>> dr. kissinger did president elect ask you to go to china? did he ask you to deliver a message? >> [laughter] i of course, was aware of and is thinking and he knew that i was going but not as a presidential emissary but as a trap i had planned many months earlier. >> were you surprised that he accepted a call? do you think that is in the interest of sound and productive u.s. china relations?

>> as part of the shanghai communique, so of the clear advantages and obligations obligations, i will not separate my views from the shanghai communique from established procedure. also, at this moment, uh call reaction of the of leadership of the determination to see if a dialogue can be developed.

but it is no question that the policy of opening to china is based on the premise. >> does this excepting a call when he is not yet president, i wanted to argue with prohibition it is about official contact and since he is president-elect and not yet president that is not official contact? no? >> that is a good way to describe it. [laughter] >> cents i look to avoid confrontation, a but i do recall pdf running into a deputy assistant secretary

of state because i worked with the state department with the prohibition days said you are not supposed to be here he said i have been named but i've not taken officer lance nonofficial. so there is precedent for that but after that turmoil the president-elect sent down the tweet after he was criticized. did china asked if it was okay to devalue their currencies making it hard to compete? heavily tax our products? the u.s. does not tax them more to build a military complex in the south. >> i think that is madeleines.

[laughter] >> it is perfectly obvious what my views are on the subject but also it is the beginning of a new initiation that i go into every one of these issues. i believe in the one china policy. and the dialogue should focus on the long term objectives, but i don't think at this point comet it is important for me to second-guess every move that

may have been made. >> let me say i do think that the most important relationship that we have is with china. and we are all diplomatically speaking one and multifaceted definitely. and i think we have seen is through a variety of administrations beginning with president nixon, we have developed a way of talking to each other that it is a pattern there are certain ways it takes a diplomacy by virtue to put yourself in neither persons shoes you're not negotiating for a hotel.

so how to develop the right to farmlands? it takes a while to sort it out by have traveled abroad is to explain to anybody, was born in czechoslovakia tuesday, and they agree they are learning but that actually has not been a foreign policy tool. >> it didn't used to be the election tool either. >> but how technology is used the number of issues that we have with uh chinese with military to military depend on the relationships that have all of the information and the

transition period it is too short and too long berger had been transitioned into n transitioning deleterious more fun this a very complicated period with their talking to each other and forget that the foreigners are listening. i airily hope that make good friend henry kissinger has a strong influence on the president-elect. [laughter] [applause] you are the only hope of. >> one sensitive issue to another, as secretary albright you were in my knowledge the only senior american to visit north

korea. you met with the father was of can jong-il in almost arranged for clinton to visit north korea after the inauguration but president-elect trump is also talking about having discussions directly so more than any american official in decades what did he tell you about his idea? >> it was interesting because we have had a lot of talks with the north koreans throughout the initiation there was a lot of breakdowns and issues that

came up with the agreed framework and president clinton aspin's to do a complete radio and then me has sign meetings with north korea that either you negotiate on those issues or we would take south action and they chose the negotiation but by choosing the number two man that we were in the oval office to comment but they said first separate -- secretary albright past to go. but we knew very little because of the policy

spending some time with him him, our intelligence then kim jong-il was crazy and the pervert. key was not crazy. [laughter] so when i got there they put me in the cast house so we had no idea what would happen. i had to follow instructions on when you try to pay respect to somebody so one-sided reid to do that i went back and all of the sudden i get a message he was sitting so we did have a press conference and it was something out of the '50s and nightstand next to him

and ac we did this same height and a.c. that i had on high heels and so did he and his hair was bigger than mine laugh laugh but we had in raising talk on -- amazing talks said to keep the forces since south korea and there were a number of agreements made and it was the strange period that i hold no grief but many were confused of the election. when i came back i briefed: paul and he was very interested but then the washington post had a headline continuing of clinton policies but then was told no way so then they had reason to be confused.

by the way dennis rodman is my fault because the one thing that we knew he liked basketball and michael jordan / brought the autographed basketball so the bottom line is i do think that we need to get the six party talks and talk to them that is a very important part besides having a nuclear north korea is dangerous behalf to do with the chinese data one a nuclear-armed north korea either so with babble bilateral context it is important to talk. >> the president-elect seems to be suggesting a one on one.

>> then it has to be really well prepared but we don't know enough. so the of question is who does that? how do they endorsed the and each other? but at some point we have to talk to them with the situation this similar but different. >> do we know if shin of conversation with the president elect there has been reference to a real threat to in north korea? >> we were told that to simic give president-elect asks should he meet directly ? >> 20 explain my view of the situation.

korea has played a major role but and and then when the united states but tried not built itself compelled to intervene. so with those relations in general, second the basic objective has to be to remove nuclear weapons.

there is no maneuvering they can make nuclear weapons tolerable because china and japan and every country in the region that they are working on weapons that but of course, nobody is prepared to give up the nuclear weapons is not for the united states to question its existence but the lake the head the only

thing that they have achieved in their history and the national effort to but incidentally it is a question. because this seems so strange to maintain and self but sooner or later but something may happen and in my opinion into the international community of

what to do with such a contingency of a very dangerous escalation. so it thinks it is important for the united states and china to come to an understanding, not just about removing nuclear weapons. but after that to but it's it is also led with the

long-term sense, and many innovations of china and it is -- but of course, south korea if it is very important to call attention to building correa of rouge should negotiate with the is premature with this administration to discuss this in a realistic fashion

with a statement and with a short-term policy. and it is not likely that it can be won in dramatic movement of negotiations of first did hast to be organized to get the chance to consider that and from that statement. >> i do think that people need to be aware how the talks have been in the first place he just mentioned the stakeholders that have some interest but there are

multilateral meetings where people sit at the table but that there is the breakout where people can be pulled aside to have the beginning of a bilateral discussion. i do agree if they say get the of leaders together in this context of what the region is like coming the united states has to allies of south korea and japan. we have our responsibilities there they keep shifting like uh philippines but that will require a way of us to have these discussions with the chinese in the larger context might think there needs to be multilateralism

talks as has happened when we were in office too evolves into something not just flat out get them to get there because the preparations will be huge but it is one of the biggest threats out there and 5b have somebody that we don't know who he is not. >> but you make reference the let's. >> how do we fix that and what do you suggest to see that he does?

