on until we publish. we are definitely continuing to cover this issue and the relationship between campaign money and campaign finance and washington. host: fred schulte is the senior reporter with iwatchnews. iwatchnews.org is the website in case you like to see the reports or read the e-mails between the white house and lightsquared. mr. fred schulte is he has received the editors award, three awards for business writing. thank you for being on the communicators. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, a supreme court

argument on the case involving cory maples. alabama state attorneys then borrowed -- barred him from appeal because of he defaulted. the supreme court is expected to render a decision before the end of the term lynching. this is about one hour. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court. two factors distinguish this case. first, the state itself had a direct hand in the extraordinary events leading up to the default in this case. a second, the actions of maple's attorneys are not attributable to maples that this court has

invoked in determining when conduct can be with a client. it the default at issue in this case is not fairly attributable to cory maples. the decision of the 11th circuit should be reversed. >> putting that to one side, what if only one of the three notices have been returned it? >> i think if only one from the of state pro bono council, i think that would be a different case. you have both out of state attorneys, the notices come back marked returned to center and

left in an envelope and the clerk does nothing. what is extraordinary about that is that the system in this case relies on the out of state attorneys. >> who says that they rely? you have a local attorney, and you have to have a local attorney for the case, don't you? you want us to believe that the local attorney is -- has no responsibility for the case at all? is this really what the law requires? i think there is a serious ethical obligation when he gives the dakotas, he is one of the attorneys for your client. that was not returned? >> that is correct. >> he failed to check with new york lawyers who were working with him. why is the state responsible for that? >> first, the record shows notice is not attributable to mr. maples because mr. butler --

>> claimed it to do? how can the clock be expected to know that the local council wheat is not taking any part? >> i think from the clark's perspective, we think it is well known in alabama that under this unique system, out of state attorneys were doing all the work in this case. local council were facilitating the admission. >> mr. garre, is there anything in the record on that point? >> a couple of things, your honor. we do have the briefs that were discussed anecdotally. i would sit at the state of alabama and its brief specifically target the role of out of state attorneys under its system. as far as i can tell, it did not mention local council once. i think it is fair to say that it is now that out of state attorneys were doing all the

work. >> how is the clerk is supposed to know this? this is a function that sends out fax mail that is not return. there has to be some local council that does work. how is he supposed to know the difference between those who do and those who don't? >> i think the court would be able to abolish the system. the court knew that two of the three notices that what out were returned to the out of state attorneys which ought to be an extraordinary event it. >> even if local council is as you describe it, even if he was a functionary, surely the function would include when he gets a notice. he makes sure the people who do the real work know about the notice. >> of course. >> he did not perform that function.

>> that was intentionally so his old -- his own affidavit make that clear. the state itself may not -- i did not hear what you said. >> local council would service that. in this case, mr. butler made quite clear that he was not playing a role. the state itself -- >> who did he make that clear? he said he made it clear at the outset. to whom? . it is after the fact, right? >> that is right. >> did he tell the court that that was the case? >> he is the counsel of record, right? i don't even do so much as to forward notices to the guys who are doing the real work. did he tell the court that? >> the state itself was not have viewed him as a unique player.

the state sent a letter, fax it to mr. maples directly on death row. >> he said even before that, didn't you say something about noticing that it did not go to the local council, right? >> the clerks sent out notices to all three attorneys of record. mr. pollard did not receive the notice. he did not do anything because he had not pursued any role beyond facilitating -- >> the prosecutor, he had a filing in connection with the royal 32 motion. did prosecutors and adapt to everybody -- did prosecutor extended that to everybody? >> he did not. when the default occurred, the

state contacted mr. maples in prison which would have been unethical if the state believed he was represented to it by -- >> it seems to me that the prosecutor was recognizing wasmaples had no counsel. >> i absolutely agree with you. i think that is further evidence that everybody knew mr. maples did not have a council and meaningful sense. >> where does the constitution say that you have to give notice? that every judicial action has to be noticed to the parties in the case? the federalist to the required notice, do they? >> the constitution does not say that. >> and the federal rules don't say that. >> notice of a first conviction order would implicate a due

process in receiving notice it is reasonable -- these cases are different? if you are going to go to jail for life, you don't get noticed. >> it is either a role for all criminal cases where it is not a role. if it is a rule for all federal cases, they are unconstitutional you are saying. >> it takes into account the interests and individual receives. -- we don't think this court has defined a constitutional violation. >> want to have a lawyer, it is up to your lawyer to follow what goes on in the court. that is the assumption of the federal rules. it seems a perfectly reasonable assumption. i am not about to hold that are unconstitutional simply because -- and extraordinary requirement of notice which is not required by the constitution has gone awry. >> here, mr. maples did not have

an attorney who was serving an agency role. that is laid out. what is more, the state here simply did not quite unreasonably rely on local council that is not performing in alabama. >> your case it seems to me turn its critically on butler's role. how much between what he did or did not do what put him in a position where he was representing maples in your view? >> i think it would be a meaningful relationship. it is a relationship that he describes as one of sub agency. if you look at the alabama role, they put the onus on and out of state council. that is on page 365 in the joint the appendix. mr. maples was not involved in that transaction. >> where do we look to see it is standard practice for local

councils throughout the country to contact out of state, so when something like this is received? i remember a case in the federal system where they did exactly what was done here, he then tried the case for a year, got sick, and that the judges said to the local council,, and. you are going to take over this trial. the local council said, i only signed up to move the admission of this fellow. the judge says, your counsel of record and you have to take over the case. i don't understand what is alleged to have occurred here. is that four out of the ordinary? >> i think mr. butler simply said, i am going to facilitate your out of state attorneys to represent you. that is my role. >> you can't define his role as a lawyer. once he appears before a court

and says i in counsel of record, he has a certain responsibility. is not up to him. >> clearly -- >> if they don't extend even to fording notice, even to making sure that the people doing the legwork in the case know that the clock is running. i can't imagine what his responsibility is. >> he abandoned his client. what mr. butler did -- there is another factor at play. the confusion of the court affirmatively treated when it sent an order that all counsel of record receive it. that is what the order said on page 325. >> before to get to the court, can i ask you about what the state attorney -- the prosecuting attorney knew? the prosecuting attorneys know

that these two individuals from the york representing this person. >> they knew they were accounts of record. i will let my friend answer that question. what we do is what the default occurred, it took the necessary step of faxing a letter to mr. maples which would have been unethical f. -- >> in your view, the counsel of record knew that these two people were part of the representation. the council for the state. did the council know that they had not gotten the notes? >> i don't want to speak for my friend. there is certainly nothing in the record to establish that they knew these out of state attorneys did not get noticed. >> is there any reason to think that the state attorney or whoever was prosecuting thought that the local council was likely not to do much? >> yes. >> ok. so it is possible we will find out later that the state the

prosecuting attorney who works the state knew all of those things? one, he is represented by counsel in new york. two, they did not get the notice. 3, the local attorney is not going to do anything. conclusion -- the likely new he did not get the notice but they are asserting that this is an adequate state ground to bar him coming into habeas. is that a direct view of the case? all we have to decide is what the under these circumstances the state's attorney acknowledged that all the facts mean that the state cannot assert this is an adequate state ground. >> right. thosecourse we don't know facts. >> we know what that action took. it was an action that he did not have meaningful council. >> let me ask you this, if i may.

think debrief covered it. it may be in there. do you know in alabama or in nationwide how many capital cases there is no appeal? >> i don't know that. think the alabama system here created a system which would allow for appeals not only in direct appeals but post -- we think ultimately they help facilitate the extraordinary and shocking events in this case. >> the new york lawyers did not abandon mr. maples prior to the time that they've left their law firm in new york. >> that is right. >> their conduct prior to that time would be attributed to him. >> that is right. >> part of that was setting up their arrangement with mr. butler where he would show up as counsel of record but not really do anything. why aren't the consequences of

that arrangement attributed to mr. maples as well? >> i think what we are looking for is whether it is attributed to naples. the out of state attorneys left the room representation without fulfilling their duty to notify mr. maples. he was sitting under the reasonable belief that he was represented by counsel who would appeal if an adverse decision was made. >> can i go back to justice kennedy pose the question. this was not an appeal. the question was how many capital cases is there and have appealed. he had been convicted and had appealed. the proceedings were over. and if this was a post conviction. >> it was. >> when the state sets up the system and allows for an appeal, they cannot deprive it of an appeal based on circumstances here. >> i don't think it is exported

very it would not be an appeal. >> it would not seem to me extraordinary that it not be stopped. in this case, there was a direct appeal. then there was a proceeding we are talking about here. you would think there was some merit to the underlying claims. any statistics on how often an appeal is abandoned or not pursued in these cases? no statistics? >> the system 6 i am aware of in a material sense often successful. we start with those. here we think the underlying claims are quite serious. the question in the case is not who shot the victims. the question is whether mr. maples is going to be convicted

for capital murder, a murder that would result and life in prison. >> i am aware of the allegation. >> i think this brings me back to the actions here. one of the things that exacerbated the chain of events is that you have an order which directed all parties would be served, mr. butler did say that that order crated and added risk -- >> i have two questions for you. is this state the only one who does not appoint counsel in a post convention a capital case? >> i think alabama may i point that. i think george is another state. in that respect -- >> but the vast majority do? >> absolutely. the vast majority do. >> #2 -- i thought there were two questions in this part of your case. the first is, don't we have to decide that abandoned to permit

is caused -- abandonment is caused to excuse a procedural are in a state court? >> yes. >> we have to decide first what they're extended into this setting. >> i think there are independent grounds that the stake includes its own actions. >> that is due process -- we have to decide the first question. >> there are independent grounds. >> i understand. >> with respect to the attorneys, that is right. >> what is the line between abandonment and just plain old negligence? >> it would be the one established by an agency. >> if there is local council at

just goofed by the people doing less work in the case, why is that abandonment? >> i think it is absurd -- actually more of a situation where the real abandonment going on was the attorneys in new york could left without notifying the court. >> that is beside the question of local council. can we find if there was up and it meant against the law firm or he continued to represent mr. maples after the two young attorneys left the firm? >> the court could pure >> does the record show they did not represent mr. maples? this was done purely by the two attorneys? is there a finding on the court by that? >> we think that is the better reading of the record. i am happy to explain why. we think it is irrelevant whether he was represented in this fiscal -- fictional cents. they were the ones mr. maples

agreed to have represent him in that proceeding. alabama courts made specific findings that mr. maples lawyers -- it said that after the fall to. >> wouldn't the law firm have to have some involvement in giving them permission to provide this representation? usually it is something like a pro bono committee at higher level. candy's junior associates go ahead and say we want to spend a lot of our time defending a man on death row. would they not have to get some kind of commission? >> we are not condoning the actions. i would say the mitigation there was -- the apparently dropped out of the case. >> what we know about his role?

