and they loved him dearly that is decided him a lot of people did not see so i consider him as the chief enigma them with the family medical leave act i brought home that decision and he said did you write this? [laughter] >> when you think back across the couple of decades what is the biggest changes you have seen in the courts? is it day perception? . .s anything to do with government so the supreme court has slipped but not really as much as congress -- as congress has. [laughter]

justice liu: that's an understatement. justice ginsburg: the big change in the court composition came not when we had a new chief but when justice o'connor left us. and i have said many times that the year that she left, every time i was among four rather than five, i would have been five, four if she remained with us. she was a big loss in many ways. justice liu: met me ask you sort of another big picture question about your approach to judging. i think many observers -- and we're now seeing some books being written about your corpus of work -- many people described your approach to judging as incrementalist. and indeed at your confirmation hearing, here's what you said.

isn't it terrible people quote your confirmation hearing back to you? [laughter] justice liu: in your case it's very, very -- it's very good. you said, my approach -- this is you -- is neither liberal nor conservative. rather, it's rooted in the place of the judiciary of judges, in our democratic society. so in other occasions you have spoken out against judicial activism noting that current court is the most activist in history in terms of willingness to overturn legislation. you've written long ago that roe vs. wade perhaps went too far too fast. in contrast to the step by step approach that characterized much of your litigation approach as a lawyer. so i just want to ask, have your views about gradualism changed at all in the course of your two decades on the supreme court or

has it reinforced your sense that gradualism is the right approach? justice ginsburg: i don't know if i would use the word gradualism. i do think it's healthy for our system if the court and the congress can be in dialogue. i think of some great examples of that. when the court in the 1970's said discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not discrimination on the basis of sex, there was a coalition formed to pass the pregnancy discrimination act. people from all parts of the political spectrum were on board with that and that was repeated again with lilly ledbetter. if it caused a statutory determination there could be a healthy back and forth between the supreme court and the political branches.

let me put it this way, the court is not in a popularity contest and it should not be influenced by today's headlines, by the weather of today, but as paul said, inevitably it will be affected by the climate of the era. i think that's part of the explanation of why the gay rights movement has advanced to where it is today. the climate of the era. the court is really in front including brown v. board, which was social change. it was -- on behalf of the united states in that case said

essentially we were fighting a war against racism and in that war until the very end our troops were rigidly segregated by race. a huge embarrassment and now the soviet union is pointing to the united states, this apartheid racist society. it's an embarrassment. it's time for segregation of the racism in schools to end. that was the poss that the government was taken. made it easier for the justices, and yet it took them 13 years from brown v. board until loving v. virginia to declare it unconstitutional. they had lots of opportunities bethey waited until the climate of the era had largely changed.

so the court can be important in reinforcing social change and it can hold it back as well. but it doesn't initiate change. justice liu: do you think that's in some tension with the conventional understanding of the court as a countermajoritarian institution, that the role of the court is supposed to be countermajoritarian? and yet some people would argue saying it's unrealistic for the court to be at the forefront even when individual rights are at stake. justice ginsburg: it should be countermajoritarian. when the bill of rights says these are the rules that congress has to abide by so the court should be vigorous in enforcing the rights in the bill of rights and in the 14th

amendment. the court is the guardian. the constitution makes the court the guardian of those rights. so, yes, the court must be vigilant but we can't do what, say, a political party can do. here's our platform, this year we're going to try to get through this and that. we have to wait until -- it has to start with the people. if it doesn't start with the people it's not going to get to the court. so you have to have a concerned citizenry to help these rights. justice liu: let me take us out of the law for a second and ask you, as our time runs out here who are your most important mentors in your life?

justice ginsburg: who -- what women were my role models i say in my growing up years, one was real and one was fictional. the real one was amelia earhart and the fictional one was nancy drew. [applause] [laughter] justice ginsburg: but amelia -- in my college years, certainly law school, never had a woman teacher. people asked me, did you always want to be a supreme court justice? i wanted to get a job in the law. that was my goal. women weren't on the bench in numbers on the federal bench until jimmy carter became president. he deserves tremendous credit for that. he was in office only four years. he took a look at the federal judiciary and said, you know they all kind of look like me,

but he was determined to appoint members of minority groups and women in numbers, not as one at a time curiosities. at least 25 women to federal district courts and i was one of the lucky 11 appointed to a court of appeals during his time. if he said in october of 1980 when he had a reception for the women he had appointed to the federal bench, even though he had no supreme court vacancy to fill he hoped he would be remembered for how he changed the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. and no president went back to old ways. president reagan determined to put the first woman on the supreme court. justice liu: as you reflect on the entirety of your life and

career, what do you think -- what aspects or events have given you the greatest personal satisfaction? justice ginsburg: i was tremendously fortunate to be born when i was, to be a lawyer with the skill in the 1970's to help move that progress and society along. if i had been born even 10 years earlier it would have been impossible. in the turning point brief we put on a cover of that brief the names of two women, paul even mary was one and -- what's the one i already mentioned?

the one who was concerned with putting women on juries. all over the country. we put their names on the briefs to say they kept the message alive even when people were not prepared to listen. and we owe them a tremendous debt. how lucky we are. just think of the quote, the first case, it comes out unanimous judgment and most of the others came out the right way in the 1970's. so i count myself enormously fortunate to be around when it was possible. to move society to the place where it should be, for the betterment of all of us. everyone is a beneficiary of ending gender discrimination.

women, men, like charles morris. children. justice rehnquist, this is a story of a man whose life died in childbirth. he was left the sole caretaker of the child, wanted social security benefits that would help him be able to work only part time while his child was young. those benefits were for mothers, not fathers. so the court decided that case i think it was in 1975. it was a unanimous judgment. one, discrimination against the women as wage earner. her social security taxes don't get for her family the same protection. and then a few of them thought it was really discrimination against the male as parent.

he would not have the opportunity to render personal care to his child. and then rehnquist all along said totally arbitrary from the point of view of the baby. why should the baby have the chance to be cared for by a parent, only if the parent is female and not male? but it's that realization that we will all be better off if we end the discrimination, if we end the era of women for the home and children and men are for the outside world. both should be in both worlds. [applause] justice liu: well - [applause] justice liu: before we go, let me say on behalf of everyone here i think we are all enormously fortunate that you've lived the life that you have and been such a tremendous inspiration to so many

generations and we look forward to what's still to come.nutes.

