our guest to discuss the landmark case is nearly served as acting u.s. solicitor general neocon administration in 2010 to 2011 and randy barnett at georgetown law center, a libertarian and original constitution commentator. watch landmark cases tonight at nine eastern on c-span. join the conversation. our hashtag is landmark cases. follow a set c-span. we have resources for background on the landmark cases. a link to the national constitution center's in the landmark cases paused cast at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> resident transformer chief of staff recently joined journalist bob woodward and carl bernstein

for a discussion on the relationship between the white house and the press posted by -- this is an hour and a half. [applause] >> at evening, everybody. what a treat to see all of you here. what a wonderful turnout. we are very pleased you are here with us and that you will be hearing, seeing a wonderful program today. this is the third event in this year's leon panetta lecture series. this season we've been discussing as you know the american dream. tonight, our speakers will focus on the presidency and the role of leadership and how that influences the american dream. our greatest presidents were dedicated to giving all americans the opportunity for a better life. from franklin roosevelt's new

deal to ronald reagan's shining city on a hill, presidents have struggled to make sure that all americans have a chance to achieve the american dream. a president's leadership on issues far more to the economy to education to shops, from health care to conservation another's determines whether we have the opportunity to succeed. at the same time, we also understand that presidents are human and make mistakes and we paid for those mistakes. the strength of the modern presidency is challenged as never before in our history with the partisan divide and dysfunction that makes it difficult to govern. the failure of washington to deal with critical issues facing americans is wanted in part led to the election of president trump.

he is friday very different style of leadership to the presidency. he has challenged many traditional norms at the office. his criticized checks and balances in taken executive action to pass policies and he communicates his views to the american people by tweeting. yes, supporters believe he's doing exactly what he was elected to do, change washington. his opponents believe he governed by chaos and how well all of this affect the american dreams. the presidency is one of the most powerful institutions in the world. but so is our constitution and so is our systems of checks and balances. tonight, we the people have the opportunity to freely debate and discuss all those issues. the freedom to do that in our

democratic society has the impetus to know that we have said that since for protecting the american dream. tonight, leung will discuss these issues with our gas, to have spent their careers observing the presidency and one who serves president trump is the first chief of staff. our first guest is one of the most famous political investigators in america, a two-time pulitzer prize winner. he is a keen observer of the inner workings of government of politics in the role of leadership. he is an associate editor at the "washington post" where he has worked since 1971. he has shared in two pulitzer prizes. first for coverage of the watergate scandal and sack and

as the lead reporter for coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attack called the best peer reporter of his generation, perhaps after by the weekly standard, he has authored or co-authored more national best-selling nonfiction books than any other contemporary american player. his bestseller, the price of politics was released in 2012, published in 2015, his most recent book come in the of the presidents men provides the last pieces of a complex story of the nixon administration and its legacy. he received his ba from the university. please welcome, rob woodward. [applause]

>> welcome. [applause] our second guest is also one of the most intellectual journalists in american history. he spent 40 years reporting on the inner workings of government and politics in the hidden stories of washington and leaders. he began his journalism career in 816 as a copy boy for the washington star and then became a reporter at 19. in the early 70s, he broke the watergate story for the "washington post" and was awarded the prize in recognition. he has continued to investigate and write about the use and abuse of political media,

financial, cultural and spiritual power. the author of five best-selling books from his recent work is the national bestseller, a woman in charge, the life of hillary rodham clinton at definitive biography was published in 27 -- 2007. his next book, a memoir of his family's six years in the mccarthy era is titled royalty, if a memoir. he attended the university of maryland. so please welcome, carlberg speed. [applause] >> welcome.