>> we know he was involved in the case at some point. it is not clear what is the involvement was. he said on page 302 that they were waiting for their actions from the courts. we don't know what his involvement was. >> we don't know. don't know. is that not just proof that if we were to find the exception applied we would have to reinvent this case? >> i think that would be appropriate. we think the court should find that the holland exception -- >> in that regard, there is one part of holland it that you don't really address which is that holland contrasted a statute of limitations issue with respect to a federal court with a procedural bar and said that the state's procedural bar had interest and federalism. we had it to be cautious of

ignoring the state procedural bar because of federalism. if we were to extend it in the way you want, how do we justify ignoring federalism in that situation? >> there are those decisions. our point recognizes that it is external to the client under agency and other principals. pullman itself recognizes that external conduct is not attributable to the client. it can't be a basis for cause. they are simply not implicated or you find attorneys' actions are external. agency lot going back to justice story's time, you would find that abandonment force must be external to declined to. we are someone not acting as an agent in a meaningful sense. it would be unfair to attribute

the agency contacted to the client. >> could we go back to the state of the record? you have said a few times in your greece says the record is skimpy on various matters. would you go forward and say the record is corrupted and it tainted by conflicts of interest? >> i think there are conflicts of interest. there are laid out in the brief. the attorneys or representing through the decision of the 11th circuit. for purposes of what this court would do, i think it would be appropriate. to conclude, like we should, the abandonment of council would be extraordinary council, you don't know what these other attorneys -- >> we know the counsel of record, the two were listed as counsel of record or that representing him in the end.

>> we never agree to have anyone else represent him anyway the alabama courts found that he was not county of record and were not authorized to practice in alabama. >> it seems to me it is up to you to produce the facts that would justify our reversing the case that you are asking us to. we don't have these facts. send the fax so we can -- he should have gone the facts of the first place. if the record does not show the things you need to show to get the case reversed, the case should not get reversed. >> i think the problem is both the district court and the court of appeals short circuit in the council's actions because they believe that coleman vs. thompson applied in the abandonment situation. it would be appropriate for the court to send it back and say, no. coleman vs. thompson does not apply in an extraordinary case of abandonment or attorneys' actions cannot be attributable.

>> when did you first met the abandonment claim? >> we have argued -- >> was it not first made in the request for rehearing? >> 2 points on this. the attorneys' actions established cause. that is why they addressed that and rejected it the ruinously. >> that is not abandonment. that does not mean abandonment. >> they made the claim here that the actions -- you can make different arguments. the possibility of conflicts of interest would make it a program for this court to consider our abandonment issue. there are no further questions

at this time. >> thank you, mr garre. >> may it please the court, in trying to sidestep coleman, he is advocating at least three principles that are incompatible with the way our justice system works prefers, naples is asking the court to hold that due process required not just actual notice to his attorney of record john butler, but in fact something more than that. >> let's say three notices are sent out. all three of them come back. let's see if you can go for it further and say the prosecutor knows that nobody representing mr. maples received notice. what happens then? >> in that case, your honor, there would be a much more substantial argument -- >> i know it would be more

substantial. my question is, what happens? are you prepared to acknowledge in that case mr. maples had been abandoned by all of his lawyers. it was not to the prosecution. therefore, the failure to file notice should not constitute firing collateral relief. >> i don't think it would justify a finding of abandonment by all the lawyers. it could signify a number of things. i do think it would raise questions about whether the clerk had a due process obligation to do more. >> what is the return mean? does that necessarily mean that? it just means you got the wrong address, doesn't it? >> that's correct. >> is that the only thing it means for sure? his lawyers are not longer at

sullivan and cromwell. i don't know how that is abandonment. >> absolutely, your honor. the presumption generally says -- that is correct. the client can certainly move that firms with a lawyer. >> we are not talking about abandonment in this respect. we are talking about notice going to no one and a clock ticking from a certain date that no one knows about. they were preparing for a hearing before this judge. they were not anticipating he was going to roll without anything further. >> that is correct. they were repairing -- preparing for a another hearing. contrary to my friends a statement, on page 222, maples alleged that they were preparing for the evidentiary hearing. >> as far as the record shows,

he is not on the record at all for free -- free counsel of record -- let's go back to the post issue. it did not regard butler at any time? he did not even sen its route want -- or 22 responses. >> i respectfully disagree with that assessment of how we can read the service several 32 answer. under alabama law, a pleading or an order be served on only one council of record when a party has multiple council of records. that answer was served upon mr. mock up. it was not -- >> what about the notice that he had lost in the alabama court observed and if he wants to go

to the federal court, do something about it. >> that is correct. the state's attorney in that instance signed a letter only to mr. maples. >> he made the point that if maples was represented, that would be improper. to send a notice to maples a long, so the state's attorney must have thought that maples had been abandoned by his lawyers. he did not notify any of them. >> the record does not reveal why mr. hayden decided to send a letter to mr. maples a lot. >> he did not have to send a letter. that had no legal effect. >> that is correct. >> by the way, and your time has expired. what could the lawyer do about it? it was not a required notice

that he had to give to the lawyer or anybody else. >> that is correct. >> it just made this extraneous volunteer statement to maples instead of to his lawyers. i don't know what that proves. >> at that point in time, the state case is opened. so it was hardly clear if mr. hayden was going to do something he did not have to do under the rules. >> why did he do it? what was the point of it? he must have thought there was a problem, right? >> were honor, he certainly was aware that mr. maple's lawyers had failed to file notice of appeals. his letter revealed that he is very aware. >> is that surprising? how often do appeals live from the denial of state conviction remedies? >> your honor, i agree with my friend that we don't have statistics on that. i think it's fair to assume for the most part when a row 32

petitioner loses its trial stage, he is going to appeal. there are some instances in which they capital petitioner or someone on death row decides they no longer want to go to the process of the courts. >> i have two questions coming back to the very beginning when we board talking about the miss address where the and received mail. when notices come back no longer at cromwell, and said is that at the consulate wrong address? >> not quite. i think the notice in sync -- i think the notice is saying nobody is no longer at the firm. >> it is pretty clear they did not get the letter because it was sent back. >> that is correct, your honor. >> one other thing while i am talking to you.

could the state of alabama under your laws wave of you allege to be procedural fault? if he thought there was a substantial merit to the claims, even though you take the position that they ultimately should be rejected, could you have simply allowed the appeal to proceed? >> i don't think the law makes it crystal clear. i know of no law that suggests the attorney-general necessarily has to assert every thing within his or her arsenal. >> can we go back to the chief justice's initial question? let's assume the two lover --

letters went to sullivan and cromwell and came back in the letter to butler came back. would it there because in that situation? >> perhaps, your honor. it would depend on what the letters came back from sullivan and cromwell. >> we know that both lawyers in this case did not move to another firm. both of them took jobs that precluded them from representing this defendant. i don't know how i could find the band and other than i took a job or i can't work for you anymore. >> the argument in that case would be substantially stronger as i said before in part because death is an external factor. >> so if you accept the idea that there is a distinction between nonfeasance and

abandonment? >> i think we would be prepared to recognize in certain cases of abandonment of a client by an attorney would terminate the agency relationship between the attorney and client. >> the only thing we are talking about is whether on these particular facts there has been abandonment or not? >> that is right. yes your honor. one thing i do want to stress that my friend has suggested an evidentiary proceedings are necessary on this particular question because we don't know what role the other attorneys played in the matter. >> but we do know they were in counsel of record. we do know that the only two councils of record were no longer representing him. he had no reason to know that they were. they could not represent him. the only two out of town councilors -- counsel for the

two that disabled themselves by taking other jobs. there was no one other than those two on the record. on the record they had abandoned him and there was no substitute? >> i disagree with that assessment, your honor. >> the argument is on the record or not is determinative for the out of town council. it is not determinative for the end of town -- the in town council. the fact that those two are does count. only when you combine those two this the man had no counsel, right? >> yes. there is the inconsistency in naples argument. on the one hand, the city were to his attorneys because the word counsel of record. -- they say they were his attorneys because the word of

counsel of record. >> is this what somebody would do if they actually wanted to accomplish notice? if they actually wanted the persons to guess that letter? i am going to ask you, if you were a lawyer in an important litigation and you set off a letter to two attorneys as well as local counsel you think may not be involved in the substance of litigation, you don't know for a fact you think there is some substantial likelihood that he is not particularly involved as local counsel are to. you send off this letter and you get it back from the principal attorneys and you ask yourself, should i do anything now? what would you say? >> i suspect in those circumstances i might personally do something else. my prerogatives are quite

different from the prerogatives. >> the core beliefs it is an important letter, right? how important is it to? >> i am assuming that a letter exposing of a ruling in a capital case should after 18 months when nobody knew that letter was coming debt that is an important letter for a death row person to get. justice scalia is right to that effect. that is the question we have to ask the clerk as well. the question for the clerk is if he had really wanted the person to get noticed, what would he have done? >> no, i disagree. as far back as elaine -- as far back as the court had said, actual notice to a party in a

jurisdiction is the finish line. >> de arguments that you are making in this capital case which is pushing the court to consider rules that would have far reaching effects such as a role that place is up on a clerk of the court a constitutional obligation to serve council with important documents in the case similar to the constitutional obligation to serve an initial process in the case. the question that i would like to ask you is whether you as the solicitor general have an obligation to push this matter in this way. this is a case where, as i said, it is a capital case that we all recognize. mr. naples has lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own to a series of unfortunate circumstances. when his attorneys moved to file

an appeal, why would you not consent to that? if he did not receive an effective assistance of counsel, why not get a decision on the merits? why push this technical argument? >> there are several responses. first, at least get the rule 32 states, the notice of appeal deadline was the jurisdiction of one. there was not much the state could have done. >> there is no possibility under alabama rules in this circumstance? no extension? >> it is recognized by the 11th circuit that this would not be an appropriate circumstances for and out of time appeal. as to the question about the -- >> once you passed a certain time deadline, you are out of luck. there is no opportunity were there is good cause for an extension? >> there is opportunity for a

good cause of an extension. with the alabama court held was that this circumstance in which the person had counsel of record, the have not notified the court of their changes of address. more important, mr. butler was serving as his agent. >> this goes to my earlier question. if the state of alabama had told the state court that only the circumstances, we think there should be an appeal granted, argue indicating to the state court that is a good idea but we can't do it because it is not appropriate under the circumstances? >> did the state oppose the out of town appeal? >> yes, the state did oppose the out of town appeal. the state press the procedural bar in federal court in this case. the state had every product is

to do so in part because this court recognized a case where the petitioner said he lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own. the state has the power to do that. there are good reasons for the state. >> he did not do so here. he had good reason not to. that is in part because coleman says, this is how procedural default work. they are grounded in the same equitable principles -- >> you agreed with me earlier that abandonment is an exception to the state grounds. under your view of the case, coleman was not necessarily