>> i think we have an interest in having freedom of navigation and by the way i am tired when people say what are we doing in the pacific also with the pacific power and we have a great contrast. >> and those have to be worked out as the chinese cannot unilaterally decide then again leadership does make ed difference but what has happened is the international court has ruled on this call but

somehow has changes mind but the bottom line there is a way to do this but the united states is not a signatory which puts us in a weaker position to argue for the rules that the international system has put down but to believe in freedom of navigation. >> but we have not ratified. >> any suggestions dr. kissinger? they say we believe in freedom of navigation but the biggest that was impeded would be china. >> this is an example for of the different ways culturally the adm of the

chinese claim that was made by an emperor 300 years ago pdf when the idea of freedom was not developed but is this brought up by every chinese government. and in fact, they have the same view and don the other hand and with that period

bedtime so if unbaked try to settle this in the absolute terms it will be difficult. monte and other hand with that shanghai communique with the evolution and the agreements that were made and the united states following the shanghai communique. and they can find a way of of nature of the issue. the of vital solutions and i

think that is the approach so '02 reid craft that from the recreations of the tpp that died as a result of the congress not wanting to pass that to but the president-elect says he will withdraw of the american signatures. what is the of picture of the region going to look like and what should give from the american perspective to look like amy

-- what should we suggest of the architecture of the region cracksman reid were in college we talk about the southeast asia entreaty organization and there is some type of architecture. but from our office security butted did not deal with that economic situation of the of workers. i do is think united states. >> pet i do think that is important and made the difference if we were enthusiastic about it instead of standing aside. won by a the way talking

about coulter i the to china now lot and more and more they talk about the fact they have not been respected properly internationally and now with the '01 belt line road area that is a very expansive program. so how do they go about their economic infrastructure without did being contradictory? very interesting for chinese save their laborers are too expensive and no longer the largest developing country. there needs to be dead better way to friday's structure based of the concept of what is happening

now as uh chinese takeover what we have left on the table. >> d.c. this regional comprehensive partnership in china? that it was tpp light? to have those protections but it was more of a tariff. >> n number of american leaders have said america has vital interest in the nation and they are an ancient power. so it has accepted that the

strategic groups are separate to symbolize and normalize between the united states and the asian countries to have this relationship it cannot be anybody, china or in the united states for those that will lead conduct themselves with the greater consequence so the basic concept of tpp had those conditions but and

thus set the national committee spends time looking at chinese investment. even and though trade is controversial, i think there is a consensus that investment is basically good that it is job created that 18 if the president was sitting here to say creates jobs. yes foreign investment creates jobs. do you think it is a reasonable theory that the president-elect will conclude what president obama could not which is the bilateral investment treaty

to look to a business person as the low hanging in fruit. it is the way to have a constructive foundation and they could not get this done . . .

u.s. doesn't give up very much in this. >> but there is a question how there is a kind of overlay but having said certain things about the way the chinese are treated. i have been to think it's a good idea. idea. idea. there's a lot of infrastructure things that need to be done and don't run into the problem. it's also worth americans investing in china. the question is whether the atmosphere that has been created whether one could go forward with it at this point. >> dot or kissinger, anything on that? >> i don't think that it's funny to go into what should be in the

immediate negotiation in the economic field where the secretary of treasury. the economics was an argument against suffrage. [laughter] >> we talked about the economic infrastructure. let's talk about the security infrastructure, but i that has been discussion of kind of reevaluating the u.s. bases in japan and south korea. restructuring how they are paid

for. does the architecture need to be changed because it is reliant on the cold are thinking anyhow? >> let me say i teach at georgetown and it's trying to get the country to do what you want so the question is what are the tools we have. one is obviously the military tool which isn't just the fighting forces and the number of aircraft carriers, but in fact the bases and how they are used and who is on them and how they enable us to have a presence in countries. i do think some of the things president elect trump has said

about what our allies have to pay or don't i think we do need to have a more cooperative approach but we want the bases and we consider it important. i think that blackmailing allies is not a great idea and we know what our national interests are in asia. it's kind of a two-way street. they need to think of the bases as part of the toolbox to some extent. what i find interesting, there's stories in the paper today that they've said the chinese need a smaller and more effective military so they are also having questions in terms of how the money is spent generally and how they use the tool because we all have the same toolbox.

>> it has a particular assumption about the dangers of security. so it's inevitable that as time goes on its periodic considerations of the proper balance and also with the proper relationship is. so i consider it natural that such discussions have taken place and one will have to evaluate it in terms of the

nature of the assessments that are made. what should not happen is that one ally makes it conditional and the other countries that iss a last resort but we are here in a complicated situation. when i agreed to this, we were going to discuss the basic relationship between china and the united states. it is explained in many articles including a long interview in the atlantic and it's now become a discussion of specific statements that are being made.

i just don't want to participate in that part of the discussion. i believe that the united states and china must have a close and friendly relationship and it depends on the ability to do this and many principles have been established to achieve th this. it happens to be it was set at a moment nobody knew. they have to discuss.

i would think normally we agree on the essence of. >> we definitely agree and nobody has done more than henry kissinger. by the way, when he was still the vice premier, we had a meeting with all the people and he was explaining how he felt and that he had spent time here and wanted to know what he learned and what our relationship was. being in a meeting is like being with a demagogue and they said

we felt the demi. i don't blame him for wanting to comment on this, i however am free in that the things that have been said cannot totally be erased and it's something that i said initially is we forget how much they listen to what we are saying and when it looks that there is going to be -- there are going to be some different approaches to things when they talk about a nuclear japan. it's whether you can block it out from the consciousness of the people that we deal with. we have to be concerned about the importance of the u.s.