[applause] our final guest is a former white house chief of dr. president trump and the longest-serving chairman of the republican national committee. he worked his way up through the ranks of the republican party has first congressional district chairman, state party and first vice chair and was eventually named the state party chairman in 2007. in 2009, he served as general counsel for the republican national committee. he assumed the chairmanship of the rnc in 2011 and oversaw a dramatic turnaround from the gop. he left the rnc has one of the most successful chairman of either political parties in american history. he was named white house chief of staff shortly after president trump's historic 2016 bit very and left the administration in

the summer of 2017. he has a ba from the university of wisconsin and a jd from the university of miami. please welcome reince priebus. [applause] and of course, moderate in our discussion is the man who created this lecture series more than 20 years ago. he has served in public life under nine american president, was chief of staff to one president and cia director and secretary of defense to another. he knows the importance of good leadership. please welcome secretary leon panetta. [applause]

>> at evening, ladies and gentlemen. got a of a crowd. you're in for a great show. we welcome you to the third panetta lecture series at our theme as you know is the american dream alive and well. we've talked about the economy. we've talked about national security and in our last form we'll talk about technology. we focus on the presidency. why? [laughter] because the presidency happens to affect the fate of our country. and whether or not people in this country are going to be able to succeed and enjoy the american dream. presidents make the decisions

about whether or not we go to war, whether young men and women are put in harms way. presidents make the decision about how to deal with economic crisis. presidents make a decision about whether or not they are going to support security for american citizens. that is how social security came into existence. and medicare. for education, housing issues, issues related to jobs, highway program to develop those jobs. all of that is in part by the presidency. at the same time, presidents are human and they make mistakes. and we pay the price for those mistakes. it's important for us this evening to look at what are the qualities of a president who

succeeds, whose good for the country. what about those that are not. what about a systems of checks and balances. can it deal with the power of the presidency. these and so many other questions we will discuss tonight with this very distinguished panel. let me begin with the panel with a question that it's important to kind of establish a baseline on the presidency. putting president trump aside for the moment, we will either observe presidents, talked to presidents or as reince and i did have our chiefs of staff to the president. i want you to comment of in your lifetime, who was the best president in who was the worst and why.

bob. [laughter] [applause] >> no problem, leon. easy. the surprise i think for a president that i really thought did a great job in our lifetime, nixon's successor. and i learned that it began really 30 days after nixon resigned and he was president and ford went on television on a sunday morning announcing he was giving the knicks in pardon for watergate. i really think ford hoped to go out early on that sunday morning and no one would notice. but it was widely noticed.

but not by me. i was asleep. carl called me and karl truly has the ability to say what occurred in the fewest words with the most drama. have you heard? no, i'm asleep. well, the son of pardon the son of a. [laughter] i had my decoder ring on and i was able to figure out what it happened. instantly i thought, and karl agreed. this is. the federal corrupt act of watergate, that nixon gets a free run, 40 people go to jail and thought that for a long time, particularly two years

later when ford ran against jimmy carter and lost essentially because of the suspicion it was some sort of deal. 25 years later in one of my books, shadowed the legacy of watergate by presidents. i went back to re-examine the pardons. i called gerald ford. never met him, never interviewed him and said i want to really look at the pardon and thought he would say no. gerald ford turned out to be one of the most open, honest, direct people i ever encountered. i have the luxury of it full-time assistant. i read all the memoirs come interviewed all of those alive in wait to see forward many times. he had a home in rancho mirage, california. just, what happened?

i remember the last interview with ford in his little house in rancho mirage right off of the golf course. said he pardoned nixon. he said you keep asking that question is that i don't think you answered. and then he said your right. i have not answered it fully. i'll tell you what happened. i haven't even told betty. and so he goes through and said let me take you to the moment. i've been president 30 days. it was awful. so much distress. no one would believe anything. all the news is what news is what is going news is that it's quite happy to nixon. so the cold war was sawed, the economy was in trouble, prosecutors sent him a letter saying nixon as a private citizen will be investigated

because he's been indicted, and that day. we're going to have two or three more years of watergate. i will never forget him saying we needed to move beyond nixon. so i preempted the process can allocate him came to me and offered to deal a week before. >> the chief of staff. >> of mixing. the senate rejected that good because it would have been corrupt. hank said okay, you guarantee you'll pardoned nixon and he will resign. you get the presidency. look, i knew i was going to be president anyway. i know that it's coming anyway. [laughter] and i am supposed to pardoned