controlling. >> your honor, if i suggested that abandonment itself is an exhibition to the doctrine, led by correct my earlier answer. abandonment can sometimes allowing courts to determine that a particular lawyer has become external to a client. of course, merely becoming external to the client does not mean the abandonment -- the lawyers and the relationship would also have to impede the ability of the remaining members of the defense team or the defendant himself to comply with state rules. here even if there is some argument that they did not abandon their client, i don't think there is on record. even if there were some argument on that front, it is not clear

that the actions actually impeded the ability of the remaining members of the team. >> when lawyers not representing your client as the two did, is there some obligation to tell the client and the court to read -- to rent for substitutions. there was no record. these two people were representing him and to those two board. they never told the court and they never told maples. isn't there some obligation on the core with a stop representing them to notify the court? >> i don't think what happens here not -- represents cause. the record is clear that he has

alleged they arrange for this to be handled by mr. deluca. he was representing him even before -- even before they left. >> i am still unclear of on factual thing. did the state's attorney know that the letters had come back? >> your honor, the record is not clear on that point. i can represent to the court that the state attorney did not know that the letters have come back. >> do they check the docket ever so often to see what happened? >> most attorneys have an obligation at some point to check the docket. that is one problem with the position that mr. maples has taken regarding mr. polar here and the ability of these parties to obtain information from the court. in this case, it is my

understanding -- this is not on the record -- it is my understanding the state had no idea mr. maple's attorneys in new york had left the firm or -- >> why did they stand it to -- what made them send that notice directly to maples and not to the sullivan and cromwell lawyers? >> this is information that is not in the record. it is my understanding that council figure out what had happened, figured out the appeal had been missed. they had calculated how much time he had to file. based on his 20 years of experience he said that in light of the fact that the state court proceedings were over, the most prudent thing for him to do

would be to send a letter to maples himself. >> so something had terminated the relationship between mr. maples and his lawyers? >> i don't think that is an accurate characterization of what happened in this case. >> even if u.s. and he had figured it out, you would have to in puked his knowledge to the clerk of court to find the fault on the part of the state that is alleged here. >> more so than that, your honor -- >> did he tell the clerk of court he was only going to send it to maples? >> the notion came back to the clark long before the attorney sent the letter in this case. that is an important point both with respect to the issue of abandonment. the relevant question is not what the assistant attorney of

alabama happened in this case, the relevant question is what the clark knew and that is governed by royal seven of the rules governing the alabama bar. had maple's been abandoned? had these attorneys left him without counsel? the record definitively established is that did not happen both because mr. butler remained council here in a much more meaningful way that my friend suggests. >> could you tell me -- i assume you have been practicing in your state for a while. >> yes, your honor. >> how frequent is it in the alabama system that local council takes the laboring or even an active participation in the defense or actions of a capital defendant?

generally, they did what mr. butler did, they facilitated the admission of the volunteer attorneys. was that your experience? >> that information is not in the record. we respectfully disagree as a factual matter with factual assertions made on that front. >> we have to send it back. i guess we have to say what the role is. what is the rule -- what about the role that says or the attorneys to abandon the clients and local attorney does as a matter of practice in the state do virtually nothing accept facilitate foreign representation and where the state had cause to believe that all that was true? in the state cannot assert this is adequate ground. that is all. >> rule seven of the rules

governing the alabama mark -- the alabama are made it emphatically clear that they -- >> irrespective of what the rules were, he would have to show that in this state it is a practice such that the local council does not do much of anything accept facilitate. this is a state of mind whether the state knows that. if he shows both of those things. if he shows the letter came back. he shows this was the abandonment or close their to then the state ought to know that this individual has no idea about filing a piece of paper. that is enough to say this is not adequate state ground that would block federal habeas. your argument against that is what?

>> has a simple matter, those factual assertions were not made below. in order for the court to remand on that particular issue, it would not be everyman pour in evidentiary hearing. >> it seems there is a lot during the breeze that seemed to say that. >> one problem mr. maples faces here is that he had the burden as the practitioner to make the factual allegations that he believed established a cause. >> when an attorney is represented by more than one attorney, the notice does not have to go to all of them? >> that is correct. >> it can only go to one. >> yes. >> as far as local counsel knew, he was the only one to receive notice of this thing, right? >> that is correct. >> is incorrect orders the notice miss the people who have been served? with the new york people listed on the notice that when to

butler? >> yes. >> so he knew he was not the only one getting notice. >> the cc line in this case cannot establish cost and cannot be deemed a state interference for any number of reasons. i suppose it could only be held to establish cause if it would have been reasonable for mr. butler to assume that the line communicated the message it would be fine for him to do nothing and to not based on what was in the cc line. the first is that the line does communicate that they were the people listed on the cc line. they will receive the order. all it says is that the order will be sent. even if it would have been reasonable for mr. butler to assume that they would receive the order in this case, it would

not be reasonable for him to do nothing given that role seven of the alabama rules made him responsible to the crime and to the court and this case. >> i guess the problem is -- accept the role. it exists. if a lawyer says, i don't care, i will not do what the court rules require me to do, what more do you need for abandonment? if a lawyer comes in and says i understand this is the role of the court. i understand i am supposed to do xyz, i don't care. that is the question. it is the difference between i don't care and up and it meant. >> i guess i should make a couple points in response to that. as i understood the question posed on the cc line, that is not about abandonment but whether the clark's actions can be blamed -- the fall replaced

-- >> we are not talking about a notice issue. we are talking about the abandonment question. >> if it really is true, if butler had decided he was quick to do nothing in this case and that represent his client and not be an attorney for the client, there might be a viable argument that butler was not -- had not abandoned the client in some way. that is not a reasonable reading of the record in this case. >> if we find that these lawyers did abandon their clients, would there be some sanction calls upon them by the bar? i often wonder what we find that there has been an adequate assistance of counsel and a capital case, does anything happen to the council who was inadequate in a capital case? >> your honor, i suppose it would depend on what the allegations are. >> have you ever heard of anything happening to them other and then getting and other capital case?

>> your honor, i have not. certainly the rules provide that a breach of the rules and responsibility goes against the alabama attorney here and the new york. >> you said a few moments ago that butler did more than your friend suggested. what more did he do. >> of course, we discussed in the brief the and disputable fact that butler found numerous things after the default occurred in this case. >> what did he do before? >> bowlers affidavit -- it certainly does not say i was and is only teas were these people in or move for their admission and nothing else. >> what did they do more than that? >> it says on page 25580 agree to service local councilor --

page 255 a to agree to service local council. let me withdraw any suggestion that i have said dollar had done something that is clear on the record. my time is up. i finished. >> are you sure? >> my point is that butler did not agree to move these people's admission. butler said he would be local council. the role of local council is defined by royal 7. >> thank you, counsel. >> we agree this is a silly case. the facts are extraordinary. our position is simply under the escort's precedents, mr. maples has established a cause to excuse the defaults.

with respect to local council, apart from the fact that the state communicated directly with mr. maples, maybe the other telling thing is that in 2006 alabama itself recognized it could only create problems and did not add anything. with respect to the abandonment, i understood at times might counsel my friend acknowledged an external event with respect to the client. if that is so, i think it is clear we are at a minimum entitled to a remand. i think at a minimum, the record is not clear on a number of things that this court would have to get into if it were going to have to consider adopting the state budget position. mr. maples was in a prison cell. his record did not tell him they had left the firm. they were required not only to the -- to tell the court -- >> we don't have to adopt the state owes a position he was not abandoned, --

>> we have a record of not notifying mr. maples, not notifying the court. >> what is troubling to me about the abandonment argument is that -- the fear that if the court says abandonment his cause, there will be many cases in which the allegation is, my attorney was not an effective and negligence. the attorney was so bad that the attorney abandoned to me. that will substantially change the existing law. how can that be prevented? >> working to agency principles that go back. working through the principles established and this court's decision how it will be applied. the lower court issued its decision and found mr. collins had abandoned to mr. holland. i do think holland already recognizing -- and already

recognizes that it can be abandoned. one context cannot be extra appeared >> to you know how often it has been granted? very recent. how frequently holland's release has been granted by the courts below? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i expected this would be very extreme. i think the facts here are about as extreme -- >> how do we distinguish between that and it meant and simply a >> when you have councils of record of leaving, i think that is an abandonment pure and simple. we have looked to agency principles you want to get into the facts. i think it is a very high bar. i think this case passes that

are. it is something the courts will work out applying agency principles, applying this court decision, recognizing what holland said in this case -- we are simply going to extend, logically, attorney abandonment this task under agency principles. this court does not have to find a constitutional violation of the state of report. it is enough that the court finds that the state's actions are external. you look to what a person actually desires. in this situation, the clark got two notices back. they did nothing. i do not think anyone actually desires to provide notice to an inmate. mr. maples is not asking to be released from prison. he is asking for an opportunity

to present constitutional claims to a federal habeas court on the merits that the claims are as meritless at the state suggest, simply allowing those claims to be adjudicated on the merits. >> thank you, counsel. during deliberations, the only people allowed in the supreme court of three conference room are the nine justices. who gets the door? >> i was paying very close attention to the discussion and i failed to hear the knock on the door. justice brennan on my left and justice rehnquist on my right but caught up to answer the door and made me feel like i was about two-feet high. one of the most important jobs

of a junior justice is to remember that you are a doorman. >> john paul stevens on his new memoir, "five chiefs," sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> if you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you are crazy. every banana republic in the world as a bill of rights. every president for life has a bill of rights. the bill of rights of the former evil empire, the union of soviet socialist republics, was better than ours. we guarantee freedom of speech and the press. big deal. get a guarantee freedom of speech, the press, street demonstrations, and anyone caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. that is wonderful stuff. of course, just words on paper.

