about the importance of the constitution and the list of supreme court justices that he released gave us at least some positive indication that it wasn't his intent to select justices that would actually carry out the original intent of the constitution. there are a lot of ways to talk about the constitution and you will hear a lot of that today. we look at what the constitution actually says, what it means, what it originally meant. that's an important discussion. you will hear a lot today about okay how do you take those ideas , those principles and apply them to lawmaking, to regulation, to civil society as a whole but there is another layer of discussion that i hope james will get into somewhat today. it is why do we need a constitution at all? why do we need a big set of

principles predetermined set of principles? this may seem so basic and assuming that i can play one of the big problems in our country today is that those who make the laws and many who vote on those who make the laws do not understand the need for a fixed set of principles that drives the rule of our nations. one of the great ironies of freedom is that you have to be willing to obey the rules in order to have it. and if we do not have a republic that is made up of the constituency who willingly follows the law, no laws are constrained but we also need lawmakers to understand the importance of operating from a set of principles particularly in our case where the constitution is to limit what the federal government can do. i found it very disturbing

situation in the house and the senate. our only oath of office when they come in just to protect and defend the constitution. we don't make any oath to bring money back to our state to do what's best for our states. all we do is commit to defend that constitution yet when you leave the room after that original oath it is rarely mentioned again. if you stand up in the republican conference and we are talking about a bill and you say this is not constitutional, it violates the enumerated powers. you are going to get people to look at you like you are crazy. but that shouldn't need. if our purpose of being there is to to act and defend that constitution itself so i hope these panelists as they look at this new administration will talk about how we can use this teachable moment for a new president trump and the country

as a whole to remind them why this country is based on a constitution that is predetermined that allows us to willingly held a constitutional republic on those basic ideas and what it means and how we can apply it in a new administration because i believe this is an opportunity of a lifetime for us to reassert the importance and the need of a constitution in this country. so i challenge this panel and as you have said about this today it's not just talk about what should we put the way things are and how do we move from the way things are in congress and america back to a constitutional republic that limits what the federal government can do. let me introduce james who will be moderating today. james swanson is a senior legal scholar at the ed meese center at the heritage foundation.

the cato center he was a fellow and founding editor-in-chief of cato supreme court review. he is the edgar award-winning author of "the new york times" bestseller manhunt the 12 day chase for lincoln's killer which i understand is being developed into a nine-part television series. it's a graduate of the university of chicago and the ucla school of law. during the frustration of president ronald reagan he served on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit served as a legal advisor to the chairman of u.s. international trade commission and served in the office of legal counsel in and the u.s. department of justice where he worked on supreme court nominations which we will desperately need now. thank you james, thanks for moderating and thanks again to the panel. [applause] >> thank you senator demint. your comments reminded me of something once said that chief

justice john marshall. he said the opinions of united states supreme court should be understandable to the average educated american and how many hundreds of years ago did the court abandon that rolled? perhaps they abandon it at the outset. we have agreed all-star panel today and that will begin by introducing them. michael mukasey served as the 81st attorney general of the united states chief law enforcement officer in the nation. he served from november of 2007 to january of 2009. during that time he oversaw domestic and international law. prior to that he practiced law in new york for 20 years and for four years he served as an assistant u.s. attorney and from 1988 to 2006 he served as the district judge of the united states court of appeals for the southern district of new york to become cheese -- chief judge. he received his b.a. from

columbia -- ll.b. from yale. as we introduce the 81st attorney general to want to make that we have another attorney general here. we are honored by the presence of ed meese, ronald reagan's attorney general for the united states. [applause] byron york is the chief political correspondent for the "washington examiner" and a "fox news" contributor. now finishing up coverage of the person's race he is written on every aspect of the obama and shushannah presidential campaigns of 2016, 2012, 2000 aecom 2004 and 2000. is that enough? the vast left-wing conspiracy and liberal activism in the 2004

election. formerly white house correspondent for the national review his work has appeared in "the wall street journal" the "washington post" "atlantic monthly" foreign affairs. he's a graduate of university of alabama and the university of chicago and he now lives in washington d.c.. jonah goldberg is a fellow at the american enterprise institute and senior and editor of national review. best-selling author and nationally syndicated column appears regularly in over 100 newspapers across the united states. he is also a weekly columnist for the "l.a. times" and the contributor for "usa today" in a "fox news" contributor. he's the founding editor of national review on line "atlantic monthly" magazine identified him as one of the top 50 political commentators in america. among his worst awards to his name to robert novak journalist of the year by the conservative political action conference.

he has appeared on numerous tv and radio programs and is the author of two "new york times" bestsellers -- and liberal fascism. john u is a professor of law at the university of california at berkeley and a visiting scholar in american enterprise institute and the enemy of my law school ucla. >> now than football apparently. >> we have the better team. his most recent book is liberty's nemesis the overexpansion of the state. his next book will be published in 2017. the books include a pointed attack. he has published numerous articles in and contribute greatly to "the wall street journal" "the new york times" "washington post" and other

newspapers. jonas served in all branches of government. he is an official at the office of legal counsel at the u.s. department of justice. he served as general counsel of the u.s. senate judiciary committee under chairman orrin hatch and he was a law clerk for justice clarence thomas on the supreme court. john graduated from yale law school. >> j.d.. [laughter] and from harvard with a degree in american history. so i will pose this question and then i will join the panel. we decided beforehand they're not going to make five-minute presentations. we'll get right into the conversation so just to set the stage for that. donald trump's victory represents a victory for the constitution and what will his presidency mean for the rule of law with respect to federalism, civil rights criminal justice environmental law, labor law, foreign affairs and the

president's war-making powers? and what about the first amendment, free speech and the power of the administrative and regulatory state? what will trump's presidency mean for the commerce clause of the constitution? which a liberal interpretation causes a wellspring of much of the power the federal government and what will donald trump's presidency mean for the supreme court of the united states and i'm going to join the panel now and we will start with them. >> if hillary clinton had won this election her supporters had hoped that her first appointment to the court would have allowed her to transform the court by replacing justice scalia. >> she could have brought the conservatism era to an event where for several decisions most hated by the left including heller, citizens united,

citizens united and the free speech case. mr. trump victory puts an end to those plans but what can we expect, how will he filled the scalia vacancy? how should the approach this? is first appointment will not be as transformational as hillary clinton's first appointment could have been. his appointment will return to court to a five-quart split. but how might he transformed the supreme court in additional appointments? can we expect liberal decisions to be overturned during the trump presents a? i will ask general mckay c. to leadoff and let's talk about the supreme court and what might happen under president trump. >> i have one serious occupational defect that is shared by everyone here which is i have never been a supreme court justice so i can't tell you how it is in deciding cases after the election of president