nixon. i rejected that. i was corrupt. i said that you did pardon nixon. he said here is why. because of this situation for the country. i was in church. this is his job of stewardship. i've realized that this idea, he needed to move on. he could do one thing. so we said, this is how i assess the national interest. and he did it. so instead of this being corrupt, it was that the they awarded him the kennedy prize, profiles of courage from jfk's boat. i remember watching that and thinking my god, here i was sure

ford had done the most corrupt thing in the world and under examination, 25 years later what looks corrupt turns out to be courage. what a humiliating, humbling experience to be so sure. we sit now when we talk about your former boss, trump and everyone is sure where it's going and what it means and so forth but as a reporter and look at this and say we do not know. >> so, reince, like most of the secretary here, most of my family visited the united states. so how did i get a name like reince priebus. it's what happens when a greek in a german get married. a disaster. if you ever have seemed a big

greek wedding, that's my life. it starts at seven in the morning and ends at midnight. my upbringing, like all of our upbringing is a huge part of our life. so the person i looked up to the most in my life than the person that i would fall around the house everywhere and everything he said was we might approve, my grandfather from greece would come to wisconsin. and it wasn't like when relatives come for a long weekend. when the greeks calm, it's a couple months. they are living there. but i remembered taking the letter p. off the shelf. and he would sit there all day and i would sit next to him. he had a little johnnie walker next to him. he would read and it didn't

matter who he was talking about. it could be fdr. it could be kennedy. it could be under jackson, jimmy carter. every single one of these guys was grave. reagan was the best. but he took from not just the person i looked up to the most in my life loved everything about this country, but he wasn't from here. every little, about what i love is what you have and i don't. and so i haven't sat through the window offenses many american presidents that you all have. >> somebody asked this once, what was calvin coolidge like. [laughter] >> but when i look at presidents

and the former chief of staff gave me a reprieve because he took president trump off the table. i look at who is inspired in this country and i look at ronald reagan and the feeling he gave of americans across the country. republicans, democrats, not all, but a lot of people inspired by the american dream come is something bigger and beyond legislation and how we feel making people proud again. i think that was ronald reagan. i don't remember a lot about jimmy carter. obviously it would give more at the bottom of the list. ronald reagan captures the upbringing of the person that lived in the place that i lived in was looking for something to be inspired by and that's what really got me involved. >> we've got ford and nixon.

>> you've got something right. [laughter] discovery can and carter. carl, up to you. >> nixon is at the bottom because he was a criminal president. he was a criminal president from the day he took office until the day he left in his unique in our history in that regard. what your question goes to really is a commitment by the president of the united states to the common good, to the national interest. the first president i covered with kennedy. and all presidents have their successes, their failures, but the two that stand out in retrospect, in commitment to the common good, putting the interest of the country over their own interest without huge character flaws that have

brought them. i go to gerald ford are the reasons that bob has enumerated. he did that part of the trend parted knowing it would cost him the presidency. when he ran for reelection that he was willing to put the national interest above his own interest in being reelected to the presidency, knowing he probably would lose as a result. but also, i think we have to look at barack obama. [applause] one in terms of personal rested to, which he displayed throughout his presidency, whatever in terms of policy of putting this active health care before something else, partisanship. whatever we look at, though the idea of the common good and the national interest and we have to look at obama in terms of really

saving american capitalism, saving us from a depression in the first months and days of his president be. when the republican opposition rather than looking towards the common good was committed to really undermining the incoming president of the united states. not a single republican went to the same solution that embraced dealing with financial crisis. obama was advised by republicans who inherited from the previous administration. but no one disagrees that the bailout, says that the bailout, that should have been put into receivership or maybe it shouldn't. but he really saved our system and probably saved the world from a real depression that

would have been ongoing. he did it despite the fact he was being accused of all kinds of things that the other way would have been kind of on austerity approach that failed elsewhere in the world in a think as steadfast was there and i'm going to do the right thing. that's the basic question. which presidents go what is the right thing for the people of this country, the greatest good, national interest. >> so reince come you can't avoid this. we have to now look at trump and you know the president better than i think all of us by virtue of having served him in the campaign and then served in massachusetts that. you were quoted as saying about your time in the white house that you can take everything you've heard then multiply it by

