nation and those who defended it, a black preacher, no official rank or title, who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideas. >> saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern president obama join by civil rights leaders and the king family for the dedication of the martin luther king jr. memorial on the national mall this weekend on american history tv. also at six, civil war scholars

look at the direction of the war as well as strengths and weaknesses at the end of 1861 and sunday at three, oral histories after serving from senator john kerry was a vocal opponent of the vietnam war, and his story on american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> now, a look at last year's event in espionage with fbi former counterintelligence and

just a note to the video, this con tapes video that has violence images. from washington, this is two hours. >> good evening, and welcome to the international spy museum. i'm amanda, adult education director here. i'm delighted to introduce our 2011 espionage brief, a worldwide view in review. our speaker this evening, david major, and he told me i couldn't stay he was an esteemed member because that would make him sound old. he's director of counterintelligence and security programs for the nfc under reagan. he's the founder of the ci center providing intelligence in security and training, and the creating of spypedia, a cool

resource for those interested in espionage pee flag that -- espionage that he may tell you about later. you're in for a dazzling evening, and i hope your heads are clear and ready to absorb an intense and exciting amount of information. [applause] >> heck of a start, huh? thank you for coming out on a rainy night like today. it's very -- it's difficult in washington to drive any time in weather like this, so i appreciate you being here. what we'll try to do is show you the reality of the world as we live in it right today. we said this is reported in spypedia, it's sponsored by the international spy museum, it's our data base that keeps track of what's happening in the entire world in the world of espionage and terrorism. my own background, as we talked about, is i've been doing this longer than most of you have

been alive, however, i look out and see people with old people and white hair, and i feel comfortable seeing demographics like that. makes me feel at home. thank you for coming. i do have hair, there's the black and white picture, that's my new fbi photograph when i joined the bureau, and i was in the fbi, spent my entire career doing counterintelligence and counterterrorism, and i was a street agent for ten year, and i eventually sold out to management, and i worked in the national security counsel for ronald reagan, director of counterintelligence programs, and the first time they put counterintelligence on the policy table. it was an interesting experience because the first time i walked into the oval office to shake hands with reagan, he said to me, you know, i was an informant for the fbi, and i said, of course, mr. president, i know, we're proud of the president lying to the president because i didn't know she was an informant for the fbi, and you probably didn't either, but he was proud of the fact, and i said how come

i don't know that? i spent my career doing this, and i don't know that part of the fact that during the 40s he was an informant for the bureau being president of the actors' guild, and that made me look at this important discipline called counterintelligence, and that's how the ci center came to be when i retired from the fbi to set up training for the private and public sector in counterintelligence. we'll look at this from the world in a variety of ways. we're going to look at agencies and operations around the world and what they're like, what organizations were penetrated, who was caught. i will tell you that i'll probably run out of time before i run out of cases. this was a big year, but then turns out every year is a big year. we'll first look today how it was not a good year for some chiefs around the world. we're look at what happened to some of them and we'll describe

this thing of espionage that we talk about because every nation has a different deaf nation of espionage, and then we'll turn to the united states saying who was sentenced in 2011? who committed the crime of espionage earlier in 2011, but finally there's the case finalized in 2011. we're going to then look at what new cases surfaced in 2011, both national security cases and economic espionage cases, and we're going to look at a couple cases that took place in europe, which have been very interesting, and then we'll turn to the great spy wars going on in asia, and there's remarkable things going on on recently in asia. that's with the journey takes us around the world as we look at it. as i tried to put the lecture together for two hour, i didn't have time for all the cases. i tried to be e selective being as precise as i can be for the united states, and i tried to be somewhat importantly selective around the world. one of the things that we walk away to say why listen to the

lecture and why look at this, the question is espionage, betrayal, collecting intelligence covertly is still happening. it's a timeless reality. it has been going on. it will go on regardless of international relations. internationally, espionage is viewed as a political, and it's an nonextraditable crime. no nation extradites you back for that particular crime partly because espionage is used by some regimes as a way to suppress people. it's not used how we do in the united states looking at real crime, a real detrail, and it's an excuse to suppress political dissent. we see that going on right now. i'll talk about those cases. it also has the potential for major international security implications when they surface, and often, my experience has been, is it's discounted by some, many in the media who see

it as unimportant in world events, and you take courses in international relations and world events, and looking at genders taught in the environment, i look at what is the role of counterintelligence, espionage, and often it's forgotten. you learned happy history because if you learn real history, history of history, you realize over and over again intelligence and the loss of information or the acquisition of information has been the defining factor in world events. espionage is a huge factor. this has not been a good year for some chiefs of intelligent around the world. who fell on hard times in who are chiefing the counterintelligence, look at libya. didn't go well for the head of their intelligence service as you may or may not know. he, after libya fell, he and the one surviving son of gadhafi were captured in the south