>> good afternoon everyone. i ham jonathan chandler, vice president for research here at foundation for defense of

democracy, i want to welcome you here to our event on the aftermath of turkey's elections. this should be a very exciting discussion today. i've very pleased to have with us john hannah, who will be moderating the discussion and also particularly pleased to have our two panelis erdemir who is a nonresident fellow bailed in turkey but here with week. he just recently finished to a term as a member of parliament in turkey, and to his right is ambassador eric edelman who has an adviser to the turkish program. first serving a america's ambassador. today's panel comes on the heels of a -- somewhat of a surprising election that took place last sunday in turkey. we want to try to dissect what it means. the only thing i'd like to tell you now is if you have your cell

phones on, please set them to stun. and we will have a formal discussion followed by your questions and we'll be sure to try to get as many of those in as possible. so for now issue turn it over to john and thank you very much for being here. >> great, thank you. jonathan. good afternoon welcome everyone. as jonathan said, i'm john hannah and i'm senior council at the foundation for defense of democracy, and i've got the real pleasure of moderating today's panel. for those of you here in the audience and/or watching on c-span who are not familiar with fdd we are a washington based think tank focused on don ducting in depth research on the array of threats and challenges facing the united states and our allies in the middle east and globally and on developing the policies and programs necessary to defend against those threats and secure america's vital national interests.

if if you want to learn mere about our research, visit us on the web site a www.defend dem address.org and follow us on twitter at hash tag follow fdd. jonathan said today we're talking turkey. specifically the june 7th june 7th elects and their implications for turkey and the united states. in a word, i think these elections were big. after 13 years of an ever-expanding domination of turkey's political life by the akp party and its founder president erdogan, the turkish people have said enough is enough. this was a refer rein dumb on his burning desire to convert turkey's parliamentary system

into a presidentsive erdogan the repository of most, if not all state power and elected sultan and anatolian version of putin if you will. and turkish people appear to have responded to erdogan's almost unlimited ambition with a resounding no, not only dei nying erdogan and the ap a ruling major jilt in the parliament and giving 6 other% of their support to parties -- stopping erdogan in is power including the hdp kurdish dominated secular progressive power that that empowered turkey's large and historically problematic kurdish minority play an unprecedented role in the future of the country's legitimate democratic politics. there are lots of questions

and -- that remain to be answered and no doubt lots of difficulties that lie ahead for turkey june 7th was to my mind an enormously inspiring performance, a much needed triumph for the spirit of liberal democracy and a middle east landscape currently inundated by too much bad news. for those who have watched over the past decade with great dismay she slow drip, drip, drip of turkey's democracy being drained away by erdogan's creeping islamism and authoritarianism we frankly weren't sure anymore that the turkish people still had this kind of election in them. erdogan appeared to have been so successful over the years in grinding turkish society down, demagoguing some constituencies, demonizings others, instilling such a high degree of intimidation in the system that it was unclear that any group or

institution still had the courage or the wherewithal to stand up to him. well i think to a lot of people's pleasant surprise, we got our answer a week ago last sunday. turkish people did indeed stand up toard want and mustered no small amount of courage to send a loud and fairly unambiguous message that the erosion of turkish democracy must stop here. that i think is worth knosting and worth celebrating -- and worth celebrating. now comes the hard part. how does the result on election day now get translated into meaningful change and governance? what comes next for turkey? that of course, the subject of our panel today. and as jonathan noted great panel. it. if i don't say so myself. jonathan said, aykan erdemir making his debut as a

nonresident fellow in fdd's new and ever-expanding turkey program, which jonathan oversees with a big assist from an fdd researcher. who is one of to the best and brightest young scholars working on turkey today in washington. we're also joined by my great friend and colleague ambassador eric edelman who doesn't require an introduction but i want to say other few things anyway because i do love singing the praises. eric had an incredibly distinguished career in the u.s. foreign service. he concluded time in government as the undersecretary of defense at the pentagon right after he served for two years as america's ambassador to turkey. must be said nor historical record ex-income that eric had erdogan's number long before

almost anyone else in washington had a clue of what was really happening in turkey. and he still got the battle scars to prove it from his time in ankara. no one was more perceptive or more right bettered want and his underlying agenda, and the potential challenges they were eventually going to pose for both turkey and the united states. i still remember eric walking into the oval office, i think -- i can't remember if it was late 2003 or early 2004, to participate in a prebrief with president bush, in advance erdogan's first visit to washington as turkey's prime minister. it was the first time -- starry-eyed bettered want, the great reformer, the moderate islamist, the man who was going to transform turkey into a modern vibrant pro western muslim democracy that would serve as the ideal model for the rest of the middle east to follow. well that day eric walked into the oval office, took me aside

shook my hand and said, in a low voice, john, we have a serious problem here, but no one in washington seems to realize it. how right he was. unfortunately, it would take the greater part of another decade before the rest of washington caught up to eric, not to mention a good part of the people of turkey. eric today wears many hats. a distinguished school at the center for strategic and budgetary assessment, professor at john hopkins served as a member of the influential congressionally mandated defense policy panel and as jonathan noted, most important for our p.es now a senior adviser to fdd's turkey program and it's great to have him as part of the team and welcome him here today. i'm going to pose my own questions for the first 35 or 40 minute and then we'll turn it

over to you in the audience for your questions and comments. we'll cover as much ground as we can and conclude as close to 1:15 as possible. with that, let's get started. let me get this going by simply asking both of you now after i'm given kind of the optimistic or partially optimistic assessment of what might have happened on june 7th to just spend a few minutes for each of you telling us what you think the main headlines were from what happened in the elections what exactly were the main takeaways for you. aykan, let's start with you. ...

it's not all rosy picture. where to begin? first of all we had to consolidated parties consolidate parties in the election, chp in a pp shared one thing in common.