trump however i think it's pretty clear from a list of people that he has already -- that we are going to have in the foreseeable future and perhaps beyond a return to the notion of a constitution with a meaning, with a definite meaning and the meaning that was put there originally. that's not going to be scrapped with the criticism that while the constitution is old but short and therefore we have to get on with something else because society is much more complex now the founders had ever envisioned. and the real function of it which was pointed out before is to take it at its word to form a

more perfect union to establish justice and to ensure tranquility so that people can exercise the freedom that they have to develop in their own way and according to their own likes i think we will see much more emphasis on that then we will on the so-called limited constitution that means whatever it is that a justice says it means because the criticism of the constitution of old in short carries the day. >> were you surprised at how much the constitution figured in the election? have we seen a presidential election like this before were so many people were talking about the supreme court? >> i do think first of all i'm delighted to be here. [laughter] as an aei guy and shocked at how

rarely i get beaten up in the bathroom here and all that kind of stuff. not that it ever happens but --. >> we can take care of that for you. >> i absolutely agree that the supreme court in the sense of the scalia seed looms very large particularly on the right among people who were skeptical of trump and even harsher than i was that the court overpowered all other considerations. and whether that was always the intent of mitch mcconnell to turn this into a referendum on court appointment or not it basically worked out that way. so in that sense trumps election is great news.

and i think at the very least even i who am very much a trump skeptic and confident that he will honor his first promise in his first appointment as a conservative. i think he has to do that. i think all hell would reclusive he didn't but on the broader question of whether or not, it's absolutely true that hillary was the grave threat to the constitution a grave threat to the court. the opposite is not necessarily true but don't trump. his commitment to the constitution rhetorically at that quite good in the manner of the campaign but he also said there were 12 articles of the constitution so i don't know that he is deeply adamant -- enamored with the text. [laughter] he also have use of eminent domain that i think a lot of people this room are nervous about and a lot of people in

this room are nervous about or should be nervous about so i think that the question among conservatives and constitutionalists isn't so much of what is in donald trump's heart. that remains to be seen to what really matters is creating the incentive structure whereby the information flow, the political decision-making process all point him in the right direction and this brings up a larger point that senator demint was getting at. i agree with him entirely and it's infuriating to me and maybe the lawyers here, i am not a lawyer but it infuriates me how we have come to the point where we think the supreme court is the only guardian of the constitution. it is a guardian of the constitution and certain formalistic situations it's the last guardian of the

constitution that anyone who swears an oath to uphold the constitution is a guardian of the constitution and the citizens from whom the constitution derives authority are guardians of the constitution. we have gotten to this place where we basically say anything goes unless the supreme court stops it. that is something that i think places like the heritage foundation and national review do a much better job at in terms of creating the incentive structure for politicians. the whole point of the movement does not suggest the election of a politician. his politician. as to move the zeitgeist of the popular understanding of these issues so it's in politicians interests to do the right thing and i think that is the first path for donald trump to convince -- the concerted movement to make sure they argument he is hearing an effective state has pushed them in our direction i think he's

made promises that committed to that. >> i ran can you speak to that? >> first of all i don't take this as something that donald trump has thought about a lot. it's not a big deal in his life. the only principle i think in the constitution that is delved into is it played into his role as a real estate developer every now and then. i think the roots of his approach to this go back to the early days of the republican primary where he's trying to consolidate the support of conservatives and he has got ted cruz who has argued a bunch of cases before the supreme court. he has got governors. he has a lot of people who have a lot of experience in government and the law and trump is extremely sensitive to the reaction. he loves the rallies and he really notices, did they go for

this and do they not go for this and everybody sat on their hands when i talk about this and there but he went crazy when i talk about that. he saw the interest that conservatives in the republican run the electorate, not the general election, had for the supreme court in the saw the questions that conservative organizations and publications like national review had about him so the way that he consolidated support was to actually release this list of justices or judges and he said i'm going to appoint one of these people to the supreme court. it was uniformly well-received because it was a great list and the objection of the never trumper's was yeah it's a great list but he and might not actually do this. i don't trust him to do it. the other thing to remember about trump and not really thinking these issues through is perhaps his key supporter is

senator jeff sessions. jeff sessions being the first senator that comes out in support of trump and legitimizes the campaign almost. sessions has one of the best revenge stories ever because as the u.s. attorney in alabama he was appointed or nominated to the u.s. district court position and thanks to the kindness of joe biden and ted kennedy he was turned down by the senate. he goes back to alabama and gets elected to the senate and takes a seat on the judiciary committee. beside ted kennedy and joe biden. so he is advising trump and trump also hired stephen miller a top aide for jeff sessions and jeff sessions chief of staff rick dearborn has done a a lot f informal works so it's the sessions office approach to nominating judges that moves

into the trump campaign. i think all of that is very good news for conservatives who want to see him go in the right direction not just the supreme court but for all of those circuit court nominations that make a huge difference. >> john, can you talk about this? >> first i want to thank you and senator demint for putting this panel together and inviting me. i'm surprised there are so many people here because i thought everyone at the heritage was at transition headquarters already. when i got to the airport i asked the taxicab driver to take me to trump transition headquarters in the drop you off here instead. [laughter] it's also nice to participate in a panel for center named after general mesa along with general mukasey one of the most consequential attorney generals we have had in years.

he goes to jonas and byron's point that it's not just supreme court justices who are important but also who the attorney general who the attorney general is and how the trump administration is going to interpret to enforce federal law in some ways is going to have more immediate importance about the constitution. remember general mesa when he was attorney general gave a famous speech at tulane law school where he called for the jurisprudence of original intent which was seen as a radical concept back in the late 80s. they did a study a few years ago to try to estimate the effects of the speech and so after general meese gave his speech although there was wide criticism for my colleagues in the academy and their colleagues in journalism, and citations to the federalist papers and the supreme court opinions in the following five years when the 500%. that is in my mind just as

consequential. i recognize general meese for that and i think that's all we could hope for from a trump administration. [applause] the supreme court nominee is important and actually the proposal i had was that of trump really wanted to shore up his support amongst conservative constitutionalists if i were him i would nominate, i would pick a supreme court nominee now before he takes office and say and if i were him i would pick someone who would be easily confirmed. i know a lot of the judges who are in the list, they would all be great justices. it shows how much george w. bush cared and reagan and bush cared about all these great lower court judges but if he were paying attention to politics he would probably want to nominate a senator.