50. you can take bad either way. what was it like, identify for us what his strengths are and what his weaknesses are as you saw it. >> the job but chief of staff and when a four-star combat marine said it's the hardest i've ever had in my life, it goes to tell you that being chief of staff is not easy and you know that. you've been there. but also, president trump is different. it's more complicated. someone that's never run for office before. he wants to be perfect. he wants to be perfect at little things, big things. he is like many successful people, inpatient. but i would say to people who i think getting misread in the media. take it from me.

i had resigned the day before, had agreed talk with the president multiple times, but i do walk those steps being replaced by john kelly. so i'm coming to you as someone who is not here to spend. i think this is a president who made it very clear who he was and how he was going to govern when he campaigned. people in most of the country were tired of all the phony promises. they were tired of plastic and they wanted someone that was going to be the biggest middle finger that they could find to tell people in washington to go take a hike. ..

. [laughter] >> if you're a republican, you love the results of what this president has done, you like the fact that -- [applause] >> isis is on the run. you love the fact that for every new regulation, 22 have been eliminated. you like the fact that this president is on his way of appointing more conservative judges or any judges than any president in modern history. tax cut from 35 down to 21 on the corporate business side. my point is this, we'll probably spend some time tonight talking about what the media talks about, which is what they say is the drama and the chaos. what i would suggest to you is to avoid concentrating on meaningless drama and focus in on the results. because, you know, look, i got

rolled up in some of that. people say how do you have such a good attitude. that drama doesn't matter to american history. what matters to american history is the success or failures of this president, and if you're democrat, you hate it, if you're republican you love it, but the fact is on nuts and bolts promises that he made to the american people, he's delivering. >> let me talk about the modern presidency. there's a great article in the atlantic by john dickerson that talks about the modern presidency is an impossible job and this is a quote, no man or woman can possibly represent the varied and competing interests of 327 million citizens purchase the over expanding duties in the office. the most powerful man in is pow powerless-- is the modern presidency broken

and is trump in some ways a consequence of that? >> no, i think that's the wrong way it look at it. i think a president can succeed. i think it's all about leadership, and you know, if you go for a job interview, and you know, they'll say, okay, you're here for this job, what's the definition of the job? well, what's the definition of the job of president and having thought about it through eight presidents working on a book on trump. for me, the job as a president is that role of stewardship and it's also figuring out what the next stage of good is for a majority of people in the country, real majority, not just a base. not just one party. not just a bunch of interest groups 'cause things can be done through the presidency and

by the president that really make a difference in people's lives and then the president has to say, this is what it is, okay, what's the strategy to get there? it may take years to get there, but that's the job of the president and it is a shame when it gets misdirected or, you know, whether some of rein reince, things seem trivial and so forth. what find missing in the trump presidency, there is the campaign and he's going to do this, he's going to do that. where are we going? in the 1960's, i served in the navy and i was on a ship in the executive officer number two. i would-- i spent a lot of time in his office because i was a troublemaker. [laughter] >> and he had a--

>> a renegade. >> i've never heard you call renegade. >> and he had a plaque glued to his desk and i never will forget it because i saw it many times and it was he who does not know to which port he is sailing has no favorable wind. and that's true. there are winds out there that are favorable, unfavorable, and they can get you, but you need to know the port to which you are sailing. and i do not find enough evidence in the public discourse from the president or out of washington from democrats, where are we going? what's that all about? what are we trying to accomplish? i think the lack of clarity hurts the president, hurts the country, it hurts all of us.

and i think it is a tragedy that there's not some mechanism-- i mean, did you ever try to figure out to which port donald trump was sailing? [laughter] >> i guess i respectfully disagree. i think if you look at the first year, you have -- you have the appointment and the nomination of neil gorsuch, which have a profound effect on the supreme court at the same time, we tackled the health care bill unsuccessfully, and then we moved into tax reform, and eventually passing a first tax reform since 1986 and obviously moving into matters related to north korea, isis, syria. i think that there is clarity, but-- >> look, i'm sorry, matters involving north korea, there was all this have fire and fury, we have--