90% of their grassroots were decided, followers decided to vote for these parties two weeks in advance of the election. here we see two solid support bases. then we had inmate be in hd, two parties was perceived quite a lot of strategic votes in the last week. so these are the parties, one out of five voters came in last week. and to be frank the assumption is the votes that came to mhp had to be add-on skeptics and the votes that came happen to be again authoritarian skeptics would like to see some advantage in the parliament. difficult difficult to argue these two arguments difficult to prove. what we see is a lot of the kurdish conservatives turn

into htp with them last week. in the exit polls these people still see add-on as the most successful leader of the campaign. 13 percent think it was the most successful leader of the campaign, although he campaign, although he was a party to them. so as some scholars warn us we should not overemphasize the overall progressive nature. the 20 percent secular kurdish leadership at the top. and then the values and politics. we have seen no space this stronger. more conservative came. similarly what we see is

they received quite a lot of swing votes. but these are people who share quite a lot of the values and policies. probably they thought he was overstepping his mandated position. and the exit polls a week after the election now that you no it's up would you have voted otherwise? almost 5 percent say if i knew the results would have been this way i would have voted for akp. they are now regretting their vote in my swing back. we also see the same. so maybe we should -- my take on this would be we should not read too much of the progressive liberal

democratic interpretation. we should not belittle the importance of the election. ultimately turkish elections prove that there could be a return from competitive where incumbent with huge advantages can never delay -- nevertheless suffer relative defeat at the ballot box command i think this is an important message for the region. >> thank you. thank you for that generous introduction. i found a little intimidating it is now no matter what i say will be downhill. first, i agree with you. there are some positive elements in the election results, but i share the concern that the overall

picture is more cloudy and has some dark clouds within the silver lining, if you will. first, election results clearly put in place at least the spirit -- a speed bump a speed bump in the way the former prime minister now president was to create an executive presidency it is a positive thing for turkish democracy. democracy. secondly, the fact of the htp successful campaign and its ability to get over the 10 percent threshold is both a a mark of the maturation of turkish democracy but also potentially a positive sign for the country's ability to finally resolve the issues of the kurdish minority. having said all that the

election result i think i think also reveals that turkey remains a very deeply divided society. we talked a little bit about that but if you look at the map of the geographical distribution of boats there is a sliver along the aegean coast for chp has most of its work, some places in the center of the country and along the mediterranean coast where mhp is strong htp strong, htp obviously is strong in the southeast command and all the rest of the country is all akp country. and it looks a little bit like some of the maps that are drawn of the united states, the red and blue maps of republican nomination of rural and ask urban areas of the united states and democratic

domination of urban areas using big swaths of red. you know, turkey is a very deeply polarized society. the bad news is that the akp is the only party that is competitive across the nation. the others are not competitive everywhere in the country. akp in his deeply divided society remains the only national party. secondly, we now face a very uncertain future for turkey with a hung parliament and the prospects for formation of the government not immediately clear, at least to me. the president was uncharacteristically quiet for the 1st three or four days after the election but he is now clearly back in action. one action. one thing that i think he is trying to demonstrate by his actions is that he is not going to see this vote as in any way inhibiting him and

his effort to create this executive presidency. he has already taken a number of steps that clearly are not within the habit of the constitution announcing that he will be calling party leaders together to meet with them individually before he turns it over to the prime minister to try and form a government. he is also making it clear that he thinks there is a very reasonable prospect that there won't be a government and that the country will have to go back to elections. despite the fact that the prime minister has indicated that, perhaps, a grand coalition that has suggested might be in the country's best interest might be possible. my suspicion is that the pres. president does not want to see a government formed within the 45 day time frame set by the constitution and would like to see the country go back

to elections in part because he reads the exit polls the same way i i condos and thinks that there is a chance that if turkey applies the eu standard that there is a chance that, in fact he will do better in a 2nd election that he will get at least a governing majority if not the super majority that he thinks he needs to put in place amendments to the constitution to enshrine his executive presidency. i foresee a time of some political instability, perhaps greater market volatility and economic issues for turkey and a very uncertain outcome. >> okay. can you just bring us to the technical process of the way forward now? how the effort to form a government will be made? what are the necessary steps to grant constitutionally?

>> the newly elected turkish deputies are still to be sworn in. once the ceremony takes place at the turkish parliament within the next week there will be elections for the speaker of the parliament. and those elections will provide us some hand as to what might happen with the coalition government. right now no party has majority to elect a speaker of the parliament. if the opposition party, if they decide to unite their votes they can actually for the 1st time in 30 years who is not from the akp. right after that starts the clock and i agree that the president probably would like to run the clock. he can do this in a couple

of ways. he has shown that he will try to be part of the coalition talks. he also has quite a number of wireless and followers within the new group of deputies who can make the coalition building ever difficult and more importantly reading the exit polls, he knows that there is now a group of voters both among the htp and mhp who said that they would have voted for ak had they known the election results. now, just swing back and probably won't push htp below the 10 percent threshold. it is still likely. i think mhp will suffer even more. and if within the next 45 days there is a viable

coalition we can have free elections which add-on is hoping will bring once again a single party rule. when the voters us what your preferred coalition it seems to be the most favorite. followed by a coalition of the free opposition party. in my opinion the 1st one is quite likely because two parties share quite a lot in common. this of course would imply a return the hard-line nationalist policy vis-à-vis the kurdish question in the region. feels good for the majority

the difficulty of demonstrating htp's and mhp's turkish respectively kurdish and turkish nationals turkish -- turkish coalition still have consensus building skills to overcome the world. you should keep in mind that right after the elections one of the most searched terms on google was coalition. >> it is.

>> the constitution does give the president the authority the turkish collision -- coalition, they should receive this opportunity. when we talk about traditional, they also realize that add-on is a great the fire of tradition. we never know what cards he has up his sleeve. >> does he have a specific amount of time that he can try. >> can't run the clock. a president who an interest in

forming a coalition government he cannot. but that probably is not likely. >> okay. he would never get a chance to be the one. let me clear prognosticators, tell me what you think the most likely scenario is here. do you think we're going to run out the clock? is there a chance for a coalition or minority government even? if so, what kind of government? >> it is a a little hard for me to imagine actual coalition emerging. in some sense and most observers would say the most likely coalition one could envision would be in mhp coalition because there is

some commonality there in the world use with the parties in and the voters of the respective voters believe. however, i would note that the head of the mhp has been quoted as saying yes. fine. happy yes. fine. happy to have a coalition, but the commit -- the conditions for that the corruption scandal that broke in the summer 2013 has to be brought before the bar of justice and that includes your son. give a cement we can have a government. also that the president would have to abide by the understood constitutional norms of the turkish republic which is to stop chairing cabinet meetings, stop inserting himself in the process of forming a coalition government. it is extremely difficult for me to imagine the president agreeing to any of those conditions. so the idea that you are going to get that is hard to imagine. i think both have suggested

at least in public comments that they are open to a kind of grand coalition that would represent 60 to 60 to 65 percent of the voters which would in some sense overcome this deep sense of division. but i find it hard to believe that the coalition will be formed either. the two parties are just so far apart. and for the chp to agree to a coalition that did not impose some of the same conditions that mhp has talked about, holding the government accountable for corruption and the president accountable for behaving within the constitution i think actually it would damage them in the future. it might give them a chance to hold the ministerial portfolio for a while but i

don't think that it would enhance the party prospects electorally in the future. on the contrary, i think it would diminish the. it is a little bit -- and it was said that coalitions are out of the question. question. i cannot imagine them entering into a coalition. whether he would be willing to silently support and akp minority government, government, i think that is a more open question and would not exclude that. but the reality is even if we get a coalition government the history of coalition governments in turkey is a weak government that does not last long. and so i think one way or another we will be back to the turkish political party will be back in an election campaign going to the voters sooner rather than later. >> and i mean come on the akp in a position in particular, we have heard a lot over the years of rumors disagreement tension within the party.