only one senator has ever been turned down for confirmation for any job. if you want to appoint senator mike lee for examples of the supreme court now he would be readily confirmed. we would lose her pumpkin seed in the senate and he could keep his promise to the conservative wing of the republican party, but the important thing is it's not going to change anything. it's just going to keep the status quo. the 5-4 decisions on marriage, abortion, obamacare, goes on and on will still be there because of justice kennedy providing the fifth vote as a liberal. but he also have to look at is who this president trump picked to be attorney attorney general, white house counsel, the deputy white house counsel in charge of the judicial selection. the real fight is going to be when that justice retires and if you look at the age ranges, i'm a lawyer not an actuarial

scientist but if you look at the ages of justice ginsburg i think it's 82, justice kennedy is 80, justice breyer is 78 and you have to project out how old are they going to be in four years because that's how long. his justice ginsburg going to stay on the court until she is 86? i don't think so. i think president trump will certainly have another pic and that one will be the bigger fight. if you are conservative and you care about the constitution you want to see a president trump is going to put in place. they are, we don't know. >> john at least an interesting question. recently a "new york times" op-ed accused conservatives of plotting what it called a coup against the supreme court by scheming to obstruct all nominations that president clinton would have made in the supreme court. can we expect democratic

senators to attempt the same sort of coup to attempt to block all supreme court nominations by president trump and if that is attempted what full senate republicans do about it? >> the democrats retained the filibuster for supreme court nominees. although it is not unprecedented for a nominee next be voted on when there's an change in the mr. sheen coming up it is unusual to the point of being unprecedented to try to block any confirmation and i think that was sent, that's a political loser. i don't think they would do it. that's the short answer.

>> if you were a president trump or a new attorney general i think you would hope that the democrats try to filibuster their appointment and i think we should recognize and i think the political journalists may have more comments on this i think senator mcconnell pulled off one of the great political maneuvers by not confirming merrick garland. i think at the time a lot of people thought this was a very low probability of working out and instead he is really preserve the possibility for us to have this discussion. >> john i think you have to take into account democratic anger over this because the judicial since bork has had a ratcheting up of fact, you've got the situation where democrats felt republicans insulted the president. scalia dies in adoree i think

and the seed is still open so i would not be surprised if democrats were inclined to try to block something at least for some period of time to get back at them. if there's one thing is true about the united states senate, what goes around comes around. >> i like the point. breithaupt you are going to go was appointing ted cruz to the supreme court which first of all would have an air of magnanimity with my father killing kennedy stop. it would be an implied part. [laughter] but there is also the fact that i think not only do senators get confused in the senate but a lot of senators would like to get ted cruz out of the senate and

on the same principle that the only reason teddy roosevelt became vice presidents was that the "new york post" "new york post" machines want them out of new york city democrats would be like well on the one hand he is healthy and he is conservative. on the other hand we won't see him in the cafeteria anymore. the problem i don't think ted cruz wants. >> i think what you are really asking is about the double buster. think the democrats would think about invoking the filibuster which is left for supreme court nominees. if i were a republican senator i would say we should move the filibuster for supreme court nominees for the same number of years that democrats overruled the filibuster for judicial appointments in the exact same modest time because otherwise you say it's a ratcheting up effect. it will never stop this and interrogation of the rules of the senate and you have to restore order. the ray to restore the filibuster is for both sides to show what will happen if it's

not all of. trump will still be able to fill the bench with not just the supreme court nominee but a lot of other people too which would help if the democrats and the senate would not be making a big big --. >> the republicans would not want to give their power facts the democrats. >> the filibuster is not part of the constitution. it's just a senate rule and you know when the founders meant for there to be a supermajority to make something happen pass a trading that sort of thing they specified a supermajority. the rules of the nomination of confirmation or simple majority vote so one question, can a minority of the senate prevent a simple majority from consenting

to a judicial nomination? >> sure they can and given the agenda of the courts have set for themselves with the come complicity, the active complicity of the legislature is important to preserve. the confirmation hearings lasted less than an hour. that was a long time ago to be sure but it was considered an effective is considered insulting to put substitute questions to a nominee. all of that ended when the supreme court again with the cooperation of the legislature started expanding the range cases and the nature of cases that it would take to the point where politically shoes instead of being resolved would be in the legislature to compromise and back-and-forth were handed

off to the courts. we solve everybody's problems. no cases too big or too small. that trend has continued virtually uninterrupted. so when given that, given the fact that it's going to be a long time before we paid her back, the scope of cases in the nature of cases that the supreme court takes is it matters who gets appointed in his lungs that matters has to be one that comes after overcoming great obstacles if necessary. >> john, or anyone else? >> the point i would make about the filibuster. it's up to the senate and senate rules but what it represents a wise important and why

conservatives supported is it's a symbol of the way federalism is hardwired into the constitution. the senate does not represent the population. it represents two votes. the filibuster in a way is a symbol of that and taking it a little bit farther. i think it's important to recognize donald trump would not be president if it were not for federalism. the other place you would see this would be the electoral college. hillary clinton is going to win the popular vote. the only reason donald trump's president the electoral college gives states more of a say over the selection of a president than with the simple majority area and election in a country and a plebiscite. it's the liberal project for 100 years to get rid of everything in the constitution that limits of direct democracy so they are against filibusters and they have attacked the senate than they are attacking the electoral college.

the original design of the constitution was that it was important not to have a republican form of government to slow down the ability of the government to act rationally. i think even though it may hurt us temporarily taking a supreme court nominee or even moving through legislation i think conservatives should again favor of these kinds of checks on direct democracy like the filibuster. i would return it back to lower court and legislation after the same number of years. >> have you got anything more on that? >> i'm sure john doesn't disagree with me but i would frame it differently. in terms of electoral issues the press is one of more drax drax blockers a but that's a subset of their relatives to government which is always to go, carry the ball where the field is open. when congress is the best vehicle for achieving and all of

a sudden the presidency. the only reason i bring it up is if you look at things like what is at stake in all of this there is nothing about the administrative state that is unaccountable unconstitutional government that violates the fundamental principle and defines conservatism which is the opposition of arbitrary power and it's completely unaccountable and progressives have no problem building that up their relationship to erect democracy is entirely an argument about the expediency and acquisition of power and if direct democracy start working against them. >> the last thing on this is the judicial issue for trump politically brings the team

together. just as it did in the primaries. i was talking about earlier not every member of the house not ever in number the senate was that enthusiastic about donald trump but when it turns into a fight with a judge with a nominee the team is going to be on board and obviously the house doesn't have a role in that but they will be rooting for it as well. trump has had lots of things that blew up conservative orthodoxy on things like trade immigration or foreign entanglements. this will be one area where the team is together and very useful for trump. >> let's move on from the courts to a couple of issues. presidential power in the military state. during the campaign don't trump criticize president obama for abusing his executive authority and brewing by fiat to executive orders. can we expect president trump to

overturn many of obama's executive orders on his first day in office and if he does does that suggest he will be more sensitive and constrained about using that power, that presidential power? as a corollary to that it's been said that congress on bended knee has surrendered to assess a presidential authority. you think congress not in its opposition to trump are rising up against trump do you think it's possible that congress might with a new president reassert its equal role in our divided government not to support trump simply to say we are back. we have been suppressed for eight years in congress is important as the president. the first executive authority of the president and what will trump do and you think congress is going to take this as an opportunity to reassert its role in government?