corner of libya, and the son was captured, and he's been going to go on trial, but the chief of intelligence has fallen from view, and he was captured in november of this year, november 20th, and he has reported to be held in a secret location. there's been no photographs of him and no reports since he was arrested on november 20th, and there's speculation of what happened to him. that's something to watch because it may not go well for that chief because he was not loved by the new regime that came in. it's not well for the chief of intelligence in libya. egypt, interesting time, egypt. as you may know, the head of the intelligence service, the egyptian chief of intelligence notice the right hand side, caused him in torture and the other things listed there, embezzlement, ect.. i was actually in egypt when it fell. i arrived on the 24th, the

revolution started on the 25 #th. i had to escape -- another story unto itself. i escaped on a flight taking us into israel eventually leaving at five o'clock in the morning, 135 people, a story unto itself, but i was there, and it was not a safe place when we had to get out on the 30th. whatwhat happens here is to be determined as we know. looking at the muslim brotherhood now winning the elections, and this could not bode well for america. that's a political issue, but the chief of intelligence, he -- when mubarak resigned, he took over as vice president, as you know, and then he announced the resignation, and he fell from view, so he withdrew from the political scene, and he was not seen again after he left in february 11 until he appeared in court in september of 2011, and he testified against mubarak,

not surprising, and one of the things he says in that trial is mubarak can never as a top official claim he did not know what was going on is his claim. he has not been arrested. he's not been prosecuted. what will happen to him as this unfolds in egypt is yet to be seen, but he's tried to maintain a low profile, and 10 he fell from -- so he fell from power. syria, we watch, a couple things to talk about, but the director general is still in power, but united states has tried to make it as difficult as they can for the director general of the intelligence service, and in april because of the demonstrations and the oppression that's been taking place there, his assets were frozen as were the assets of the syria general intelligence service, so his general assets frozen, the intelligence assets frozen as well as the brother of the president who is a brigadier general in the armor division.

it appears he's still in power though, head of the intelligence service, and we'll have to see what transpires in syria depending on what happens this year. south africa is one most people don't watch, but it's an interesting turn of events in the south african intelligence service. the head of the service who was called a south african minister for state security really runs the three major intelligence services, and he got very upset in september of 201 firing the heads of the intelligence service because he said you did not provide protection for my wife who was under investigation for drug smuggling. well, his wife was convicted of drug smuggling, but they stood up and said what do you mean we didn't protect her at that time? so the result of that is the three officials objected to his order to provide secret service protection for his wife during her trial in may of 2011.

as i said, she was convicted for 12 years. he's still in power, by the way, as is the government there, and it appears that the real conflict may not have been as much as it relates to the wife of the head of their intelligence service as it was that the president wanted the intelligence services to begin unauthorized operations using telecommunication and physical securities amc cabinet men stirs ordered by the head of their intelligence service that means it looks like they were trying to evoke the intelligence service for political reasons, and he says we're not in the business of doing that, and they got fired as a result of it. what happened is the head is very close to the president in south africa who still holds power, zuma, and if you're going to take down the king, you better win, but they have not because the head of the service is close to zuma, and they were ordering this alleged

surveillance against anc member, and so he appears to be winning that. the result of it is the chief of the national intelligence agency of south africa, that's the domestic intelligence and counterintelligence service like the fbi here in the united states. it would be like mi-5 would be in england. it's like canadian intelligence service is in canada. they are the domestic ci service and the first one to resign was in october, so this started in september. he resigned in october of 2011 because -- and probably forced to resign because the guy wanted to fire him to do it. the other one, the head of the state security agency, responsible for civilian intelligence operations, he was forced to retire in december of this year. this started in september. he was forced to resign in december, and it looks like he was paid off or there was money exchanged anyway for him to leave office.