does appear to have been possibly exacerbated by the results of the elections. think there is a new book out by an advisor to former president cool that highlights a lot of the disagreements between the former president and president heard one for particularly over things like the protests, the corruption scandals that are mentioned at the end of the 2013 and should have been handled. can anything come of that? are they going to suffer any price within the akp? is there any chance former president we will try and make a comeback? or is he still very much the man in control dominating this party and we'll get his

way? >> i would argue the way in which this book was launched is very indicative of the style and politics. the book was written by his chief advisors of the last 12 years, and the book was really actually -- he was told to wait until after the elections. the implication is so we don't hurt the campaign. it has so far been very timid, careful is a politician who does not like taking risks too much. he is doing it again in a very gentle manner. he will probably not be too proactive in trying to have a takeover attempt within the akp. on the contrary we might see

a declaration of independence by trying to take greater control of the party. he has already indicated a few times that the president should stay in his role, and the coalition talks should be among the leaders and not with the pres. so we might see him slowly trying to assert his leadership. of course, he knows his limits and the extent to which they are loyalists. >> let me comment on this. i i also want to ask you about the turkish economy. how it might play into these scenarios. before the before the election there was a serious offer of trouble particularly the drop in the lira being a good indicator which was exacerbated the results of the election.

how nervous how nervous do you think the markets are foreign investors are? and is this kind of potential glowing uncertainty heard the akp in your view going forward? >> i want to come back to the question of the recent book and the details, the disagreements between former president and the incumbent president. the comments which i agree with. but, look, we have not mentioned it yet but it was the other big factor in the election besides the resistance pretensions to a stronger presidency. the economy has the economy has been slowing down for some time. turkish voters, i think pretty well-established.

frequently are voting on the economic record of previous government. and that is one thing that has been a major source of strength since 2002. but the slowing economy clearly hurt. i think you were right to.to the decline in the lira. is down about 30 percent now i think that the current account deficit which has been extraordinarily high for a number of years the fact that a lot of the direct investment has been portfolio investment and is hot money moving in and out of the country a prolonged time of political instability, particularly if it ends up being accompanied by violence in the southeast for instance which you already see some signs of over the last weeks of the election could combine to

exacerbated structural problems in the turkish economy and lead to a real crisis. post-world war ii economic history is a history of boom bust. one of my one of my predecessors used to call a sine wave economy. and i think that you could see that reemerge now and become a factor the economic overall of this comes do. let me just say one thing i agree with icon. although he has had no shortage of public and private criticisms over the course that he is set, he has never really shown the stomach for a political fight that many people had

hoped he would have because i think that's face it the logical conclusion from what i said at the outset which is that akp is the only effective national party and the other parties can't really compete one of the things that has undermined turkish democracy has been the weakness of the opposition and the inability of turkish voters to conceive of them as an alternative party of governance. it's been one of the great advantages. in and the only way that's going to change is if it sometime they fractures. the emergence of turkish political parties the majority is.

>> thank you. let me as quickly about an important topic more uncertain, the kurdish issue and how these elections are going to affect the process. at one time it seemed that perhaps a major motive for the president to be engaged in this the kurds would be the constituency the push them over the top in terms of getting the majority needed to create the executive presidency. now he presidency. now he appears to have the opposite result. these elections in the piece process in the kurdish issue has actually strengthened an alternative kurdish party weakened the akp and empowered to another party the mh. that seems quite opposed to the entire process. so i -- can we say anything about how the elections are likely to affect this piece process that seems quite fragile, bogged down they

likely to help, hurt or is it all dependent on what eventually emerges in terms of any kind of governing coalition? >> i think the magic has always been his ability to attract both turkish nationalists and kurdish nationalists. and with this election the puzzle is once again. this time by losing both the turkish nationals and occurs nationals. in the last two weeks of the campaign he did appeal the turkish nationalism. at the expense of the kurdish votes, but ultimately he emerged losing both ends of his support base. today i think what happens is from my.of view the kurdish what seems to be gone. i think gone. i think it's a one-way thing.

it will be difficult to really attract the kurdish vote, kurdish vote, kurdish conservative vote. there is a new sense of ethnic solidarity different dynamics within the region, new kurdish consciousness rising. if you rising. if you compare this to the turkish national i think that both can come back which means again that he also think that the coalition is more likely turkey might be going for a disaster scenario. that is turkey might go back to the denials policies of the 1990s and akp mhp coalition could be quite a highlight is coalition. i have i have heard comments on both sides highlighting the military/security option one thing, deputies and leaders are missing in.

