everyone command, i'm going to have a major announcement. he's about to look at my beautiful brand-new hotel and he essentially said yes he's a citizen, i cleared it up but she started and i finished it. victory. >> watch "after words" sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 put tv. >> former defense secretary and cia director leon pannetta and director of national intelligence spoke about the future of democracy around the world at an event hosted by the washington post. also foreign policy analyst talk about threats to democracy in countries around the world. >> good morning. thank you for joining us. i'm jennifer lee, director of events at the washington

post. this morning will be talking about the future of democracy. if you're at home and around the world. president trump begins a meeting in europe and we gathered key topics where we are showing resilience and where our opponent is gaining ground. also talk about how they see the health of our political system. before we began a databank her presenting sponsor, the democracy fund voter for their support of thete program. please welcome the president of the fund for some remarks. >> morning. it's an honor to be able to support this important conversation that we are havinghi today. for those of you who are not familiar with the democracy fund, let me say a, few words about our work. the democracy fund is a bipartisan foundation paid we were created about four years

ago by the founder of ebay. since our inception we have given away about $100 million in grants and these funds have gone to organizations working on a wide array of issues from reviving our public strip where to strengthening elections and working with our governors to make sure they are able to fulfill their obligations to the american p public. the matter where you sit, the ailast few years have raised concerns about the health of the american public. questions that we as americans are note used to having to ask about our own country. at the democracy fund we responded by expanding our commitments to strengthening american democracy and defending the united states constitution. ininoc addition to that, we foud

it really important to expand and improve our understanding of how the american public is changing and what that means for the future of the political system. help us do that and we've created something called the democracy fund voter group. it's a group of two dozen public opinion experts from across the political spectrum. on the right include scholars from places like the american enterprise institute and the cato institute,, it includes scholars from think tanks like the center for american progress and the brookings institution. this group of scholars will never agree on everything about what is best for the american public. they have committed to study together what is going on with our system and what leaders in

washington need to understand about the public. today's program focuses on trends in authoritarianism. the focus of the group for the past several months. much of what we found has been disturbing. one in four americans. more concerning we found those views are increasingly polarize polarized, a trend that should be very dangerous for the future. when given a direct choice the vast majority choose democracy. they believe in the role of line checks and balances.

this kind of support for the pillars of democracy should give us some hope but we can't be complacent. leaders of both parties need to stand up for the rule of law, they need to stand against abuse of the power, they need to support free and independent media and we need to support the protection of the dignity and rights of every individual then vision for this country. at the democracy fund we are committed to work with you and other partners around the country to make sure our democracy remaind strong. we are grateful to each of you for joining this conversation that we arera having today and look forward to continuing it at voter study group.org and on twitter at the twitter handle. i'm looking forward to today's conversation. >> thank you joe.

now i would like to introduce the washington post mary jordan who will lead our first discussion.. good morning everyone. thank you for coming out for such a light topic. [laughter] i am mary jordan. i am a national correspondent to cover politics and run around the country and try to figure out what's happening here in america. well, distinguished guests today. gerard has been the ambassador to the united states for france since 2013, an important figure in washington that everyone knows. before that he was the permanent representative to the un and he was the master of israel. we also have the master of

israel, reportedly in bathroom .13 he was senior advisor to prime minister benjamin yahoo. he isst the co- author of the case for democracy. we have the ambassador who became ambassador in 2060. he was previously the vice minister for the environment including industry and foreign trade. welcome. we are lucky to have you here today. before we begin i'd like to tell you here in the audience, and those joining us online, send usil your questions. we're going to start talk about the state of democracy.

we can't sit at the washington post and not talk about the news. : : he just : another -- he just said more and more was in all caps. less. bless. and all caps. he said very unfair. the tone beginning this pretty important summit has gotten off to an interesting start. just wanted to hear some reaction to it. ambassador.

[laughter] >> i think we need the debates in the different countries. i think all of the debates has started. more importantly, i think we have to wait for the summit itself. you know, that is the summit. very seriously, a debate about the future of this alliance that we have created in 1949, and very different circumstances. let's waitit for the summit itsf what really the president of the united states is going to say, but also to ask. it is a debate that we should have. i think we will have it. >> let's be a little bit more .ndiplomatic let's say what you really think here.

>> no way. [laughter] >> does it matter then? does the o opening tone matter? >> they matter always. [laughter] i am french. [laughter] again, in a sense, you have an unusual precedent. it is leading to an unusual way of debating. let's go back. the proposals. the request. we will respond. what they want or what they don't want to do. >> first of all, i am glad to see another ambassador in the seat. i think as the ambassador said, it is a real issue for my

countryy. the united states is around four. europe is around 1-2. that is why there is this debate. israel is 6% without u.s. assistance. we also received military assistance from the united states that we are very grateful four. that takes us over 8%. i think it is a real issue. i guess how this will work out in europe be seen. many countries are starting to address this various degrees. various speeds. from the discussions that i have had, most people think that this is a real legitimate issue that the president is raising. i expect that you will achieve something in that summit. we will see how much and how fast. >> are there any effects in calling our allies particularly germany who he seems to have a particularly contentious

relationship with, are there any effects of the word and tone he is using? >> at the end of the day, i think at the the ambassador said, you'll want to wait to see what comes out of the summit and what the policy will be. it is hard to judge these things in a moment. you have to look a year, two years, three years and see if europe is on a trajectory of a greater greater share of their gdp being devoted to defense. just to understand how dramatic one or 2% can be. there is a formula, i went to the one school of business, a formula of how long it takes your money to double. seventy-two over and. and is the interest rate. 10%. your money doubles in about seven years. it will double in 10 years. if there is a 3% gap between what the united states is spending around 4% lets a european country, 1%, every 24 years it means that money to spn other issues. healthcare, education, social safety net and everything else.

you are now over 75 years since world war ii. you are doubling and doubling and doubling in that time. it is an eight time difference. i am ever 25 years ago, europe would lookwo at the united stats and say, you do not offer your people healthcare and you don't offer youra people enough of a social safety net. one of the reasons why the u.s. has not had those monies to do it is because they have also spent an enormous amount of money defending the world. >> president trump both went good with numbers. we willt come back to that. >> still exists. >> you do? you don't think there's thing blowing up. >> i don't think so. they have to focus on the mission to find the coalition rather than the coalition defining the mission.