that took place just last month in december, and the head of the foreign intelligence service, which is an organization of about 7,000 people. this is the equivalent of their cia or their im-6, foreign -- mi-6, foreign service for the south african, and he's resigned and resigned this year in january of this year, and he's being replaced by a person who is not an intelligence professional. south african intelligence services falling on hard times, something to watch this year as it unfolds. something recently happened in russia that you may or may not know because it took place over the christmas holiday, and it was the head of the gru who was there from 2009 to 2011, and he, which is a fairly short period of time to be the chief of the gru, and he resigned on christmas eve, december 24th. there's a lot of controversy in

the media whether he resigned because it was time for him to retire, which is what you say internationally, or he was forced to do that, but he leaves christmas eve, leaves the gru, which by the way, if you missed it, for years, those of us who worked the gru heard about what was the seal of the gru, described it to us, they described it to us that it looked like a bat. that looks like batman signal. doesn't it? so that couldn't be the symbol of the gru, batman, well, turns out after the collapse of the soviet union, we got the seal, it is batman, and the reason it is is because they say they control the night. that's what they talked about with the new model. he left, and the new chief was appointed two days after christmas, and they have a brand new facility that they opened up in moscow, and what you're looking at is two symbols of the

gru, one on the right there was in 2009, and the one on the left is the new symbol, and that's an exploding bomb, the symbol, but no batman on it. reportedly that it's the largest -- this came out of a russian media, but it's the largest intelligence service. we certainly know that today's fsb have about 400,000 intelligence officer, and they have half the population they did during the cold war. let me give you a couple numbers there to have you focus on it. just as the soviet union was collapsing in 1991, the population of the soviet union was like 296 million people and the intelligence civil, not the gru, was about 496,000, about half a million people working for the intelligence service as well. move the can forward to 2011, 20 years later, the population's dropped about 140,000 russians, which is half the population,

and the size of the intelligence service of fsb and svr, the former kgb, is 400,000, a 20% drop in the size of the service means there's more intelligence officers per capita today than during the cold war and as many intelligence officers from russia and the united states as during the cold war. i suggest to you they are not all doing area studies here in the united states. they probably thought that the gru has more people overseas doing foreign intelligence. it is a foreign intelligence service, a spy organization, does not have a domestic mission, and they said in the media from the russians said there was six times as many as the ftb and svr. it was never touched by the collapse of the soviet union, by the way,. the gru never stopped operating, continued to operate, and has continued on and continuing on. there's an example of that in europe in just a minute.

so there's been some changes of the head of their intelligence services this year, and espionage, itself, is a timeless reality and always will be with us. here at the international spy museum, we talk about this in the schools for spies, the secret history of history. i teach a course on that which is the secret history of history and how it affected world events and is continuing to do it today. this is just a sliver of it as we go through the review of 2011. the development of legal tools to conduct counterintelligence to counter this in our open society is something we, in the united states, struggle with. we try to be purist relating with espionage and our counterintelligence capability, and so when someone is arrested for espionage in the united states, there's a lot of effort going into it. it's never used from a political point. it's a pristine operation in looking at the cases, and uncovering them, and that's not always true. in closed societies, sometimes, league and policy tools are

available that are bigger than just the crime of espionage if you would, and we, in the united states, have many controls because we fear a police state or some say a counterintelligence state. you can always tell the power of a certain society by saying how do they come to power, and if you know what is 5 counterintelligence state? if you look at the nation state, and you said were they granted power by the people, and then the government doesn't fear the people. the united states, our government is granted power by the people. all retained by the people and granted to the government, and in other societies, they fear the people because they serve power from the people, and therefore, they have very, very large counterintelligence organization and usually the counterintelligence service is bigger than the intelligence services. using that model, you already know those states. that's china, north korea, russia, all the middle east because they serve power from the people.

looking at the cases, you look at that perspective because in the business of espionage and deals with it, there's always a balance between civil liberties and the collection strategies used to deal with that, and i like to say it's all about values. what can you do under what circumstances with dealing with reality to have detrayers among you. i love this quote, and everybody used it. if i were asked to single out a specific group of men, one category the most suspicious, unbelieving, unreasonable, petty, unhuman, sadistic, double crossing set of bastards, in any language, i would say without hesitation, the people who run counterspies. i say there's not real spies, but my brief to say there are and they exist. i'll illustrate. >> six monthings in power, and that party crumbled.

>> military takeovers, we had coos and ten would be coos in ten years. it was chaos. >> in 1968 #, five years the party reclaims power. it is the final coo. this time, they rule with an iron grip and no tolerance for dissent. taking command, the new president appoints his causen saddam as vice president. >> he was one of the armed civilians who were in opposition of killing them, but nobody took him seriously because he was just one of those thugs. soon everybody was surprised to see this young civilian as standing next to a general who led it, and that was saddam

hussein. >> that was also head of the mukhabarat, the dreaded security section, the secret police. he staffs it with loyal members of his tribe and launches a systematic campaign of terror doomed to e eliminate the opposition and intimidate the population. >> he created a second layer of government, a parallel structure to the iraqi government in every single ministry that was a desk that reports directly to hussein. >> the security personnel were