>> justice scalia and stephen breyer testified before the senate judiciary committee on a wide range of questions, including the role of judges under the constitution. watch at the c-span of video library, archive and searchable. it is washington your way. >> neck, vice president joe biden, house speaker john boehner, and former vice president cheney are among the speakers at the ideas formed here in washington. then, weekly addresses by president obama and senator john flynn. then, another chance to this supreme court oral arguments on maples v. thomas. next, some speakers at an event in washington hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. we will hear from house speaker john boehner, vice-president joe biden, henry kissinger, and

former vice president dick cheney. this portion is 2:45. > [applause] >> mr. by sporadic, it is good to see you. >> if it is good to see you, too. >> , what do you think the world

has lost all with the passing of a steve jobs? >> i was watching some of the show's last night, his commencement speech at stanford in 2005 -- if you have not seen yet, you should see it -- and someone said this guy democratized technology in eight way that if put in the hands of ordinary people, estimates that were only heretofore available to nasa scientist, to doctors in an operating room -- and he put them in the hands of ordinary people. that struck me that he democratized the use of the most advanced technology on earth. i think his contribution huge. the gets up every morning, looks

in the mirror, and asked whether or not it does what the last day in my life when i'd be doing what i am doing today? that is how he approached life. my doctor said it differently. it is the lucky man and woman who gets up every morning, ' on the floor, and knows what they are going to do. >> the democratization of how we get news and information, what kind of impact did that have, not just on news and information, but on the political and policy debates in the country? >> in one sense, it has made policy debates a little more difficult to focus and have in a way that there is no -- i remember when i first got elected 400 years ago and david halberstam had just written a book. this concentration of power,

three networks -- i thought to myself, this is his point about it should be more open. sometimes i wish there were only three. i am not being facetious because there was based marshaling of the most important issues of the day in one place where the debate could be a forum that was already available. you read 70% of people watching evening news. and it was news. the flip side of that, this democratization has taken on the ability to take down governments cannot bring down tyranny, to fundamentally organized -- and change the way people organize themselves. on balance it is much healthier. there is no governor on any of this. there is no editor. a lot of material gets out in the public's fear that is

species. my view is, and my deceased wife always kidded me when i said this -- i have great faith in the american people. i really do. i take the people around the world are digesting this and are separating the wheat from the chaff. on balance, it is over one way positive. >> why is the economy getting worse? >> the economy is getting worse for a number of reasons. it is not that it is getting worse, it is not getting better at the rate it should get better. >> there are a number of reasons for that. domestically, i think that brinksmanship -- playing brinkmanship with the national debt was a serious mistake. i take us been downgraded is a sight -- has a psychological impact on the markets here.

it is not within our power, but it is within our orbit that the scare of the fall, the possibility of the default of greece, whether or not the europeans can build a firewall strong enough to prevent the contagion to move to the banks in france or the collapse of italy. there are 30,000 to 50,000 -- 30 million to 50 million apartment units in china that are vacant. people are worried about the real-estate bubble there. we need to focus on what we can control. rican now control, we can now give it a jump start by passing this jobs bill. the vast majority of the independent validates say it will create the 21.7000002 million jobs. it will increase the growth of

gdp by a couple of percentage points. the things we can control are the things that frustrate me the most that we are not able to get done. >> what is more to get it done? the president is campaigning for it, but even though it believed it right, in this town that is not enough. >> i take what is core to happen is we have to challenge -- as you have reported, i have a good personal relationship with eric cantor. i have a great relationship with john boehner. i know what they are against, but i do not know what they are for. there was a report that these sessions -- pete sessions said after the jobs bill was at traduced that obama had his back to the wall. why should we help them now? not him. help the united states. i do not know any republican in

the path that has been against cutting the payroll tax for businesses as well as for employees. we had people supporting that just a year ago, including the most conservative members. i do not know any republican that has taken the position that we should not be working on infrastructure they have not taken the position that it does not make sense to get those 6 million people paying 6% of their mortgages to pay for% of their mortgages. i do not know what they are against. as the president said i thought so. nearly a month ago, we had at 30 must to have this campaign. these folks cannot wait. how many people do you know who will go to bed tonight staring at the ceiling and literally wondering whether they will be in that house next month? >> this president is

campaigning. he is campaigning on tax hikes and selling this bill. he is very much in campaign mode. do you support what democrats are saying? >> here is what we said we introduced that bill. we said this was how we pay for it, but we are open. you had overwhelmingly in recent polls millionaires think they should pay more. tea party falls state millionaires to pay more. the middle-class thing. republicans think. what is the problem? "this is argument. i asked you as someone who understands tactfully out to move legislation. what happens to get it passed? >> we have to go to the people. that is what the president has decided to do. that has been my point of view for a while. you have a lot of folks who were elected last time to the congress, meaning 2010, who are

in districts where it is not going to matter. but you have a lot of folks in the state of pennsylvania. five r d party associated who represent swing districts. we should go to the people. we should be asking everyone of those congresspersons what are you against? the only way we are going to change this is we are not going to change it by getting the leadership of the republican party to take on their membership, we are only going to change it if we communicate to the american people what we are proposing is sound, reasonable, and there is no good reason why republicans do not support it now. >> does the economy slipped into recession if the government does not fail to support it further? >> i do not think so. but i do think it stays sluggish and stagnant if this does not pass. there is a concern about recession.

it is one of the things you have talked about on "meet the press." there is not a real concern about europe. we are working as hard as we can. the interlocutors, with our counterparts are encouraging europe to do what they know they have to do, but it is politically very difficult to do it -- to build this far wall. i can picture a worse case scenario in the euro zone that could have an international contagion. >> i am reading -- reading the book "boomerang." our subprime crisis did a lot of damage to our banks, but the government could still bail the banks out. here you have countries that are destroying their banking system. survive?ureurozone

">> it can, but this is a wrenching moment they are going through. they need to have a alter col. are they willing to take the risk needed to take to maintain this union? our belief is they can and will. our hope is that they will. it is interesting to me if you boomerrang," if you take about what our republican friends are talking about -- i listened to john boehner's speech to the chamber. he talked about liberating the economy. the last time we liberated the economy we put the middle-class in shackles. the fact is everything they are talking about are the very things that got us in trouble

liberate wall street from the new restraints on them. talk about how we are going to increase the tax cuts for people, particularly at the upper end. all of the things we tried before. the very things that got us where we are are these things that are being proposed. we have to have a head-on debate in this country about frustration. what we have done has not totally corrected the problem. people are still hurting. we understand that, but there has to be debate. if we continue along the path we are talking about and make the kind of changes we are unable to make, like fair distribution of the tax burden in this country -- i was just watching cnbc. they had a corporate died on their talking on a squawk box we think"the problem lisis

corporations should pay 28% and make us more competitive worldwide. industries are paying 35%, but the financial sector is paying 20% per "our problem is getting everybody to get in the game. it is not that we are slowing up corporate tax reform, corporations are in disagreement because there will be winners and losers. we talk about because buffett rule. i call it the reagan role. this is ronald reagan, 1985. some of those loopholes are understandable, but in practice they make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver is paid to% of his salary. that is crazy. do you think the billionaire should pay more? all of this stuff about us talking about class warfare,

give me a break. >> most millionaires to pay more. >> no, the vast majority of millionaires pay more money than the bus driver, but on a progressive tax cut thing they do not pay at the rate they should pay. if you -- what warren buffett was really talking about is his effective tax rate, i forget what he said it was -- the secretary making $55,000 is paying 28%. that is not what teddy roosevelt had in mind. that is not what has been the process for the last 100 years. let's let me ask you about wall street right now -- the occupy wall street protest movement. do you in the president's stand in solidarity with these protesters? >> that is a really fair question. let's be honest with one another.

what is the core of that protest? why is it increasing in terms of the people it is attracting? the core is the bargain has been breached with the american people. the american people do not king the system is fair or on the level. that is the core of what you are seeing on wall street. that is what started the tea party. bp party started why? tarp. they thought it was unfair we were bailing out the big guys. look, the bargain is not on the level anymore in the minds of the vast majority of americans. >> our banks the "problem in this economy? >> banks are part of the problem in the economy. there is this overwhelming gut reaction to bank of america

putting in a $5 fee. the american people know, they do not guess, they know the reason the ceo of bank of america is in the business is because they, that guy making $50,000, bailed him out. put his financial security on the line when his government said we are going to come up with a trillion plus a dollar to bail them out. then they turn around and say, by the way, we are only projected to make $17 billion next year, but you know what? here is what we are going to do. the middle-class folks, these guys with these data cards, car on their backs and we are going to charge them five bucks more. at a minimum, they are incredibly tone deaf. at a maximum, they are not paying their fair share of the

bargain here. middle-class people are getting killed. >> an editorial in the wall street journal this morning said, wait a minute, mr. president, they are responding to your roles. are they not the best to be profitable with there are restrictions on overdraft protection and so forth? >> like say to my kid, "this is the deal. i not only do not what you driving the car when you do not have a license and i have caught you." my son says, "i cannot do that anymore. i have to steal a car. i have to get around somehow." [laughter] the you know what i mean? >> you are suggesting that they are wrong in seeking to make a profit in a different way based on new regulations.

the people are going to hear this and say this is the problem with these guys. they are fundamentally anti- business. >> 99% of the american people are like that. i am not worried about how that is going to be perceived. what i am worried about is the failure of the banks to understand that in a circumstance where it was viewed by the congress responding to the american people that the tax being placed on their porches of goods when they swipe a card is now forcing them to go out there and at another feat when they are already making a profit. you can make a lot more profit. there are a lot of the things they can do. at least when you charge extra for backs on airlines, people are really angry, but they have heard how people relate how banks are going bankrupt. i do not want to do it, but if i

do not do it, the airlines will go by rep. nobody thinks the banks are going bankrupt. guess what, they are a lot more liquid than they ever were. that is what they are thinking. you cannot blame the american people for feeling an overwhelming sense of frustration at this moment when they are hanging on by their fingernails and, all of a sudden, they come along and say they are going to make a healthy profit next year. we have to have this additional income coming in. >> let me ask you about accountability. the president of the approval rating stands at 42%. the view of his and your handling of the economy is pretty low. either the biggest efforts -- the big efforts you have made as an administration turn the economy around, or they did not -- and they appear to have not done that -- either you are accountable or there is only so much government can do.