chinese relationship. it is absolutely essential. i hope there is a learning process but how do he race what has been said i think if i were going on the other side i would say what to did you mean by that so it's hard not to consider it. one of the bright shining moments in the u.s. china relations was the agreement between president obama and climate change. it was the view in the community was that this was an example of america and china jointly leading the world in that the

myriad of global issues in the united states and china could clobber the movie would have a chance of solving them and if we don't cooperate, then we are doomed to failure. the obama administration did a great job of getting that ultimately signing the agreeme agreement. what should we do going forward? >> we tried to deal with this during the protocol and one of the issues is that it was unfair that the countries had created a whole environmental mass and then the developing countries were going to suffer. we talked about leapfrogging with new technologies and get that continues to be an issue. i do think what has been done on climate change is remarkable and i think that it's quite

different in terms of the various requirements. but the fact that they were able to do this i think is remarkable and it would be unfortunate if it were not followed out. there is an article going out today that vice president gore had a meeting with ivanka because that's the thing she's interested in and there is progress on climate change and those people that think the earth is flat and don't believe in climate change actually are not the ones that influence president elect trump and he continues with it. >> this doesn't relate to recent news. after both of you served, the strategic and economic dialogue

was created as a mechanism to strengthen the relations and build different ministries and agencies in the united states and many cabinet members and ministers come. is this from your perspective is this an effective mechanism, should it be continued? >> to have a dialogue on these issues, it's important. the evolution of these institutions is that they usually begin with a group that is small enough to have an effective dialogue and then it

gradually expands and creates the outcome that's influenced by the communiqué before they even meet so i would say there is a critical site of membership that permits the effective dialogue. so for example there were only three people per minute on each side of the room. now it is a very large group. it still is useful because it permits side dialogues and focusing on the issues so what i think is needed is to keep the basic idea of the dialogue going

but periodically examines what is kept as a symbolic subgroup but the concept is useful and should be continued. >> i think it should be continued for a number of reasons. one is we know in our government and also other governments things are not just contained in one box so the strategic and economic go together, the military. the other part is we have a tendency to talk about how the leaders of the country along. the bottom line is if it is nice to have that personal relationship but it has to be carried out by bureaucracies in both the countries and institutions into service as a

way for some of the people in the structure to get to know each other and then smaller groups to do drafting or whatever, but it does provide a useful mechanism. we do it with some other countries in times of having big meetings of getting the ministries together and i do think that the important part here is how the low-level officials begin to work together under the leadership so i do think and i hope it continues. >> we have an illustrative audience here so let me open up the questions. right here in the front. and please, identify yourself and keep the questions short. >> i have a question for secretary. >> identify yourself. >> i am a partner and i

currently conduct research. you said don't pay attention to what is said that after the da date, we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. to be honest, for the chinese businesspeople, the concerns in your view of the political issues influenced the economic relationship with china.

>> i do have to say i think the campaigns are one thing but once the person has been elected, as i said, it does make you question where this is going. i do think it is important for president elect trump and his people to know the reaction it has created and i think what will be important are the other people he chooses in the government and how they will look at it. i have to tell you at this moment it is unclear. the most important thing now is for everybody to stay calm and not too i believe that the relationship is the u.s. chinese relationship, whether it's economic, military security is

the most important relationship and therefore to make decisions based on the lack of information is very dangerous and so, i would hope that beijing isn't overtly insulted by what was said or that people are thinking this is the policy. we don't know what the policy is yet so that is my suggestion. >> i have a question for doctor kissinger. you placed the reaction and also secretary albright but my

question is some people say the phone call was just a round up by the president elect. >> i think he made it clear he doesn't want to talk about the issues you are raising so why don't we move to the next question. some people say it might be the move to test so that reaction might be interpreted as weakness and lead to even more so my question is how would you comment on that. >> i tried to explain to this group i have now seen ten american administrations and i

believe that one of the big challenges to america has been the addition of the country on many of these foreign policy issues. so i do not think it is to the beginning of the newly elected administration. to elaborate on the planes that can be made that are about which we can be divided. i believe it is possible to have a creative relationship between the two countries and really you shouldn't look for these

questions to make me say something it's clear i don't have any intention of saying and that it's contrary to my view. i believe what i said there are americans who spent 40 years on the problem and have the same view and will make their views known to. it is for this concept to be developed if it doesn't developed.

as far as it is concerned, i believe that there are positive prospects that should be pursued. and therefore, as long as you take my view seriously, you should focus on that and see what we can find and give us concern.

there are reasons for concern and hope. that is my fundamental point. >> my question is for doctor kissinger. he is proposed u.s. and china must cooperate on the ones that policy. it would be collapsing the economy. further he said we could work together on space, science and

the development of the thermonuclear fusion and i wonder if you have any comment. >> i never saw it in this particular context but let me just say there are ways we can cooperate. one of the issues out there is either. the various possibilities and the question is how the countries can in fact cooperate in a way that requires a certain amount of trust so i hope very much there is a pursuit of cooperation but i don't think that we can underestimate what some of the difficulties are in that kind of cooperation.

>> i think it's an important idea as i think china and the united states can and should find a way of talking about it. it's one of these issues in which the cooperation is possible. asked question -- last question right here. >> now you're submitting 50 years of the national committee and i'm wondering what do you think the top three or four things we are looking at 20 years from now?