>> everyone is going to be around the president will have a list and i'm sure part of what the transition team is doing now is going through the presidential executive orders and drawing up a list of those that will be written off on day one. that said i don't have any evidence and i would love to hear about some from people who have covered this that donald trump has fought on this issue, that is the issue of presidential power presented by the administrative state. it's going to depend largely on who white house counsel is, who the attorney general is or what

we can expect later on. as far as they went executive order, i think that's fairly obvious. >> i agree with what judge mukasey said. my role would be to reverse the assumption that go through the list of executive orders to see which ones to remove. the present edition order repealing all executive orders from january 1, 2000 then go through them and see which ones they my key. i would go farther and say the president could also say all regulations enacted by the federal agencies since january 12000 over are no longer to be enforced and we were turned off regulations the state they were in at the end of the bush demonstrations and we will see if they're any want to keep. there will be a lot of people who will be upset and say the president is not enforcing the law. he is overstepping its bounds but i think president trump has to use executive power in the same amount that president obama

said did to restore proper paths. the way i think about this is if you got someone is driving and they take you 10 miles and drive into the ditch you still need a car to get back onto the road. i've no problems with the president wanting to use executive power to reverse the harm over the last eight years. one thing he can do, i think it would be okay which i think a president can do under executive power is terminate the i ran agreement under his first day in office. the majority of the house and senate were against the i ran agreement so present time can do what congress wanted and a president can terminate it. i think he also says i'm restoring immigration enforcement back to the normal amount. it just says i'm repealing the orders and restoring immigration enforcement do their normal priorities which was focused on removing felons.

i think you should restore his normal criminal law enforcement. i had this wild idea that he should pardon hillary clinton or crimes but also make clear what we think she committed crimes. [laughter] >> if he did she would have to accept the pardon. i am deadly serious about that. maybe if enough detail were recited and what he's being pardon for it would save us all a lot of time and trouble. >> jonah and byron lets hear from you on that. [laughter] >> on what part? >> on any of that. >> i think on the pardon bit,

one of the promises donald trump made, don't think it's one that he actually has to stick to as special prosecutor for hillary clinton. it depends really on how bad you think the crimes that hillary clinton committed actually were and how implicated barack obama is. there is a scenario in which you can imagine that threat will force obama into pardoning hillary clinton so we can move on which has the same net effect of pardoning a brand. it's not walking through king's landing saying change, change but it's a game of franz reference. [laughter] but we -- it would be a problem but politically it would be brilliant. in terms of up it really depends

which donald trump shows up. this is the guy that trusts his instincts over everything else in the commitment to the constitutional norms i think. and that is going to require strong will for people around him to stand up for principles that they believe and even when the commander-in-chief is doing

something else. the bureaucracy and the staff donald trump's told people he is not going to be hands-on day-to-day guide. that's all great but there is going to come a time where his commitment to these things is going to be tested and it's going to require men and women of good will to do the right bang and how that plays out i don't know but i think it's going to happen and we should be on guard for it. >> the nature of campaigning for president is not really consistent with the idea of limited executive because the candidate gets up and says i'm going to do all of this. we are going to do this in reference to do this in reference to do this and there's usenet talk about if congress wants to do this and if i can get over filibuster and block. and that's another issue because he's been an executive in a business sense of executives.

there was a group of liberal billionaires who got together during the bush years to create a new liberal group to follow money into fighting bush. and they fired the executive director because she told a billionaire joke at the first meeting. [laughter] the joke being what's the difference between a terrorist and a billionaire? the punchline was you can negotiate with the terrorists. [laughter] so you are a billionaire and you're not used to having people tell you you can't do this. and on the one hand you have that with trump but on the other a lot of the things that is pledged to do are entirely consistent with republican doctrine on these things. he talks a lot about the over regulation of business and he is talking to audiences about small

business, not his own but small businesses. he talks a lot about judges who respect the constitution talks a lot about obamacare and the burdens it is placed on business. i think what jonah said about what he says, a lot of what he says is quite right in. got the idea from him privately and personally from him that he realizes he has got to work with congress on lots and lots of things. i think what we have seen after his win which was a shock to many republicans is they are going to get on board. the fact that you saw paul rankin might yesterday and say the name donald trump repeatedly , something that almost never passed before indicates trump will come to

washington as president with a lot of republicans who will be willing to vote for his agenda. in other words to do it the right constitutional way. >> does anyone else want to pinpoint any constitutional issues of the trump presidency that you think we should look out for talk about? >> restorer immigration, i think the other main issue is as byron just let into his his relationship with congress and i think it would be a bad thing for president trump to let congress take the lead on how to repeal and restore the health care markets in our country. i think that's the original constitutional design. if you look at the way the constitution is designed of my

but the president a place of the initiative in foreign policy but on domestic policy the president's role is to have a qualified veto over legislation. the constitution designed congress to be the initiator and the primary weight of gravity in our system to pass domestic law. so a president john could do quite magnanimous but restore the concert is no balance by saying i will let paul ryan explain the blueprint for a obama care which i believe is basically a national health care voucher for everyone. let congress be and it would allow him to look at the whole thing after the sausage is made on health care and he could do that with a lot of other areas. we could have welfare reform and the infrastructure bill cutting taxes. as a president would be wise to let congress do the messy job of making all the compromises and towards the end of the process since the present in the congress are all in the same

party he can then intervene. i think that would also be important because it would allow the states to restore them to their proper constitutional role especially if the ryan plan, the framework they put out during the election were to be followed looks to turn federal programs into block grants for states which would allow the president, president trump to get out the messy business of having to say welfare has to have these five things or education reform will have three. let the state decided that the constitution be restored to allow for to allow the states of the laboratory democracies where they can try different policies and figure out what really works. >> one area which i don't fully believe it to congress has to do with our electronic surveillance program and our terrorism issues. i haven't heard a whole lot about what he intends to do.

our interrogation program is limited to the field manual and we have stripped away a good deal of authority from the nsa which i think was a mistake. >> john r. byron anymore thoughts? >> to 30,000-foot approach that john was talking about also fits trump's approach to things. he has not thought deeply about reforming health care. as a matter fact maybe it was the second debate and he talked a little bit about obamacare and talk about the lines between the states which is something he used in the republican debates. it had not really deepened since republican debates. he was preparing for her general election debate in a obama care was a big deal. the question is what his

inclination is once he finally seeks the presidency. if you read the article deal in his other books he talks about in detail about what kind of metal was used in this and what kind of windows were in another building so he was quite detail-oriented and lots of these things. i don't know what his approach is going to be because he's going to be approaching issues that he has never dealt with as a private citizen. a lot of presents are the same way. the event dealt with these issues. >> byron makes a good point. it touches on all of the issues. what is it in its nature and one of the few things we know about donald trump's that he likes to build really great things, put his name on them and. credit for them even when other

people do them. and so, andy likes to make deals one of my concerns from the very beginning has always been, and you just look at this infrastructure thing which i think is going to be the equivalent of this no child left behind. this is the deal that he can do and show that he's bipartisan and all the rest. he has people working and shovel-ready and build a lot of things that he can put his name on. i don't think it's going to be happening for the first supreme court justice but i worry down the pike chuck schumer says you want another trillion dollars for roads and bridges and airports and we will name a new airport in chicago trump international airport. we will use the best marble and all you've got to do is meet is a little way on the next supreme court justice. it is meant to be a liberal. and since he doesn't care about

these issues and everything is in negotiation and everything is a potential for a deal i worry about his reliability. i hope to god i am in the wrong. he's a lifelong democrat from new york who likes to cut deals. i know i'm a broken record on this but that requires very good signaling from the right about the deals he can get away with in the deal said he cannot. the relationship that conservatives have now with donald trump is much more reminiscent of the nixon administration which is fitting because he's surrounded the smithsonian city uses smithsonian language side of the majority and all the rest and richard nixon

they were going to get rid of it. i have zero that they will leave it in place, so what is the value of that? the senate has its own rules and the only thing that can change as the reciprocity so until you get the democrats they never go back to it to that would be fine. but it's for the republi republo

have the filibuster rule in the senate. >> they will not learn the lesson that if they do. president-elect trump won't be president until the vote on december 19. there'there is a petition goingd to get some to change their vote for hillary clinton and the penalty is a small fine of each state and people would be glad to pay those. besides the unlikelihood of that happening, what do you think of that in terms of the structural place of electrical college to

allow that to happen and also the fact that donald trump himself and 2012 said it should be abolished. i will just jump on the grenade. as a matter of nostalgia i long for the day for more in vigorous republicans won't our republican institutions where we could go a long with. as a person that lives in the 21st century in this particular political climate in the context where we have had a populist president running on a plan that the system is rigged, to have a bunch of corrupt machine party hats bribed into stealing the electoral college from donald trump.

it seems ill advised to me. [applause] >> i would like to follow-up on follow up ona point that genera. mukasey made awar where the pret is in charge of that with or without congress accepting so forth. the national security is kind of a mess, the military is in trouble, foreign affairs in the middle east are in my view a mess.

terrorism is a part of it. >> books that no one has read about this. [laughter] >> one thing that i think historians will say is remarkable about the years is a lot of things that are going to be the legacy or quickly reversed. the president has the constitutional initiative in foreign affairs but it doesn't stick unless congress agrees. remember the first day in office he said i'm closing guantánamo bay. there's a few things that will remain open. [laughter] a lot of these powers are in the president's hands to start with, but even with surveillance it took these amendments to put them on a firm footing.

you will see a lot is used to reverse the foreign-policy legacy so if you were to say the major legacy is the effort to make peace with iran i think president trump could even reverse the choice to recognize cuba. that is also in the presidential power but he still needs cooperation because the obama years saw the cut in the willingness and president trump cannot just order them to get bigger. even if they want to restore the defenses they need to boost defense spending.

>> take a look at president obama in his first day in office signing the order closing guantánamo. he sort of staggers through it reading it. then he says greg, do we have another voice here showing what they are giving and a voice off camera says we will have procedures and he looks at the camera and says people have procedures. he needs to think it through carefully.

>> my question involves regulations that carry criminal penalties. over criminalization is a hot topic. do you precede the administration rolling back some federal regulations? >> that is bound to be at the top of the list to deal with anybody that's close enough to be around him and lots of those are going to go. >> i think it plaintiff that was made earlier that's quite right is we can talk about restoring the government and so on but the big admiration in the system is the administrative state and so what we have the last eight years which is unusual is the president but doesn't want to control it and saw the obama years to run wild.

even president clinton, the real one, not the runner for the throne, it was to keep some limits in control and so one thing president trump can and should do is say the regulations are choking off economic growth and so i am going to subject all of them to a cost-benefit analysis in the white house. liberals went nuts and said it is a key thing president trump has to do is say all these regulations are halting enforcement until we can get a handle on which ones make sense and i will subject all of them to the cost and as the general suggested, stop and even the

criminal penalties goes beyond the pale and it's a violation of the original constitution but it's also been electoral risk left out by globalization and cutting off regulations is a great way to try to jumpstart the economy. >> that's what he says he's going to do. >> i agree with all that. >> did i see someone back there? there was someone in the last row in the corner over here. >> going back to the topic of the nomination wondering if any of you can comment on the possibility that republican repn senators would invoke the nuclear option to bypass the filibuster and any ramifications that might come from that.

>> first, you've got to have a filibuster that actually works. and it's not clear to me that democrats would do it, and they get 41 senators to do that. they only have to have 48. it's not clear to me that they would actually do that. as i said before, i think they will want some measure of revenge. i don't know what form that would take. to me it isn't clear but i do think that getting the nominee onto the court could take a while because democrats would be in no hurry. >> isn't that dangerous for the democrats coming up in the

senate you would be glad if they tried to filibuster because then you could accuse them all . this is like president bush in 2002 they are all obstructionist. >> 23 seats in the 20 team. on the other hand, the vacancy is already there and the next isn't until two years from now so i think a lot of them would think they can do this and it won't be a big problem. >> i think this will be the last question running short on time. given that the democrats are so apocalyptic about president donald trump do you think they will work with the republicans in the congress to pass through the judiciary committee and others passed to the cost-benefit and everything, do you think the democrats might

actually work with the republicans in congress to pass a and then are we sure president trump would sign a bill. particularly one that had a democratic body in the leadership. at the beginning you raise an important point that touches on the answered about the supreme court fight. we've already seen at the last 24 hours and it's going to get worse. meanwhile, i am trying my best bernie sanders, hillary clinton and barack obama.

that's my view on this. i thought it was nice but we should prepare ourselves for the fact that it's going to move its mind about donald trump. there was a school in manhattan where they had all the kids singing we shall overcome. people were looking to see if it was going to turn to blood and so the idea. so it would create an incentive structure for democrats to just oppose trump on every single thing and that includes the supreme court justices.

so, there's going to be a popular cultural fights where hollywood and the left are going to try to make it seem like this is 1932 and he must be stopped at all costs. and i think it is dangerous. i was told any opposition to the newly elected president was racist and saying how it should be contested was like this and during the founding fathers and now we have people openly going on the nightly news saying hillary clinton won the popular vote. as long a as you are questioning it about a republican, get ready

for a madhouse for a while and how that plays out in all the rest. >> that's absolutely right. >> any final comments? like to thank our panelists.

fort knox was chosen because it was the most impenetrable location. it had been open several years prior so the secretary of the treasury morgenthau gives permission to use a portion for the documents. the author talks about the decision to move america's most important historical documents to fort knox.

>> they have to make a decision what documents are going to be there, the articles of confederation, pre- constitution for sure. the gettysburg address. so he makes this decision very methodically on what's going to go to fort knox. these are considered the most valuable documents in the country. with donald trump elected, milanlearnmore about the implemf america's presidential spouses from first ladies a look into the personal lives and influence of the three presidential spouse

in american history and it is a companion to the well-regarded biography tv series with 54 of the nation's first lady historians, biographies of the ladies and archival photographs from each of their lives. published by publicaffairs is available wherever you buy books and now available in paperback. the newly elected congress and legislative agenda from today's washington journal, this is an hour. editor in chief of the hill for the first time in ten years. we asked a caller about us into the early stages who has the upper hand probably the senate

and a number of house seats and it looks like in the range of nine or ten, still some close races but the senate obviously stays in republican hands as we move forward next year it could be a big policymaking year because they don't have 60 votes in the senate, but through the budget reconciliation process, they can move some things with the majority voting for it. from the different members spending money for those members and keeping his distance from donald trump yesterday was a pay different look and he tried to bridge the divide into donald trump said to meet with the house speaker today how do they bridge that divide?

>> guest: there's less of a divided an than there was befor. remember before the election, mitch mcconnell and donald trump there was never a joint press conference which is highly unusual because of things donald trump said and brian andand mcconnell didn't know how we handle it in the difficult and awkward position to be. it all ended up with a good ending for the gop. so, now remember before the election, donald trump suggested he would be in a different position because he was upset and they had been feuding. i think now that donald trumpn' has this historical when they will bury the hatchet and i don't think anyone else can get the votes to become speaker other than paul ryan. he did talk to trump and i think

they are going to bury the hatchet. in all likelihood he's going to be the speaker.st >> we've been asking priorities for the new presidency and the news comes in the first meeting today with donald trump and president obama and certainly in his last days he's been talking about investing in infrastructure spending etc.. go back to the 2009 infrastructure bill, republicans spent a great deal of time if then and afterwards criticizing the effectiveness and the amount of money that was spent. it's likely that certainly a big chunk of money is going to be spent on infrastructure. how does he convince them on spending that money? >> guest: no matter who won,y hillary clinton or donald trump both targeted infrastructure as a big part of their agenda so this will be part of the first 100 days. the minority leader in the house suggested she is ready to deal

on transportation. it all depends on how they do it. it. there could be some tax provisions that were always controversial. s i do think that the before thee. stimulus, transportation was a bipartisan issue. republicans and democrats basically agreed and were able to reauthorize the highway bill though pretty regularly put out just putting it down the road. after the stimulus is really poisoned the well. i do think that's changed. no doubt about it but freedom caucus and the conservative movement are not going to want some big bloated transportation bill moving through congress, so i do think that there is enough republicans and democrats to get something done in the first 100 days. >> host: we look forward for calls from 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for

republicans and 202-748-8002 for independence.se it seems like there's a wholeru lot less drama in the lame-duck. >> guest: there's not going to be a lot of business getting done. the first order and priority is funding the government. they must do that by december 9. they talked about doing some appropriation packages. it's going to be difficult to do. obviously conservatives want to have more power next year. the president is going to be pushing for his agenda and that includes the tpp that is unlikely to move and something hillary clinton and donald trump opposed vigorously. just a reminder live coverage on

c-span and of course the senate is coming in tuesday. let's go to the independent line first and hear from connecticut. >> caller: congratulations. there's a couple things he promised in the debates but i want to see if he can do. child care is prohibitively expensive and that is sodc important that we get child care through and the other is the carried interest tax reform and that is something that can help pay for child care. now if he can get some kind of tax reform interest i think thae

it would be a tremendous boom. but if he can leave america alone i would be very pleased with that. >> guest: childcare isn't something that was more on the radar than donald trump. they talked about it a lot. that's not good to be the top of the agenda at least for now. as far as the carried interest, donald trump has day will criticize and donald trump said he is going to go after wall street and criticized the companies for the drug prices and has gone after the hmo. so he is for that and that is something they disagree on and

that democrats are going to be phoning in. at ththe chance of a tax reforml was done in 1986. they have gone up because thats wasn't a priority but for a topm priority for donald trump he said the tax system is unfair but it's hard to get it done. there will be a lot of talk. >> they say that he may be powerful vice president and the liaison to congress was mentioned by mitch mcconnell ind his briefing. what do you see as the role of the former congressman and now governor and vice president elect? >> guest: one of the best things he did was picking mike pence. he is a fiscal and social conservative. he served in the house for a

number of years and he took on president bush on the drug legislation and was tea party before the tea party. but for the tea party. he has great relationships withh paul ryan and mitch mcconnell and i think that people play a huge role getting the details. it's all about relationships ane politics and he has great relationships not only withre republicans on capitol hill but he's very media savvy. >> host: short on a lot of the details that will begin to get a sense of those as the budget is developed for the next year. when does the process start for the appointees. >> the transition is number onee they have to decide who is going to build positions in there is already some chatter. after he does that and they

tried to move quickly to get them approved in january, then you have to come up with the budget and that is the most closely scrutinized document. that's going to be big and people will look at what are the details to build a wall in the southern border of the united states what is the cost because you have to have the costs. there is a lot of work to be done now. >> good morning to charles on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i'm a black republican, i decided that a lot of times. what donald trump is really doing is more than any other candidate in the inner cities.

in the two years we have the midterm election. in the four years most republicans were lighting up for 2020. donald trump will be the incumbent. can we just forget about it. the third thing i would like to talk about is saying who black people would vote for and youse get a hold of all these people on television, black people wano the same thing donald trump is talking about plus it reminds me of the 196 east. i'm very sad to say this malcolm

x. says something that really reverberated with me. they said we are tired of singers and dancers and clowns and people that consider themselves. when you look at it that is my comments because i'm so sick and hored of the individuals running around. >> we mentioned phil jackson. overall, donald trump didn't do

well. however the early data suggestsp nobody thought donald trump would run and the data suggests that hillary clinton won the vote overwhelmingly. buthat african-americans didn't come out nearly even close to when barack obama was elected in 2012 and if you look at it, mitt romney and john mccain got more. votes but hillary clinton didn't have to turn out that they the expected. they will be uniting the country because a lot of them didn'tun vote and he's into have to worry about that. remember when george w. bush and barack obama got elected and that's what the team will have

to do. both avoided a primary challenge and they both won the election. welcome your comments and calls. they signaled a chapter in that relationship reporting on the news conference yesterday by the house speaker here is what he'sv hoping for. >> i think after a tough campaign where people believe they were pitching so hard, this isn't a popular law. it's collapsing under its ownobm weight. this senate majority already demonstrated that we are able to put on th it on the president's. the problem is now the president

trump coming who's asking us to do this so with the unified government of the config this.by we have shown the willingnessth and the ability to do it and there are so many things i'm excited about. think about the workers that see the relief coming and those that were being harassed. think about the rancher the rane getting harassed by the interior departmendepartment with a leadr workers. there is relief coming. this is good for the country and that means we can lift the weight of the regulatory state and restore the constitution. think about the constitution respecting judges that will be nominated. this is very exciting. >> saying there is relief coming.the top >> obamacare is at the top of the agenda and they can do that with a majority of the votes inn the senate.