>> it is two of things. if you look at all the polls that you cited before as well, a clear majority of the american people to blame their financial straits of the last administration. they understand what got us in this trouble. they understand it was no regulation, no documentation loans, these wacky estimates they are taking risk on, the leveraged -- they get it. but we are in charge. they are looking to us to fix it. they are frustrated and i do not blame them. if you were ever raised in a household where someone what their job, you understand the frustration and anger they feel. we are in charge. we have turned it around. r -- we a createdot jobs. not nearly enough.

they are offset by the failure of the republicans to support the stimulus efforts and we had for the counties, cities, and states. they have laid off 300,000 teachers. -- we have taken a hit. but i think what they understand is we have kept it from getting extremely worse. we have made it better, but not good enough. i think what the 42% represents is how they feel. they do not think enough has been done. that is what i think you are beginning to see. i think we have to take this to the american people and say this is what we want to continue to do to keep us on the road. the car is out of the ditch, it is moving along, but it is only moving at 25 miles per hour. they are used to going 60. >> that does not sound like a lot of accountability to me. the stimulus plan was a big and you got it passed.

health care reform, which you initially thought was a bad idea in terms of political capital, got past. that was sold as part of our economic security. things have not turned around. >> again, there are limits to what government can do. >> i know we are in charge, but that is the other guy's fault. >> there are limits as to how fast government can make up for eight years of spending, no oversight, putting two wars on the credit card, a health care bill on the credit card, but richardson drug bill on the credit card, a tax cut of -- tax cut on the credit card. there are limits to how rapidly government can work. there are also limits to what government can do when one party decides we are going to do nothing.

nothing. let me say it again, we are going to do nothing. what have they proposed to stimulate economic growth except the same exact things that "liberated the economy before." get rid of dodd-frank. let wall street go back to its old ways. increased tax cuts for the wealthy. that has not worked. it is very difficult in an environment where one team says not only are we not going to compromise on moving forward, we think the old method that got us here works. the american people, their frustration is real, but at the end of the day -- u.s. for the "it before, there was a mayor named kevin white in boston. i was just elected at age 29. i was doing an event in boston

for the democratic party. kevin white was elected in 1970. in 1972 he was in trouble. the press came -- the press said, how do you feel now? he looked at them and said, "look, do not compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." [laughter] this is about the alternative. >> just to button that down, you talk about whether the jobs bill is. to be passed -- this president does not have a partner among republicans on capitol hill. >> i take the bus of a partner in the bulk of the leadership, but they are seriously hamstrung. i can tell you without in any way violating confidence -- in

king john boehner and eric cantor would tell you we had a much bigger proposal. i was personally negotiating with them as to how to deal with the debt crisis. they could not sell it. i believe that it is erick kanter, he would have to say no. i have a bad habit of saying what i believe. >> i do not want to get in the way of that now. [laughter] >> cut this is just joe biden's impression -- i truly believe that a fair kantor, joe biden, barack obama, john boehner were allowed to settle a deal in a room, we would have a deal. >> they are not strong enough leader to get it passed. is that your view? >> my view is that their party is not the republican party that

we all know. one of the worst things that has happened to us, in my view, is we need a strong republican party. we need a republican party that is united. we need a republican party can sit down with and say, ok. this is the deal. can you deliver? i think part of what this is about is going over the heads of the congress to their constituents and make the case. for the people to respond either to our arguments or to theirs and decide whether or not they are going to put pressure on their congresspersons to support this jobs bill or not. >> you said two things that amuse me. is the republican party strong enough for its nominee to be this president? >> absolutely. it is strong enough to be both of us.

no matter what the circumstance, at the end of the day the american people right now barker -- many of them are in real trouble. a larger percentage as stagnant wages. a significant majority of the american people believed the country is not moving in the right direction. that is never a good place to be going into a reelection. whether it is your fault or not your fault, it is sometimes irrelevant. i am counting on what i read out there. the judgment of the american people to decide they know the whole we are in, they know how far we have come out, they are dissatisfied with how fast we are going, and they will have to choose whether or not the path we have set the country on is the path we should continue on or we should go back to

liberating the economy. >> the president said this week he is an underdog. my question is with the enthusiasm with which he was swept into office -- the tears on election night because people were full of hope -- how in the world did that happen? he became an underdog for reelection. >> let me make a comparison. when franklin roosevelt came into office, we had been in flat depression for two years. no one had any doubt about how we got there. when we got sworn in and we have the inaugural parade and the president and i were sitting out there in front of the white house, afterwards we both walked into the oval office. he sat behind the desk and said, "joe, we bought in to buy. if we had been sworn in march

20, it would be clear how we got to where we were at." that does not matter. we are in charge now. the fact of the matter is, the american people are dissatisfied with the state of the nation at the moment. that by itself is enough to make to the underdog. if you look at it in statistical terms -- former presidents in positions of unemployment have had difficulty of winning. at the end of the day, this ends up being the situation where the american people are going to have to make a choice. our job as leaders is to lay out clearly for the american people, this is not a referendum, this is a choice. if you do not like what we are doing, understand it. got it. >> who is the nominee against you? >> look, i have spent 30 years

try to figure out the democratic party. [laughter] with little success, i might add. i have no idea. klutz mr. vice-president, thank you. i only wish this was sunday morning. [laughter] [applause] >> i thank you, mr. vice president. next up we have speaker of the house john boehner group vice president biden told us was a friend of his, being interviewed by national journal.

>> hello. am i on the wrong side? >> mr. speaker, whenever you say. >> mr. speaker, welcome. by happy coincidence, the provision of the united states was a press conference in about 10 minutes i am going to give you an opportunity you do not often have, which is to look oppose cameras and ask the president of the united states a question. >> well, mr. president, why have you given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time instead of doing what the american people sent us here to do, and that is to find common ground to do with the challenges that face our economy and our country. >> there you go. cable news, have at it. [laughter] >> and what a great way to get started.

>> the vice president was just on this stage. he said roughly the following -- there was a rough agreement between yourself, erick kanter, the vice president, and the president of the debt ceiling. but for the availability of you or mr. cantor to control your rank-and-file republicans, that deal would have gone through. he said the republican party was divided and weak and that is what is holding the country back. >> all year i talked to the president about the need to do what i call "the big deal." i think it is critically important for our country to do with the debt problem that we have and the best way to get there would have been for he and i to come to some agreement. i put every ounce of effort that i can and could and to try to come to some agreement.

the president said he needed revenues. i told the president i would be willing to do revenues, but only if the president were willing to really look at fundamental reform of our entitlement programs, which are a big driver of our deficit and our debt. i put revenues on the table even though the president never said, not one time, ever said yes to any meaningful reform of our entitlement programs. when the president called me and asked for $400 billion more revenue, before he ever agree to any changes in the entitlement programs, that is when i decided we would never get there. to never get the president to a point where he would say yes to real changes in our intimate programs, i put myself out as far on a limb as i could possibly want to try to come to

some agreement. but it takes two to tango. the president would never say yes. >> let's look at these legislative record for your first year in congress. your own republicans have defied your request to vote with them. that indicates, both to the white house and the larger audience, but there are times on significant votes where you cannot keep your own side together. does this week in your hand legislatively and in a high- stakes negotiations with the white house? >> there is no question it does. when i do not have 218 in the wheelbarrow at one time, i do not have the strongest hand i can have. having said that, when you look at my colleagues -- and these are not freshmen members by and large, these are more senior members. that has been misunderstood. some of our members just what

more. i want more, too. they want more change. but what if faster. i do not disagree with them. when you have a senate controlled by the democrats, you have democrats in the white house, my job is to move the ball down the field, did things done on behalf of the american people, and i tried to get as much as i can, but i want to move the ball down the field on behalf of the american people. >> will you correlate those desires with what is a historic and perpetually low assessment of congressional approval. i have been around capitol hill since 1990. i have never seen consistently a disparity of 7% of -- or more of approval or disapproval. how much of that is your fault? how much of it is the fall to not be able to get things done? >> progress has been america's

favorite whipping boy for 200 years. >> not to this magnitude. >> the american people are concerned about our country. they -- the concern i have seen over the last year is turning to fear. when they watch washington, they do not see the kind of answers that they expect. we have a unique system. right now we have a divided element. when we are having principled arguments in opposition with each other, the american people do not like to see it. i understand that. but my job and our job every day is to listen to the american people, to express their will as we try to address the big challenges that face our country. >> you helped create the super committee. what should the public expect and do you have any sense it

will not make its stated goal of putting a proposal before congress by november 23 and they get the deadline extended -- that this all could be for naught? >> based on my experience with the president and my long conversations with the president and vice president over the course of this year, i believe the congress and administration has to act. we have a big deficit problem. we have a big debt problem. the problems in europe continue to loom. their problems are larger than ours. it is incumbent upon us to show the american people that we can do the right thing. it is also incumbent upon us to show the rest of the world that they can address their big challenges as well. as a result, i am firmly committed to ensuring that the so-called super committee come to an outcome and a successful outcome. >> that will include some source of tax revenue? >> i am not going to predict

what they will and will not do, but there has to be an outcome. >> does your willingness in conversation to the president to entertain increases in revenue send a signal that you would like the super committee to act upon? >> i made it clear to the republican members of the super committee that i expect there will be an outcome. there has to be an outcome. the sequester that was built behind this is ugly. it was meant to be ugly so that no one would go there. i do not underestimate how hard it is. to beat to come to an agreement by the so-called super committee, but we have to get to one. we cannot let these challenges continue. you just cannot keep kicking the can down the road. >> let me ask you about an issue of very alive in the senate today and could be alive in your chamber. there is a bill in the senate

with 61 co-sponsors of identical legislation. alan west said we should bring it to the floor. the senator from ohio supports this legislation. you do not. why is it dangerous and will you reassess your assessment of that if it passes the senate? >> there has been concerned from my part and, frankly, from a lot of quarters here in america about how the chinese have manipulated their currency. there has been every effort that you can imagine out of our treasury department over the last seven-eight years addressing that with the chinese. there has been significant improvement in the valuation of china's currency as a result of these conversations. but for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the

chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, i think, is long, dangerous, you could start a trade war. a trade war, given the odds -- given the economic uncertainty here and around the world, is very dangerous. we should not be engaged in this. i have made it clear what my position is. i think that the president agrees with me. but why is the president not speaking up? is he do busy -- is he too busy campaigning? why is he not out there making it clear that this is ill- concealed? i believe he agrees with me, but he will not say it. >> on imports and exports -- the charles schumer were here he would say, we have about $100 billion in imports. china says exports to us. a trade war would harm them economically.