>> first of all, many of our students learn to speak chinese, that we have more and more educational exchanges, that we understand each other's history and culture, and about our work internationally is actually not in competition but in cooperation in terms of to pick up on the one in terms of infrastructure which brings people together in ways of understanding how dependent we are on changes in the climate and that we do in fact dropped the fact that we are enemies when we have to work together so neither of us will be here.

i do think that we need to look forward to that kind of relationship. the 20 years from now what can we celebrate in the relationship? >> i think we will celebrate a creative cooperation on the degree of tension that will be spread all over by forcing every country to make a choice. i think our obligation is to expect that which both sides are talking and have proclaimed both parties will continue.

that is a perfect note to close. let me ask secretary albright. she's famous for her pains as we all know. >> i've already bought mine rooster for next year. [applause] i want to thank secretary kissinger and secretary albright for giving so generously of their time. secretary kissinger has not only given us sick or terry kissinger not only has given us this evening, but a week from thursday we will be honored by the national committee with his lifetime achievement award for the contribution to the us china relationship, but my advice to president elected trumpet would

be simple, watch this video. thanks. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] >> every weekend book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here are some programs this week in. tonight at 10:00 p.m. georgetown university professor jason brennan provides the best outcome for a change in how governments run in his book against democracy. he is interviewed by the vice president of the cato institute. >> why is it people reject that?

it's because they think it won't work well and lead to bad outcomes and they are probably right. once you say that, i care about dodges fairness, but bad outcomes than you say okay, how do you wait fairness versus the quality of the outcome? >> on sunday at 1:00 p.m. easter the before: the foundation presents the 37th annual american book award recognizing outstanding literary achievement from the entire spectrum of americans diverse literary community. the awards are presented at the jazz center in san francisco. at 5:00 p.m. eastern jonathan zimmerman, professor of history of education at the university of pennsylvania who argues free speech is under threat on college campuses across the country in his book: campus politics: what everyone needs to know. >> it doesn't taboo words, but

taboos ideas. if 40% of the faculty opposed to raise descriptive action we are not hearing from them and that means there's a serious pc problems. >> go to book tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> next week it authors we cut washington journal feature live one-hour segments with a new author used day beginning at 8:30 p.m. eastern. sunday author jd fiats.

speaker republican national committee communication director john spicer talked yesterday. this is about an hour.

>> good evening, everyone. welcome to playbook cocktails. i'm here with my co-author, anna palmer and we would like to thank you for joining us here and for those tuning in on c-span and our live stream for our last playbook event of the year. can you believe it, here we are? >> i know. >> we are thrilled to host sean spicer that cheap strategists and communications director-- you can applause. >> we are also excited. >> we are very excited as. he has a lot of thoughts about the presidential-- the white house and election. he's in the middle of the big decisions that donald trump is making. before we get started with the program i would like to extend a thank you to our partners at bank of america for their support for many years.

>> absolutely. bank of america has been a true partner making conversations like these available for all of us to partake in. we thank them for their ongoing support. without further delays we would like to welcome to the playbook stage sean spicer. he comes bearing gifts, apparently. [applause]. >> thank you for doing this. >> thank you, sean. i guess you have some props. >> tonight it's too important of an event. seven days-- we can air cleaving it-- grievances tonight, but more importantly it's your birthday. >> 21. >> i thought it was 23. >> i wanted to make sure that i gave you something politico

could use, so we will start off -- it's a republican bag. [laughter] , so every day you are reminded of who's in charge. [laughter] >> and when a jew and anna to have something to put your drink in. >> very nice. >> you can see it's a political one. we have a couple of stickers for you. >> perfect. >> something for your car, and this is a very nice tight that you can wear. >> it's another republican tie. >> there is a theme here, i think. >> you can wear the tie. >> i don't really want to wear a tie right now. >> this last gift you can wear

and it's something very special and i know kerry is here and i wish i had brought an extra, but this i hope you enjoy and you can definitely-- you must wear it. >> is it make political great again? for the record i believe politico is a great again because it sean is here and i will hold it up. >> okay. before we get started-- >> if you haven't noticed from the gifts-- anna, what are eating away. >> as a reminder to our audience in the room and online we would like to have an interactive conversation. jason has an ipad, so if you want to question or you have a comment, please tweet us and we will track them here on stage and we will get started. it's hard to follow that opening >> that is a tough act to follow

>> i think-- i think it's the worst kept secret in town. >> besides this elephant. >> you have modest disagreements with politico, to say the least, so we went to clear the air at the beginning of the conversation with a new administration. it's a new year. can't we all just get along? >> i met there. >> sean space bar is there. >> in all seriousness, i think i speak on behalf of the president elect i say we understand and respect the role the press plays in a democracy. it's healthy. it's important, but it's a two-way street in i don't think everyone in the media is bad don't think every reporter is bad. i think in the case-- and i welcome carries elevation here at politico. i think she is honestly working hard to try to write a lot of

wrongs and i give her attitude that and i think time will tell, but i have a problem with how politico has engaged in covering politics especially our side. i think it is tweet happy, click bait in many cases and devoid of the facts and i think-- for example look at just today-- >> the props are done. >> the final bag. >> this is a restore the politico is done on the rnc and d&c this year and just today this is the tweet. politico: in theory 37 electors could flip in-- against trump and deny him votes. that's like in this theory this building could float away and go to mars, i mean, that's not journalism. that's not a serious thought about what's going on in the election and i think that yesterday you had another person tweet out something unbelievably vulgar, which i won't repeat on

this stage and there was no story and politico about their own employee writing and saying stuff about the president elect of the states. it was disgusting, reprehensible, unacceptable-- >> let me interject here this person was reprimanded and is no longer working-- >> but, there was no coverage and politico of this and i think if a republican jay walks its front page story. if johnny at thomas jefferson middle school said something inappropriate the rnc gets a phone call and asked how will we respond, does he speak for the entire party, should he step down-- [laughter] >> i think if you are going to engage in that, that there is a similar level of response ability that you had to holger own people accountable and put out a story that says political fired this person because of unacceptable behavior.