>> what do you make of what is going on? >> and nato or the region? >> nato. just right now there is a big focus on the world. some huge country. hugely important country. what is a view from brazil? >> from a distant perspective. not associated, we are not members of nato. we don't face similar challenges as nato does. i am an observer, not a participant. the only comment i make a similar to the one the french ambassador made. i think a discussion is needed. is nato as needed as before? when the u.s. goes along fighting well with russia.

does russia present -- it was expected to represent? >> i don't know. that is a very distant subject to me. >> there is a real question about nato. nato was created against a frat to the free world. it disappeared. vanished. of course raising some questions. russia is not. there is questions about the coalition. based largely on nato. i do think that we have to create a positive agenda between the audienceda and the americans beyond a military alliance. we have a lot of issues where we could work together. >> are you worried at all, any of you, about what many people

in the united states are, this president, president trump is too close to putin. >> just to follow up on what i was saying, if we discuss sanctions and we agree that it is not the same, why should countries have to reach 2%? >> they do not necessarily -- >> not part of this game. an outside observer. that is a question that i raise. >> spending their military several times the budget. the budget is slightly superior to the french military budget. >> back to this question about russia and his personal alliance between putin and president trump. is that anything to be concerned about?

a lot of people in the united states are. they feel he is given the cold shoulder to a some of our allies while being very cozy to putin. >> i think it is a very good thing, actually, that the president of the united states is working with the president of russia. especially in the russian system , if you want to work with russia, you have to work with the president of the united states, with the president of russia. it is very positive. >> anybody else? >> definitely think it is a positive development. a lot of the problems that we have in our region i think would be alleviated if you have the u.s. and russia working together obviously the most acute issue we are dealing with now is what is going on in syria. if the u.s. and russia could come together, i suspect that this will be one of the issues at the upcoming summit, could come together on a political

process for syria, they could both agree on, which would ultimatelyd make sure that i ran leaves syria. that can be very good and very positive to the region. i think there are other places where russia cooperation could be very good. >> british officials have been particularly unhappy with putin lately. especially with problems with nerve agents and things going on people dying, for instance, in england.ag how do you square the action and some of the reeling dangerous things that the president of russia has done or many people believe he has done with this cozy relationship with donald trump. >> i think this is a worrier some development. i think it has to be further check and verified. we have many assumptions, but i have not seen any documented.

>> obviously, international relations, you are making agreements with parties in countries that you don't fully agree with their views. the leading powers made an agreement a few years ago with the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. the state department of the united states. there are people who thought that that would be good for security around the world. when you look at the threats you are facing, i would be much more concerned with the world lining up with the worst regimes. representing and's potential t threat tou israel. now you're saying all throughout the region, the dangers of giving them hundreds of billions of dollars. today, a few minutes ago before walked in, there was a red alert. we had to respond to a projectile but we are not sure exactly where it is, it came through an area sent from syria once again. we are dealing with the

repercussions of the leading powers of the world, many of them who are upset with the relationship between the president and president putin. but a few years ago, they made an agreement with the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. i do not have any issue with the president trying too have a better relationship with putin. i do not think they will agree on everything. i'm pretty sure they won't agree on everything. if that relationship can lead to a better situation on the ground in syria, that is certainly good for israel. i figured it's good for our arab neighbors. i also think that it is good for europe. a lot of the problems have happened because of the neglect of the situation in syria. >> the u.s. ambassador to israel under obama said something on twitter thisd morning that is getting a huge amount of attention. he said i do not think we are fully grappling with the possibility that we could be on the cusp of a completely new era

a fundamental reshaping of the international order. i don't mean over the course of the trump administration. i mean by next week. this is in suspense to what is going on right now in belgium and onto nato. what you think of that? >> i think he is right. he is focusing on the presidency of trump. he should also focus on president obama. the policy is not that different from president obama. which means, for instance, on syria, but also on ukraine. basically, you know, any active american policy. i think we are, what is happening, in this country

asking for rain intervention. i'm not thinking about washington, d.c. i felt it. i decided that the united states -- that is a fact. that is a long trend. we have to face it. in syria. i don't see any major crisis. since 1945 where the united states is refusing to really do this. whatever we think of it, that, i think is a reality. that is a major shift. i think we ought to have that true this new reality.

>> changing and reshaping of the world order. talking about democracy. i would like w to start here in brazil. a very quick -- about the health of democracy in your region where the person leading in the called the donald trump of the tropics. is that fair, by the way? >> i would like to compare the situation of democracy in brazil in north america with what is going on in the world. i think we are all under a quite different time. the changes all over the world will present a real revolution. we have to adjust to it. this ends globalization. the information revolution. a sense of naturalists and populace.

we never had so many democracies thirty-four members out of them. the exceptions israel and cuba. democracies. we don't have an excess of globalization. we do not have the fear from the corner. immigrant or goods. we can cope with that. our institution sure to be quite resilient.li we went through very important crisis. impeachment, recession of 7% in two years and an unprecedented anticorruption campaign. the press was free. >> the polls in brazil show that the result of the corruption scandals and the results of the

very trumpmp like character of candidate to his running means that people want law and order. what is the health going forward ? i think democracy will go out, more stronger. people said that. politicians. >> the left of commitment to democracy. people are very much against. understanding what is different. now you have the leftist

government and mexico. you have very conservative government and columbia in a veryns conservative in chile. it doesn't matter. what matters is the institution of democracy. >> a little democracy. we would like to have neighbors that would be democratic. nondemocratic states tend to fight others. in orderca to justify their oppression. when it comes to israel's democracy, i think it is a tremendous model for the world tiered democracies are tested under crisis. that is when it counts. the most legal democracy on earth. fortunately we have peace with our egypt and an jordanian neighbors now. we have to deal with security threats base by no other

democracy. we maintained our institutions and democratic values. i was born and raised in this country. as a former american, i marvel that israel was able to do it. i remember the situation in this country. people remember 2001. the fear that there would be another imminent attack. and how at that point people were willing to trade certain civil liberties for their security. over time, as a the danger received, you cherished those civil liberties. israel has been september 12 for 70 years. we doo not know. there may always be another attack. the fact that we have been able to keep our democratic institutions strongg and vibrant and all our branches of government strong and vibrant and can maintain free press -- >> you don'te see it changing anytime soon? >> no. i don't see it changing. i think other countries are dealing with these security challenges. i agree with ambassador what he

said. a lot of the effects, changes in the workforce in different movements come about. it is important not to say the sky isom falling when it comes o democracies. >> instead of the sky falling, what is happening? >> i just think it is a natural course that there are always fights between branches of government. pointing that out a long time ago. >> is it raining at the skies that h falling? >> we have an issue of the supreme court and the role that the supreme court should play in our society. democracy in israel has fallen. i totally disagree. you have a battle in your country about the role of supreme court. the person whoho fought c that bottle was actually thomas jeffersonso. hey, the supreme court and the united statesou should not have the power to actually knock out a legislation in congress. this was the person that came up with the b bill of rights.