charles schumer describes, as does lindsey graham, china is a currency bully. is it not? >> they have a lot of challenges in china. i have always believed that engagement with the right thing for our country and the right thing for the world. definitely a commercial relationship between the chinese and the united states is in both of our interests. they are probably the largest buyer of united states agricultural products. there is a balance here. i think for the long-term good of our country and for the future of our kids and grandkids, maintaining this solid relationship is good. any relationship is not going to be perfect. there are imperfections in this relationship. the administration needs to

continue to work with the chinese to get their evaluation of their currency correct, but this is not, in my opinion, and a proper role for the congress of the united states. >> you mentioned campaigning. i would like to know to what degree you were either relieved or alarmed the sarah palin is not running for president. [laughter] >> i'd like sarah palin. i know sarah palin. i spent a couple of days in alaska with her before she ended up in this odyssey the last few years. i think she made the right decision for herself. i i think she can play a role in the upcoming elections and i wish her well. >> do you want her on the campaign trail with house republicans who are seeking seats they do not currently possess or once they try to defend? >> i think it would be very helpful. >> you suggested the president

spends an inordinate amount of time campaigning. are you saying it is complicating your efforts to achieve results for the american people? >> let me put it this way. i have had my share of disappointments this year. this supported the president and i could not come to an agreement of the debate deal. disappointed that we could not pass stronger legislation in the house from some of my own colleagues. but nothing has disappointed me more than what has happened over the last five weeks. to watch the president of the united states give on governing, give on leading, and spend full best time campaigning -- we are on the hill legislating. we have moved dozens of bills over to the united states senate that would help create jobs in america. they are sitting there. no leadership from the president. i cannot tell you how dangerous

a situation our economy is in. how dangerous the situation in europe is. yet the president some 14 months before the election throws in the towel and decides he is going to spend all of his time campaigning. we are legislating, he is campaigning. it is very disappointing. what's the vice president a few moments ago said he believes you are a partner of his and the presidents. if i hear you correctly, you are declaring here and now the president is no longer a party -- a partner of yours. >> i will sit down with the president at any day at any time to seek common ground. yes, we have different ideas about the appropriate role of the federal government in our country and our society and our economy. but just because we have very different views does not mean we should not be seeking to find

common ground. he sent his jobs bill up. mr. cantor and i sent him a letter outlining areas we could find common ground, whether it be free trade proposals, whether it be the infrastructure ideas and the long term highway building, whether it is the tax credits he outlined. that is our job. our job is to find common ground to help our country. while the american people know we will not always agree, they do expect us to get something done. but it takes two to tango. all year i have reached out to the president, but you have to have a willing partner. all year i have asked the president send the trade agreements up. here we are on the eve of a visit by the president of south korea and we are going to have

to move these trade bills with expeditious speed in order to maintain our relationship with a very good ally. >> the country is approaching the 10th anniversary of the war in afghanistan. the country, to put it mildly, is conflicted about the ongoing war. how much as it achieved, how much longer should it continue, and has president obama been as effective, more effective, or equally effective as president bush? >> i think if you have watched the past three years i have been very supportive of the press the's decisions in iraq and afghanistan. iraqesident's decisions in and afghanistan. the president has continued the effort to take on the taliban, to take on al qaeda, and to help

ensure that america stays secure. i think our number one responsibility as the federal government is to ensure the safety and security of the american people. i think that making sure in afghanistan that the enemy does not have saved a corral in which to plan attacks on americans here and abroad is the goal. we need to have success of their. so far, the president has done just fine. >> there are those who would say a solid bin laden, anwar al- awlaqi, made him a more effective prosecutor on the war -- of the war on terror than president bush. would you agree? >> if you look to the prosecution of the war effort against the enemy in the tribal areas, there is clearly more been done under president obama than under president bush in terms of a more aggressive effort. >> mr. speaker, this is an ideas

forum. last night, steve jobs -- he had a career that was innovative, then he was fired, then he came back. that is, in some ways, consistent with your trajectory here in washington. [laughter] >> i will not argue, but what is the gist of the question? [laughter] >> will you ever or have you ever worn blue jeans and a mock turtleneck in public? [laughter] >> atthat would probably be no and no. we live in the greatest country in the world. our forefathers gave us an economic system that produced opportunities for our citizens on like any other country in the world. i came here for one reason -- to

make sure that those opportunities were available to our kids and grandkids. a lot of americans do not believe the opportunities that all of us in this room had will be available to our kids and grandkids because we are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. it is america's free enterprise system, it is american openness, it is american diversity that has allowed us the opportunity to succeed and, frankly, the opportunity to fail. you cannot have one or the other. you'll always have both. i just think that the government has gotten too big. it has gotten way too involved in our society. it has become way too expensive. all of that gets in the wake of what i would describe as the american dream. but in america, listen, i was

born with a glass half full. i am the optimist. if i was not, i sure would not be here. i want all americans to believe and understand that they can do anything they want to do. they can succeed. they can innovate. this is america. i used to go to law school. i do not go too many of them any more because i end up in too many poor schools with great kids, most of whom will never have a chance because they are in a rotten school. i get a little worked up over it, as you all know. my message to all these kids is, listen, you can grow up and be whatever you want to be. i think most of us have to work for a living.

lifework becomes life central activity. go do something you like. succeed in something you want to succeed in regardless of what it is. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. [applause] >> next up, we have the former president of pakistan with david bradley interviewing him. thanks, david. >> good morning, mr. president. good morning, everyone. president scharf is exactly 10 years older than i am.

the volume of what he put into his 68 years far surpasses my 68 years. born in 1943 -- that is before the great partition of india and pakistan. his earliest memories were being on that night train, traveling to pakistan as it was being created into a country. he lived with 18 people in a two-room apartment. the move to turkey where he learned turkish. he was not a model citizen in a high school. he has three teenage boys. it was in the military. chief of the army staff, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he became ceo and then president of pakistan. there have been been six assassination attempts.

he has fought in two wars. he has two daughters. two dogs. it is only with the dogs that life as been fuller and more exemplary. let me begin with that odd, bloodless coup. 1999 -- your overseas. >> yes, i was. when i returned, i was traveling on a normal commercial flight. 300 passengers and crew. 90 of them were school students. as we approached karachi and came down to about 8,000 feet, the pilot called me to the cockpit. when i went there, he told me we would not be allowed to land and

had been told to go up to 21,000 feet. they said to get out of pakistan airspace. that was quite a shock. i presumed of this must involve me. why else would the second quarter be passed? we rose to 21,000 feet. initially the pilot said we could go into the gulf or to india. it was unimaginable for me to land in india. therefore, we rose to 21,000 feet and was told we did not have killed to get to pakistan now prepared -- pakistan now.

a conversation between the pilot and the air traffic controller started. he was taking five or six minutes because he was passing messages to the prime minister of pakistan. it was taking a lot of time. i told him to land in karachi. >> i kept going until he finally said we don't have feel, they allow us to go to a recovery airfield. action took place on ground. their army acted -- i was not in contact at all.

the pilot, a message from the air traffic control costs from an army general. he instructed me to come back and land. i went back. half way, he said we have just enough fuel. when we landed, we only had eight minutes of fuel. when i landed, i was in charge of pakistan. >> how many of us have had bad flights and not had it worked out this well? to 2004.e forward there is a global poll taken. the president is the most popular relent -- president in the world. with the relationships were strong.

you were publicly supportive of president bush and the united states and the world -- the war of terror. polls and pakistan today show that the united states is used as the no. 1 external threat to the country. policy makers had a very acute concerns about the way pakistan is going. if it is a good ally. the best thing we could understand after a few minutes of talking to you is, what went wrong? when you were president, did you already see the relationships slipping away between the united states and pakistan? >> i think my time, there is no doubt in my mind we had a degree of christ -- trust and confidence. i believe relations between states had a lot to do with interpersonal relations.

i had a relationship with president bush and colin powell. we could call up each other and talk directly. asks: pal used to say, let's talk general to a general. east to be very straight talking. i wonder if that exists now. betty confidence is not there. -- maybe confidence is not there now. >> what you think the united states does not understand that makes pakistan not trust us? what do we not understand about why they are upset? go into tooant to much detail with the minutes that we have pared.

between 1979, we were with the united states to fight against the soviet union. then in 1989, suddenly the united states decides to quit. when that happens, there was a strategic policy -- sanctions on pakistan. this was seen as extremely negatively of the people of pakistan. we have been used and then betrayed. this is a feeling of the people of pakistan. >> is there feeling like that today? >> yes. >> we know this has happened. we were all alone. we were funding for ourselves.

the taliban came up in 1996 in pakistan was all alone funding for its all. contents 9/11 in the united states -- now people are asking how do we know we will not be betrayed again? this has a historical past. until 19 at 89, everything was happening to pakistan. we are planning to leave in 2014. that has its impact on the people again. now, pakistan has to think -- i am not speaking on behalf of the government, but my personal view is that certainly there must be some analysis going on what will

happen in afghanistan if the united states leaves and unstable afghanistan. are we returning to the situation where they were buried in every ethnic group was fighting each other? or are we referring -- are returning to 1996? one of the two situations will certainly be there if you leave an unstable afghanistan. we have to be very conscious about what we are putting in a situation which is unstable. we have to analyze all of this and the impact on pakistan. >> i think it is hard for americans to understand the frame for which so many

pakistani is the this relationship. let me do this over. the significance of india. what is the concern that pakistan has, and is its largest concern, do we not understand that? >> yes. i would not imagine that you don't understand. i can say that he show a lack of concern. we have fought wars. i strongly believe it has to be resolved. i am a strong believer that we have to resolve our dispute and have peace. we have been called in india that i am a man of war because i have fought two worse and i am a military band. i have only been saying that i am a man for peace.

i understand the averages of war. therefore, i understand how much he suffered in war. therefore i am a man for peace. >> having said that, it has only been in the past decade since independence, this has been happening all over these decades. this must go. ' we must resolve our dispute. net in the latest of the past three or four years, dismissed mena stiff asian and afghanistan. india is trying to create an anti pakistan afghanistan.

>> why? what is its ambition? >> its ambition is to weaken pakistan's budget to have a week pakistan so that it can be dominated. so it does not have any confrontation. >> it's not a military concern, it is a trade -- yes. i think dominating a country or moving against the country does not mean they want to take over pakistan. i don't think that can happen. they helped bangladesh get independence. they have not taken over bangladesh. it implies dominating foreign- policy, dominating the economic policy, their trade and

commerce. that is how you control or dominate other countries. >> where does this problem right in your concerns? is this the largest concern that you have? >> it's not such a great concern. we know that afghanistan's intelligence, their diplomats, their soldiers and the army, security people, they all go to india for trading. pakistan and i had offered them training free of cost in pakistan for all of them. not one man has come to pakistan for training. they go to india. therefore, this is what we must

understand it must come. india and the united states must concern the concern of what is happening in afghanistan. i would say that the united states needs to understand pakistan's sensitivities. i see there is a lack of concern for pakistan's and sensitivities. >> let me switch is a another way and telling you to its -- two issues we don't understand. the first is where osama bin laden was found. if he was there for five years -- and we don't know he was there for five years -- he would have been there during your presidency. explain what you don't believe the army dislocation. >> it is terrible. let me admit it is a terrible thing that happened. has to be clarified by pakistan.

people i know of do not believe that there was an issue of complexity, that is the issue. was pakistan, pleasant or was it negligent? i personally to all my analysis feel it was not complice it. why do i say that? first of all, if you go there for five years, that means two years of it was on my tie. if anybody believes it here or not, i did not know. therefore, there is no complicity. there was no complicity in those two years. there wasink complicity because, first of all, nobody in that area new met osama bin laden was inside. all of the pakistani television

channels which are very independent -- all 50 or 60 of them -- have interviewed people a round. not one of them had ever said they knew osama bin laden was in sight. he is not using any communication. you are banking on human intelligence. that was not the case. secondly, a lot of people here think that this house has such high walls. i seen this on television. i have not seen the house physically. i don't see on television with all honesty that this is anything unusual. i don't see that house to be anything unusual. it is a slightly bigger house than an average house. i don't see anything unusual in this. certainly, there would have been

some security around. would he be left alone and guarded by anyone, free to come and go? why would he not be used as a bargaining leverage or chip? why would i have not used it as a bargaining chip in my time if i knew this man was there? therefore, another point -- people mr. reid that this was a small town. it is a tourist resort. people go and stay there in hotels. it is absolutely open. anybody going to the mountains goes through there. the training centers are open for people to go and come use it

as open. therefore, it was not complicity. it was a terrible case of negligence which must be explained by pakistan. white was there such negligence? we must not believe it was complicity because that would be very serious. maybe we are not together in the war against terror. . >> because we are out of time, let me explain that he is under an arrest warrant in pakistan but intends to go back in march of 2012 and intends to win the presidential election in 2013. i will be returning to my office where i will be very busy with important things.