you have reporters, use them and so i think i'm willing in my capacity currency at the rnc engage with reporters who want to engage in a serious discussion of the news and sometimes we are on the wrong side or we are wrong and when we are, we should be called out for it, but there's not one story in this package is saying something positive about the rnc, not a single headline and when you look at the fact that the rnc spent $175 million in data putting together the best ground operation i believe in political history and everything becomes a story about what we did wrong or how we came up short or we could of done this better and i think at some point you have to give us credit for a few things here and there were at least be willing to cover them in a more responsible way. [applause]. >> there enough. [applause]. >> similarly, i think, just like you said republicans make mistakes, i think, reporters and

news outlets make mistakes and not only politico, but across the spectrum and you can see that-- >> "new york times". >> you got all night for the grievances. >> i think it's a news organization's response ability to take responsibility and when there is a mistake made and to correct it and i think that is what we try to do. >> one of the things that's important to me is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. when you tweet at a headline and you say we are going to look into this-- >> can i get credit for drinking out of this trump glass? >> we will see if. >> it is good quality. >> you will get more good quality, also. lots of the results. but, i think the problem is that it is tweet first, fixed later and that's not acceptable. i think there are times when news is breaking and i get that

and i have lived in this world long enough that you are competing against others and i get it. they are enough, but when you get it wrong you cannot québec and take away what people have seen and say how many times is something chaired incorrectly and on friday-- excusing, today is friday. two days ago there is a story a reporter from politico puts out that says sean spider disinvited twitter from a tech meeting. first of all i would love to say that i would have the power to disinvited someone from a meeting for the president elect, but i don't and they were never invited and i was never asked by politico whether that happen and yet i can't put that story back in the bottle and say-- and so once it's out there it's out there and i think that's unfortunate because the attempt to quickly put up headlines and be provocative is not good journalism. >> understood. can we move on to other topics?

>> i can keep going. >> i know you can. >> we only have a small amount of time. >> exactly 35 minutes left, so we have a lot of things i think you want to talk about and that we want to talk about as well, so let's talk about some things in the news recently. couple hours ago president obama gave his pre, i'm going to hawaii press conference in next year it will probably be the pre-mara lago press conference and he said he's been reported that the cia and fbi and director of national intelligence now, i think, are in unison that they believe russia interfered in the election. do you think that's true? >> i mean, i don't-- i'm not privy to this information, but there are two different things. one, i've changed my gmail about six times in the last six months , said i think there are

hackers out there, yes. do a thing for governments, russia and others try to probe us sites, government and others? absolutely, china, russia, we do it and they do it, but the problem i have with this story in the narrative that's out there about russia's a few things. number one, this wouldn't have happened if hillary clinton did not have a secret server, i mean, she did not follow protocol. >> none of the hacking would've happened? >> a lot of this does in discussion. number two, the stuff they wrote was an appropriate and they are basically saying-- i'm not excusing hacking, so for everyone out there, i'm not, but they're all multiple pieces to this story, but they wrote what they wrote and now they're basically saying it's russia's fault that someone found out i said bad things about hillary clinton or people in her organization. third, no one is talking about this but the "wall street journal" had it right yesterday,

the dnc security measures were frankly not up to snuff. they tried by all accounts to probe as, a lot of politicals entities in the dnc. if people are mad in the democratic world they should be mad at the dnc it department. >> one of the things-- you know this because you are at the rnc this cycle before you went to the transition before donald trump one. what do you know-- you guys push back against the back of the rnc can you explain the situation quite. >> we got a call last friday night from a couple you news outlets, "washington post" and "new york times". and they said based on-- we have sources in the intel world at that that because both institutions were hacked, and they only allowed information to go out on the dnc, that clearly

russia intended to influence the outcome of the audience. okay, we did not get hacked, so if we didn't get packed than the premise is wrong and the conclusion must be faulty. so, we got-- we work with the "washington post" to explain some stuff and they said fair enough. the "new york times" would head from and now, we see reporters from abc, cnn and "wall street journal" showing that our system was probed, but they were such-- >> can you explain that? what you mean by probe? >> this is the second point. people throw around two terms that are important to know. one, hacking is actually penetrating the system and getting-- being able to extract the data. probing is when you are just fishing, sending out faulty e-mails saying we figured gmail password. you know, what is your pin? the prince of salt wants to-- you know. when you open those that is a

successful phishing attempt and that's how they get in, which we have learned from the dnc was one of the ways they were able to hack into their system, so probing is them bouncing up a system trying to find it various ways to get in, almost like knocking on a door or window to see which ones open. going around the house to see which window is open and if none are open they tried to break in, but did not enter and in the case of the dnc they found an open window and went in. that's a very different thing. one, we were told the conclusion was based on those facts, so if the facts are not true then the conclusion must be faulty. the other thing that's interesting is that on november 17, the director of national intelligence when up to the house intelligence committee and made it clear in open testimony that the connection to russia and i have the testimony here if you want to use the exact quote. >> see, it's not all politico. >> politico story on it, but

that fact he said in open testimony that it's inconclusive that russia was behind the wikileaks. so, that fact has been devoid of the conversation and all i am saying is you had the dni in open testimony stating it and yet we are called to say why can't you just accept this as fact. why is it the dni testimony is brought into the discussion? >> now he says-- they have concluded that russia did metal. >> correct, but there's a difference between them probing and them affecting the outcome and there is a zero evidence that they affected the outcome. in fact, the rnc was called to dhs and we had a briefing and they said for the election they met with the dnc and said we want to be clear. there is no way that you can hacked voting machines and have on affect on the outcome. our voting system is so different there is no way that

you could hack-- or change the outcome of the election and they were acts-- ascii persistence to to make sure the extent we could help we are sure the mark of public that we believe in the integrity of the voting system and he had to write after the election if john podesta and david brock suddenly going around trying to get electors to change their vote and calling into question the outcome of the election. it's ironic that it's a damn who are doing what today accused us of an now is as on defense at the media. [applause]. >> that's my staff. [laughter] >> let's move on. to be more forward looking, maybe. this morning they went into detail about press operation what would it look like that or donald trump think he said quote i think that the look at everything. i don't think of the preteen's need to be daily. i don't know why that needs to be on camera. you have worked with the bush press shop. what model are you looking at we make comments about that?