>> we only have a few minutes left. >> 10 seconds. i think it is important not to cry wolf on the natural process and the give-and-take within democracies and say this is a sign of fascism. when you do then have a real threat to democracy, people will not be able to see it clearly. >> europe, a lot going in hungry brexit. a lot of worry about immigration. now all eyes on the alliance with nato. how do you see the world order? we started talking about this changing worldki order. how are things changing? >> the first time in my life in america where they are so -- we are facing the rebellion of some of the voters. the power.

not delivering. instead of crying wolf, i think we should respond to their concerns. we should listen to what they are telling us. respond to their concerns. that is what my president is trying to do. i think a substantial number have been hurt by the policies which have been followed in the last 30 or 40 years. the qualities have been so high. i've seen their income. what people say, why. you understand it. basically you say there is a crisis. any democracy is based on the health, well-being of the middle class. we needel to have policies addressing these concerns. we are delicacies.

we have a right to response. we see it. we see it in this country. it is emigration. we choose it responding to the crisis of identity. good or bad answer. i thinksw that that is somethin. the question now is on the progressive side, what is the answer. the left side is studying to the voters. reallyg , we need to ask the debate. the citizens are asking us fundamental questions. if we ignore this question, if we despise these concerns -- >> how do we respond? europe responding to what the votersrs are saying. >> there are a lot of different questions. first, with trade.

i think it is perfectly right to say what matters is fair trade. for the last 30 years, people have saidob free-trade is globay good. nobody is globally good on that. i mean some of our citizens are suckered from free-trade. from trade which actually has been balance. we have to look at it. with china, for instance. that is a very good question. artificial intelligence. destroying millions of jobs in the uk. more that are coming. what does it mean? do you really think that these people, the first profession in the u.s. 4.5 million truck drivers in this country. you know, in 10 years, years, 15 years, what does it mean? what are you going to do? that isrs the fundamental questn

>> let me l ask you about the first one you're talking about. fair trade. do you think what the trump administration has imposed is positive? >> a lot of questions, in this debate which is very high in this country, i think that we should also warn whether the answer is a good answer. i think fair trade is a good questionon. free-trade. actually, no, there is there is a problem of fair trade. in france, as elected members of

parliament. we have seven members of the parliament. six of them were elected which will result in communists. this has been devastated by globalization. >> it is a stunning change. the president said recently, spreading "like a leprosy all over europe". >> i will make a comment on that and also trade. >> reciprocal trade. we have been running a deficit for the last 10 years. we like to bounce back. [laughter] populism. the case of italy is a very interesting one. you have two populist movements. one on the right and one in the south of the left. they are forced to adjust.

i think that overcoming populism will be an imposition when there is movement that comes to power. there will have to be political parties andis not outside movements. this may take some time. they were not happy with the political system. it is not working. it does not provide the answers society is waiting for. they are looking for an outside response. >> a lot about democracy. just where you were born in the united states. you have a great perspective about the world tiered where do you see populism moving? >> i think we have to understand and always keep in mind the fundamental moral difference between democracies and non-democracies. nato too me is not just about a common struggle against the union. all of its issues and concerns,

it is not the soviet union. there is one country that should be of some concern. turkey. will it remain a democracy or is it moving in a different direction? we have to keep this moral difference. populism and different ideologies, that is part of the democratic gang. >> are you worried about what is going on around the world? >> within democracies, i think it is a natural response to what happens and change within democracy. >> i just wonder ifng you are worried about it? >> i am not overly worried about it, but i just think that the failure toso distinguish between democrat society and non-democrat societies, between free societies and fear societies, this is an ongoing problem. when peoples attack, this will happen in a democracy casted as fascism. what it does is it blurs the

line. the worst day of human rights violations in a free society is better than the best day in a fierce society. if youso don't keep that distinction clear, then you won't understand why the democracies need each other so much. the reason why a faith in the alliance of nato is because they're all democracies tiered ultimately i think that they will stand together. the times we lucite on what this together. what separates us s from nondemocratic regimes that don't give their people any rights. rights to vote or rights to basic freedom. >> thank you. i am just so concerned. we have to keep the program going as we wrap up here with the bigin meeting and nato being ahead of us, just in a word or two, could each of you talk about, do you want nato to stay strong, basically as it is? just

really quickly quickly talk about the importance of nato. >> i think nato has been very important. i do not know whether under present circumstances it would or should play the same role. >> you don't know. >> i don't know. the discussion under the assumptions of nato is a crucial issue. discussion, you may develop an indication how much each country should invest in defense. keep seeing nato as what nato was in the cold war, i think we are misleading the discussion. >> do we need nato more or less as it is now. >> i think that nato should be expanded to include all democracies. there is not a body that can unite all democracies and that they can act together to defend freedom and protect other

democracies. a country like japan. wrong democracy. a country like israel. india. i think you have to take nato and mission. expand it, redefine it. >> redefined its mission to defend democracy and freedom. the whole issue of the percentage of the gdp. the united states devoted these resources for the last 75 years to defend defending democracy around the world and protecting it. not for the united states. all democracies around the world will suffer. i know that democracies and countries in asia understand that. >> of course, nato has to survive. you should be able to handle that.

without -- that is why they have push the european union to be more active. as i've said in the beginning, having a really strong coalition. we have to extend them beyond the military side of the alliance and to work on the agenda. we need to define a positive agenda. we have a lot of issues where we can work together. >> the last in crucial question. the world cup. [laughter] congratulations, france. big, big game big game today. would you rather go up against croatia or england? >> england, ofer course. [laughter] we have been fighting. [laughter] >> do you think you have a better chance of beating them?

>> of course. >> thank you so much. really appreciate it. [applause] and now i i want to turn it over coto my colleagues who is goingo happen next discussion. thank you all for listening.

>> >> hey. good morning. here at the washington post. i would like to welcome my guests for the day. the host of the next revolution on fox news. he is also a former senior advisor to david cameron and the author of the forthcoming book. rebuilding economic security for family and community in america. sitting next to him as john. currently the vice chairman. he served as the first director of national intelligence under george w bush. and previously ambassadors to honduras, iraq, mexico, the philippines and the united nations. before we begin, i would like to

remind the audience they can tweet their questions to us using the # to post live. ambassadors previously. getting into some of the sessions about nato and democracy. first of all, i want to to start with this question about our week, with everything with this populism, the current administration , the populace forces around the world, are we in a revolutionary moment and democracy. you have had such a long career in international relations and diplomacy. 40 years of experience. what youxp are seeing, where are we right now? are we in a certain certain revolutionary moment? >> i'm not the one that is about to publish a book. i look forward to what steve has to say. what i would say is, first of

all, regarding the state of democracy in the world, if you look back when i started my foreign service career, i was an appointee to the service of the eisenhower administration. during that span of time, the marker democracy has been nothing short of impressive. you look at latin america. the picture has changed immediately. everything is looking much, much better there. with the b exception of cuba and venezuela. the rest of the map is very much colored green. if you use the color scheme of what covers these issues. africa has become, when i got into the states, becoming independent. now, they're moving towards a more responsible government. admittedly, with greater difficulty. with the fall of the soviet union, eastern europe has been liberated. i think that the overall trend has has a sickly been positive

to try to make general generalizations about one or another, spreading like wildfire around the world, i think it would perhaps be a little bit too far. this comes from years of doing political analysis in the nine service posting that i had. you have to look at the particular circumstances of each country that you are in. historic, geographic, cultural, linguistic and so forth. to really grasp what is going on countries. >> backing up your experience. what is happening right now in the realm of democracy. a promotion that does give you hope about this moment. i would also ask you what gives you the most anxiety about the each day.