>> right. >> trump saying he has a big button and-- >> it turned out that the critics have the-- not going to say for sure, but the critics have to be-- they're on the short end of that stick and the fact is, many people who like -- who are used to the conventional method of washington decision making and people like me, too, are people that were uncomfortable with how the president approached north korea, but like so many issues that he pushes back on immediately right off the bat, whether it be trade, whether, you know, whether it be afghanistan, whether it be syria, on north korea, he pushed in and put all of his chips on the table, people cried about it. >> i'm right-- >> it turns out that unlike all the predecessors before trump, here we are potentially on the verge of something dramatic and world changing when it comes to

north korea. so, look, i'll take-- i'll take this agenda for another two and a half years and run on it in 2020. >> you and i talked about this earlier, but, and i think there's a lot of truth to it. this president operates with chaos in taking these kinds of steps that he takes, but then i think he uses the chaos as leverage. is that-- >> it's 100% right. president trump made it very clear in the art of the deal when he talked about his style of management. his style of management is not the same old process we're used to. what he said in the art of the deal is, he likes to keep things loose, he doesn't want to be overbooked, and he wants to come to the office and see what develops. what the president does, he puts people around him that don't agree with each other on a whole lot, and you read about it every day, so if we're

talking about trade he'll have the guy from goldman sachs, wilbur ross, reince priebus, steve bannon all of these people who are different species, natural predators, almost, and they'll stand there in front of the aptally named resolute desk, in front of the president and they will have it out and the president, like a law school professor will sit back and watch, and the press will talk about the fact that this guy says it, reince was this and this one was over here and he was thrown out of the office and these people were arguing and they'll have the camera in the oval office with people screaming at each other, but the president then uses that information, and makes a decision. so, what i would challenge people, people who don't even like the president, focus on the results and forget about the process because it's a different process. but the process, i'm sorry, about north korea. i thought last year we were on the verge of war and part of

that came from what the president said. >> we were on the verge of war, the guy was launching a missile every two and a half hours over japan. >> exactly, but now we're on the peace track and-- >> you just want to have it both ways. you don't want north korea to make provocative-- make provocative moves. you want the president to be a leader, but then he is a leader and we get to a place where now north korea and south korea are shaking hands and hugging and we're critical of the president because-- >> i'm not critical because i'm saying where is the pork $. >> carl, answer the question. something disturbs me about this discussion, first of all, we see donald trump, a, is a legitimate president of the united states, period, end of paragraph. second of all, he had a much better reading of the country than his democratic opponent did. he read the country brilliantly

and ran a campaign with a kind of brilliance that was generous, unlike anything we've ever seen and through his own kind of of smarts he won the presidency and i think we need to accept that. thirdly, that the consistent hall mark of donald trump in public life and of his presidency is lying and that -- [applause] >> we've never had a president of the united states who has lied with the kind of consistency, with it being a basic methodology of his approach to the american people. his approach to governance and it's essential to who he is, from every evidence we have, i'm not talking about being an opinionated editorial writer here, it is demonstrable, fact

we're looking an at body of lives pulled by the president of the united states with a kind of regularity that's so troublesome that everybody, republican, democrat, whether they agree with the results or not, needs to be concerned about because we need real leadership. that includes a degree of moral leadership, a degree of ethical leadersh leadership. [applaus [applause] >> and, indeed, when other presidents have gone to lying as in terms of really being essential to some of their acts, nixon, who, again, was a criminal president from day one until the day he left office, he didn't lie every day, but when he did lie in watergate was the end of him, but none of less, this is something new in the history of the presidency and something that has to be part of our discussion here,

both in terms of journalism, in terms of the office, in terms of the president. >> let me-- i think going to take that one. i don't-- i think i just want to say one thing though. on the issue that he promised to the american people, i feel like he's fulfilling these promises he said he's going to knock the hell out of isis, he is. he said he's going to take his justices and judges from a list of these conservative judges and he is. he said's he going to pass tax reform and he did. i mean, i think the president is a litigator. i do think he takes the facts from a scenario and uses those facts to his advantage. i do think that, but-- . [laughter] >> all right, let me-- i think you're all hissing and booing over immaterial garbage. exactly what it is. >> i'm sorry. >> tax cuts--