>> is-- if you think about it that comment for what it's worth is something mike mccurry has said he thought was a mistake and needs to be re-examined and i think it's not a question of saying this will happen or this will not happen, but i think in washington too often we say this is how it's always been done, let's keep it going. there is a healthy dialogue that can happen with the white house correspondents association and other media members to say what is making this more informative, with a better tool to have a more door-- adult level as opposed to-- maybe a gimmick amount similar. of it could be tweets that make it more successful. may be members of the public can ask the white house press office something, but for too long i think we have had this very stale operation, which is all the mainstream media folks get front-row seats and it's a question here's the broadcast network, here's the "washington post" and "new york times"-- great, but what about some of the conservative media having some of the prizes seats? what about having some of the

top command? i think that's a conversation worth having. there's a need to at least have the conversation and discuss it and figure out what would make things more open. as long as you talk about transparency, let's have the discussion. >> so, who would be in your front row? >> again, i have not thought this through and it's not my front row. >> in donald trump's front row? >> it's a rotating pool. maybe, it's first-come first serve. [laughter] >> look, all in saying is there should be a conversation. it should just be like here's the status quo, let's keep going. frankly, that's a problem with a lot of what goes on in this town. this is how it's always happen and i think what donald trump represents is someone who is both get it done, let's question the status quo, and a business as it usual and make real change. >> speaking of that, what in

terms of that-- you talk of as usual. we have been at the white house for president obama christmas party-- >> i was not. >> surprising. >> those long-held tradition, the gridiron dinner, the correspondents association. >> look, have to be honest. if you think that's what we are focused on right now, i mean, it's not. if you look to the people in the pace in which he is put together a cabinet, that is where the focus is their click when he did with boeing, the tech meeting the other day. this is a guy focused on getting things done, not worried about whether or not we change the color of the drapes or what parties we will put on. he wants to put on a party for america and offer really change. will, you can change what you want, i-- but our focus is not if we are attending the gridiron dinner.

>> the role of the white house communication shop will be decidedly different; right? donald trump has that ability and has been remarkably successful, i mean, he sensed talks all over the place when he talks about a company. what do you think as you envision the next four years or even the next six months, what do you-- how do you envision the press shop changing? is there a changing role now that he's been successful with tweeting? >> absolutely. 17.6 million people on twitter and tens of millions on facebook and instagram. he has the ability like no one, not just politician, but i would argue probably no one else to really communicate in the most effective direct way that anyone has ever seen and i think that's a very very powerful tool that will be used in the presidency to communicate with the american people. >> where does that leave someone like you? >> again, i don't think it is a

one-stop shop. you don't tweet your way for four years, but is a powerful tool and i think he will use that as part of a whole arsenal of communications, but, i mean, you saw that-- there are new and evolving technologies that he has utilized whether his facebook life, twitter, instagram pictures, but there is a way-- again, this is not about bypassing the press. it's about saying that it's not a single avenue to communicate with the american people. >> what do you think was most effective tweet? >> today? [laughter] >> that's a great question. i have not analyzed them. i think the stuff he did around carrier was effective work if you look at it objectively and setting the day he goes out there and talks about a company staying and its holiday season and there are thousand people and their families who from thanksgiving to christmas can actually breathe a sigh of relief that he did it and i think the pressure he put on them to understand how important

this was was great. i mean, he means what he says and i think at the end of four years people and a lot of people-- i notice this in the tech meeting the other day, aside from the people who are on his payroll, i don't think anyone in that room voted for him, but i tell you when they walked out of that room they were unbelievably impressed with his desire to get things done and get it moving real quick and not a barack percy for an answer >> and so who do you think covers trump fairly? >> not politico. >> there are a couple of reporters here and there. i think there are folks at bloomberg's that have done a good job. >> long pause.

>> i think there are people that have written good stories from time to time. i've seen stuff out of the "wall street journal", a lot of folks in conservative media that despite being conservative media have done a good job of being objective and writing straight up stories, but i have seen good packages here and there from different outlets. objectively, there is a lot of them-- it's not even a question -- i know a lot of conservatives talk about bias this, but it's just fairness of having tax write. >> one of the questions are colleagues and crowd sourced our questions at night one of the things the white house reporters were interested in was about access to the building and right now reporters can wander around and talk to josh earnest if they want to, there has been talk i think during bush as-- bush is a ministration to close at all. is that something you're even thinking about yet? >> i think would be extremely premature to talk about that kind of aspect because i don't

have the authority to have that discussion, so i'm not trying to -- it would be highly inappropriate for me to answer that. >> do you think access is important for them to have in that role? >> sure, but how do you define access i mean again is it being able to walk into the press secretary's office all the time? access to work space? i know the obama administration suffered criticism for the white house press corps. i think, i mean, i'm not trying to be coy, but as long as we get our phone calls returned because if you talk about access i've talked to folks who have dealt with is the last several years and there are correspondents who only show up during key things, so is it-- is there maybe even a better way to have an open dialogue with folks, but frankly one of the things that is important is that it's not just the media. maybe it's inviting more people from the public to be involved and doing things, you know, ama's, doing facebook live

townhall, twitter townhall. we are actually involving the public in the discussion and not just limiting it insane the only people who could ask members of the white house are members of the press corps. >> do you think press conferences are important? i mean,-- >> of course, interaction with the presses puppy part of a democracy. >> you have been around dc for a while and see a lot of press secretaries in the white house. in the bush white house in which you worked in and the obama white house and there are different styles. he was seen as a pretty combative aggressive at sharp guy. someone like jay carney was seen more laid-back. your boss, rendered his opinion on josh earnest last night in an unexpected twist of a speech. talk us through what you think is an effective strategy for someone in that role.