turkey is no longer the turkey of 1990. kurds are no longer the kurds in 1990. turkish security presence in turkish to -- kurdish minority regions are nowhere near the 1990s. turkish state and military and the police no longer have the same options on the table, no longer have the same capability command i also used to serve as a volunteer/shadow for the kurdish minority regions. region. and to be frank, people wouldn't know the region no the everyday life in the region can.out to you the vast difference between what we have today as opposed to 1990s. the pkk seems to have full control of the region and any attempt by an akp mkp coalition to impose a security centered approach

more of a turkish islamic centered approach in of the region will backfire and will probably feel a lot of unrest like we have seen with the uprising. >> can i just ask you again if you want to comment about the overall impact. is it significant that all that the kurds have now gotten into the ballot box and elected this party that may be made up of pkk sympathizers but is not necessarily fully convergent the pkk? is this introduce anything interesting or is it probably too strong to be of some help of the the southeast southeast and the kurdish politics, is still very much the pkk has a

major voice. another outbreak of conflict. >> as i said, i think it's interesting and potentially a positive development will be made in the parliament. however, i. however, i am a little concerned that because of the uncertainty of where we're headed it could end up being off or not and will make that much difference. first, if we get a coalition clearly the price for that will be an end to the piece process. so it is great that you have these kurdish parliamentarians. and it is not just kurds. there are also other minorities who they have brought to their rainbow coalition introducing the

level of diversity not pursuing that these process there will be a limit to what the hbp can deliver to voters. there will be almost inevitably a kind of competition set up. and you may be seeing some of that play already secondly let's play out the other option option, the president succeeds in running out the clock and we go to new elections. his calculus to some degree has to mean that he will get you know, a majority and hopefully is a majority to carry out his own ambitions that we have described earlier. some of that will come half from the mhp vote going down

the the going down and going down so low that they don't make it in the parliament. you almost have to have that happen if you want to give to the 330 votes. get to the super majority. he could see them being tempted. you can imagine in the 2nd vote for five months from now your have the same kind of intensity. you might like it is higher turnout. turnout was quite high. you might have a lower turnout. you might be able to drive that vote down to 10.2 percent at which time the temptation to manipulate the election returns to keep them below 10 percent to become extremely high.

if you would end up with the result in which after having 80 kurdish parliamentarians in the parliament you have an election and suddenly there are zero kurdish parliamentarians? i think you can spin this out in ways that potentially our devastating on this issue and lead down a road to a lot of instability and potentially violence in turkey. i have several more questions particularly about the impact on kurdish foreign-policy of the syria question as well as with the us ought to be doing at this important but uncertain time in turkish history but i do want to go over to the audience and begin taking some questions. if you can keep it to a question, a very brief identification. we will try and take three in a row.

in the front row. >> let's talk, if the start, if you don't mind i like to hear what your have to say about the long-term. if you look at kurdish identity, throughout the region is just take money send troops across southern turkey, the remarkable response of the people oh my god. they are like are like us. we're the same. in turkish what the kurds call. [speaking in native tongue] and even the city hall says in turkish the city hall. if

you see the flags, they are all kurdish. the question is do you see the long-term let's say the scenario here have a disaster because let's say in an election they would get a zero do you see the kurds moving in a different direction? they clearly feel a strong sense of identity with the people just south. >> there was one in the 3rd row. >> i. my question i no that pray and finish the quran. do you see any change in the relationship between the muslim in the future and his relationship with the regime in egypt? >> mother we let him answer the 1st question why this kurdish question is going.

the turkish republic stand up? howie heading how we heading toward a much messier break up? >> i think they can for a few years. they asked us to look at the long-term. in the long-term we are dealing with a volatile situation here. with the president's response to the advance of kurdish forces in northeastern syria it is clear that he would rather see that area remain in isis dominated no man's land than to see the current successful. as the same logic that he had for withholding support perhaps because he was afraid of precisely what you described in terms of the reaction to the kr g forces arriving. when you think about it and

long-term and think about the fragmentation we already see in syria and my own view is the idea that syria is going to -- the syrian humpty dumpty will get put back together again, pretty hard to credit after the amount of killing a movement population. there's still potential for the fragmentation of iraq and certainly the emergence of the kr gg as potentially a pro state, proto- kurdish state, if you then layer on top of that an inability of the turkish political system to deal with this issue i think you have a combustible mix. >> to answer your question about egypt to my think we should approach it not as a bilateral issue with a transnational issue. i've always argued that the

policies cannot interpret this within the nationstate it has always been a muslim brotherhood oriented policy whether in syria jordan, egypt and is even trying to build from malaysia to the balkans. the trans- nationalist politician we will come quite rarely entered politics. i would not expect much to change. we know see hp is interested in mending ties with armenia, israel, israel, egypt and we know that they are quite hard-liners in that regard. all the pens on the outcome of elections, but we should never assume unless you want

the results of turkish elections, deeply committed elections, deeply committed to muslim brotherhood majoritarianism and all the muslim majority countries. >> thank you. >> go here 1st in the 3rd row. this german in the 4th row. >> i i have two questions. >> just one question. >> okay. what would be the reason of the election results? what do you think? >> thank you. >> am sorry. >> a short question.

when you said that we had a problem. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> okay. first, does anyone want the israel question? whether this is going to have any impact on the relations. >> i haven't talked to anyone in his room. my sense is that israelis

have for a long time viewed the potential of the relationship between israel and turkey is kind of transcending. they continue to hope against hope that somehow the kind of strategic partnership of the 90s can be resuscitated. i suspect right now what you are seeing is a lot of caution in the face of imponderable and certainty. why say. why see anything when almost anything you say can and will be used against you. so i expect that they are just watching and waiting in trying to see what comes out of this and help they can get the relationship back on to more stable footing.

no matter what they say american officials, no matter what they say will be spun through the government propaganda machine. leading government figures. sure. turkey has always had some level of prejudice and stereotyping and marginalization, but i think especially since 2,009 we're at a stage where there is a

constant pumping of hate and prejudice by leading government figures. the best way to prevent that would be silence because no matter what you say it would be fueling the fire's fantasy medicator prejudice. i think it's prudent. >> i have to follow-up on that. 2009. pres. obama's presidency. i don't think he's been a pres. i don't think he's been a president that has been particularly forceful about speaking publicly about concerns you might have until recently. doesn't seem to need excuses what the president of the day after the election and making his toughest aiming at about the lack of turkish action on the border with

syria and shutting it down to foreign fighters and financing, financing, your guesses that is probably unhelpful this.in time ever was one for the americas to press. >> and i want to get back to the question. question. i don't want to let that get lost. i agree up to a. i don't think we should be commenting all of the coalition negotiations. we deal with one government at a time. i can't say the number of times but i i was ambassador turkey turks would come up and say your government that we had put into power somehow. but but we ought to let that process go on art sold and play itself out without any,

are you on the other hand it's not a bad thing at the present your attention to the concerns we have about the border. it's a real problem, and i think particularly at this time is not a bad thing for the pres. of the united states to be publicly articulating frankly for whoever emerges. i would be in favor of that. on your question the ravages of age make it hard for me to actually remember exactly what i had my mind more than decade ago were almost a decade ago. but luckily you can read a lot of the reporting that came out of the embassy i was there. you can do that. i can't. i still hold clearances. it clearances.