thank you so much for coming. >> thank you. >> and now for something different, we have had a lot of a very accomplished and famous people, there have been many friends in the room. there is overlap here in that chris is one of my friends in washington. i met him when i first arrived more than 30 years ago. chris, will you come up? chris is going to give us his take on politics and movies and many other things. somewhere in there, can we stand? can we handle the truth? >> thank you, margaret. should i stand or sit? thank you all.

i don't control these things. can you hear me now? you know, i have been interested in politics for about 60 years. i have been fascinated by the cultural difference in the two political parties. they tell you a lot about predicting the future -- the past and prologue. it was 1952 when i started paying attention to politics in this country. i noticed a cultural difference in the two party. would you watch the conventions of television, they used to carry gavel-to-gavel every four

to five days. usually there was a woman standing behind the podium with those glasses that had the chain holding them on her. she had them on the chain. she was very orderly. she would say in a high voice, what the delegates please clear the aisles? you would hear this all week long. at the democratic convention, the you know what happened after she said that? nothing. democrats are table hoppers. they don't clear the aisles. they don't obey. they are disorderly. they do what they feel like doing. they enjoy life. you watch a republican convention, when the person at the podium would yell what the delegates clean the house -- they did it. that is the difference of the two political parties. a bill to a movie in america and it tried to go early. be there 10 minutes early at the

movie theater. look at all the people that are there 10 minutes early. they may have a small candy bar for their refreshment. they are all republicans. if you want to pull them, go ahead. wait until after the ads are finished and all the trailers are done, all the previous. the movie has started and the theater has gone pitch black and you feel somebody trying to push past the. they will have trash cans of popcorn. they will be mumbling happily something about what time did it start. they are all democrats. this is our country. if you want to predict the next election and how it will go, think of the republicans as an orderly crowd. they are organized.

the republicans are an organized political party. they are like a country club where the knights of columbus or the elks. if they have to a chair for next year, they look around and mothball long -- among themselves and say, whose turn is it? whose turn to be president? that guy or woman gets the job next time. democrats are like kids at an urban playgrounds. poor kids with just the ram and no net, they see who has the hot hands. who is the kid hitting the baskets. he gets the ball. first time out, never met ticket before. if he has the hot hand, you give him the ball.

the guy gets the ball and the democratic party who has the hot hand. you feed him. they played winners by the way, the one who has the best gets the next time. the republican party -- i have been watching them since i was 6 years old. from 1952 until 2004, three names of been on the republican ticket and every year but want -- the same three names. they are predictable. nixon, bush, dole. they are a predictable party. they brought back exciting bob dole 22 years later and upgraded him for president because he was so exciting. nixon was a political grave and came back.

john mccain after the destroyed him eight years prior in south carolina, they brought him back and ran him. a revenue when you are old and tired and have been there. democrats on the other hand kill their when did. carter? who? mondale? who? the gore had to go grow a beard and a live in a cave. you are not for given in the democratic party. the past is prologue, it is romney. it is his turn. if you want to predicted based on history, it is romney. one other possibility. this could be a year, 2012, just like 1964 -- the republicans went wild. it could be one of those crazy

phenomenal years when they do something very unrepublican. i have reminiscences, i have been reading revival's about what was going on in 1964. the unpredictable popping up of candidates. the weird phenomenon of herman cain in moving toward number one. the decrease christy melodrama of this week. the mitt romney phenomenon where he can't get past 25%. is it tissue rejection?

is this an outside think coming into the body politic that has to be pushed out? i crave the excitement. i hope this is one of those years. this is why i think romney may not be the nominee even though he is clearly the want. and 1 million years, mitt romney would never go to a tea party meeting. looking forward knowing all that he knows now and how he has to win this thing, he would not go to 80 party meeting. he is not a tea party died. he was asked weeks ago if he was a tea party guy, he said they do not have a membership. he refuses to repeat the creed of the tea party. obama is a socialist. he will not get in bed with them. he thinks he is better than

them. he thinks he is establishment, and he is. look at these weird things where people sound exactly alike and no one else sounds like that. why do i pay attention to these things? so here is the question for 2012 for those who try to predict based on culture and manner and behavior of the past. there is one way president obama gets reelected, and i see no other way for him to be reelected given our history and the way we are basically baseball managers as voters. baseball managers does not dislike one pitcher or like another pitcher, he just looked out and sees how they are doing. we are the baseball manager in this country. when they are not getting the other side out, this slowly

walked out to the pitcher's mound and they ask for the ball. it is the great american tradition. if the pitcher had a pretty good day but a bad inning, they cheer him loose. people like george herbert walker bush a great deal, but they just decide they cannot put out the other side. you don't have it anymore so they put the other guy in. what they ask for the ball from barack obama or not or let him stay in, that is the question voters will ask themselves next time. for me it comes down to this for barack obama. he has to strongly compellingly, and successfully focused his campaign coming up, the debate coming up, the election coming up, not on who caused the mess we are in right now, not on how badly it is, but on what he, barack obama, can do

if he gets four more years. what he can do with the treasure of four more years. he has to talk about that and sell that. we all know in this room is not his fault. we all know in this room is not all the republicans' fault. it is about the future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we have steve clemens interviewing henry kissinger. is it a torn ligament? we thank you for doing that. [applause]

i know you were expecting walter isaacson in here. walter is a biographer of steve jobs. we know about the sad news of steve jobs's death. dr. kissinger was sharing with me that he had agreed to speak with walter, but he was predisposed to the 30-year war ending regarding that book. >> there is a difference between my wife's attitude and mind. i declared a few years ago -- my wife when hundred years old. it is not yet over. >> as we know, one of your main

passions has been to think about u.s.-china relations in this strategic road map. i am inclined to do what steven cole baird did and say you have a new book out, what is it about? >> it is such a confusing title. [laughter] >> he won the nobel prize in 1973. you had such an accomplished and storied career. you need to members of china's release than anyone else. i am interested in how you see china today. we have the sixth generation of leaders about to take over this next year. recently, army analysts looking at the national security strategy report issued by president obama last year set a

america is in strategic contraction. i would be interested in seeing where we are going, where is china going. if you could buy stock in china, which stock would you buy? >> i would not accept the proposition. that will get us into a situation with itself producing prophecies. economically, china is obviously growing. it is hard not to admit we are in a strategic contraction when

we withdraw from afghanistan and i iraq and when the national contention seems to be developing against american military abroad. to some extent it was necessary. the challenges, is it possible for these two nations to develop a relationship which insures each side's concern for national security and contributes to the challenges, many of which are unique and unprecedented. that is the fundamental challenge of the relationship. if we get ourselves into the frame of mind of a potential key military confrontation, then every other country around china

in the world -- don't you think we are making assist today? you could feel finance ministers, heads of states were coming in and out of beijing. you just don't get that energy. >> it is inherent in the tremendous economic growth china has had the past two decades. it is a growing, but we have to distinguish between what is part of the chinese design, and fundamentally, it is different

from the cold war situation. the soviet union had no influence where they did not have armies. it is the diplomacy depended on its military capacity. the chinese approach to foreign policy is not made primarily on military practice. therefore we first should not conceive primarily in terms of a contract challenge. secondly, we have domestic issues we must deal with. if the united states is not a dynamic country, then we can not rectify the situation that you described it.

if you look at the elements involved, it is one thing to look at the chinese growth. if you look at the changes of generations that occurred in china. if you look at the problems associated with a rapid growth that is occurring in a political framework that was created several decades ago, when you consider that the impact of the culture and all of these things are coming together, it is wrong to think that china has no problems domestically. >> i once asked the chinese minister of foreign affairs when i was visiting, what is china's grand strategy. he told me, they do not need a grand strategy as long as a

americans are distracted in small middle eastern countries. to a certain degree, the world has been fairly good. they have been accepting the power of china has been investing in infrastructure. they seem to be focused on porting resources around the world. trust the seem to future quite as much as the european and an american model. does the united states need to worry that it is the last normal economy. state capitalism is the new -- is the u.s. have to worry in that circumstance? >> one has to think about what the impact -- the impact the

occurs today is the globalization of the economy and the nationalization of politics. the impact of the global economy has to be dealt with by national units. china being the largest economy of its kind, it therefore has a tremendous impact. i would not agree with the foreign minister that china does not need its strategy. when you agree with him or not, they are strategic thinkers. they have approached strategies -- they have a word for which there is no english word which reflects the bundling of all the

elements that are relevant to the problem and the momentum that simply requires all of these things. the mere fact that i need for sentences for one chinese word shows a difference in approach. >> let me ask you -- i read this book which i very much enjoyed. there were a couple of moments where i wondered whether henry kissinger was still henry kissinger. was henry kissinger -- we talked about the concept in this book called strategic trust press is a system of strategic threats. as i learn from henry kissinger, sometimes not imagining the world you want but the world you have, have you become sentimental about china? >> we now have a republican

version. i -- how you define -- i believe and i have not changed my philosophy that for foreign policy you need a correct assessment of the principal elements that are shaping the perception of nations of each other, the sense of security, you have to decide -- you have to understand they have an element of equilibrium. otherwise, every issue turns into -- that is my basic view.

conditions have changed. when the soviet union was the other major power in the world, we were dealing with a country that faced its impact on its military capacity. confronting us in each decade with some military crisis, i think conditions have now changed. the chinese in the world in which we live is not so dependent primarily on the balance of military forces. without military balance, you cannot have any other foreign policy. if i were to describe what is the chinese objective, the

historic chinese objective is the fear of the surrounding countries uniting and bringing pressure on china. what is the american concern with respect to asia? we do not want to see asia under the domination of one country. that is what we fought world war two about in asia. now if we deal with is primarily with military containment, then we are stimulating the basic tier of china. it will bring him about a

reaction which we will not accept. i believe it is in the best interest of both countries to see whether it is possible to develop a cooperative approach in the face of a challenge which we can both define. it has always been -- and at the result was that if the leaders in 1914 had known what the world would look like in 1990, they would have done something else. i want us to try to do something

else -- i say at the end of the book, as a historian, am i optimistic about this? i said, no. it is their task. is not something we can do a lot. therefore, it requires both sides for what can be done. >> we have one last question. i would be remiss in not asking you to think through if he were the president's national security adviser or secretary of state today, looking at america's situation. if i think back to the time or

richard nixon inherited your white house, you did not come in at a time of great global confidence in the united states. it was great doubt about the direction in america was going. opening to china which she once told me was made a lot easier with russians along the border, he once joked that maybe the russians -- >> that would not have happened without it. >> you change the global gravity with the normalization of china. he changed the way the world look at the united states and you showed that the united states was having a defining effect on the international system. is there a china out there today other than china itself? is there an opportunity for the u.s. to change the way global gravity works and to demonstrate that we still have an ability to be the primary shaper of the international system?