>> right. there are examples on both sides of that ledger. i think i would worry most about what is happening in venezuela which has been a failed state for some time now. the economy is plummeting. here's a country with the largest oil reserves in the world that has managed to mismanage itself practically into oblivion. refugees are fleeing to neighboring countries and so forth. the international community and the hemisphere is a little bit, i think, at a loss of what to do about this. no one wants to see us go back into some type of interventionist mode as we may have done back in the 19th century. as toth whether or not that woud even work. there are also hopeful development in this region and elsewhere in the world. i would just cite two recent examples. one is columbia. neighboring venezuela.

making tremendous advances. thanks in fact in part to some nation building support from the united states. nationbuilding light. i think when we get into regime change or occupations or heavy-duty nationbuilding, i think the opportunities to make mistakes are much greater. i think we supported columbia in ina very effective way. what is important in the end was their willingness to defend and develop themselves. let's not forget this. sort of a my bottom line here. it can be helpful in facilitating a number of different things. in the end, the political will and desire of the local citizenry himself to a accomplih democraticic objectives. >> off of that idea of the local citizens themselves and encouraginglo them to play the role in their democracy, i want

to turn to this question a populism. we hear this so much more now in the last two years or so. steveso, you have written about this concept of popular populism. you literally are talking about revolution. can you explain a little bit more about popular populism? it hasrd a negative connotation. we can go into those reasons why later. are we in a revolutionary moment? what what is positive population in your view and how could it play a role in this climate and atmosphere? >> thank you so much for allowing me to participate today what a a great event. such a pleasure to be here. oneat unexpected pleasure was to welcome the french ambassador to the fold of populism. i thought you did a great job.

that is an unexpected treat. welcome ambassador. revolutionary sentiment. seeing it with brexit and trade 16 election. you are seeing the expression of the desire for big change. the actual changes that will the problem that have given rise to that sentiment. trying to set out an agenda for populism. it actually brings into play the french ambassador what they are

talking about. policies to actually deal with the issues that have caused this i think that the important point when we bring that conversation back to the theme which is democracy, to challenge the notion. the populace revolution. their experience here in america , in the uk, across the world this for the last 40 years or so it doesn't matter who you voted for. you getu the same result. the same result is that the rich got richer and as the ambassador said, half the country, that is true in america, during the uk, true in a lot of places, got poorer. we use this word income stagnation. if you go back in america,

actually a fall in real terms. since 1972. this is a really big long term trend in the uk where there is conservative labor. you have the same policy agenda which is positive about globalization. automation insi the economy. above all, i think, i think that is a defining characteristic of the last few decades. both in government where power is being taken local elected

officials and got further and further away from people. moving to organizations like the eu and so on. the giant corporations. on the government side, what that left people feeling is a big centralized authoritarian government treating them with content. on the other side, people get a sense that you have these giant organizations treating your workers with content. what we need now is real structural change in government and in the economy so we can makend this populace revolution really positive for working people. >> i want to come to this exact topic. we have brexit. we don't have brexit, but i want to talk about brexit. taking power away from the eu. you, in particular, you made headlines by breaking with david

cameron tiered you said membership in the eu makes it literally a ungovernable. how do you comment on the resignations this week? an alternative to membership in the eu. talking to my american friends about the eu and the brexit. people are mystified by brexit. the equivalent of the eu is not nafta, but the federal government. it is actually a federal government for europe.

all of the problems. the president is elected. congress is elected. the decision-making and policymaking part of the eu. not elected. they drive policy in the eu. and theey results of that, at te heart of power, trying to implement an agenda that we were elected to do. most of the time, most of the policy work that we did in government, most of the administrative and legislative implementation that we did was eu policy. that nobody in the uk voted for. mostly, we disagreed with. that is the reason i argued we should leave the eu and have that position for long time. it is not correct to say that those who argued for trip or he did a positive vision.

>> an opportunity to be seas. the real truth about brexit is what will help her in succeed. social issues giving rise to brexit ishe not the issue you reach with the eu. taxes, employment, infrastructure and skill. that is what usually matters. >> i would f like to get, john, your thoughts about the brexit situation. >> i am married to an english lady who devoted considerable effort to keeping britain and europe back in 1974 and working on the referendum and so forth.

i always felt that the european union was a positive thing. i think you very eloquently described some of the problems that people have. i am not sure that getting out of the eu is going to solve the problem. i also ask you, you mentioned britain afterwards dealing with these problems on its own, britain remainedal britain. i feel like there is an adequate level of risk involved here. ultimately, britain and the europeans are going to have to decide this. i'm not saying america does not have any dog in this fight because i think we have been very comfortable working with the eu as an institution over the years. mr. obama mistakingly by speaking out publicly, they actually contributed to the brexit vote. helping to make that a reality which is the opposite of its intention o.

we are better off just waiting to see what happens. >> what do you think that teresa may should do now? >> i think they've got to work it out themselves. this is about democracy. devised to deal with these problems. a wonderful parliamentary system what i like about steve's comments is you talk about populism. you talk about populism, but with an agenda. indiscriminate yelling and screaming. >> bernie sanders, for example. do you consider him a populace? >> i have to agree. >> having to agree with a lot of the stuff he is saying, too. particularly on democratic policy.

>> populism is being seen as negative. that is actually why i somewhat provocatively chose to call it populism. an angry screaming rejection of everything. i would completely reject pulling out the drawbridge and all that stuff. i think the real answer is to have an positive agenda. at the heart of it, the decentralization of power. focused on the concentration of power in the economy and government. decentralizing power will be at thel heart of how we stole some of these problems. >> populism that i had in mind, the father of french populism -- i went to the university in

paris at the time when he was holding forth. he was focusing on only one issue. the question was taxes, if i remember correctly. i think you're talking about about something much broader than that. >> definitely. something i i want to added to e mix, if i may, the impact of the changes, the centralization of poweriz, we talk a lot about the economy. i don't want to repeat that. jobs, income and so on. also in government. people more aware of issues and corruption and all of that. very important. the social piece. the piece relating to society. i think one of the things that has been a consequence of the centralization of power over the years has been the ripping apart of our social fabric. specifically kobe building blocks and the strong society. family and community.

that aspect i think is a really important part of it. a positive populist agenda has to have answers to the problems of family breakdowns. community disempowerment. you will see in the book, i don't want to be too much of a tease, that i have very specific ideas. that is why the subtitle is rebuilding economic security, family and community in america. that aspect as it relates to our society and strengthening that, i think, is really important. >> trump will be in the uk. he will be met by protests. what do you make of that? i also have this question. we spoke about this, john, about the u.s. as a democracy promoter are we a populism exporter in this day and age? do we consider ourselves that?

are we just curious about those two questions? >> well, if you are asking, for example, does the example of president trump sort of have an effect on the way other leaders believe, i am not entirely certain that is the case. as i said earlier, i think each country isk driven mostly by is own internal political dynamic. as far as his trip, if i could just broaden the question, his trip to england is concerned, i think what we are all hoping for is despite some of the rhetoric in the run up to these events, that he reaffirms our commitment tort article five of the nato alliance. i do think the conversation that just took place with the ambassadors, we are committed to the defense of western europe.