his people, and because of money he gave them, cars, prestige, power. people who never had any of that. village people like him. >> in early january of 1969, it seems starkly rem necessary sent of hitler's nazi germany, there's a public event to demonstrate the power and policies of the new regime. thousands gather in baghdad's liberation square to witness a public hanging of 17 iraqis, 14 of them jews condemned as spies. >> that's the point. condemned as spies. you want to say there's an external enemy, you say spies are the problem, and therefore i have to suppress and implement certain policies so you see that around the world in a variety of counterintelligence states user espionage as an excurse to so

prez and to establish power. some of us may not know that hussein was the head of the counterintelligence effort, and this is when he first took power was falsely accusing people of being spies. don't go far in history history to see that happening today because look at the powder keg of national inteadges security issues of iran, and if you look at the cases surfaced on december 15th is this young man from arizona whose family lives in michigan whose father is a college professor working for a company to did contract work for the marine corp. visiting his grandmother this year, had dual citizenship, and dual citizenship is not recognized by iran, but us, but not by iran, and soon after arriving, they say within three weeks he was arrested. he fell from view in the fall, and then on the 15th of december

surfaced, and as a confessed individual saying i was a cia operative sent here to penetrate iranian intelligence. that took place on december 15th. you have probably been watching this in the news. >> the case of a u.s. man accused of trying to infiltrate iran's intelligence service for the cia. the report tuesday showed a calm looking amir hekmati as charges were read against him. the prosecutors said had he not entered the intelligence department three times, and under the iranian spy low he can be punished with a death penalty. they asked for capital punishment. according to the report, there was a confession to one to be aired december 18th. fox news agency said the lawyer rejected the accusation and he

was deceived by the cia. no date for the next court hearing was released. >> the story shows he volunteered to the moll tear intelligence, volunteered thee times, arrested, and then said they observed him in afghanistan. they had observed him having contract with americans, which he did have because he was a contractor for the military, arrested, and then he confessed. well, to our great surprise on january 9, he was sentenced to death, and he had 20 days to appeal this. this is ongoing right now today. 24 -- this is a perfect example of an administration, a regime, using this issue to crack down on this individual. what's interesting about is it that he had dual citizenship there, and he went back there at a time that iran is very concerned about people coming into iran because they had a series of assassinations like the one that took place today in iran, and some of the explosions

that take place in iran today, so their counterintelligence service say how did you get into the united states? well, duel citizens can do that. he's now faced with the death sentence. remarkably, just yesterday, the white house made a statement that they said this is -- he is not connected with american intelligence at all. now, that's also not always done around the world when someone is arrested. usually it's a no comment, but they are saying he was absolutely not a cia operative at any time, so how this unfolds this month is interesting for us to look at, but it's going to be a big issue, i think, for us, but the fact is there's very little, i think, we can do about this. i'm not sure what our capability of doing is, so watch that one very, very carefully. one other case where we're talking about spy, but it's a terrorism case to mention that is important relating to iran, the one you know about, and it

has to do with the plot to kill the sauda arabian ambassador here in washington, d.c. using a member of the quds force part of the irgc. first of all, that's like the kgb, a state within a state, has huge power inside iran, and some people looked at this case, and that study in iran saying it doesn't make sense. if you study, iran makes sense. we at the cia center teach a ten day course on the iranian culture, iranian intelligence service, and a complete view looking at iran as a very important national security issue, and one of the things we know about the services is they like to use family. they like to use tribes. makes all the sense in the world a member of their intelligence service reaches out to the cousin down in texas who is 5 car dealer and say could you find someone in the mexican cartel to conduct an assassination in washington. if they had been successful, which they were not because he reached out and was fortunate to

a dea informant in mexico who is in the cartel, but if that had not taken place and they had been successful, you can imagine what would have happened if there was a bombing or an assassination here in washington with the saudi ambassador, and then the investigation and tracked it back to mexico, no one would have ever said the iranians did that? they are very careful to protect themselves. they never claimed their responsibility. they had been at war with us since 1979. look at what they have done. people say will we go to war, and they say they are. this makes all the sense in the world, and it will be interesting to watch unfold. it's so remarkable that we were surprised by it. it looked to me, and very north korean like in a sense, but it's also very iranian like. how big is this terrorism threat? this is not a brief on terrorism, but i often ask my

students and others say how many people were arrested in the united states for terrorism related plots since 9/11. there's a lot of publicity in 2011, hearings on capitol hill about home grown terrorists, and so we said, well, we track that every single day. we have a case page every single day when a new case breaks. we empirically have an understanding of how big this problem is, and if you were to say to yourself i wonder how many plots were uncovered and how many people have been arrested, and you asked yourself what's that number. how many would have the right number? the right number is at least 119 plots and 22 people charged with terrorism related crimes since never, and the blue line -- since 9/11, and the blue line is the number of individuals. about 50% of the plots are by themselves, and the other 50% are multiple people plots, and in the terrorism business, the average number of plots is about