>> let me move on. the bully pulpits. presidents in the past used fireside chats and oval office toss speak to the american people and these are usually prepared, well coordinated and talking points. this is a president who used tweeting. we are in the era of social media and, you know, he basically wants to communicate the way he wants to communicate. is this what future presidents are going to be doing in order to communicate with the american people? carl? >> i have no idea. i think the use of unconventional media is probably very likely that president's will continue to do that. i am one who, particularly as a reporter, am really grateful that trump tweets with the

frequency that he does, but i also think that the tweets are trump at his most truthful, that we see in the tweets where his mind really is, and if you go back and you sort through the tweets, it really is a road map of the president's mind. it tells us a lot about what concerns him, about where his abilities lie and don't lie, and i think it's the best indication that we have of how to judge him as a person, as a president, and where he's going, who he believes in, what he's contemptuous of and we're lucky that that is his method of communicating because otherwise we'd know damn near nothing. >> okay but-- >> go ahead, bob. >> there are contradictions in the tweets. yes, absolutely. >> if i lined them all up it

would be one way this one, but in terms of listening reince's point and trying to think this through, there may be some strategy in this and it was-- on trump's part. two years ago, young reporter at the post, bob costa, who you know, and i interviewed trump, he was right on the verge of winning the republican nomination, and it was at his hotel on pennsylvania avenue undergoing renovation anacostia and i said, okay, he's going to win the republican nomination, but probably won't be president so let's think about the things we can ask him that will address what's inside, what's driving him. so we spent some time and one of the-- and i mean, very interesting interview in retrospect, but the most important moment was,

i believe, we asked-- we said, oh, president obama is still president at this point, had talked about power and the presidency ultimately is about power and obama had said in his first inaugural that power comes to the united states from its restraint and humility, and you could just see trump, you know, those words, i wish there were a video because he was kind of-- and then we said, obama just said real power, quoting obama to trump, real power comes from not using violence. and then trump, and i swear, it was almost shakespearean, it was almost like hamlet turning to the audience you know, in one of those asides, here is what i really think, and trump

said, quote, real power is i don't even like to use the word, but real power is fear. and i -- going back and thought about that in the context of, you know, what he does, he scarce people. he scared the hell out of kim jong-un, and you look at it and you follow this and the north korean leader is now going to meet. now, whether that's a strategy of mobilizing fear, i don't know, but you start trying to say -- does that make sense to you? >> well, maybe. >> there's more to it than that, too. there's part of the equation and all kinds of pieces on the

chess board moving. he also has an incredible ability and you've talked about this before of engaging in people on one-on-one settings that you can't fully appreciate watching the news every night. he is incredibly gracious with people, meaning, i don't know how to describe it, but there are some people you know, they have an ability to meet people one-on-one and become instantaneously tight. i saw that with president abe. >> clinton was good like that. >> clinton was good like that. i saw that with president xi and he uses these relationships and they're genuine, to form these bonds that are necessary in order to get this situation in north dakota under control. without that close relationship-- if it was-- >> north korea. >> north korea. what did i say? what did i say? >> actually north dakota--

. [laughter] >> the hockey team over there. you look out for north dakota. [laughter] >> but if that relationship wasn't real with president xi, it just wouldn't be here right now. so, there is a genuine god-given skill there that i don't think that the media gives the president enough credit for. will you shut up for a second? [laughter] >> in 46 years i never said that. that. >> leon is-- >> let me ask you, you're chief of staff and you've got a president that's tweeting at 5:00 in the morning. i mean, if i served a president that did that, it would drive me crazy, and i mean, how can you deal with tweeting--