it will be a security violation me to download. but i think what you would see if you look through the reporting that we did there was a general sense about the prime minister's minister's personal growing authoritarianism in terms of his personality as well as some -- a phenomenon we saw the party itself that were troublesome and worrisome. see in the back of my distinguished successors whose reporting has also been made public. different kinds of elements. it was not unique. i think you asked why the us government do something about it. i think he put his finger on it.

there's been a real wish part of policymakers in washington to see the turkey that they would like to see as opposed to the one that actually exists. >> the administration doesn't console me much. >> try to make a short if you can. >> two days before the election when an election rally. given the sympathies, given the hot water is it going to be possible? >> pass it to the gentleman from you. >> i i like to get the of the ambassador.

but i was selected of you on turkish foreign policy. policy. syria and perhaps the emergence of a new policy in saudi arabia. >> sure. now, what we what we saw was 29 percent of the voters said that the bombing had influence the revolt. the bombing had a major effect. and in the months to come i think the security situation in the region will have a major impact on the future of both the piece process and turkey and in turkey and also on the nature of turkish kurdish relations in the region.

we should i think will be prepared not only for tension between turkey's kurdish population in the turkish state but also for what i call proxy wars within the kurdish community in turkey. we see a rising tension between the kurdish hezbollah pkk. we see a few assassinations. we see growing tensions intercommunal tensions. and these and these have transnational aspects that can spill over to neighboring territories of the clashes in the neighboring territories can very easily spill back over. keep in mind keep in mind we don't only have weapons and logistical support and money

going both ways but we also have funerals back from the fighting in iraq and syria. every time i kurdish] home and as to the fuel of intercommunal tensions. i think the kurdish peace process process and handling of this delicate situation should be a key priority. >> if you can focus a bit is it possible to see any real improvement in turkish policy in support of the us-led coalition?

>> it's an interesting question, if i'm not sure how the girl points are. one of the things that is striking about the election the policy has been for quite some time terribly unpopular in turkey. it has never been a popular policy. i have even seen some speculation in the turkish press that the syria policy we have focused on the ambitions and the economy there is some speculation that the syria policy is partially responsible for some of what transpired the election. so i'm not really sure. i think you could probably argue with the impact of that will be on syrian policy. on the one hand i believe

turkey and the governing leadership is going to be primarily focused and work for the next few months while they sort out the politics. on the one hand that might argue against any activism in syria. on the other hand they going to have the kind of interim government in place until the sorts out, and you're going to have trying to continue to exert incrementally his presidential authority. and so it's not unheard of in these kinds of situations for an external crisis to be tempting as a way of helping resolve the internal political debate. debate. i think one can imagine it going either way. >> let me just ask too big institutions and movements traditionally this seemed to have been quite important.

one is the military and whether anything is happening in the military that is significant, meaningful way that we had to keep eyes on in the coming weeks and months particularly as the uncertainty in these coalition politics plays itself out. the 2nd is what is called the state, the movement inside of turkey. that is his offense event campaign to crush all remnants of the movement within turkey. on the turkish military side

i think this was a tactical acceptance of coming back in the politics as the short-term outline. of course outline. of course what this might bring in the middle long-term is anybody's guess vis-à-vis the election results come i think now that he seems to be losing his single-handed grip on power this could possibly give the military relative upper hand in the tactical alliance. now, the community and elections to live i have to comment on that for the 1st time ever if i'm not mistaken six candidates associated. they did not receive a huge

percentage of the vote and one comment after the election was the result can actually undermine conspiracy theories and people could simply say the so-called terrorists at controlling everything in turkey was actually just a couple of hundred thousand votes which is yet another reflection of the inability to deal with such a small interest group in turkey. so the results of the elections were a mixed result heard on the one hand it showed that the community does not necessarily have massive support, but at the same time it is also kind of undermining the conspiracy theory that they are everywhere and have infiltrated turkish states.

>> i would just say that i think the turkish military come although it remains one of the largest militaries in nato emerges from the last decade really a shadow of itself. one has to really have some doubts about what the exact capabilities of the turkish military are. it is hard to imagine a military that had over 100 general's was indicted and jailed, some of them now being released our convictions overturned, is his very hard to imagine such a military having a great deal of capability. the soviet military and the aftermath of the stalinist purges. purges. you know, you move that significant level of leadership and it's hard not to have considerable effects. we will know a little bit more at the end of the summer when the supreme military council meets and

we see what military leadership emerges. and what kind of you they have. i agree that the military has no love for the movement because they see that even more as the authors of bali my case all these series of conspiracy trials which laid waste to the military. what they do in that post kind of parallel state environment remains to be seen. particularly if you start to get a lot of violence. i think the military was

quite shocked by the results and distal trying to absorb that and absorb what that means for them and for turkey. i think it's another one of these very big uncertainties that is up and i think we're just going to have to see what it means overtime. >> let me try and get very rapid yes or no responses. eric mentioned the corruption scandals that occurred at the end of 2013 and 2014. they managed to bury those. those investigations going forward allegedly. the former president was in favor of having as ministers, investigations continue. ..

p. could be the ministers kind of going forward investigation but the investigations will not be part of the coalition agreements. since party groups according to the constitution are not allowed to make binding decisions on these investigations so the parties could simply say it's up to the individual deputies to decide and in the new parliament if the majority of the deputies

decide to send the foreign ministers to the constitutional courts to be tried then what can we do? so this could then up -- end up standing for ministers constitutional clerks and this would be outside of the court. >> i think the president is going to it do anything and everything he can to keep any of this from happening. i don't think he wants people replaying all the tapes of him telling bill to hide the money and telling his sister what to do with it. i don't see that happening. >> one file quick question. does he survive to the end of his first term as president? >> i would say yes but now he has the chance of not winning the second round. >> we have come to the end o>> "washington

journal" continues. host: joining us from new york city is nathaniel popper, reporter for the "new york times," out with his first book called "digital gold: bitcoin and the inside stories of the misfits and millionaires trying to reinvent money." thank you for joining us. you write for the "new york times," and cover business issues.