five over the 119 plots we've looked at. the average is about five. you don't find that in the spy business. you don't find large networks. you don't find networks of five people to do it, but we track this every day, and if you notice, #we just had two arrests this week in terrorism. that's the most recent information on hog -- how big the terrorism issue has been. in 20 # 11, it was like we just found out about home grown terrorism that if you track it like we do, it's not new. look at the numbers since 9/11, and we have the cases, legal documents behind every single one of these cases. we're surprised to see the statements made about terrorism. moving away from that, treachery is by no means as rare as what we like to think. a great quote from the man without a face, head of the east german intelligence service, but it's a very important statement because by no means 1 this as rare as we think it is. we in the ci center have a

school spouse, and -- school 00 and we do train -- schoolhouse, and we do training, and there's a five day course in january of 1995, and since that time, there's 54 courses in all areas of study, and we had to have a mechanism to make the cases relevant to speak with some authority on what's happening like how many plots there are, what's the cases, what's the trends we see, and so we started collecting this information and for the last 15 year, and we have done two things. i want to mention this just partially. some of you may have taken our 501 course or be interested in taking it sometime, but we have a new opportunity in that area. we now can give direct for that course -- credit for that course, and that goes back to 1995. if anyone you knew took that course, they can get three hours of credit of cmu to a master's certification program immediately and for other courses coming online as we do this. we are pleased about that, and i

want to ensure you at least knew about that. that's about a $1,000 value for those who do it. it's a transfer credit. let's talk about espionage and the law. it's interesting how people talk about espionage but don't know what the law is, and you saw that play out in june of 2010 when we had the ten russian illegals who were arrested here in the states and all the editorial pundits started saying, realm, this is nothing case, why didn't they arrest the people for espionage? well, the minute they said that, they didn't understand the law of espionage is. if you any that law, you never would have written any editorial or made any comment like there's nothing to the case. it was a agree collection capability case, talking about the russian illegals. that's what it was. long term operation that intelligence services one, one man as an illegal since 1976 deployed to penetrate the united states. think of the commitment that would take, so what is below the

law -- >> legal trouble? we wanted an attorney, i demand an attorney, but do we know anything about the legal system? you know, we talk the cameras out and asked people if they know their rights, if they know basic legal terms you hear on the tv shows all the time. this is what we found out. take a look. ♪ [laughter] >> what do you do? >> i'm a student. >> a student. going to college? >> yeah. start. >> when, in the fall? >> yeah. >> what are you going to major? >> i don't know. i'm going to decide soon. >> okay. first time this has come up? [laughter] >> no, i try to avoid the question. >> i'm going to ask you about the law. young people get in trouble with the law. everybody knows their rights. what's it mean to pass the bar? >> oh, like lawyers. my brother-in-law's taking it

right now or is going to take it. >> what do you mean like lawyers? >> you have to pass it to go to law school? i saw it on legally blond. [laughter] >> legally blond? oh, okay, the movie, sure. >> i don't know. >> we're talking with nick. what do you do? >> a tree trimmer. >> i want to see what you know about your rights. >> not much. [laughter] >> been arrested? >> for a dui. >> oh. what is perjury? when the officer asked it you were drinking, what did you say? >> yeah. [laughter] >> how many beers did you tell the cop you had? >> two or three. >> two or three. how many did you really have? >> 12 or 18. [laughter] >> what does it mean to purger? >> personalling, i don't know -- like throw up? [laughter]

>> talking with? >> oscar. >> what do you do? a student. >> what do you study? >> business. >> somebody commits bigamy, what do you think? >> sex? >> no. is that your wedding ring? >> it is, indeed. >> why is it not on your finger? >> i'm a basketball official as well, and we can't wear jewelry. >> bigamy is more than one wife. >> what'sment -- what's the punishment on that? >> getting caught by the other wife. [laughter] >> have a sense of humor about the law. what is espionage? well, it's a very specific crime. number two, it's always different in every country. they don't have the same definition. when we talk about espionage, we have a sense that we're talking about betray herbs, people --