>> for two-years during the campaign. so i was the guy that was constantly calling the soon to be president saying you can't do this, don't tweet that, this is the way you do it, this is the way you don't do it and he did it the way he wanted to do it and he became president, which, you know, if you look at president trump, you cannot deny the fact that he's a man who has achieved incredible success. people sneer and jeer, wait a minute, he is a billionaire, he is president of the united states. okay, he's got more money than we all do, and he is president of the united states and okay, well, apparently some people don't agree with you. and he's done it while people like me were telling him don't do this, don't do that and it turns out that he did it and he won and on election day he was at 37% and he won, so, it's

harder to get to your question when your chief of staff six months later to say don't do this, don't do that when he's heard it all before and those people in his mind were wrong and he was right, and he was affirmed by the american people. >> okay. we're at the halfway point, but i really want you to address this issue before we go into the questions. which is the role of the press. since both of you are in the press, both of you really use the press to check the power of the presidency, and, yet, you know, presidents had always had rough relationships with the press. but, it's pretty bad right now. and we say it over this last weekend at the correspondent's dinner, you know, comedian got up and attacked trump. trump was in michigan attacking the press before, you know, his crowd. and so there's a lot of

questions about what is the-- what is the role of the press today? has the press lost its credibility or is it still an effective check in our system? >> well, i think we're in danger of losing our credibility and we've lost credibility with lots of people and the criticism that trump has offered very aggressively, i mean, 45 years ago in covering watergate we-- carl was 11 years old, i was 12 at the time. [laughter] >> we were kids. and there was the leader of the free world or his spokesman, ron ziegler saying our stories are full of lies and we were character assassins, something that i think that donald trump has not yet called the media, and the message to us from our editors, the great ben bradlee

and others, was keep doing the work. don't get consumed with trying to -- [applause] >> and so, we -- and i look at some of the coverage, i think the coverage by the new york times and the post, the wall street journal, you aggregate it. i mean, it's been very good, very-- some mistakes and so forth, but trump is such-- has such an ability to set people off and he's done this to the press, and people have taken the bait and there's too much-- people have become -- they've lost their equilibrium in the media and i think you have to take the ben bradlee rule, he always said, here is what you do, nose down, ass up, moving slowly forward.

[laughte [laughter] >> carl, a quick comment on the role of the press. where are we today? >> well, trump has tried to make the issue of his presidency and mixon tried to do the same, as bob has indicated, the conduct of the press instead of the conduct of the president of the united states. and he's had even more success and nixon was successful for a while in the early stages of watergate. people were believing nixon not what we were writing in "the washington post" for a long time. and this is a different time in america. we're really in a state of a kind of cold civil war in this country today. donald trump didn't cause it, he's evolutionary in terms of, it was perhaps inhe have i believe it--

inevitable to be in a place with a president who appeals to part of that cold civil war and indeed, tries to stoke the cold civil war by appealing to a base rather than trying to appeal to a united vision of the country that most citizens can appreciate, that that's his methodology, and he wants us to be-- he's called us the enemy of the people, as josef stalin once used the phrase. it's extraordinary, and we are faced-- and bob is really right here. the reporting by the new york times, washington post, wall street journal, some of cnn's reporting i believe is the best reporting on the american presidency on a daily basis that i've seen since i went to work in 1960.

[applause] >> there also is the fact that we need, as ben bradlee appreciated, we also need a kind of reporting where reporters step back, take a month, two months, three months on story and look at the presidency with that kind of distance and care and you're not on a daily deadline, but also, that we have ventured sometimes too far into the pejorative. and it comes partly because the, quote, press does something now it didn't during the time of watergate and we've see increasingly reporters, myself included, bob included, we go on television and talk about what is going on beyond what we write going on in the

press or books. and in that, i think we've invited that on ourselves by being sometimes too pejorative and it's sometimes difficult, this is not an excuse, because there is so much lying by this president of the united states so much of what the press has been doing as been to reperitorially to look at the lies, those untruths, and it didn't start incidentally with this president, but to pars-- parce what is truthful and what is not and convey a sort of self-righteousness that has led to some sort of undermining of our credibility and has been interpreted at or mistakenly interpreted and not as