ready to bolster defenses there. giving lethal aids to thetr country of ukraine and so on and so forth. i think it would be a pity if nato started to e road and some kind of away. at least i want to believe sufficiently positive that nato is not in some way threatened by these developments. >> trump's visits to the uk. >> what i would hope for is england would win the world cup. whatever else happens.pp you can be sure that if england beat croatia today, no one would care, really, about trump or brexit or whatever. it is all about the world cup final period. [laughter] the really important point,

actually, is something that was highlighted. you also have boris johnson resignation. one of the fundamental reasons that he resigned, the deal on brexit that teresa may finally published, if it were internally to ask her cabinet to sign up to a big beautiful trade deal. with the u.s. a really warm relationship with the president and the president putting the opposite of what president obama said. kind of a fan of brexit. he wants to help. they have now actually put forward a plan that stops them from doing that because the rules would mean that they cannot negotiate trade deals. that, to me, is an example of why, frankly, boris and the

other administrators that resigned were right to reside. he used the phrase set my brexit everybody agrees. both the country at large, but also alsoo the conservative members of parliament. they all agree that theresa may is completely useless and making a complete mess of it. they cannot agree on what comes instead. she has left their kind of, you know, stumbling along in this incredibly depressing way. nobody can agree an alternative. therefore, sadly, i think we can expect more of this slightly symbolic performance. >> i want to move onto trumps next stop. meeting with vladimir putin in russia.. john, i wanted to get your

thoughts on the summit and what could he get out of this meeting that would serve america's interest. >> first of all, i think the meeting is a good idea. i think great power leaders. russia is part of the permanent five members of the united nations security council and their nuclearcl weapon state. sometimes more, sometimes less. obviously the russian role in the world has expanded somewhat. from the 1990s. all the changes that have taken place. they are a force to reckoned with. they arewi proactive. i think a very good example of their proactivity is a role they have played in the middle east, especially in syria.

i think there are constructive conversations to be had between the two leaders on syria, on iran. which i'm sure the russians will have some views about having withdrawn from that agreement. and, of course, the situation on the korean peninsula. let's not forget that russia borders, north korea borders on a part of russia. they have a direct in that situation as well. it could be a broad agenda. i do not think one wants to either exaggerate or underestimate the importance of this meeting. >> steve. >> i completely agree. a more constructive attitude from syria and north korea. >> very, very quickly i want to touch on the roles of technology

i am -- changing society. what role that can play inside a populism or promoting what you call populism and john, very quickly, social media, what role that could play in it. >> that is a great question. one thing that is happening, a realization on the part of a lot of the technology leaders, as you mentioned, directly or indirectly because we are based out in california, the tools that they created, sincerely were motivated by empowering people are also empowering all people, including the bad is one of the good aspects of human nature. i think that that is something that they are very conscious of and reckoning with. my wife is negative at facebook.

i do say, the start of their tech company their self, i would argue that that was an example of the positive intent here. the mission is to really put democracy directly in people's hands. it is a crowdfunding thing. >> it is the opposite. it is actually undermining the control of the party systems. the idea that people can run without relying on money. i am not pitching it. i actually -- a crowd packed that started as a nonpartisan. succeeding greatly amongst the resistance. a fox news host and the platform that is really funding the resistance. >> i just wonder. you talk about democracy and you

talk about traditional political parties and institution technology, the previous gentleman mentioned. you have driverless cars that are replacing truck drivers. eliminating jobs. you have news about uber and taxi drivers out of work. ... seems like we are replacing sometimes one sort of-- >> and very conscience of the on the centralization of power i think you are right and i argue in the book including ways that conflict if i could put it that way with the agenda that we need to have a

much tougher approach on antitrust we need to aggressively go off the concentration of-- i have some very radical ideas, but i completely agree and that's-- if you look at what's going on and one of the big problems in healthcare is the concentration, insurance committee isem, giants insurance care companies wrote the obamacare laws. we need a much more aggressive antitrust. on jobs and automation, we aren't trying to stop these things which bring convenience to some people. actually equipped the people that will be the victims of those sanctions with the skills and training and education to really increase their productivity so they can get jobs that pay well and that's a

complete revolution how we think about the beginning of life. that is the answer. >> technology, save us, save democracy. >> i think ultimately it's going to be awash as far as, but i think it's contrary did in many ways to our well-being and ill think you mentioned healthcare and i think growing life expectancy around the world is one example. there is the dark side of globalization you're talking about. i think it's not so much all these technologies that are inherently positive, i think somewhat of who is in control and also there is going to have to face up to the fact that although it's made-- not regulated because that impedes the freedom of the internet, i mean, there's going to have to

be much more regulation and there has been up until now and lastly, i think it describes the most significant point of the discussion we been hopping, what impact is it having on the nature of work and what policies need to be adopted to address that? at this point i think we are sort of standing there watching a lot of people losing their jobs, not completely-- we haven't got a complete program with how to deal with that fact and i think this is a very serious social problem with this country and i'm sure it's true in many other countries as well. >> unfortunately, that is all the time we had today. i would like to thank you for joining me today andhi thank you all for joining us today and i would like to hand things off to my colleague to lead the final

session. [applause]. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to offer this last session in our discussion of the topic of democracy and i can't think of anyone who is more appropriate than my guest, secretary leon panetta who has served in many different capacities helping our country as a member of congress, committee chairman, director of the national budget, white house chief of staff, cia director. you now runs up and institute

doing good in all sorts of bipartisan ways. mr. secretary, it started by talking about something on all of our minds, but repeat the injunction-- if you have questions, send them to #host liveli and we will process them. mr. secretary, this morning we watched president trump arrive in brussels with frankly smoke coming out of his ears. sat down to breakfast with that nato secretary-general and talked about how germany was a captive of russia and all of the familiar lines about how europeans are not paying their way. i always remember hearing when i was growing up that when we thought about the picture of democracy we should think about nato and our european allies and

that structure of our friendships and alliances that was about the future of democracy. what did you think listening to president trump's rhetoric yesterday on his way to brussels and this morning? what is your reaction and how do you think our allies feel? >> first of all it is good to be with you, david. david has tracked me for a long time in washington who is always had a great relationship and i thank you for doing this. you know, i worry a great deal about where this is all headed. it is in many ways it fits the pattern for the president. i think this president who is not steeped in history or in foreign-policy is someone who likes to react obviously based

on his gut instincts b, but his reaction is always to create disruption. also, to operate with chaos and part of that, i think, goes back to something you mentioned in your call him in the washington post which is this new york developer mentality cassette has been most of his life, which is to operate on the basis of challenging people, criticizing people, demanding things and knowing that ultimately the more he can antagonize and create disruption that ultimately people will come aroundd and coe back to the table because there is money on the table and try to work out a dealth. the problem i see is that he creates chaos, which by the way, i mean, tactically i understand that chaos can be helpful, but would disturbs me as strategic

chaos where there is a strategy as to where it's going, so you get rid of ttp, where's the strategy to deal with that? you get rid of nafta. where's the strategy to repair that? you create a trade war and increased tariffs, but where's that taking us? you move away from climate change, but where's the strategy to deal with that? you get rid of that iran agreement, but where's the strategy to deal with that and i have a sense that he supply mesenchymal approach when it comes to nato, which is to create a lot of disruption to kind of challenge these countries and look, i do believe that these countries obviously have to meet the responsibility to natoo. i think he actually deserves some credit for getting some of these countries to come forward and begin to respond with their percentage requirementses, but

what he's missing is that this isn't just a country club where people have to pay their duesng. this is an alliance of allies that has a 70 year history that is critical to the security, not only of the united states, but the security will europe and the world and he's got to keep coming back to that fundamental point. he's not doing that. he's basically criticizing, he's pushing them, he's making the kind of statements that he made this morning and what concerns me as i said is where the hell are we going with this? with the long-term strategy? is he trying to undermine nato, we can nato or deep down is he tacticto use this as a to hopefully strengthen nato for the future?en >> mr. secretary, let me ask you the question, i have trouble to

nato summits with you in the and is memory serves wondered this morning whether we were getting near the tipping points. where at some pointg people say, no, he's been banging on us now, for a year and a half and i'm beginning to believe it. i believe that he doesn't really believe in nato and so at that moment's if you are european you say we need to think about other ways to guarantee our security. that american commitment to defend us with nuclear weapons if necessary is no longer-- how close are we to that? >> i think one thing that could very well happen in these next few days is that it's may very well defined trump foreign-policy for the duration of his term as president. and it can go one of two ways.

if he takes advantage of the facts that european countries are coming forward, tries to take steps to strengthen the nato alliancen to provide the kind of military assistance and deployment that are important to keeping that alliance strong, he could use that as a strong point in going to the summit with vladimir putin. i think it would strengthen his hand in dealing with vladimir putin, and then ask obviously to deal with vladimir putinpu on se critical issues with russia. that is something we should hope for as the path of that he will take. on the other hand, it could be a disaster, and he could very well wind up in nato continuing his criticism, demanding that if they don't pay that the united states will somehow withdraw in

terms of the numbers of military personnely and equipment that we provide to nato. so, he could really send a torpedo into the strength of nato, we can nato and then trotting off to russia and have a great reality tv meeting with putin similar to what happened with the g7 and going. i think it that repeats itself then i think europe and our allies will have a very clear message that this president is not interested in trying to strengthening the alliance, but rather we can it. >> and not to push you to heart, but after this first morning as we watched it, it looks to me like the latter scenario, the torpedo scenario seems a lot

more likely than the former. >> you know, i don't know. this guy is totally unpredictable and erratic and i have no damn idea what the hell is going to happen here in mean i watched the president's with the supreme court announcement. he followed his lines. he behaved himself. he did well. >> as a former chief of staff, that's what you want presidents to do and so, you know, he does seem to have at least the ability to adhere to that kind of, you know, big moment. on the other hand, by virtue of his tweeting the way he behaves in other areas o and criticism that he makes, personal attacks that he engages in, that's the other side here and whether or

not-- look, the most encouraging thing is that he is surrounded by pompeo, matus and john kelly happens to be there who is someone i work with and particularly john matus and kelly who are two marines, ultimately, i think, they are trying to keep him on the right track. whether they are successful are not, we will see. at least i'm somewhat encouraged he is the right people at the table deciding, but obviously he is still not following their lives. >> you may have given theen kiss of death for general kelly in general matus. i don't know. let me ask you where in some ways is an awkward question, but appropriate question, former cia director. it's written often that donald

trump's behavior towards climate -- vladimir putin for encouragement, being friends is a good thing in his behavior towards our allies, chancellor merkel, prime minister theresa may is consistent with someone who is acting on behalf of of russia's interest. obviously, these are questions that in the end will be left to robert moore and his investigation, but if you could just in your perspective as a former cia director about ways in which people sometimes wittingly or unwittingly end up acting in ways that help foreign powers, i think, that would be an interesting way to look at this. >> well, look i have been in public life over 50 years and i have served in one way or another with nine presidents.

and every one of those presidents recognized russia for what it is. and understood that they were an adversary and that we had to be -- we had to defend our interests in dealing with russia because from all of the intelligence that we gather on russia there is no question that they continue to make efforts to undermine our democracy, undermine western democracies took that's pretty clear. this president like---- doesn't like to read his speed tds, but i'm sure every briefing provided to him mentions the fact that russia is engaged in efforts to undermine our democracy. and so, the fact that this

president kind of goes out of his way to try to in many ways defend-- vladimir putin when the vladimir putin says russia was not involved in something that all of our intelligence agencies agreed that they were involved with was to try to undermine our election institution in this country and a vladimir putin said no, we were not involved in the president of the united states said you know, got two tickets were that they were involved when all of the evidence, all of the intelligence, all of the evidence is that in fact they were involved and obviously that raises concern. what those concerns are, you know, bob-- robert mueller will determine if there is a money connection or anything else that truly is influencing him, but i think the bigger issue is this that donald trump is president

of the united states. he has sworn an oath h, not only to defend our constitution, but to protect this country.y. and i think for that reason alone, the president of the united states has to protect our country from our adversaries. i always felt the cia director, my primary mission was to keep america safe, protect our country and that's what the president of the united states is responsible to do and i worry that this presidents for whatever reason is not operating with the awareness of how much an adversary russia is to the stability of united states. >> that's a powerful answer. i will leave that there and

return to related question. your experience in the process of bringing order out of chaos and i'm thinking back to when a talented, but somewhat disorganized president named bill clinton was in a lot of trouble after his first couple of years in office and you came in as his chief of staff in a situation, environment in which a lot of people thought, no way, even leon panetta won't be able to discipline this. and you had some success and i think it would be interesting for this audience to hear a little bit about how you did that and what rules you lay down to impose some discipline on a talented, but undisciplined man. how did you do that? >> wasn't easy.

[laughter] frankly, i didn't want to do it. i was 0mb director and we had just passed very significant budget for the presidents-- president and by the way provided 500 billion in deficit reduction over five years. the combination of that plus the bush agreement is what produced a balanced budget, so i was very pleased with the opportunity to work on the budget and work on a preparation bills and, you know, vice president gore who was a classmate of mine in congress that i think the president wants you to be chief of staff and i said al, i'm more value bill in this position and the size that i kind of in the chaos in the white house and so the next thing i knew i was being invited

up to camp david and so i flew up to camp david and iid walked into the presidential cabin and it was president clinton, hillary clinton, al gore and tipper gore and me. i knew i was screwed. [laughter] so, at the end of the conversation i said okay, i will take the job. i had some conditions, but the most important was that i had to establish a chain of command. i remember asking my predecessor , you know, give me your organization chart for the white house and he said i don't believe we have one of those and i knew i was in trouble at that point, so i took my army experience, developed a chain of command. we had chief of staff, deputy chiefs of staff, people

responsible to people, not having people wander around into the oval office, these kind of people that carry a broad title and walk into any meeting with the responsibility and walk out. lousy way to run the white house , so i developed a that kind of a atmosphere along with trying to control access to the presidents. the key difference was that this president wanted that discipline to happen. he knew that in many ways his reelection would depend on that. so, he was very cooperative in the effort to try to put those changes in place. it was not always easy. you know, he is someone who just instinctively wants to reach out to people, once everyone to come into the oval office and a talk and be a part of it and is so good to discipline that.

i think he was willing to accept that discipline and as a result i think we were able to really put it in a better place. i remember talking to john kelly who called me before he took his job and i saidjo, i went through the whole thing and said you got it put a chain of command in place, limit access to have a policy process you put in place for the presidents. i said the big difference, john, is your principal and whether or not in the end he's going to be willing to accept that kind of discipline. that will be the difference between success or failure. >> so, we keep hearing reports of friction between general kelly and the president and yet he stays on. i have wondered what would be the consequence if one day general kelly decided with the greatest respect sir, and walked

out the door for the president fired him and decided he didn't want to operate with the chief of staff. lets face it, that's not working out very well with the staffing process. what would that be like? what would a white house without that? can you just give us a picture of what that would be like? >> well, it would again be chaos the president likes that kind of approach and i think he basically i-- he may very well have arrived at a point where he thinks i really don't need a chief of staff. i know this job-- now on i can basically handle it without a chief of staff. >> and the leon panettata who ws sitting on his shoulder who's been given opportunity to whisper something in president trump's air with a, mr. presidentt? >> mr. president, mr. president,

no matter how you have operated in the private sector, no matter how you have operated as president of the united states, you absolutely need to have a chief of staff that can implement the things that you want to do and organize the staff and make it respond to you and to what you need done. you can't operate without some discipline. i don't care who you are. you need to have an organized approach to dealing with these issues and yeah, the president of the united states is the elected individual in this country and he determines what policies are. but, the reality is that the presidents can operate without a support foundation in which you have advisors and key people that know these issues that present options to the presidents that allow him to

look at issues, understand those issues and try to make the right decisions. that's a process you need to have in place. i'm hopeful that the presidentis will stick with john kelly and that job. you know, this president is not someone who obviously fires people the way others do despite his background on reality tv. the way he underlined-- underminesnd people is by tweetg and criticizing. you know, he did that with jeff sessions, with others. he basically embarrasses them, criticizes them and ultimately pushes them out that way. what i have noticed with john kelly and i think god for this is that he has now kind of pulled back on those kind of tweets, which may send a signal that that relationship has gotten better rather than worse. >> so, i went to ask you about the broad topic of our gathering

this morning, which is the history of democracy and ask you , not about how difficult is now, but about how we go about putting this country political system, this process of governance back on track and you are someone who has special standing in that debate in my book because as i have written, you are part of what i describe as great chain of being in our government, people who came through congress and who basically made this system work, make things run,te made the dollars and cents at up at the end of the day,e so just think about this agenda for restoring the health of our democracy.

what are two or three starting points that you think we should think about as we head towards the midterms, as we think about 2020? >> look, the most critical thing in our democracy is the ability to govern. i tell the students at the panetta institute that in a democracy we operate either by leadership o, crisis. if leadership is there and willing to take the risk associated with leadership and make no mistake about it if you're going to lead in this country you have to take risks. you got to take risks. if your business then you have to take risks. that's what leadership is all about. if that leadership is not thereo for whatever reason, then we world governed by crisis and we have largely been a country in recent years that is governed by

crisis. you have to have a shutdown of the federal government in order for congress to try to figure out what to do about budgetto. you have to have crisis in other areas in order to drive a policy and the problem with that as you can operate that way as an a elected official. it's easy to wait for crisis and not have to do anything to anger the constituents, but ultimately there is a price to be paid in the prices you lose the trust of the american people in our system of governing and i think that is what the 2016 election was all about. the lack of trust in washington and the failure of washington to deal w with the issues that were confronting the american people. i have not seen that improved. in my history, i have seen washington at its best, washington at its worstst. good news is i have seen washington work and when i came

back and worked as a legislative assistant to the minority whip in the senate, there were a number of moderate republicansh. a day worked with democrats like humphrey in jacksonat, dick russell, they worked together on issues. yes, they had their political differences, but they worked it together when it came to issues confronting this country and i got elected to congress tip o'neill was the speaker. he said democrats a democrat, but he got along with bob michael the minority leader and did they had their political differences? of the course, but when it came to major issues they worked together. they were willing to sit downn, negotiate, to respect each other and to develop trust between each other and to governed the country. that has broken down. that process has broken down. there is no trust. they can't even agree on the facts regarding issues. so, there's an unwillingness to sit down and to negotiate and to

find compromise and to find consensuss and so you have dysfunction and it's a dangerous dysfunction. you can't deal with the budget. you can't deal with the debt that's going to-- almost 100% of gdp within the stacks few years. they are not dealing with immigration. they are not dealing with energy issues. they are not dealing with the holy-- issue of infrastructure and how to improve infrastructure this countrytu. they are not dealing with the fundamental issues facing our country. about concern i have is that this continues. then i think along with the president who is beginning to withdraw our leadership-- from our leadership role in the world , i think, that spells a week america and that could undermine our democracy for the future. now, i have great faith in our system i have great faith in the fact that there are communities

and states out there and institutions that want to make our democracy strong. i will to you this, i do not think our democracy will solve its problems from the top down. it's only get a solve the problems from the bottom up, which means that election of new individuals who are willing to get back to governing. >> let me take that issue head-on. there are a lot of people in your party, the democratic party who say, we are facing a mortal threat to our institutions, our values. of a point to immigration to various human rights issues, the whole agenda that you went through and they say, you know, all this talk about compromise and all that, that is getting us

nowhere. we need to be an angry motivated party, and we need to be more prepared to confront the other side. so, if sarah huckabee sanders goes to dinner in lexington, virginia, well, if the folks get angry, send her away without her dinner. if mitch mcconnell is trying to leave his house in this morning, go remind him about the immigration issues. the whole series of things like that that are illustrations of this argument that to be successful democrats need to be an angry militant party to rally the country. there is obviously an argument that the democrats should be a governing party, a broad tent that locksa of folks accountabe with, but you have heard the argument from most motivated democrats and i'm sure you've

heard in california. what is your answer to those folks that we have tried that and it doesn't work? let's try being angry. >> well, if you're angry and you lose it doesn't make it out and that a difference. about objective has to be about winning, i mean, for all of the concern about, you know, kavanagh, the new justice to the supreme court, but the bottom line is thathe that is the resut of losing an election. democrats have lost a major election in this country and the issue is whether democrats can win an election and they can't win if they fight republican extremism with democratic's-- extremism. the only way you win in this country is by reflecting what

america is all about. and america, the america i know is a country that obviously has vast differences, but at the same time in terms of the values represents very much the same belief in what this country is all about in the importance of a job, their families and the importance of decent health care for their families and the importance of educating our children in the importance of being able to pull together as a community and the importance of caring for one another in this country, in the importance of welcome and those who to this country. i am the son of italian immigrants and this is a land of immigrants, so it is those kind of fundamental values that democrats had to speak to. it isn't about terry people up.

it isn't about playing the same tactics. it's about providing a message to this country about what we really can be, which is to return to the important values that make our democracy what it is. that's what's at the heart and soul of our countryr c. our forefathers came up with this saying, reflecting what america should have as its motto out of many one. out of many one. the fact is our differences are not our weaknesses. our differences are our s.strengths. that's what america is all about , but to be able to deal with that, this clash of ideas which i think is healthy. i think that is what america needs to bebe. out of that we have to be one nation and that means yes, that we do have to sit down. we have to listen to one another and we have to work through and

find consensus and compromise and govern this country. that is the message that democrats will have to provide this country c. otherwise, yeah, they can play the same games that republicans have a play. they can become a one-man party giving up on basic principles that the republicans are all about with free trade, whether its foreign-policy, whether it's remaining strong against russia. they have given up on a lot of those principles. we can't play the same game. we have to represent something very different and it's not that different. it's what america really is. allowed in this country. go to the midwest, go to the south will go to the northeast, go to the west, the fact is that deep down there are some fundamental beliefs that pull us together as a society and that is what we have to appeal to. >> powerful answerr your call oe to take a question that came in from our twitter feed and it's

an interesting question as i read it. it is really asking how sound is this structure that we want to rebuild? how bad is the rock in the way the person phrases this is to ask your view of stability of our system of checks and balances, rule of law and other cornerstones of democracy. are you worried that those have been weakenedd by these many years of bitter bitter person ship? >> well, there is no question that as i said pointing to the dysfunctioni that it's been weakened by virtue of inability and precedents and congresses failure to work together. this doesn't just happen with trump. this goes back away, probably the last 15 years.

presidents have found it difficult to work with congress. commerce has become more person engaging in trench warfare. there's been this inability to sit down and really be able to work througher those issues ande are seeing that today. at the same time, our forefathers did design a system in which they did not want to locate power in any one branch out customer-- country that they did not when it came or parliament and that's the reason they created these three separate but equal branches of government and those checks and balancesgo-- are they always working the way we want? no. we see while congress has been able to do and we don't always agree with the court or call oh, i have to say the courts are continuing to make decisions that do try to keep us on the path of the rule of lawf .

but, what i really see that i think is the great strength of america today is that our institutions of democracy that count today are the free press and the fact that the press continues to present the news to the people. obviously, with social media and all of the other things involvew there is a real competition with just exactly where the truth is, but the fact that we have a free press is extremely important to the debate that needs to take place in this country. we have states that have taken up the responsibility to deal with issues that the federal government for one reason or another is not trying to deal with we have a number of states dealing with environmental issues, dealing with immigration and other challenges that the federal government has not been helpful on. they are doing it. ic communities across this

countryco where, yeah, there are democrats and republicans. there are people that support trumpth. there are people that support bernie sanders, but the fact is in these communities, they are able to sit down and to develop approaches trying to improve what's going on in these communities whether it's in housing, transportation, whether it's in healthcare and there are other institutions in our democracyhe that are working as well, so i think because of those institutions and will, we are being tested to call this out as citizens are being tested and in many ways the question is whether we are willing to step up and do what we have to in order to make sure our country stays in the right path. , but iall being tested have fundamental confidence in the underlying strength of this

country because i really do believe that deep down americans share a common spirit, common sense, dedication to what this country is all about and the reason is because the secretary of defense-- i saw those values in the men women that serve this country. i looked them in the eye. these are young peopleey that ae willing to fight and die for this country. understand that pretty they are willing to fight and die for this country and if they are willing to do that, if they are willing to do everything necessary that i don't see why we as citizens can't reflect the same courage in terms of our democracy. [applause]. >> are you sure you are not ready to run again? >> i like being 3000 miles away.

[laughter] >> i want to stick with this question of damage to our institutions and baby this is a last question, but it goes to an area that you came to know and love and that is our intelligence agencies. you said no one was more surprised than me when you were asked to be cia director, but i remember when you came in the agency. it acted as if it had a sign on its backside that said "kick me" and you gave them some protection, some cover and that was the period of rebuilding and we have been in a period where the president in an extraordinary way has publicly attacked our intelligence law enforcement agencies, talked

about the fbi and i could never imagine an american president. he talked about the nsa similarlyou as he engaged in abe for a time was attacking the cia and its professionals, so i went to ask you, you were part of that world, what damage has all of that done as people listen to these common it-- comets coming from the president of the united states week after week. what effect does that have and again, how do we go about preparing that so we get what we want, which is independent, professionalic, self-confident w abiding intelligence law enforcement? >> well, look but it's just establish basic premise. this country has not checked

itself, cannot defend the interest of the american people without the rule of law and without strong national security , a strong defense force that can help protect this country from our adversaries. critical to that, is the ability to get the best intelligence possible on what our adversaries and others are up to. knowledge is critical. of the ability to protect our country. that's what intelligence is all about. that's what the cia and all the intelligence agencies are all about. that's what the nsa is all about of the importance of being able to determine what others are doing that can impact on our national security interest and

that doesn't just happen. that isn't something where you can just pick up a "washington post", "new york times" or "wall street journal" and figure out what's happening in the rest of the world. it means you are going to have to put people in dangerous places in order to be able to determine what really is happening. you have got to be able to deploy pick you have to be able to set up operations that can provide the best kind of information possible. and so people are putting their lives on the line in order to be able to gather that kind of intelligence. that's what it's all about. i talked about our men and women in uniform. men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies and for that matter our law enforcement agencies, put their lives on the line.

and many presidents criticizes our intelligence and our intelligence operations than clearly it impacts on the morale of those people putting their lives on the line. i mean, they are basically asking the question, wait a minute, i'm out here, i'm taking risks everyday. i'm providing valuable information and now i hear that the president of the united states basically criticizing the importance of that information and criticizing what i do. it makes it that much tougher to try to attract people who are willing then to go out into this tough positions and be able to do what is necessary to do. now, i have tremendous confidence in the people that are part of our intelligence agencies. i know they continue to put their lives on the line. they are continuing to gather that informationth.

they are continuing to provide an important intelligence. the reality is after 911li, we recognized that intelligence in many ways failed. to be able to determine what our enemies were up to and the result of that is that we really did improve intelligence operations in this country.mp we put them together. they are willing to share information and work together and i think in many ways because of those operations we have been able to protect this country since 911. but, it is a continuing challenge and so my hope is that that the president now understands that whatever problems he may have had with intelligence of the past, the reality is he cannot do his job without the men and women of the intelligence operations who are putting their lives on the line

to make sure that they provide information that is critical to our national security. [applause]. >> so, when i talk with secretary panetta, i think of as they say in church on sunday the law of the apostles and you take us back to fundamentals about our country works. we are really grateful you are willing to take on the spray to be with us and share such honest and thoughts really worth thinking about, so thank you, mr. tet-- mr. secretary. >> thank you. [applause]. [inaudible conversations]

>> earlier today deputy attorney general rod rosenstein announced a special counsel robert mueller has indicted 12 russian intelligence officers in the 2016 hacking of the democratic national convention. you can see his news conference tonight starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 on c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. on monday the president meets with russian president vladimir putin picked the two leaders are accepted to meet privately with translators and hold a working lunch as well. watches c-span for updates on the us russia summit and follow our coverage online at c-span.org. this week current and former elected official spoke to the group knew democracy and held a

symposium to discuss strategies to advance democratic party agenda and let candidates in the 2018 and 2020 elections. you can see this event tonight starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2 and also online at c-span.org or listen with free c-span radio app. bret cavanaugh of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia's president trump's nominee for the supreme court took follow the confirmation process on c-span as he meets with key senators this week on capitol hill followed by senate confirmation hearings on the votes. watch live on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. fbi agent peter strzok who was removed from special counsel investigation of russian involvement in the 2016 us elections testified for most of the day yesterday before a joint hearing of the house for