>> i think one of the things and you guys know this is that there is like this west wing in the show version of what up press secretary does is like stand up at a podium for 12 hours and answer questions and go on tv at night and as you know 95% of this is off-camera helping to facilitate the press get the answers to what they need. i think the best thing that it-- not just a press secretary but a press shop at can do is to make sure that they are aggressively getting the facts and figures out and shaping stories, working with reporters to get it right because it's a two-way street and i recognize that. if we don't get the facts out there that it's bad on us and so i think it's incumbent upon any press shop to make sure they are educating and informing reporters. one of the things what i speak to groups of up-and-coming press secretaries as i say don't put the secretary in press secretary and by that, i mean, to me times i see someone and they will say my boss got a call from politico

so i had to call jake back and i'm like that's what the secretary does. they give them a message. the question i have a lot of times is did you educate a reporter, have you read the study deck output out in the gsa said that pauling, blah, blah, blah this is why we think is important decision where why sometimes the narrative is that correct. have you done your job to work with the reporter to inform them to the best of your ability? and if you have done that and that's the healthiest thing a press shop can do is to make sure we are getting the facts, figures and stories out to the best of our ability. >> how do you see your role? you have had combative exchanges with people, i mean, is that the role, kind of fighting back? >> will, it depends. if there is a conversation and eight two conversation that the reporter says i would like to do a story, when you have or are

there good folks in your shop that can walk me through this and if that is the case and athena today we don't like the story that is one thing. too often the phone call i get is can you give me a quote and we are writing a story that says the following. that is not journalism. i won't just hand over quotes to legitimize a story and that's where i think too often i have the problem and i will go aggressively at a reporter, which is that's not reporting. that's just collecting and cutting and pasting and i think that is the problem too often where i need a quote and my deadline is intent minutes. well, all we are doing is adding legitimacy to a cut and paste exercise. [applause]. >> let's talk about your role now. you been at the rnc since 2011, is that right? >> yes. >> longtime. >> it is a long time.

>> and now you have been in new york. 111 nights at marriott this year describe your like tell us about your interactions with trump. how does he consume media? what's he like buying the scenes? >> i have always believed the more people that can get to know him the better. he is unbelievably caring and gracious. you laugh, but look at the people that have been around him at trump tower, trump organization, 10, 15, 30 years and not just trump tower, but his properties. he takes a personal interest in people's lives and without-- i don't want to get into it, but i will just say he's done that with me as well where he will call and check on you. he will show concern. i know the exterior sometimes is a tough guy that this businessman that gets stuff done, but he has a true concern

about not just the people around him, but when you are in meetings with him, potential cabinet secretaries, business leaders, his constant question is how do i get that done. he's a so motivated make things better for this country that it is something that frankly escapes the narrative that is out there and it is something that i wish more people could see on a one-on-one basis. >> you bring up an interesting question. like why don't people see that? >> that is something that the town halls, the families that have existed and i think there are more opportunities that we are looking for to do that, but it's a side of him that i think is presidents-- a lot of times he-- as much as he is in the camera there are a lot of moments he wants and private where he wants have a discussion with a family going through tough times or someone who's experienced a loss and as much

as he appreciates the spotlight, he has a very private side to him that is very under known, if you will. >> tell us a bit about-- you are in front of the cameras a lot. your from rhode island. you want to connecticut college and got a masters at the naval war college. with your washington story? >> so, i was a japanese language -- i was going to be a major in japanese language. that's where the story ends. [laughter] >> i went to college and that-- he was in the early '90s-- well, went to college in the late '80s and japan was coming on the scene is in a comic powerhouse and i grew up in a very very working-class family. my parents struggle to help get me through college and i thought

i could make money if i learned japanese. i had interest in the economy. i was the kid that was constantly selling something, greeting cards and all of that stuff, get rich quick. every neighbor in my neighborhood was like what you selling now. so, for the first couple of years it was an hour and a half every morning and you go to the language lab it night and i frankly did not enjoy it and i took a government class and i had done a little bit in high school and i really felt challenged. i enjoyed the discussion about the role of government and politics and i felt energized and i started volunteering on campaigns, 1992 i volunteered on connecticut's second district campaign we lost by like 2300 votes. i think we literally spent 50 grand and in 1994 he hired me back to run one of the field operations. we had to field operations, 54 towns and cities across connecticut and we lost by two

votes on election night. so, i came down here in turns for the house ways and means committee and we had just taken over. worked at night at the senatorial committee doing research. we used to do this thing called coding and we would go to the congressional record and type it into a dos database and i think we would get 75 cents per article and i worked from 4:00 p.m. till midnight at the senatorial committee in a basement that is now a gym. did everything i could to get a job in the present finally everyone same like you would be good at this, but you have no experience and so-- >> the ultimate irony. >> it was a catch 22. >> sorry. >> hope that wasn't my cup. >> so, basically bottom line is

there was a pollster i had been affiliated with a 1994 that called me and it was 1996 and he said there is a phrase in western pennsylvania and he said the guys in a primary will probably lose the primary. if he loses the primary he will get killed in the general, do you want to do that it and i said yup. i moved to washington, pennsylvania, to work for a guy. >> who was that? >> a guy named larry welsh and he dropped out of the primary, but at the time and this is important. and then, forever-- i was a campaign manager and press secretary for three months. another pollster who had been affiliated with the media consultant called and said we have a reelection in new jersey and is looking for a campaign manager. i said i'm a campaign manager, just happen to be free and that kicked off and so that i think i've worked for 11 different members of congress, but enjoy

the hunt and i love the press. i think one of the things i like you said that ended the day you either have the story killed or you got it to come out the way you wanted it or you got crashed, but you know every single day where you stand. did that package come up what he wanted it, did you shape the story, did you lose, you know so you could have good days and bad days, but every day you are fighting out there and you can be a legislative assistant and work for a decade and have an amendment pass and for a lot of people that's a passion. they want that. i just can't wait that long. >> you talk about press access, but one of the things such campaign gained notoriety for was or criticized or was banning reporters, banning outlets and politico is one of them, but you said, i think, that will not happen. >> look, there's a big difference between a campaign where it's a private venue using

private funds in a government entity and i think we have a respect for the press when it comes to the government. but, that is something you can't ban an entity from. conservative couple liberal or otherwise i think that's what makes a democracy at democracy versus a dictatorship, so there's a vastly different model when it comes to government. >> talk about that interaction, press corps interim campaign in the contentious relationship, but as far as has the press pool or you have the-- iv started working more collaboratively? >> f and you have seen not. think it is-- you know, we have a press pool that travels with him now. >> alongside him, not with him. >> its unprecedented. >> it is.