adversarial without any relationship to trying to get to the truth when i would say the purpose of it is to try to get to the truth, long-winded answer. >> just hold on a second. let me get in done because we've got to recognize our question review team and the people who select the questions. i'll ask you to hold your applause while i give you their names. chelsea, a local news editor from salenas, california. fran, our veteran question review people member. david kellogg monterrey herald and a reporter from kaz radio, if you would thank them for the work that they do. [applause] and i thought we had a great turnout of students, over 600 students today at our session with the speakers. [applause] and some great questions, it was a wonderful turnout. we could not do it without your

support, so, sylvia, i and the panetta institute board of directors are very grateful for the sponsorship that allows these students, high schools, colleges, universities, military installations, from throughout the central coast to be able to participate. so, please thank those sponsors. [applaus [applause] >> i was going to say and move quickly, but-- and ng i think that's gentlemen here are american lends and they view the press in a way what i dealt with in the west wing and i dealt with for six years at the rnc was many times reporting based on anonymous sources, based on three people said that this person said that the president was an idiot and we're running

with it and what do you have to say about it and it's a bunch of inconsequential garbage and b-s and most stories that we have to deal with are like that. now, granted there are real stories that need to be covered that are serious and i understand that and i'm not actually saying that most of the reporters workday in and day out in the west wing are good, decent people, i don't think that they're making up quotes. i don't think that it's out of then air, but i do think that there are trouble makers and nefarious people that if you get two or three of them, granted you can create a story and you can pop it up on a website and you can get a lot of clicks. what i don't-- what i think is missing a lot of times in the press is the discernment to decide whether a particular story of very little value is worth the time and the filth that it creates. and so, i don't see the

discernment. i see massive competition, i see click bait. i see headlines that don't match the stories beneath and that, to me, is where most of our fights occur and by the way, the press is-- the press is polling with the public below congress right now so, obviously, something's wrong. and the american people feel that the press is not being honest with them and when they do things like they did on saturday night, they make president trump the winner again. >> okay, but quickly. >> but, here is -- [applause] >> there's partial truth in what you say, i think, that's true. and of course, you've contradicted the president who says the press makes up things all the time, you said they don't. >> i think sometimes they do. >> you just said they don't. >> no, i don't think that most people in the west wing-- i don't believe they make things up in thin air, but i have been-- i'm not going to go through it right now, but i have been in

situations where matters that are reported by the press are not as they they have appeared. the andrew mccabe story is a classic and i won't repeat it. >> yes, but-- >> total classic snow job and they knew it. >> right, but here is the interesting thing. there needs to be self-examination and introspection on the part of the press, we need to produce a better product. how do you produce a better product time against the problem that-- we used to have at the post, little signs that we put on-- above the screen at somebody's computer f.a.a., that didn't mean federal aviation administration, it meant focus, act aggressively. and we've got to focus, we've got to act aggressively, we've got to be fair. we've got to improve the product. and if we don't, anybody -- you

know, go tell people who have been in businesses where they've had a product that's not selling very well, and they are not in business anymore. >> okay-- >> can i ask the audience-- >> no, you don't get to ask the audience anything. >> i'm interested what they think about the press. >> let me ask the questions, please. >> shut him up for 46 years --. >> woodward and bernstein. >> can i tell the story? >> no, no, let me ask the question. >> it's a good story. >> woodward and bernstein. okay. you were involved in watergate. what are the differences and similarities between watergate and the russian investigation and will it end the same way? >> first of all, we don't know where the russian investigation is going to go. what we do know is there has

been a coverup, that the president has attempted to cover up and been untruthful about many elements of what we have seen and what has been reported. that he has tried at various turns to undermine lawful investigations. that doesn't mean he has committed legal obstruction of justice. that remains to be seen. there's a big story the new york times put out about an hour ago with the 48 questions that mueller wants to ask the president of the united states. it's an interesting list. it gives some indication that mueller is very much looking into questions of, quote, collusion. that that matter has not by any means been put to rest, but we don't know where it's going to go. watergate was about a series of crimes that there was evidence

from the beginning of that was quite clear about the criminal acts, and then it was a question of well, who committed these criminal acts and it turned out step by step that richard nixon, the president of the united states, had presided over