they just have to keep in line and this is something that unites the party. it survived some major challenges. now it's being targeted again and they appear to have the vote.replac however replacing it is veryha difficult. they've not been able to coalesce against one proposal that has been scored by the congressional budget office. so i think repealing it is easy and replacing it is difficult. >> of all the things said, where do you think he will get the most pushback from the republican congress? >> guest: one of the things that hasn't been on the agenda is cutting government spending and that is big for the conservative movement and it was big on the agenda in 2010. that's what happened.

donald trump hasn't said let's raise the retirement age for medicare, social security. but thosthose are things republn capitol hill do believe in and definitely it's headed for social security. we have to do something but they say that isn't the solution. i think the growth of government and the debt is something conservatives want them to take seriously and focus a lot more on the. >> host: on the independencece line, welcome. >> guest:ht >> caller: i am so behind on my sleep because i stayed up but i am so excited about this whole thing because when you are in new york state you have to stay up all night long because we are fighting the electoral college and i was just praying andhe praying and now i'm not as

generous as the rest of all of c them. i think an awful lot of people in this country, too, we are so disgusted with washington, d.c. and donald promised us that he was going to clean up the slack. for all of the republicans, i would start right there with ryan and mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham and john mccain, and i would make their lives sod miserable they would quit their jobs and plow the field becausee they are not for america or for anything except themselves and their paycheck. i have no use for any of them. but like i said, my candidate originally was ben carson and ip hope that he gets a very important job in the cabinet.

some of the ones that really stood by him because he's going to need a lot of help but he isn't going to get any real health from all of those worthless republicans that are even worse than the democrats.s. >> host: we will let you go and hope you get some sleep. >> guest: it's interesting after the 2000 election that won the popular vote but george w. bush won the electoral college after the decision was final, clinton called for the end ofel the electoral college and ended up winning the popular vote. a couple things there, drain the swamp helped then win and whether it is congressional term limitscongressional termlimits,f the beltway. i'd be very hard to get it done because members of congress don't like that.

then i think ben carson is going to have a prominent role as a top adviser for donald trump exec he will be in the cabinet may be in hhs secretary or something along those lines. if they are able to get stuff done, and i fully expect that to happen, they will be able to get some legislation passed and that might help the congressional approval ratings but if they target other things obama has done, they are going to fight very hard.of the s >> host: some have opposed him, john mccain, lindsey graham, jeff flake.of >> guest: you think most of this town and the pundits were thinking of 2020 republicans running who was possibly thinking about the run thinking donald trump would lose.

i was so tickled when donald trump got elected and if he got a little time, he would get the country turned around. i was just so happy i didn't want hillary in >> host: on the democrats lin line. >> caller: [inaudible] at one point i was an undocumented immigrant and i

went through the process to comt i america. for the individuals to look at us in a different way. i think america for giving me the opportunity. it's to prove that we could be great for this nation and contribute to everything. gm so placed to be in america and . >> host: so glad you could join the conversation this morning.what he

>> guest: there's so much about the policies and deportation and republicans know that they are for legal immigration and also when there are violations of the law of people that have gone through the process which is very rigorous and that is something that in his budget people will be looking at. he said something whether there would be mass deportation and then they kind of changed that for certain countries coming to america so these are details that are very important and also i think are going to reveal that the administration will do. >> host: the independent children in order for example. >> guest: a long list come it's going to be a long day. that is one of them that he would rescind a part of the executive orders and i think onn those tape promises he' type ofs

going to have to deliver because they give him some leeway. maybe not gridlock in hi this tn but they give him the leeway and they can't abandon the process. >> he comes in with the supreme court still the chance to nominate. for the comments on what he's thinking and then get your reaction on the briefingon yesterday. >> it is an indication the american people would like to try something new. and i know the speaker shares my view that we would like to see the country go in a different direction and work with them to change the course for america. he will have an opportunity to tell the supreme court vacancy.

in february of this year i thought it best if they need a disappointment to the supreme court. hthought i was on pretty firm footing. you have to go back to find the last time a vacancy was confirmed by the party. so the american people have sooen and he will send us a nominee soon. >> host: what does that look like in the coming months? >> guest: a lot of things they didn't like is when he put out his list of possible supremest court justices, they loved the list and thought it was great

that he's going to pick someone on that list, and republicans op capitol hill are going to support that. it is a controversial pick democrats can filibuster. unless they change the rules they are going to need 60 votes. they basically split the party. that is something that is likely going to happen. >> good morning america. i've been saying when a

billionaire comes in with nong ties to special interest get things done. donald trump had a great historic victory. we've interviewed donald trump four times and he is very media savvy. he knows what his message is and he had a good slogan make america great again and hillary clinton struggled for a message. we tried to sit down with herec

and you can't run for thehere. presidency at. trump vilified lobbyists and in the short term they write it is likely to be a boom for the lobbying business despite the washington lobbyists of both parties. >> in the 1990s and the divided government you have newt gingrich and bill clinton they got a balanced budget done and it really hasn't worked since then. so 1999 when barack obama had overwhelming majorities, a lot

of stuff got done. the legislation passed in the house and senate and the the sey were sweeping the legislation. now republicans had the power so they would be able to get stuff done and most people agree that gridlock is not a good thing and of course democrats are not going to like to see what is moving through on capitol hill next year. >> host: debbie on the democrats line? >> caller: i would like to get my played out before you hang up on me. i cannot understand at 8:00 on tuesday night when i'm voting i still believe hillary is going to win and all of a sudden things change and it's not just alabama and wisconsin, it's all over the country. isn't that strange to you i hate to say that this has been the

media, the fbi and certain politicians all put this little plan together and after the polls close, they dropped a few numbers because if you look on every state, they one by less than 150,000 but something is in this country and everyone better be looking because this is stolen. >> athe headline is gues-searching. what are they saying we can do right the next time? time?guest co. number one is not listened to groupthink. if you look at the data, donald trump had a shot that had to run the table because the battleground states. it turned out it was a nailbitel

biter and hillary clinton endedt up winning that they count the southern counties first. the politics average of all ofas the polls was her up by five points, so i think number one, not each one was wrong.actually they were underestimating baract obama's performance but i do think that the media needs to reevaluate itself and you have to look at the passion and enthusiasm and it wasn't there for clinton. >> host: going forward, what does that look like not just on the presidential election but i the congressional elections. >> guest: you have to get outi there and vote. i was in ohio recently and i

could tell there was no chance. i didn't think that he would win by double digits. so it is having money in the travel budget so you can go to places can't talk t, talk to pet out of the bubble. i went to manchester a year ago and it was only the first time i realized that this issue was so devastating and we have to start writing about it.i am >> host: ch >> caller: i keep hearing about this change and i can't understand what that means

[inaudible] is that really what they need oe is it the gridlock in the parliament and the house and the senate. it was walke walked in the senad under oath. >> host: it's concerned and what's next? >> guest: i >> guest: if you take benefits you will hear the effects.

they have to get together and figure out a way to replace obamacare if we are going to repeal it. people are nervous and that'sf t why if it were easier to remember after that, it is the law of the land and they took a lot of heat for it but they knew that it would be difficult from that point on and that's going to be the number one. >> host: in terms of specifics, they've been waving their pamphlet of the agenda policy issues including health care and a number of other issues that they proposed for, e the next congress. how much of that becomes a part of the proposal?details

>> guest: donald trump isn't a detailed person and paul ryan is a policy wonk and he likes to get into details. so, that could be a nice complementary duo. however, they do disagree on the trade deal. why don't you go past that. other issues that trump wants,ts he's the one that just got elected and they might not like everything they pass but they will like it now that they have a friend in the white house. >> host: could we see a renegotiated transpacific partnership deal? >> host:

>> guest: before he washe has elected, he's gone after a lot farther than obama who never renegotiated so that's going to be extremely difficult to fulfill his promise but it's one of the many promises that got him elected. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. first of all, i am ecstatic too think that there might be some changes coming. one of the issues i am concerned about has to do with social security. there has been very little mentioned and did m in my reseai discovered that it's true our government has taken over $3 trillion of the social security funds yet no one speaks

of this and we are told they have to do something about it yet they continue to take money out of it. one of the people running with her brought up the fact that she had to take another $117 billion out of social security. is this truly going on and if it is, is it a ponzi scheme, and what can we the people do to stop washington from draining the social security fund? >> guest: there's no doubt about it today are all headed for the ultimate bankruptcy so there has to be something done. they had to bankruptcy and thatt the last second they passed the balanced budget act and was able to increase the salton sea.

because of that's not happening within the next five years, social security has more solvency certainly than medicare. but at some point, there has to be some reform and the parties don't agree. mor democrats were talking about expanding social security, having more benefits for the beneficiaries i think in the short term. once again i said donald trump doesn't support raising the age. honestly on social security i think the recourse is callingthe the lawmakers and pressing them on the issues. i don't think there's good to be many changes in the first term. >> host: maybe they will have to raise the debt ceiling from time to time. will we see those? >> guest: i think this time it will be driven by the capitol hill republicans saying we have

to cut the government at the same time so we don't keep doing this again and again. i do think that is always difficult and it's going to be a different dynamic now in the white house.missouri. >> host: >> guest: i have a fewme questions for you if you don't mind and maybe some statements. mr. trump has some legality issues as president elect our president, how does that come about i'm not familiar or know if we will have president on this, does that wait until after his term or is it something he has to take care of now if you could discuss the charges explicitly. we have the debt ceiling coming up in december which should be taken care of hopefully that

march of 2017 we have the debt ceiling coming up and you know how that gets in the time span, comes up how is that going to work with mr. trump. also i hear this infrastructure bill he wants to do that would be a boost for the jobs construction. however i'm not sure that ist going to fly. there will be some problems. confliemand cuts for spending. so i think we will see a conflict in that. i also hear about the bringing the chops back from nafta. one of the things i never hear them explain to anybody as we've gone to an increasedlo technological infrastructure

automated system and a lot of those jobs are gone. unfortunately nobody has come up with better reasons for the job after that. >> host: some of those we touched on already. >> guest: there's been a lot of lawsuits against him and t trenton university is one of noe them. he hasn't released his returns saying that the irs is auditing the man he would release his tax returns after. now that he will become president, the press will continue to press him on that. it didn't hurt him much in the i presidential elections and it didn't matter that much. the funding bill has to be passed by december 9 and that is going to be an issue with the

debt ceiling and the details of that are going to matter to the freedom caucus. .. control of both the house and the senate next year. that is a big deal. host: the trump brand having impact in international affairs. the new philippines trade envoy right that the timing of the president of the philippines cannot be better. before his election victory, he had already named busine -- mr. trump a business partner in manila. is unpredictable, took on comparison to mr. trump. --e last month he was named the times writing the company is building the trump tower in 57tury city, a voyager $59, 157 million dollar

development. "i think it's a special place. >>t: >> we will seek deere relationships that and obama had a very contentious relationship toward the end of his second term with the philippines obviously a rational will be a different type of relationship and vladimir putin congratulated trump yesterday that is a big issue on the campaign trail so with foreign policy and national-security people see a very differentwe direction of the last eight years. >> and independent line good morning. >> caller: the republicanse have been getting -- trying

to get rid of the affordable care act with did just the easy thing had this same benefits or same health care also they want to cut spending but they also do with domestic programs what we ever hear about the corporate welfare spending? or to cut that.. that's all. >> that is an issue that comes up lot why does congress treated so differently than the rest of the country? that is something they are on the government health care program which means some members of congressthere i decided to go on obamacare just because of the reason but his message on corruption going after the media will change the town remember george of the bush vowed to change washington

and and broccoli, did the same thing but both said they failed in washington wins most of the time we will see if they can see that if he can change the gridlock that everybody is so angry at. >> republican line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. one-two say i think that donald trump will be the closest to be a president of the people and by the people. people coming to though white house setter not special-interest donors so he has a unique opportunity to trade the swamp he will have every day people going to the white house as opposed to that highest donor. but illegal immigration with a unique perspective to deal

with legal and illegal i came over on the fiance's the from the philippines before i met her she had a prior illegality try to get in illegally and they deported person there was the major black spot on her record coming in and. and we went through a lot to try to clear that up. now she is a citizen but we know of illegals a think there is that common sense compromise that first of all, of we have to build the wall but second with those who have not committed a crime, a trump knows that we cannot deport all those people so the logical solution is to give a green card which will make republican say and it'llut upset with no chance of