to be honest, i don't know where you would sit on the plane. but, to the extent we have brought the press along and i think part of it also is there is a balance and i think all you hear from the press is we want, we want, we want and i think there is a bout-- balance between you are there and available to see certain things, but i get that you want to see everything. i would like to be in some of your meetings. i think when it comes to government access to that is one thing versus what happens in a private entity. >> how will a voracious of consumer is trump? >> i think very. i mean, you see it in terms of how he reacts. he watches a lot and reads a lot obviously, he is on twitter quite a bit. look, i do think that as a whole you look at the coverage that he gets and honestly a lot of times

it is hit first and ask later. it's not unbalanced fair-- it's not on balance their. there are hits he takes. there's almost no and to what he could do to satisfy the press corps in terms of knowledge and information and there is a point of which nothing will ever be good enough. >> one of the things-- let's talk about some of those hits. i mean, the drain the swamp message. his cabinet is made up and these are people who have objectively had impressive careers, but he ran his final out about a global financial conspiracy and then has built his cabinet with several people from wall street. again, that's not-- if you map what he said in that campaign and match what he's doing now-- >> just because you work somewhere doesn't mean like for

example, take a guy like rex tillerson. the guy grew up and started working at age eight. he lived in a house that had one bedroom and he slept on the couch until he went to college. he scout the head of exxon. talk about a guy who knows success, who knows what it's like to be dirt poor and now knows what it's like to be successful in work everyday and you look at the country that he's in, the work they're doing, he's unbelievably qualified. he brings a perspective that is so outside the box, but yet the focus is on his net worth. it's not like all these people-- >> i did not ask about his net worth. >> the problem i have is that it always becomes a question of how much are they worth, not are they qualified. >> i'm asking specifically about the disconnect between what he campaigned on and what he's doing. >> that's what i'll get. these people are all committed to his agenda. they're not coming insane thanks to the-- thanks for the job down there to do what i wanted to.

and a trump administration you are there to advance his agenda to get things done and believe me when i tell you if you don't get things done he will replace you. >> how long does someone have to get things done? >> it depends. he wants to hit the ground running. i know it. he wants to bring real change right away day one and that means getting things done, focusing on the economy, getting job creation, reducing regulation. those things will happen day one >> so, how long will it take to replace obamacare? >> i think part of that depends on what can be done by executive order in what has to be done legislative and statutory wise. >> we are almost out of time, but we want to ask you about your role. there's been a lot of speculation that you will be the next press secretary. we will have the pleasure of dealing with you more in that role. is that something you are looking forward to are hoping to do?

>> date. will come i just appreciate the speculation. there has been no announcement and i honestly mean this until the president-elect makes a decision on any position and you have seen this with some of the cabin-- next. he makes the decision. >> have you met with him about it, though? >> no. >> when you say that it's interesting because anna and i in writing playbook with daniel and thinking about when we see speculation about cabinet secretaries that come out that ultimately are wrong, does that mean that he may decision and then the decision changed? >> no. i think what happens in this process is that there are people who come in and make the case, either the potential candidate or members of the staff and believe he's going in a certain direction, but i have never once seen him change his mind. is that people believe he is made a decision based on reading

the tea leaves-- tea leaves, but until he says so it's not final. >> you think it's just speculation. >> i know it is. >> and that people in your staff >> were-- or the potential job candidate has come in and believed because of some sort of facial tic or-- they are like hey that means this, but no. until he makes the decision it's not final. >> to questions. you are no at the rnc, you worked in the navy reserves in your known for wearing a uniform connect that statue. >> you don't wear your uniform? >> no. when i have returned from the pentagon i have coming in taking it off, but there's a clear delineation between anything i've ever done for the navy and any type of political work. have i walked into the office

coming out of her crotch? absolutely. have i changed immediately? yes. >> this is the most pressing question. i've had several e-mails. there is one question we've been asked to ask you. will you reprice your role as the easter bunny at the white house as you did when you worked in the bush administration? >> let me explain this. >> no decision has been made on the easter bunny. >> how did this get started? >> that is one i will definitely press for. so, i've been-- my wife who i think is in the audience was at the white house at the same time and i said, you know, how does one become the easter bunny and she said he knows or armstrong

is ahead of the office and she kind of decide and i was like really. so i e-mailed her and she said are you serious and i said yeah, how cool would that be and she said yes. can rebecca be the handler and she said yes. i will tell you though the same costume you see has been around i think since kennedy. >> you are kidding me? >> is it snowing a little wrench >> you will want to get in early. the early-morning shift is where that because once the sun comes up, it is not the place to be. >> we will even on that, i think >> yes. sean, thank you so much. >> happy birthday. >> thank you for coming here. [applause]. >> we appreciate your candor and we want to thank all of you in the audience and in live stream for joining us and thank you again to the bank of america.

this is our last one of the year , so stay tuned for 2017. stick around. there are cocktails and hors d'oeuvres and we will be around to talk to people. >> thank you. [applause]. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republics and democrats prepare for the next congress we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand net c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio at. >> you are watching the tv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. >> this weekend on the tv: