and looking through your pouch, you know? and what a searching now can be, you know, some algorithm in a server sitting somewhere or in a satellite, you know? how, how do you reconcile these massive technological changes that by their very scope may change, there may be, you know -- does the quantity of change affect the quality of the right or the protection? >> well, the genius of the founders, and and i use that word advisedly because as justice marshall was wont to say and you heard it echoed in jess' summary of the president's statement today, the constitution was just a remarkable document, but it wasn't perfect. and there's no perfection in human endeavor. and justice marshall used to say how the amendment process,

including the first ten as well as the reconstruction amendments and others -- one of which we celebrated this year, giving the vote to half our population 100 years ago -- there's a lot of imperfection there. but the genius of the founders was to craft the document, including the bill of rights despite the specificity you find in many of the amendments, that would account for the unforeseeable and the unforeseen. and is so, yeah -- and so, yeah. who is the press today? some blogger? my daughter who texts her friend about something, a public interest? these are hard questions, as judge griffin says, and we start with the text, but the text isn't going to give us reliable answers. the text alone today will not

give us reliable answers to these profound questions. and so we've got to look to other sources beyond the text, certainly tradition and history, but even the text tradition and history aren't going to provide the answers. and so, yeah, it's tough work. so go and tell your friends you met three judges tonight, and they do really tough work. [laughter] >> so i had the privilege of being on the three-judge panel of the d.c. circuit that first considered the case that, excuse me, became the jones gps case. the case was whether the police attaching a gps to a car without a warrant violated the warrant clause of the fourth amendment. and it was a fascinating case. the briefing, the arguments by the lawyers on both sides were just spectacularly good. i can't disclose what took place in our conference with the three

judges, but i took a great deal of pleasure in noting that the press accounts assumed that the judges would have various views on issue by virtue of the president that had appointed us. and i the can tell you when we got into conference, all of the press accounts were entirely wrong in their guesses. because what we were dealing with was a novel application of a longstanding principle. but how does it apply in a circumstance that literally has never been had before. and i have to tell you, it took us months for the three judges before we could decide what the outcome was. and that's not typical. in most of our cases we hear the oral argument, and in fairly short order we know what the outcome will be and then write opinions about it. in this case, it took months of exchanging memos back and forth amongst the three judges because

we were wrestling with this issue what does the fourth amendment mean when it comes to gps surveillance. i mean, obviously, if you talk about gps surveillance to anyone in 1791, they'd have no idea what you were talking about. but the it was a combination of, again, the historical work was significant to try and find out what is at the heart of this fourth amendment which is such a critical and important bulwark against government overreach into the private, into the lives of private citizens. what was, what was involved with that. i'd like to report that the supreme court adopted our reasoning. it did not. i think justice sotomayor did, but justice scalia ended up with the same result we did, that it was unlawful. but for different reasons. but the struggle, watching that process unfold as we struggled with the historical question, trying to identify the value and

is seeing how that value might apply to a completely novel circumstance was actually an exciting adventure. >> i was going to say i think, and you may recall from the case as well that there ended up even being lines talking about, well, what would happen if back in, when the bill of rights was written had taken an itty bitty constable and put it in the stagecoach? so there are, you do certainly try to analogize as best you can, although i don't -- it's hard to analogize itty bitty constables. but, you know, even when it's a new, novel application, you're asking yourself what is the line that was drawn here between governmental power and individual rights. think about it. think about it in ways that are at least is there an analogy, is there a reference point, is there something somewhat similar in prior cases that we can look to. and that's what we try to draw upon in this process.

>> yeah. this was, this was a case where, as judge griffin said, the police just slapped a gps tracker on a guy's car without -- they had a warrant, but it was expired. so for legal purposes, they didn't have a warrant. and the government's argument was that, well, if i was a cop standing in the street and i saw someone, i could just follow him down the public street, so this is just the same as if i had an unlimited number of cops who could follow the suspect down every street 24 hours a day for three months. because it's, in theory, the same thing. and the tease circuit said -- the d.c. circuit said, well, no, it's not really the same thing. the supreme court also said it's not the same thing. they had different reasoning, but i think it was a unanimous decision that affirmed -- you had a majority opinion, a concurrence by justice sotomayor and then you had a minority opinion. but they all agreed that this

was a search. whether it was reasonable didn't come up at that point, but there was an implication -- >> i have to tell you what sort of struck me was i was late to watching "the wire," the show on hbo, but i was watching it x. there's like, in season two they just do that. [laughter] well before your case came up that this is such a novel thing, it's actually a plot line. they're actually in a garage, and they just put the tracker on it. so it was well, i mean, they were just doing it, okay? so by the time it got to your court, it maybe was sort of part and par el of police practice -- part and parcel of police practice here in the chesapeake region. >> we all know life imitates art. about 15 years ago justice scalia, in a remarkable opinion, anticipated griffith's case, a piece of technology known as the thermal imager. and the argument made in that

case was, well, we could -- this had to do with a marijuana grow operation in oregon. and the argument, one of the arguments the government made was we could station officers outside the house and detect rate of heat escaping from the house by measuring the relative rates of snow melt from the roof, which is certainly true. and justice scalia said, no, no, no, it's not the same thing. it's not the same thing. so these practical considerations of cost and traditional practice do come into play. and by the way, in that case apropos be judge griffith's earlier comment, justice scalia wrote the majority opinion in favor of the defendant in that fourth amendment case, and justice stevens wrote the four-justice dissenting opinion. so one can't always predict based on sort of traditional

notions of how judges are going to come at some of these questions, how they're going to actually come at them when the real concrete cases -- >> you can always predict those two justices will always be on the other side no matter what the issue. go ahead. >> i was just going to say part of what's going on is things are evolving. life is changing and evolving, so it's not often things are coming entirely out of the blue. sometimes they do. part of the issue is how much information. it's not just that you're following someone, it's how much information they can accumulate and collect. it was how much -- like you said, you wouldn't have that many police officers and how much information the government could get at hand. and we've had this same issue when police officers transition from fingerprinting to dna. the amount of information you get from a fingerprint is one thing, the amount you get from swabbing the inside of somebody's cheek is another thing. and dealing with, you know, where does that cross the line?

when government gets more information, is it getting too much, or is it just getting what -- is it doing a similar thing, something physical to you, to get information it needs for identifying purposes? and these are the types of balancing requirements that are built into the fourth amendment's constitutional tech that we're trying to apply -- text that we're trying to apply. it's not just the technology itself, but what the technology can sweep in and the amount of information it's providing. >> and justice kennedy's opinion in the case just referred to was quite emphatic in its reliance on current knowledge that the dna protocols used by the fbi and the states for so-called dna fingerprinting will not reveal anything about the person other than the identity. and there are very reputable

scientists out there today who say that assumption clothed in such assurance actually may not be true. we don't know all that we might come to know about what's in this so-called ted dna. dead dna. so it's a moving target. the bill of rights is not a moving target, but its application in concrete cases is a constantly moving, dynamic enterprise. >> and in that case just for our home audience and those here tonight, that was another 5-4 case at the supreme court, and the flip was justice thomas who often agrees with justice scalia. but scalia was in the dissent along with justice ginsburg in that case. they held that the swab is okay for identification purposes, although in that particular case the police really did know who their suspect was, but their assertion was they were doing it for that reason. but it did raise this question

of we can find out not just the person's identity, but his whole genetic history, future and so on. police said we're not looking at that, and the court accepted that. perhaps there'll be a case in the future where authorities go further and the question of whether they can or not. i guess that may come up as well, the courts have upheld warrantless aerial surveillance of looking in people's backyards. that's pre-drone. now that everyone can get a remote-controlled device and fly it over someone's backyard to see what's going on, maybe that will be a question that arises at some point. let me ask -- believe it or not we've got, we've got 30 more minutes, but i want to keep moving along on these ten amendments. you know, the second amendment one amendment until very recently did not have an authoritative statement from the supreme court at least on whether it contained an individual right to possess a

weapon at least in some circumstances. and the court said by a 5-4 decision that it does. a affirming a d.c. circuit opinionment -- opinion. but technology affects weapons. one question out there is, is a taser the kind of weapon that is protected by the second amendment right. you know, weapons i guess at the time of the adoption involved muskets or knives. what, how do courts approach that? is a, you know, how to you decide if a taser is a weapon that is included? what about other types of new devices that might be weapons or might be recreational devices? there was a case from new york involving martial arts equipment. is that a sporting equipment, or is that a weapon? does it trigger constitutional rights? how are you going to draw that kind of line when, obviously,

the framers -- thinking about colonial militias -- were not thinking about tasers to or stun -- tasers or stun guns or nunchucks. >> i don't know. [laughter] no, i think we do know, the supreme court has told us in the heller decision that you referred to, that the second amendment is not limited to simply the types of technology that was available, excuse me, in 1791. but then that introduces the question that you've asked, what technology does it include. and, obviously, we can't answer the taser question now. that's an issue that hasn't been resolved and and not in front of us. but i think the methodology is still the same. you try and, you know, identify the value that was protected in the amendment and then apply it here. i will say this about the second amendment, i was on that case

that became heller. it was called parker in the d.c. circuit and then went up and became heller. and i can remember well -- i don't know anything about guns. i'm a suburban guy, grew up in fairfax county. guns scare me to death. but i can remember seeing that the case was going to be on my docket, and with some excitement i blocked off an entire week that i was going to work just on this case. and i remember getting all these law review articles out of all these briefs, and my clerk and i were just going to spend a week working on this. and i began by reading some history. i remember reading an article by sanford levinson from texas, lawrence tribe from harvard, i thought i would start with some political progressives, see what their view of the matter was.

took me about six or seven hours to get through those. and to me, the history showed, whether i liked it or not, showed that in 1791 there was this background assumption that people had the right to a firearm to defend themselves. but i blocked off a whole week of, to prepare. so i went ahead and read through all the briefs. to me, it was not a particularly difficult case after that. the supreme court, it was split 5-4, but it was a very significant case in many ways because both the majority and the minority used this model that i was talking about of learning the history, trying to understand what was happening in 7-- 1791, what was the value that was codified. and as we know, the supreme

court decided that there is a right to bear arms to defend yourself in your home -- that's as far as they've gotten right now. but now we're dealing with what beyond there. and those are unresolved issues for us. >> well, what's amazing about that case is not only, as you said, it took until relatively recent times for that even to come up, for the supreme court to resolve, but it was a few years after that that they decided that the second amendment right applied to the states. that was d.c. and so they hadn't yet even decided when that was a right only against the federal government or the state governments. and while that was the case involving what type of arms are covered under the second amendment, there's still, you know, where you get to bear these arms is still, are still very much open questions. you know, the understanding being that you can't march into the supreme court with them,

that security interests must come into play -- >> or here. >> or here. >> or here. [laughter] >> so there is, you know, there's much yet to be resolved in that area. and, you know, on the technology front the types of arms, while we still have rifles like folks may have had back in, somewhat like what folks would have had back in the day, there are, as we know, incredibly powerful weapons, automatic guns that -- bazookas, these types of things and how it's going to apply to things with that level of lethality is still yet to be resolved. >> i'd like to invite you all to come up and have questions of, and we'll keep talking while you line up on both sides of the

theaters. and, again, the questions we ask, i'm trying to talk broadly about these issues. but here we'll take a, an audience question. >> justice in the case of cherokee indians, justice marshall made the decision that they should not be moved, and president jackson said that justice marshall has made a decision, and he should go and enforce it. do you think the new president-elect is going to have the power to abandon the bill of rights and the constitution altogether? >> well, this is a question about, you know, what is the authority of the courts when they make a decision. there's a story that -- we don't know if it's true, but it's too good to not be true, so let's assume it is. [laughter] when the supreme court ruled in favor of the cherokee indians who were being dispossessed of land, they had a treaty right

to, president jackson soon to be off the $20 bill -- [laughter] said, well, you know, chief justice marshall's made his decision, let him, you know, you and what army, basically. well, you know, what is the authority of the courts to have the government, we've got, you know, whether it's the current president or the next president or the sheriff in some county in a remote part of the country. why, why to they follow your interpretations? how can you know that they are when you've got such a big country and people have power from the white house to the city hall to the local county jail? >> well, i doubt that any one of the three of us wants to say a word about the president-elect. but i will say this, and others

have said it far better than i could possibly say it. there was an allusion earlier tonight. perhaps this word wasn't used, but as unelected members of the third branch, what we hopefully bring to our work -- and i know that my colleagues sitting here with me do -- is a humility in the work that we do. as judge millett said earlier, she won't want to, she wouldn't want to work in a system where judges could write the constitution. what i'm trying to say is that it's your faith in our probity, in our integrity and our commitment to our oath that makes it possible for us to do our work. you know? we're known as the least dangerous branch, and it's been said we don't have armies, we can't raise taxes. it's only the belief of the

people in what we do that gives meaning to john marshall's famous dictum that it's a constitution, and it's the judicial branch that gets to interpret that document. and i, and i suspect my colleagues to a greater or lesser extent, have had the great privilege to travel around the world working with judges really in africa, in east asia, in eastern europe, and i wish that every citizen of the united states could share in some of those travels and is see, for example, as i saw in zimbabwe the abject fear on the part of the judges of the supreme court when visited by one of the ministers from the government who said to him we would hate to see anything terrible happen to a member of your family. in response to a judgment that the court had rendered.

so it's important that with our judicial independence which is critical to the work we do and to our real system of democratic governance, constitutional democratic governance, that we stay in to our lanes which is, i guess, the phrase of the year and continue to work to earn your trust and your regard. and this includes, of course, members of the elected branch so that they will continue to give credence to our judgments. [inaudible conversations] >> i mean, judge davis is exactly right, and i think it would be an enormous mistake if anybody left this session thinking the bill of rights and these important issues we've been talking about are just for lawyers and judges to resolve. we have to decide the cases that come to us, but appreciating and

valuing and defending the bill of rights is, i think, the patriotic duty of every citizen. and you need to understand the bill of rights which we're aptly focused on, it's the 225th anniversary, is part of a larger document. we began by saying the original constitution with its structure of government, dividing it between the three branches of government as we know and states and the federal government, but it is actually a whole document and has to be read together. and the bill of rights has to be read in the context of the end ration of powers, the role of the different branches, enforcing and respecting the bill of rights and all parts of the constitution. and i think it is absolutely critical that people teach this to their children. we have to teach it to our children. we have to teach it to each other, but we also have to understand that these values, these fences we've been talking

about are really what define us as a nation and make us different than so many other constitution -- constitutional systems of government. they really are. and we don't appreciate them, if we don't understand them, if we don't defend them, if we aren't willing to talk with each other -- and that means living it too. if you're not willing to understand the principles of the beautiful diversity of our country that is embodied in the bill of rights, the free speech, the freedom of religion, the equal protection, then you've got to live that in your life as well. and we need to, we really need to come together as a country on that. and that is that we believe deeply and mightily in our constitutional structure of government, and we may not always agree. we won't always agree on exactly how those words are going to apply in each new case one at a time. but we treasure and revere those values, and we respect the

integrity of our governmental processes, and the courts as they are doing their darnedest and best efforts to try to apply it with integrity. judge us on the integrity of to our reasoning. you might disagree, but have we reasoned through in a way that is respectable and consistent with what we've discussed tonight. >> you know, i think one of the really remarkable things about the american experience is how frequently when the supreme court decides an issue and it's contrary to what the president or the executive branch thinks, what do they do? they follow supreme court's interpretation. that's a remarkable testament to the strength of the constitution and to the society that it's created. but that will only continue and happen -- and we've heard a lot about justice marshall tonight, and properly so. justice marshall famously said that's only going to happen as

long as the judiciary has credibility, that we're not just junior varsity politicians as justice breyer said. that what we are is we're trying to apply the law as it's been enacted by we, the people. but i think the history is remarkable in that regard. that when the supreme court decides an issue, a constitutional issue, the executive follows it. that's been the unbroken history. >> right. well, you know, history doesn't only move in one direction, but it is true that that example from the 1830s, justice breyer wrote a book where he points out by the 1950s the supreme court and the judiciary had gained so much credibility in our system that after cooper v. aaron when the supreme court said the schools had to be integrated in little rock, arkansas, even though president eisenhower

disagreed, he enforced that decision. on the other hand, former house speaker gingrich said he thought cooper v. aaron was wrongly decided. so, you know, these things are always open for reconsideration. let's -- we have a question on this side. >> yes. first of all, thank you for coming here tonight. as a college student, i've -- there's been increased concern that college administrations are kind of stifling free speech on campuses. so my question is how do you think the application of the bill of rights evolved in its application on college campuses in the past ten years? >> well, part of it is which college. first of all, the constitution does not police the interactions of private --

>> specifically public universities. >> has to be a public university. or college that you're dealing with. and then, you know, there are -- the first amendment has its rules about freedom of speech, and people can bring disputes and challenges. and we've had establishment clause ones involving the university of virginia as well, lewins between free speech -- lines between free speech and the establishment of religion as we've talked about before. ..

>> >> but that to rise on a niort most basic set of foundation is your answer to everything taxpayers have voices. >> obviously we cannot comment on any particular dispute but freedom of

speech the idea is man in mind it is uncomfortable speech with those decisions by the supreme court of the united states that is what it means. also freedom of religion. added is intended to create a space about uh nature of reality. and where we feel uncomfortable at times but

that struck me a great deal but the idea is we have a collective enterprise where we try to find space for our fellow citizens to express thoughts to live according to their own conscience but that means a bill be different that the traces the make for our own minds and we need to be able to say there is space for all of the views and expressions of. >> alone will tiny voice of dissent but they said it would protect the ratings so

it shows that government cannot go there of free speech defect qualifier is with those decisions but it what was referenced the constitution is only meaningful if it protects the speech that you like and then you consol around the country where there protect the and speech that they like it is only what you don't like. but it is protecting things that may not be in your self-interest but protecting the heather's who expresses

those views. so you may be the of one of maturity does not want to hear so that is what that is about. >> instead of having a strictly narrow by historical definition of the bill of rights we have a functional definition that included article one section nine and 10 talking about the 13th edward t. the best bids with the door concept but talk about the love press event research and an arms also be meeting of the quality of. >> right think that is happening just like the marriage equality cases of the supreme court that is an

example of a renewed close look that justice brennan with the equal treatment of the of = is as much of a violation as anything else. the larger quality case to be the most profound so there are all kinds of developments to required uh justices to figure out what

they mean. >> the 14th amendment has its own program. [laughter] in those are definitely important questions with founding of us constitution. and those don't address the of quality directly. to say that we have to look through that lens but i just wanted pdf to have all drippy evening. >> one more question.

>> 84 the terrific conversation. >> to hope that the of bill of rights'' being in particular so it was dave harmonizing document. with the second amendment but they are subject to a lot of disagreement. and to celebrate that agreement. and with the cause of concern. >> and the purpose that almost all americans could

fight for the bill of rights that they have against their government they do not define all their activities or existence. so those are difficult issues so remember with the structure of the constitution to society of which they will live. we make the rules. but we the people need to get to decide. and with a fundamental right. there are limits for those

that set the rules. that is through the debate is. but these are tough questions have welcomed the debate. but the framers saw those rights they thought they were god-given rights. you can believe they are inherent in that they do exist. with the limits of majority rule. that is a dead and make enterprise -- dynamic enterprise. >> no where in the constitution or another

amendment will you find the phrase perception of in the sense but it is the absolute bedrock of our criminal justice system. part of what the of bill of rights did was rated discussion -- framed constitutional democracy and we know that all not provide answers to all above questions and all of that ongoing dialogue, i think we make a more perfect union. in a civil and respectful way. >> as a practicing lawyer to

involve the fourth amendment there is an article that somebody sent me in the british newspaper and him paraphrasing bette to be uniquely american of the concept of my rights. and if we don't agree with the answers of louis r. as a uh people every individual has rights that they cannot step on. but the sense of parts of being an american is something very different

mitt is of feature that fragile balance and that the constitution tries but that is absolutely a critical as what has allowed our constitution than others have his starkly -- historic les. >> that is perfect conclusion with barely half of those amendments. so one can hope. and one particular thing with the d.c. circuit that issue that might be before

the court to become sole impressed with the effort to that the judges and lawyers put into these questions with that sensitivity with that respectful approach into cannot watch them judging. and thanks to those judges who came out tonight. and the way that we might ponder. [applause]

>> thanks to come and speak at the national archives. i have no doubt the video will be used is an classrooms around the country and that is the great discussion. [inaudible conversations]

. >> the idea that we could not sell enough ice-cream that would force us to look at other markets. >> unfortunately to do serious damage to is the capability.

and i honestly to define policies to deal with that. >> can with the shifting scenes and the freedom of religion.

>> wellcome. teddy evening one i alm here with my a co-author and thanks for onward joining us here even with c-span land our lives planned for our last defense of the year. we are thrilled to host sean spicer the key strategist for the rnc. [applause] he has had a fascinating career and house lot of thoughts about the of white house even in the middle of all the of big decisions that donald trump is making. but first a special thing to

to bank of america making conversations available for all of us. so we think of for their ongoing support. sean spicer. [applause] who is bearing gaffes. >> would you like to start? >> is a an important even to. and tonight we can eat -- ease our grievances. and wanted to major in

everyday it reminded devereux's in charge. and to have a couple of stickers for hugh. for your car. this is the night sky that you can wear. >> but fair enough but this

last gift is something very special event and it says make "politico" great again. [laughter] >> for the record i believe it is great. >> if you haven't noticed taking it away. with the interactive conversation if you want to ask a question want over the next 45 minutes so let's get started with that opening.

and i think the worst kept secret and town with those disagreements in "politico." with that new in ministration can't we just get along? but in all seriousness i speak on behalf of the president-elect we understand and understand the role of the democracy but it is a two-way street. i don't think all media is battered every reporter is bad but i welcome elevation

i believe honestly working hard to try to right some wrongs in negative for credit for that but i do have a problem with how "politico" has engaged to cover politics and especially our side. it is tweet happy and click bait. end for example, just today every story but today this is the tweet coming in theory 37 elect doors could flip and deny a trumpet is votes. >> inferior this could flow away and go to mars. that is not journalism. that is not a serious thought about what is going on with the election. and yesterday another person

tweak to douse something unbelievable the vulgar the level not repeat. no story about their own employee writing and saying stuff about the president-elect of the united states. disgusting, reprehensible and unacceptable. >> this person was reprimanded and is no longer working there. >> but there was no word from "politico" of this. if republican j. watson is a front-page story if somebody says been inappropriate at middle school the rnc gets a phone call how well he respond correction he stepped down as he speaks for the entire party? [laughter] and i think if you will engage in that there is a similar level of responsibility to hold your own people accountable. put out your old story that

this person was fired you have a media reporter covering use them. so i a have william my campus -- capacity to engage and serious capacity of the news. if we are wrong we should be called out but there is a one story that talks about the rnc not one single headline. if this amount $175 million of data and everything is the story of how we come up short, at some point to cover them and a more responsible way. [cheers and applause] >> similarly just like you

said that across the spectrum you could see that quicker. >> it is the news organization responsibility to take responsibility and to correct that. >> line of the things is you cannot put the genie back in the of bottle. phew. >> can i get some credit? >> we are not done yet. [laughter] there is more good quality. but the problem is it tweet firsthand fix later and that is on except the ballpark of

there are times when news is breaking and i get that. fair enough by when you get that wrong so how many times is something shared or collected? two days ago there was a story that said sean spicer light -- sean spicer did not invite twitter from mine media which i had that power but but i don't. but they were never invited and i was never asked if that happened but yet i cannot put that story back into the bottle. once it is out there is out there and is unfortunate with the to put up the headlines to be provocative.

>> understood. >> so we have the things to talk about so let's talk about what it is in the news recently president obama a. if his press conference was that he said the cia and fbi artist is unison. is that true? >> but there are two different things. i changed my chief male sex drive since six months.

-- so yes foreign governments with those perot u.s. sites but it's but the problem with that narrative is a few things. number one this would not have happened if hillary clinton did not have a secret server. she did not follow protocol. lot of that stuff is in discussion with a road was in the appropriate there is multiple pieces to this story. now they say that is russia's faults about hillary clinton but that being said that the wall

street journal had a right the security measures were not up to snuff with the dnc so what of political entities effort people are mad they should be mad at the dnc department. >> before you went to the transition, what do you know, ? you got pushed back. explain the situation. we got a call from "the washington post" and "new york times." ha and they said we have sources that say because both institutions were hacked the only allowing information to go out from dnc that was the influence

studio, of the election so if we did not get hacked then the conclusion must be faulty so we worked with "the washington post" fair enough. the of your times went ahead with it now we see the wall street journal and cnn show that we were probed but such we were not have to because there is a difference. this is the second point that people from the two terms that our important one is hacking to penetrate the system to extract data. propane is when you just send out what we call phishing exercises that we reset your password and what is your plan number?

-- pin number if you opened that they did say successful phishing attempt but that was fine of the of days they could hacking into the dnc system. probing is just trying to find various ways to get in like knocking on a door or window to see what is open on the house. they tried to break again but they did not enter the with the dnc they found the open window. so our plane is to fold that the conclusion was based on the facts of those are not true then the conclusion must be false. and on november 17, the director of national intelligence made it very clear through open testimony that the connection to russia is politicos story.

but he said in open in testimony in conclusion that russia was behind it wikileaks so that fact and the conversation so open testimony stating this but yet they say except this has fact? why is that testimony now being pried into the discussion and? >> there is a difference between them probing and affecting the outcome. and there is o evidence they affected the outcome in fact, the rnc called dhl said they said before the election we want to be clear there's no way you can hack voting machines to have an effect the voting systems are so low desperate paper ballots here, machines year

year, no way you could change that. they were asking for our assistance that we could reassure the american public that we believe in the integrity of the voting system but yet then you have people suddenly trying to get the electors to change their vote calling into question the election results. it is ironic they are doing with they accuse us of nova year on defense with the media. [applause] that is my staff laugh laugh >> so this morning going into the press operation with the donald trump to say look at everything and helping their briefings need to be daily but what model

are you looking at servicing comments like that correct. >> that, and for what it is worth has said he thought was a mistake and should be reexamined. it is not a question to say this miller will not happen but too often to say this is what has always been done so keeping going. honestly to say what would make these more informative? what is of better tool may be at a more adult level? maybe if we do things that allows the of members of the public afford to long we have of very stale operation from from rose seats here with of broadcast networks but what about the

conservative media? what about those top bloggers? that is a conversation revving there is the need to release have that conversation to figure out that as long as you talk about transparency then have the discussion. >> i have not thought this through this is not mine but maybe it is a rotating pool may be first come first serve. [laughter] >> but in this. there should be a conversation in should not just be this is the status quo keep going. that is the problem with this town this is how it has always happened and what donald trump represents is somebody says get it done to question the status quo and end business as usual and

make real change. >> but in terms of business as usual reunited to the christmas party? >> i was not so what about the gridiron dinner? or the correspondents dinner to make you think that is so we're focused on right now? have to be honest. if you look at the people and he put together a cabinet that is the focus. following the meeting via other day he is focused on getting kingston not whether or not we change the color of the drapes or what party is we put on. hugh was a party for america but say what you want but the focus is not whether or

not we attend the gridiron dinner but the role of the white house is decidedly different because donald trump has the ability and has been remarkably a successful like communicating. so what do you think? as you envision the next four years or six months? of those changes? is there a changing role? >> 17.6 million people on twitter, attends of millions on instagram but i would argue nobody else in the most effective way than anybody has ever seen. that is a powerful tool to communicate with the american people i don't

think it is a one-stop shop you treat your way through four years but it is a powerful tool. you have a whole arsenal of communications of the evolving technologies to utilize from facebook live for this say that it is not a avenue. >>'' once the most effective tweets? >> today? [laughter] that is a great question i have not analyzed down but they have been very effective if you just look objectively at the end of the day he talks about his company and now he saves the of the people and their families now they can breathe a sigh of relief.

so the pressure she put on them to understand how important this was his great . he means what he says say it think at the end of four years, know this was in a meeting we another day that besides people on his payroll idol banc anybody in that room voted for him but when they walked out they were unbelievably impressed with his desire to get things done and not take bureaucracy has an answer. >> so who do you think covers trump fairly quick. >>. >> areas they couple of reporters here and there and laugh laugh.

>> daylong pious. -- a long pause. >> the of all street journal that despite being a conservative media the have negative and uh good job but i have seen good packages here and there from outlets but objectively it is not even a question of bias but just fairness to have the fax that are right. >> klein of the questions that the reporters were interested in was access. right now they can wander around if they want to but there has been talk to call that off. >> i think that would be extremely premature to talk

about that aspect because i above the authority to have that discussion. it would be highly inappropriate for me to answer that. >> is access important quite. >> sure but how do you define access corrects the question is walking into the press secretary office all the time to have access to workspace with key staff? i know that to obama white house was subject to criticism to the press corps but as long as we get phone calls returned but i talked to people who are a correspondent who only shows up a hot jury the key evens so is there a better way to have the open dialogue? but what is important it is not just the media like

facebook live town hall or twitter town hall but to involve the public in the discussion not just to say only the members of the white house or the press corps. >> is the important question. >> of course, that is a healthy part interaction with the press. >> you addressing a lot of press secretaries in the bush white house and the obama lighthouse. fleisher was aggressive and was seen pretty combative and sharp j. carney was more laid-back has your boss rendered his opinion?

soda talk us through as ineffective strategy. >> one of the things that you know, is the west wing in the show version of a press secretary does stand at a podium for 12 years -- 12 hours but 95 percent his off-camera helping people to get the answers of what they need. the best thing a press shop can do is make sure they get the facts and figures out. because it is a two-way street and i recognize that if we don't get the facts out there is bad on us. it is incumbent upon any press shop to make today educating informing reporters. they say don't put the press secretary as a secretary to many times my boss gotta

call so i had them call him back i say that is what is secretary does the call the back the question that i have is did you educate the reporter? but did you read the story? here is why we think it is an important decision nearby the narrative is correct so hot you done your job to work with the reporter? if you have that that is the healthiest thing the pressure up can do is make sure we get the story out to the best of our ability. >> to have combat exchanges is that the role of fighting back price to make it depends. there is a conversation so

tell me what you think if they can walk me through this. that is the case that is one thing but too often the phone call that i get is give me quotation rewriting a story. that is not journalism. i will not hand over quotations to legitimize a story and to often i have a problem that is not reporting. that is just collecting with cutting and pasting and that is the problem. my deadline is an 10 minutes. all we are doing is adding to that cut and paste exercise. [applause] >> so you have pet the rnc since 2011 and now you have

been 100 and 11 nights that the of marriott hotel us about your interactions with trump. how does he consume media plaques bear but i always believe the more people that get to know him the better. he is unbelievably carrying and gracious. you laugh public at the people of around him at trump towers 20 or 30 years even his properties. he takes a very personal interest in people's lives i don't want to get into it but he has done that with me as well to call and jacqueline you and show concern and i know the exteriors as a successful

businessman but he has a true concern if he were in meetings with ims business leaders are cabinet secretaries the cost questions hard right get that done? he is so motivated to make things better frankly it escapes the narrative that is out there that i wish more people could see one on one. >> so why don't people see that? >> so the town halls they are more opportunities to do that but that is the sight of him that as president president, lot of times, as much he does want those moments in private with a family going through tough

times or they have experienced a loss. and if he appreciates us spotlight he has a private side that it is not known well spent ikea or in front of the camera is a lot. you went to connecticut college so what is your washington story? >> i was a japanese language major. that is where the story ends. [laughter] i went to college in the early '90s and japan was coming on the scene as a powerhouse and i thought as they grew up in a working-class family they

struggled to help put me through college and i thought i could make money if i learn japanese with an interest in the economy i was constantly doing the git rich quick schemes my family is what is he selling now? so the first couple of years an hour and a half every morning and i did not enjoy it. but it took a government class and i really felt challenged i enjoy the discussion of the role of government and politics size started to volunteer in, paints in 1992 i volunteered and lost by 2300 croats. -- roads 1994 he hired me back as a field operations 54 towns and cities we lost

by two votes on election night. i came down here we had just taken over congress to work at night doing research we would go through the congressional record typing it into a database getting 75 percent -- cents per article and then did everything that i could to get a job in the press. >> it was a catch-22 so

finally there was a pollster who said there is a race in western pennsylvania he is then the primary he will probably lose it epi-pen to do it? i said yes. so i move to washington pennsylvania and he dropped out but at the time as a campaign manager and press secretary i found another media consultant that was running for reelection and he was sucking for a campaign manager i said i was a campaign manager and i was free. [laughter] and now i worked 11 different members of congress.

but enjoy the hunt but one of the things is that the end of the day where it comes out the way you wanted to. if you know every single day where you stand did you lose good days and bad days but every day you are fighting out there. you could be a legislative assistant to have that amendment passed but that is their passion. >> so talk about the access but what they gained notoriety for was banning the reporters i think you said that will not happen?

>> there is said difference between a campaign where it is a private video using private funds and a government entity. so when it comes to the government that is not something you can pay and. conservative for liberal or otherwise that that is a difference with democracy or the dictatorships of that is a vastly different model with government of full-size -- on both sides. >> talk about that contentious relationship. maybe work more collaboratively? >> yes. we have a press pool that travels. but it is but to be honest i

don't know where because it's pet to the extent we've brought the press along and there is a balanced you want to see everything beds as you know, when it comes to government access that is one thing as opposed to what happens as a private entity. >> how operations seven media consumer is trump acquired. >> very. he watches a lot and reads all ought to.

i do think on the zero hole look at the coverage so lunchtimes it is hit first but to there are hints that he takes it is constantly almost no end to what he could do to satisfy the press corps. that nothing will ever be good enough cement and the cabinet is made up with less than impressive careers but he talked about the global financial conspiracy than built his cabinet from wall street. that doesn't pass commentary on wall street but do you think?

images because to work somewhere does not mean, for example, the guy grabs started to work that was one bedroom he slept on the couch until he headed for college. he knows success in what it is like to beecher pour and now to work hard every day. he is unbelievably qualified and brings a perspective that is so outside the box but the focus is on his net worth. but the problem that i have is the question how much are they worth quixotic they are qualified. >> specifically the disconnected read what he campaigned on. >> that is what i am getting at. they are not coming in to say thanks for the it --

thanks for the job you understand you were there to advance his agenda to get things done and if you don't believe me he will replace you. >> how long do they have? laugh laugh i think he wants to hit the ground running. i know that real change right away day number one. getting things done getting job creation reducing regulation that will happen to a number one. >> what about obamacare? >> that is the difference of executive order. >> we do want to and to be the next best is that

something you are hoping to do? >> there has ben no announcement and also and he has not made it is emission. >> but to this this mean that his decision changed? >> no. what happened is there are people who make the case of the potential candidate or members of the staff but i never once saw him change his mind.

it is like a bass the reading of the tv this but until then it is not vital. >> is it is speculation? >> i know that he reacted. and the potential campaign who believes some sort that this means the it you are near to it at the. >> what i have returned 1/2 commented with that clearer delineation anything i have done and my political work.

have i changed immediately? yes. >> the most pressing question. >> we did not notice until today with several e-mail's. there is one question to ask you. really you reprise your role as the easter bunny laugh laugh so tell us. get the stock back story. >> yes definitely. my wife is cindy audience we wrap the zero white house that the same time.

she said sarah armstrong decides and i said can i? g said argues serious? yes. can rebecca b. the handler? she said yes. i will tell you that is the same costume since kennedy. so let me just say that get in early the early morning shift is where it is that because once the sun comes up not the place to me. [laughter] >> happy birthday. >> sean spicer thanks for coming. we appreciate your candor or also the audience and allies

stream of of and stick around with cocktails or warders and have a good meeting. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i am from "the daily caller." so now all the fbi agrees what do you make of the fact of with the cia?

here is a lot of what we fear that they say. >> that is my point and what i say it is what we here we are very clear that there is no obligation. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

. >> for years we have worked with syria to have one of those hardest issues we have faced as president and to beat standing in a united with that syrian regime and the allies with the city of aleppo we have seen theit delivery strategy the starving in the sense of

millions and entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble with continuinguing rep reports of those being executed they are horrific violations of international law and responsibility lies with the assad regime andll russia and iran and this atrocity is on their hands. we all know what needs to happen with the observer force to help coordinate the organdy evacuation. but the access for humanitarian aid continues to be the world's largest for the syrian people and also a broader cease-fire

the president to with the first family is spending christmas in hawaii. meeting with japanese prime minister at the uss arizona at pearl harbor the president is scheduled to return after the new year. january 1st level live discussion of their presidency of barack obama. we will take what the american urban radio networks close view at princeton university professor and the plus their prize-winning journalist muffin of an story. between noon and 3:00 p.m.

eastern one . >> kent morning will continue american enterprise institute about the future of health care reform.

i am a scholar of mine health care policy here at any i and i am delighted to be here. contrary to the last year or two there is no shortage of proposals and plays with the affordable care act from republicans including speaker paul ryan of newuc produced a better way to empower the patients first act and other proposals over the last six cheers for members of the senate and the house. including a the iadb i

project with collaboration of a total of our 10 colleagues. there is no lack of ideasof i and the only question is now pet the proposals we have seen in the past, atypically they have insurance on the individual market. they eliminate the mandate to purchase insurance but have new incentives to buy coverage. between the high-risk pools.

>> although what in its. [inaudible] canada agreement on the philosophy that there is an agreement among republicans are people in general about those individual provisions. the first panel will focuss on what can or should be so what it is needed to ensure access to affordable coverage? emphasizing access that doesn't guarantee that everybody will have coveragee

but they have to have thate opportunity to have coverage and to say it should be affordable. what is needed on the way to this report to ensure that they operate and in particular in now that they are charged that they a discuss what this post to have their elections, on line. [laughter] but to except thosel challenges in the face of the majority with the native rules with the timeline. and in the order that is scott harrington with health care management and next a

distinguished fellow and also the former cbo director. then to wrap up the panel with the discussion and the audience. taken away. >> good morning.ocus m with the individual market and what the bill wasn't considered to make that perform reasonably well. we will not talk about logistics' a have nothing tolo say abbott medicated bagwellmplc

but now we talk about changing the law and necessary. let me remind you with regard to day vigils health-insurance market her carry it -- has the healththe status it ended did restrict d.h. increase in loan so it was designed to make college more affordable of some younger people face higher premiums. it provided minimum benefits specified coverage the subsidy scheme is fairly complex as there is also a scheme to subsidize the costso h

sharing premium and the individual mandate which is modest penalties for noncompliance with there are special and moment. now the problems that have arisen generally the of markets to not appear to have sustainability at this time. so coverage has been lower than predicted. the risk pool is sicker and older than an unpredicted and dead-end of headline is there is a large premiumum increase in some states and did is sitting back and the big pick - - picturingshar

those are also very high. i say it doesn't cover much but they are heavily subsidized and terms of deductibles and premiums and cost sharing. those above three and a percent of poverty or especially for a hundredov percent were hit in in some states in recent years. also insurance company's overall lost a lot of money in the individual market. for many companies have decided to pull out of the exchange's so i will touch on some key features of the will to amend the reports that is wonderfully done to live out the groundwork one

thing they would expect regarding minimum benefits and coverage designed issues of pricing and regulation pdf to change the subsidy from the uncommon premium based under the affordable care act with a refundable tax credit increasing with age to make insurance more affordable. the key part of the proposal is what about pre-existing conditions? basically to have guarantees for those who are injured if the person had insurance they could switch moving to the individual market and not paid premiums to reflect their health status also an

initial dial one negative initial period to sign ups not with guaranteed issue. if people waited in did not sign up for continued coverage they with the separate section to be underwritten for pre-existing conditions. the proposal blurred established law high-risk pool at a worse sec so they could get some coverage all latter higher price. there are some issues but the amount is the design of the tax credits. may do need to increase with age. otherwise they fear it is unaffordable you'll get the reaction among the older people bled to shady be tied to income? it is not clear if it is notit

related to income could support those lower income people as the affordableco care act diffuse start relating those to get a bigger credit it does complicate the system and then they worry about labor supply. other issues whether not patient varied by region if you have a uniform tax credit nationwide that may not be ideal but if you tailor those tax credits to open a can of worms with. the better way proposal would not allow layperson to give up employer coverage while remaining implied. the tax credit is not portable then stay there. the earlier proposal wouldpr

allow that tax credit but to choose between the coverageverao of the market could be a good thing but impact this imp to create uncertainty or to do anything to undermine the employer sponsored market ended by a opinion is against the future conference towards expanding for the population.h risk p what you want to avid is enough of a of a penalty to provide protection for those who fall between the? significant federal funding would be required to make it work also to provide states

flexibility for the high-risk buyers of insurance maybe they could subsidize the l. hall issue of adverse selection mir in this world you don't have to worry about all higher premium with the initial sign up period, will of markets perform well will they signed up with that initial in london period? if they're losing their employment as a result will they try to cut premiums? is the question of what if

people say already to have to have the individual mandate so if you design the incentives if day get hit later we may achieve stability and the guaranteed issue market but there could be issues associated with that. . .