what made you want to write about bitcoin? guest: frankly, i resisted it for a a while. it seemed like some sort of pet rock type of thing that i could ignore. i was covering finance at the time when i began writing about this. my first story and 2013 was about the winklevoss twins, famous from the facebook story. at this point, really nobody with a name or reputation had attached themselves to bitcoin. they came forward and -- i wrote a story about their massive holdings of bitcoin at that point. it was something like $10 million. the response to the story was so incredible that it kind of made me sit up and think about what this cap into. this idea of new money tapped i

nto. this was what got me thinking about it. it was another year before i was ready to write a book about it. host: lead us through it. the subtitle is that the inside story of the misfits and millionaires trying to reinvent money. how does bitcoin work and how does it reinvent our current currency? guest: i think the basics of bitcoin still eludes a lot of people including people in technology and finance. that is in part because bitcoin is a lot of different things. it is software that makes different things possible. because it is a lot of different things, it is sometimes hard to understand -- you hear all these different things about it. in a two sublist terms, this came out of a movement of people

essentially trying to event digital cash. with cash, you can transact directly with someone. you hand over cash in the old-fashioned world and you do not need anyone else there to do the transaction. and no one even needs to know other than that to know other than the two of you that the transaction happened. when money moved into the digital world, you essentially always needed some third-party there to move the money, update everyone's records on both sides. there was a group of technologists who saw this. most were privacy activists. they realized that there wasn't this loss of privacy when money moved into the digital realm. they began working to try to create something that was like cash but for the digital realm. that was the simplest idea that

inspired this. what makes that possible with the coin -- with bitcoin is new software and networks that allows money to be moved around, much like e-mail allows messages to be moved around. if you have someone's bitcoin address, you can send them money anywhere in the world and it does not have to go through a third person. that is the simplest way to imagine it. there are a lot of layers beneath that. that notion of digital cash and e-mail for money is the way i like to start. host: this was a currency, ideas started in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. in your book, your -- you write that the result of this complicated process was something deceptively simple but not possible before.

financial notes that treat and move money without a central authority. no bank, credit cards, regulators. now we are in 2015, a number of years since the creation of the bitcoin movement. federal regulators taken an interest? guest: they have. it took a few years for the software to really get going. isaiah got going, it was not living up to its grandest ambitions. that passage incited -- you cited, it did not provide an alternative to central banks there was surviving. it was becoming clear sooner regulators, central bankers, prosecutors, that this was something new. it was a way to move things around without oversight from any central party.

whenever you have something moving around without oversight, regulators get worried. in the financial system, banks are the front line in law enforcement, because they can overseeing the movement of money. regulators began looking at this hard in 2013. there were two senate hearings in one week, if i am not mistaken, one right after the other, in which people from the di and good service and doj all got -- from the fbi, secret service, and doj all got up to talk about it. most of the law enforcement folks at the hearing essentially said there are dangerous with the new technology is interesting and it can be used for more than just lawbreaking. so let's watch this, and we are

watching it carefully. that one even probably gave as much of a boost to bitcoin as any sort of event during its lifetime. since then, you have people from a whole bunch of different regulatory agencies trying to figure out how to deal with it and also trying to dig your out what is it. should we treat it like stocks, treat it like a currency, a commodity? should we treat it like a financial institution? i think a lot of that is still going on. one of the things that points to is that this is something new. it does not a into the old categories we have for the financial realm. host: nathaniel popper is our guest, author of the book "digital gold." we invite you to the conversation. (202) 748-8000 four eastern and

central time zone's. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. if you are a user of bitcoin and have used in the past, call (202) 748-8002. a story in the new york times about one of the campaigns using bitcoin. this was a couple weeks ago. in accepting bitcoin, rand paul raises money and questions. they write, presidential fundraising, never known for its transparency, may have come more secretive. in announcing his candidacy for president, rand paul waited into new waters where he said he would accept campaign contributions in bitcoin a largely untraceable virtual currency, in amounts up to $100. interested donors were given three options for making a contribution: a credit card, paypal, or bitcoins. while some state and federal

candidates and california, colorado, and elsewhere, rand paul is the first presidential candidate to do so. in the age of wanting transparency and presidential elections, is it a good thing the paul campaign is allowing bitcoin contributions? guest: i do not know if i'm qualified whether to say that is a good rain. the way it is doing done in election politics now, it is limited to relatively small sums. in that sense it is like someone giving a $20 bill or a $50 bill to a candidate. it is not like someone giving $10,000 of unmarked bills to a candidate. the most notable element of that story is that rand paul decided to do that on day one of his candidacy. it shows the degree to which the

bitcoin technology and this movement that grew up around bitcoin has been driven by a law of this sort of libertarian sentiment that is also driving rand paul's candidacy. it drives home just how much bitcoin was a result of the anxiety and unhappiness that came out of the financial crisis that has also given rise to the popularity of libertarian candidates. this suspicion of central authorities. that is so deeply embedded in bitcoin. the suspicion of the federal reserve and central banks and also of big wall street banks that are -- were blamed for the financial crisis. bitcoin was viewed as a system that would allow us to

circumvent that and have a financial that existed without those central authorities that was raised and run by the people used it. when rand paul made that announcement on the day his candidacy was announced, it was a sign of how intertwined bitcoin had become with the rise of libertarianism, tea party all of this stuff after the financial crisis. host: we have calls for nathaniel popper on digital currency. columbia maryland, jim. caller: thank you. god bless c-span. you have been talking in general terms with government. bringing it to an individual level, as an entrepreneur i went through the loan process and banking and it was a mess and a bureaucratic nightmare. why is it that we, as people and

a society, feel this need to regulate bitcoin just because we have always regulated these things? why can we not just move on and look at different ways of doing it? this is a new form of currency why are we so determined to regulate it like it needs to be controlled? it does not make sense to me. the process we have now is so convoluted and makes no sense. this seems like a much easier different way of doing things. is there a reason it cannot be done like that? guest: i think there are regulators who are trying to take a new approach with bitcoin. over the last year, the effort to regulate bitcoin has been led by the top financial regulator in new york. he came up with something called the bitlicense, which was his effort to create a new regime

for this technology. to the question of does this thing needs to be regulated, one of the elements that comes through so strongly in the story of bitcoin and is such a theme in my book is that this new technology that allowed money to move around drove home how much, once money comes involved, people's worst instincts are drawn forth. bitcoins history has been marked by enormous instances of hacking and theft and fraud. and often served as a reminder of why regulations, into existence in the first place. you have this universe where people control their own money

but often times, those people are less sophisticated. bitcoin makes it possible for you to control your own money with what is known as a private key, a password. if a hacker gains control of your computer and get that private key, the essentially have your money. that has happened many times. probably more people have lost money using bitcoin then made money using bitcoin. a lot of money has been made, but a lot of people have lost money. you have understood -- unsophisticated people holding their own money. or when people stop trusting themselves, they have given their bitcoins to what our essentially bitcoin banks to hold their money for them. not too surprisingly those acorn banks, the biggest of which known as mount gawk, have often proven to be not up to the

task of protecting that. this has brought forth arguments of if you have something like this mount gawk, a company in tokyo that held half $1 billion of people's bitcoin money, you need someone looking at it to make sure it has reasonable security, make sure it is not a way station for hamas or hezbollah to move their money rum toured in wars area to the united states or vice versa. there is a reason you want someone watching the financial institutions. that can go too far in the other direction and you get this convoluted process we have now that you talked about. payments are another indication of that. it can take three days to make a simple money transfer to a friend. there are certainly middle grounds, but the story of thefts

and wrongdoing and fraud through the bitcoin story have in a reminder of why regulations about. host: oregon, neema is on the line. caller: i am hearing how volatile it is. it looks like it was going off a hundred ohm, which scares me more than anything. what about a country, disliking us so bad, that they would hang on to a line of bitcoin and then flood the market. let's say you have $1000 in the bank. if a nation that hates us does that, we could end up with only five dollars and that it. my concern is china's coming out with their own money. and our friends, germany france, south korea, thailand, they are joining in with the

china banks. can you explain something about that as well? guest: i think you are talking about, essentially, these currency wars that, particularly china's effort to supplant the dollar as the reserve currency -- i think what bitcoin is now is a long way from being able to provide an alternative in that sense. when you look today one of the coin when it was launched, the initial description in 2008 when it was released, people talked about the fact that this could one day be a sort of new global reserve currency. that has come up through acorn story. at this point, all the bitcoins in existence are worth something

like $2 billion or $3 billion. that is less than the stock of urban outfitters. host: what is an individual bitcoin worth today? guest: something like $235. there is something like 14 million of them in the world. that gives you the total value of the bitcoins. when you have seen in one of the stories i tell in my book is the story of argentina, where bitcoin has caught on, in part because of the problems with their own currency. they had numerous instances of hyperinflation, and they had a deeply troubled financial system. people there have used the coin as an alternative to their financial system. it is not half the country but it is ordinary people realizing that this new technology may

provide an alternative. for now, to the degree that bitcoin is used in that way, it is more likely to happen in smaller places like argentina. places with troubled financial systems. the u.s., for all its problems, has a credit card and ranking system that works pretty well for most people on a day-to-day basis. you hear a lot of people in this movement talking about bitcoin saying that -- the u.s. is not the first place that needs this technology. it is needed in places where people do not have it bank account or have a credit card. host: you talked about argentina, ecuador is the money initiative outlaws bitcoins and makes it mandatory for banks to follow that dictate. a couple tweets, the reason there has been speculation is

because the dollar has been debate. also, if cash is only legal tender, how can it coin be legal , is the core not another pyramid scheme? that reflects the title of the peace that meant o'brien in the washington post a week ago or so. part of what he said in his comments on wondering what bitcoin is, he says it is not clear what bitcoin is or what it will be, but it is clear it is not a currency. people do not set prices in bitcoin and do not buy things with it either. that is the only function of money, he writes. it comes close to performing as a store of value, but it does not even do that well. a lot on that play. -- plate. guest: that gets right and a lot of deep questions that have swirled around bitcoin.

b problems bitcoin have encountered have been just as interesting as the success it has had. the problems it has, including the front we were talking about earlier, serves as a reminder of why the financial looks like it does today and serves as a reminder of what money is. what are the qualities of a good money? matt o'brien, i think he is right. bitcoin is frequently referred to as a virtual currency or digital money. right now, it could be that one day. it is true that you can exchange bitcoin for other things. you can buy things online or bitcoin. it does meet some of the characteristics of a currency. but its volatile price has meant few people have been willing to do that. i do not think currency or money is the best way to describe it now.

what it does do now is serve as this new network for moving money around. you may not want to keep your money in bitcoin, but when you want to make a transaction for the four minutes you are actually making the transaction you may want to have bitcoin for that long to use the network to send money. that network is what a lot of of people have focused on recently. wall street banks got into this. goldman sachs making its investment. nasdaq, new york stock exchange, getting involved. what they are looking at is not the currency but the financial network. this goes to how many things bitcoin is. one of the reasons it has ended up confusing is it is not just one thing. that is one of the reasons it is confusing and that is also why it is asked of in, to me.

it gets you thinking of the layers of how money works and what money is successful. host: miami beach, larry. you are on the air. caller: i have two questions. do you believe the coin is a good bet against the dollar or even wall street? what are your thoughts on gemini.com. guest: this question is bitcoin a good investment, all i can say is it is entirely speculative at this point. bitcoin is not something right now. to the degree that people are betting on the price of bitcoin they are betting on what it will be in the future. that is still undecided.

wall street firms are getting involved but their project their experiments, are not complete. they will not know if or how they will use it. it is still an experiment for them. the price of bitcoin, if we can get into more of the price is set, it is an open market. people offered to buy it and sell it for something. the willingness of people to buy it is a function of their you of how useful this may be. people want to own it because they think someone else will want to own it in the future. do not know yet why people wanting in the future. we have guesses and we have people who are willing to put their money on one use or another, or it is still speculative. against the dollar, this will be a wild ride for a while.

on the winklevoss twins they were two of the first names people with reputations, to attach themselves to bitcoin to say we own large quantities of bitcoin. they began by buying it up, made an investment in a startup called the instant that ended up going under. but they winklevosses have dedicated themselves to it completely. i did an event with them last night that said -- where they said this has become the entire life at this point. they have to dig projects. one is an exchange traded fund. they plan on having it trade on the nasdaq and will move with the price of bitcoin. the other is an exchange where you can buy and sell bitcoin raised in new york and regulated. the winklevi, as i call them,

have thrown their lot in with the idea that bitcoin needs be regulated. that is their view. they are trying to build these etf exchanges that will play well with regulators and try to gain confidence in that way. both their projects have been a long time in development and are not yet out there. the exchange called gemini, the etf, will run under the ticker symbol coin. it they seem very dedicated to this. i think there is the possibility that their projects, they have every intention to bring that out there. at this point, they have a lot of competition. that is the toughest and for them. host: from new york city, our guest is nathaniel popper of the new york times. his first