betrayers, acquiring information covertly that they are not supposed to have, but it's a very specific thing. in the united states and in other societies, there's great expectation when an espionage case surfaces. often, particularly, if it's an important case, it's on the front page, and once it happens, there's an exception for the media as something to show something here, and if they don't, and it doesn't go well, they really beat you up in the media. we referred to it as the super bowl of prosecutions. we had an entire program just to conduct the espionage because there's smoazed to be no evidence it took place, but we still can fashion and build cases of espionage, and so when we say what is espionage and once again, forgotten by many of the commentators about the russian illegals. it's a very specific thing. in the united states, over the passage of classified

information, and the answer is what is the law that authorizes the united states to classified information? answer, there is no law that authorizes classified information. we don't have a secrecy act like great great britain does. what authority can you classify information? interesting question. the answer is the authority is vested in the president of the united states because in the constitution he has the chief diplomat and the chief war fighter conducting all foreign affairs as commander in chief. diplomat, the president can withhold strict information from people. when we pay taxes, we by the information supplied by the intelligence community. to protect the citizenry, they prevent us from seeing it. the president protected so that as the authority -- so that is

the authority. when we say something is classified, i used to say it means no fair telling gar. p.s. denies -- the espionage law does not speak of classified information. there are two laws, little has been nice and big and espionage. little has been lost is for people who should not receive information. the people taken into mission and retested and is prepared to pass it on. it is a lesser offense. almost everybody who has been convicted of espionage is also charged with this crime. that is little as denies. paige: espionage does

unauthorized transmittal of national defense information to a foreign nation or power or political faction with intent to aid that foreign power against the united states. to give you an example of law, law says you have to have authorized transmittal of national defense information to an individual not authorized to receive it. there's a case that took place the 1940's3 heimie had a huge impact in espionage. he was a german who had emigrated to the united states. they instructed him to go to the library in new york and obtained information on production, national defense information. he obtained technical books and rode up and passed it on.

that was uncovered by the fbi. he was arrested in june, 1941 and charged with espionage. he was found guilty of espionage and foreign agents registration act and appealed. he was passing national defense information was getting from the public library. he was determined not to be guilty of espionage because the interpretation of law that you had to have national defense information that is protected. that is the nature of the information you have to protect for espionage. big espionage, is unauthorized transmittal of national defense information that is protected. that is the legal standard to a foreign power or agent with intent to injure the united states or eight a foreign power or political faction. when i say somebody is charged with 794, you can go to jail for

the rest of your life. you can be executed. lyall espionage you could get 10 years. little as be a notch -- little espionage you can only get 10 years. people who are arrested are often charged with both. in a federal prosecution, who decides if it is protecting national defense information? that is a decision made by the jury, not the judge. most people in and give us are charged with conspiracy. conspiracy is not a crime by itself. it is conspiracy to commit espionage. when two or may people or more people decide to conduct these functions, that is conspiracy.

most people are charged with espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage because the most difficult thing to prove as the transmittal of information. in espionage statute, the unauthorized transmittal is the most of the building to peru. on whatever was charged with conspiracy. we track everyone of these cases and we put legal documents and to them. you'll find often that we use the crime a fara. it is foreign agents registration act passed in 1938.

it says if you are an agent for a foreign power like a lawyer or an advertiser or do anything for a foreign power, you have to go down to the department of justice within 10 days and register. if you don't do it, you go to jail for 10 years. most people who are spies, will not go down to the department of justice and say i have been recruited as a spy for such and such intelligence service. if i find out you are an agent of a foreign power and you have not gone to the department of justice, you'll go jail for 10 years. as a great loss. that was used for the russian illegals. there were agents of a foreign power and that is why all of pl themed 10 years. there's another great little used in the espionage world and it is called section 101.

if a law enforcement officer -- you cannot lie to me. if you like to me, you go to jail for five years for every live. if i go to in bridge to interview anybody and start the interview and lied to me, i would say stop. you just committed a felony and could go to jail for five years so let's start all over again. you don't want to lie to me. if you like to a federal officer, for every like, you get five years. in spite cases, they almost never confessed. a chart 1 in with001. it is a gridlock. -- it is a great loss. don't ever lied to a federal officer. each line is five years.

let me tell aboutspyepedia. we'll update this every single day. the man who runs this is sitting here. he does this every day. he has a staff of masters people to update this information every single day. everything i am about to tell you comes from spyapedia. 1945-2011, the past 66 years, the cases i want to show your based on foreign nationals who were arrested and espionage- related crimes. if i start looking at those questions about how damaging espionage has been and who is the most damaging spy, i like to

say there are 10 people -- 20 people in my top-10 list and that is as funny as i get. to make people want to get on the list of spies. b believeob hansen is the most damaging spy in our history. they represent different genders and ethnicities. everyone is an individual who chose to become a betrayal. the department of defense in a steady, but the list of 173. if i ask you how many people have been arrested since 1945 through today, the answer is 423 people. the average is 6.23 per year. you have to look at these cases two ways -- any case related to espionage you have to say this -- is this a be troyer case or a

collector case? the russian a legal case or collectors. they did not pass information. did not have security clearance. collectors made and communicate with agents that agents are the betrayers and agents provide the secrets and collectors receive the secret. you have to figure out what you are looking at. huckabee traders feel the secrets and pass the secrets and have no protection ve. when you look at a case, you have to say what you are looking at, a.b. troyer case or a collector case and you get different answers. 8 b troyer a b --etrayer case are a collector case. we're having a flood of as benign as cases in the united states. it is as if it is happening below are conscious level.

if we look at economic espionage cases, there have been one of the 25 people at least to have been arrested for economic espionage. the trend line is going up. we see more and more of those cases targeting the private sector. some of that this last year turned out to the investment information current there are two cases which are very interesting and new. in the last four years, 94 people have been arrested for espionage-related crimes. that means 22.2% of all the arrests in the last 66 years have taken place the last four years. we have an explosion.

we see a far more aggressive chinese collection activity and we have more people working in counterintelligence that we did before. how many countries have been involved? in 1992, the federal government counterintelligence program changed its strategy. it went from looking only at people who are enemies of america to anybody who collected against us. there are at least 31 countries who have been identified as being involved with recruiting somebody who was trying to be traded the access they had. here's what the numbers look like. the top numbers are russia and the ussr.

some of those come back from the old days during the cold war. we have 341 cases of agents were in for a foreign entity. he did the government does not identify who the collector was for a collector had not been identified by the time the person is arrested. someone might decide this by and they haven't decided to forwhom. the look of the numbers and it says it has been scattered around it is true to say that china has been coming up fast on the outside. it has been a 2001 phenomenon. the first chinese arrest was made in 1985. since then, the numbers have exploded.

the vast majority of these are taking place in the private sector. if you look at every single one of the cases in the last five years, every single one of these cases have been digital theft. even though we live in a digital age, espionage continues as it did before. in the past, someone may have taken a document and copied it. today, they visually get the document. in every case, the insider -- if you look at the problem of collection against this, you have to look like a fourth. fort. and they tried to get inside your system. if you set up a good security system, you can deal with that kind of the external attack against you.

we tracked the in thespyapedia. we track the cyber attacks. we keep a good track of those cases. that is half the problem. a lot of that is going on. then you have the other problem and that is the spy on the inside. they don't have to get through the firewall. those individuals to acquire the information get it out either em byail or the have and an external hard drive and copy it. it is simple if you have the right system to detect those two things. some organizations are doing a great job in their commitment to understand the insider threat a lot of discussion today is about the insider threat. there is nothing new about that. it is just using a different media. these are looking a chinese

cases, there have been 67 age p of therc arrested -- there of about 67 of the prc arrested since 1985. russia is in red and the cases are in blue and the prc is in green. if we say what is the employment status of the individuals who were arrested, you can see they're coming out of the private sector because of economic cases and foreign nationals and then we start going down to navy, army, contractors. the navy has an aggressive counterespionage programs, one of the best ones and the government. they have a serious commitment to catching spies. they have more than any other government agency.

where the spies are coming from. the level of astronauts sometimes take our breath away. -- the level of espionage sometimes takes our breath away. there were 541 spies in this time from inside the u.s. government or private sector during world war two. that includes literally every u.s. government agency was penetrated during that timeframe by our allies. we know this through thewinona decrypts and his wonderful book by highly recommend a ",speies: the rise and fall of the kgb." we listed the spy wi is andnona

which was the description program have put that together and what you find is where these people were. 541 by name and organization. every place in the united states was penetrated. that tells you that you do not invest in this and take it serious, it is like getting cancer. it will spread like a virus. when i show you the numbers today, we still have less numbers but it still goes on. even 38 spies inside the media were also agents in this timeframe. we have many of their names. you will not find that list anywhere else. let's turn to 2011 in the united states. these other cases that were sentenced. wrote one of them was interesting which was and rarely -- a st israeliing case.

it has to do with this guy. he was a massachusetts and very unhappy with his wife and worked on an internet delivery service and decided to send an e-mail to the israelis, to the consulate in israel. -- in new england, i'm sorry. he volunteered by e-mail. the israelis passed it all along to the fbi. they looked at this guy and this is what he writes -- he goes on volunteering that he wants to spy for israel because he is jewish. a year later, the fbi response to him and they begin to correspond. during that time, he says i want to help our home land and our war against our enemies.

not a bad things can happen to her, he talks about his ex-wife. the it was not real at the mi the formerssus and they asked for a little bit of money. there is a silly -- a series of dead drops between the fbi anddoxer and he thinks this is the israeli government and they do this 62 times. this relates to computer systems. he is arrested and in august of this year, he pled guilty to one count of economic espionage. charges were dismissed any faced 15 years in august of this year. he got six months in prison and six months in home confinement and find $230,000. that was finalized today.

this was another case that took place involving the prc. it is a new trend we have never seen. glen duffy shriver. >> a man sat buildup in international in trading in houston taking tens of thousands of dollars from chinese intelligence and is now charged with lying to the cia. >> neighbors said they had not seen him in several years. >> i saw him occasionally getting in his car. >> the 28-year-old lived with his mother in this quiet neighborhood. the last was heard, he was living in california trying to get a job and law enforcement. >> it's scary. >> the interview of the neighbors are always

interesting. they're always not sure and i never thought he was a spy. this case was interesting because here is going to grand valley state cards and have a big international program and he goes to china and they have 24,000 students there any studies abroad in shanghai and lights china. they put 4000 students overseas. the light china. -- keylay to china. anything he said in a tunnel was very pro-peeress the entire one. he studied his junior and came back here in 2004 and studied mandarin and looked to work. he did some advertising. he did an advertisement in english for someone to write a

political paper. the woman who responded to this was a man there who hired him. she paid in $200 and recruited relations between china and taiwan. that is the key issue between china and the prc. he then --amanda sets up a meeting with the chinese intelligence service. they suggested he might be interested to go to work for the state department or the cia. he says he would be interested. they arrested the do that and get some secret documents. he said that sounds like a good plan. he said he was willing to do that. he applied to the state department and got on the internet and took the service test in shanghai. it is very difficult to pass and he failed.

they gave him $10,000 for trying, for his friendship, we have never seen that before. what happens next? one year later, he takes the test again and he fails again. they pay and $20,000 for taking it a second time. he's got $30,000 for failing to serve -- the foreign service test. after that, he submits an online application to the national clandestine service of the cia. he does that in 2007 and he then flies to shanghai and meets with the prc officers during that time. they paid and $40,000 for having made the application. he now has $70,000 in his pocket and he has not been hired by anybody yet. it is rare in the spy business for anyone to be paid for future. it is almost always after the fact and we have never seen this

from china before. in december, he is advised to report to the cia in washington for his final employment processing. that means taking a polygraph. in february, he felt as al statesf-86. when it fills out the form, as he committed a crime? the cry ms.10021, he is lying on an official document. he takes a polygraph and he admits to everything. he could of said the sun is did this to him but he continued and tried to do with a dead end in june, he had a criminal indictment.

he is indicted for 1001 which is lying five times. he is facing 25 years. now they sit down and have a conversation with them. he chooses to corporate and pleads guilty to 793 which is prepared to react which is little as benign as which is 10 years. he pleads guilty to that end at the end of last year, beginning of this year, he is sentenced to 48 months and now is a convicted felon. it is a remarkable case. there is another big prc staying case at the end of 2010 that led to a conviction this year that had to do with brian martin. he is a navy reversed -- reservist at fort bragg.

he is a defense dia agent -- >> this happened at three different hotels. >> this is difficult for our country. >> that is the reaction we got for a lot of folks around here for espionage is unthinkable around here. >> it breaks my heart. >> brian martin delivered military files to undercover agents several times. he thought he was beating an intelligence officer from a foreign -- meeting and intelligence officer from a foreign country. the documents say it he was seeking "long-term financial reimbursement."

he was given at $1,500 in cash. later, on november 19, march and met the undercover agent again, this time at this holiday inn express. 51 pages of documents, marked secret or top secret, and again paid another $1,500. like a lot of other americans, in and out of uniform tonight -- >> we were interviewed at a bar turned out to be a spy, right? he was arrested in a sting operation by ncis and fbi. none of these were passed for foreign nationals but he was charged with 794, big espionage ghe did it in a court martial setting, and long-term financial reimbursements was what he said

-- this man comes from mexico. -- mexico, new york. this year he pleaded guilty to 11 counts of attempted espionage for trying to sell classified material. he is sentenced to 48 years due to pretrial agreement. he is facing the 34 years of the federal charge in fort leavenworth. he says, "meizell was blinded by greed." -- my soul was blinded by greed." he is facing 34 years of federal time. there is no parole for federal time did 34 years is 34 years. you never want to get charged federally. 10 is 10. yesterday, a young man here got convicted by the fed and got 100 years for multiple