>> if there is, i have not discovered it. i think there is a different problem right now. there is not anyone move that i think we can make. i would hope somewhere in this process, the sort of debate that is going on now in this country gets lifted to a higher level. i would hope some kind of national unity with respect to some key objectives develops. there has to be a very effective for policy not because you have super leaders in every

generation but you had a steady and reliable foreign policy. we can be leaders by our performance now. we cannot be leaders might do we want dramatic thing that changes everything anyway. i cannot think of what that move would be. >> on that clear and optimistic note, dr. henry kissinger. thank you very much a. [applause] >> next we have the former vice president and its list cheney -- liz cheney. i would find the toughest interview possible if my daughter were to interview me.

>> this is an interesting and important opportunity. it is an enviable opportunity for anyone. you get to compare frameworks. i think as many people know, joe biden is a very distinctive and important vice-president. dick cheney has had one of the most powerful, distinctive, and somebody to use the office in many ways others had not. i once was talking to walter mondale and written a critique of some issues going on. walter mondale took credit by saying his was the first office in the white house. it had grown at the time. when i was in the middle east

last year, we see the world a bit differently. cheney had been a senior official in the state department. he worked closely in various republican campaigns. we can to conversions with the importance of talking about national security decision process. that may bore a lot of people. that is not who is up, who is down, who has been stabbing someone in the back. to keep personality out of it and had a productive discussion about the structure of decision making and how it led me today. even though list cheney is known by her father as the c e zero of this important book in my time, a personal memoir, i will be the

hall monitor. i will not intervene. this is not a normal engagement of a journalist with a challenge. there is obviously important ties between them. i also want vice-president cheney to fess up on what he did not agree with on his daughter's management of the book. please welcome vice-president to dick cheney and liz cheney. >> i thought i might start. you mentioned vice president biden was here a little while ago. i understand he said president obama has fixed the economy. i wondered whether he would say if you agree with it. >> is all his. obviously, we have serious economic problems. joe and i disagree on a number of things and that would be one of them. i don't think the economy has been fixed. i think it needs pretty radical tax reform and reduction in

regulations and so forth. i don't see the administration putting forth a policy at this point that will do the job. >> do you see given the state of the economy, given the state of paul, a pass to president obama and 2012? a >> i think he will have real problems. i think somebody suggested to me the other day that president obama may be the jimmy carter of the 21st century. he will get one term and he believed under similar circumstances to what happened in the carter administration with leaving the economy in pretty rough shape. >> back to the book, during your time as vice-president, he took some pretty heavy criticism. does it bother you?

>> well, when your former vice- president, no. they were up against jay leno and david letterman. you really need to have a pretty thick skin. my approach was -- my concern was, we had some special problems on my watch prayed every administration does. in our case obviously, it was the war on terror, it was the aftermath of 9/11. it was the need to pursue some very aggressive controversial policies because that is what we honestly believe was necessary in order to protect the country. i would argue it worked. we got 7.5 years that nobody thought we would without a another mass casualty attack against the united states. that involve things like advance -- enhanced interrogation techniques, the terrorist surveillance program, and things that broke china,

creating controversy that some people disagreed with. my job to some extent was to be the point man on some of those policies. at the same time, a lot of them were classified -- important elements were classified. you could not talk about them in a public setting. the criticism is what it is. i took my fair share of shots. i did not feel personally abused. maybe once or twice. [laughter] >> some have said even in light of the success in your national security area, particularly of the bush administration, the most effected or one of the most effective national security teams that we have seen in recent history was the bush 41

team. would you may agree with that? maybe talk about what people see that being particularly effective. >> i should probably defer on -- i should probably defer to henry kissinger on who had the best team. i think the three of us worked well together. partly because we had all worked together before. if you went back to the 40 years, jim and me had been there. there is already a well established a set of relationships. there were a couple of other roles that we were bound by. we got together every wednesday morning when all three of us were in town for breakfast. staffs of the various departments quickly learned that if he wanted to get something done or decided, a good way was to get it on the agenda for the wednesday meeting.

the also knew we were talking to each other all the time. it cut down the amount of noise inside the system. i think it cut down the number of leaks that would have otherwise occurred. jim and brent and i -- nobody accused jim baker of not leaking. we worked hard to avoid the kind of conflicts that would come out of that. i think we were successful. >> the best job you ever had? >> the best job i ever had it? each one was different and unique. if i had to pick one out that was right at the top of the list, working for ford obviously, after watergate being vice president of the united states. all of those had a lot going for it them.

i would have to say if i had to just pick one, i would probably say secretary of defense. >> why? >> because of the association with the u.s. military. at the time that we were there, i had the opportunity at the end of the cold war, the berlin wall came down. we were able to do pretty barca both things -- pretty remarkable things with our military forces. plus, the opportunity to work closely with the men and women of the u.s. military was really remarkable. >> when you look at the 2012 state of candidates, what gives you hope and what worries you?

>> how does she do it? >> i might have asked that one. >> i have not endorsed anybody yet. i have stated very carefully away from the contest. they don't need my advice. if they do, i would give it to them privately. i would not say publicly. i think these next couple of months will be very important because they are going to be the opportunity for us, the public, the voters to get a look at them. i think there is a lot yet to be proven out in terms of confidence, capability, experience, the ability of various candidates to deal with tough issues, especially in the national security area. the economy is so dominant as a political issue at this point that is what everyone is focused on. i am concerned we do not lose sight of what -- how important

it is. we maintain vigilance in the global war on tellep -- terror. we not to do permanent lasting damage to our national security capabilities as we go through this budget process. i think what is driving the debt are the entitlement programs and the fact we have not dealt with social security and medicare on a long-term basis. you cannot save enough out of the defense department to solve the debt problem. if you take too much out, it will do serious damage. what i took over as secretary of defense we had 18 active divisions in the u.s. army. today we have 10. there has been a pretty dramatic restructuring, if you will, over the last decade or so -- last 20 years really. there is no cold war for still out there. maybe a few systems out there. i don't think there are big

savings to be had in defense. i am very worried if we get into the sequestered that is pending, if they do not come up with an agreement, we could end up doing serious damage. i want to know what the candidates think about that proposition. i want to know how they proposed a deal with the defense issues and the budget question going forward. >> when you look at the national security set of dishes, you said just last week that president obama ought to apologize for some of the criticisms, in particular his statements about us abandoning our ideals in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. can you explain a little bit? >> they denied it. >> i think they admitted we said we abandon our ideals pretty dull think that is out of bounds. >> what i was responding to, i

brought up the subject of the president's speech in cairo in 2009. i was asked by the interviewer how that fits. i looked at it in the context of the draw on strike on allah walkie. there was a situation when he went to cairo he did announce that we sort of overreacted to 9/11, that we had walked away from our ideals, that president obama had been the one to brought an end to torture and ordered that there not be any torture implying that we were torturing and we were not. in light of the fact that they are obviously pursuing fairly aggressive measures, which i support. i think they did the right thing with the drug strike. nonetheless, they are at a point now where they have executed an

american citizen with a missile strike. you laid alongside our enhanced to irrigation program, i thought maybe they might want to reconsider the criticisms they have less less back when they went to cairo in 2009. >> ok. >> did i leave something out? >> well, i guess. we can talk about it later on. when you look at the five republican presidents, he worked closely with four of them. which was the best? >> obviously, i'm not want to answer the question. >> i hope she does not give up. >> what i am struck by is i look

back over that when we were doing the book. as a political scientist i was trained to look for common threads and problems and things across administrations or across congresses. as i look back on it now, what i am struck by always is the extent to which there were vast differences between administrations. focus especially on the man and the all office. they all brought a different set of experience to the oval office and have their own strengths and weaknesses based on what they had done before they ever got there. they also all found it necessary during their time office to deal with unanticipated situations. r last look at ou rlast administration, george w.

bush's the administration, there was a speculation about homeland security for 9/11, but 9/11 changed everything and dominated the agenda during the last 7.5 years in office. when you think about what the first bush administration had to do with -- dramatically different. we did not anticipate that we would end up sending half a million men and women to the gulf to the breakaway and push the iraqis back into iraq. those kinds of things, every single administration and some with those surprises. in the nixon administration, you never would have bet the richard nixon would impose wage price controls on a free economy. democrats a bet that he would never do that. they gave him the authority said they did yell at him when he did not do it. of course, he did it. i was a part of that and i did

not put that on my resume. >> if you allow me one. >> best secretary of state you ever worked with paire. or worst? [laughter] >> i'd have, for different reasons, two. one would be the gentleman you just heard from henry kissinger. i say some very nice things about henry in my book. and the other would be jim baker. a very different kinds of individuals, but in terms of dealing with the problems and issues of the day, i think henry. and the thing that i was always -- that was remarkable about dr. kissinger, and he is still here. that is why i am saying all these nice things about him. when you think about the conditions he had to operate under. it is the only time in history

we ever had a president resigned. under threat of impeachment. and dr. kissinger, secretary kissinger went through that process, manage the transition in the national security arena very credibly. remember, i remember the first thing gerry ford said after we knew nixon was going to resign was, he went in front of this house in alexandria and announced that secretary kissinger would continue in his current job. he did not say whether the rest of us had job. but henry was squared away. but to have managed affairs to the process and data as ably as he did was the difficult -- with the difficult problems we face as a nation at that point. end of the war in the vietnam and the detente with the soviets and the opening of china. that was our remarkable set of accomplishment under the most

difficult political conditions i can imagine. >> if i may, this is unscripted, but given the opportunity. my colleagues at the s been in aspen institute have brought in such a diverse group of political players, everyone from vice president biden to dick cheney to valerie jarrett. in your role, the thinking of the national security decision making structure that you build, because there has been some critique that you and secretary donald rumsfeld at the time to cover a process that was broken at. people can debate whether that was good or bad and the time. it may be inaccurate, but there has been focused on the question of how to get the structure right as opposed to who was president or what their views may be? when you have such complex problems and so many players, can you talk a little bit about how ford did it. how george w. bush did it. and what is your fare and

hopefully fran a critique of the obama decision making and does that matter? >> we spend a lot of time, talking about structure. sometimes when you get into trouble, for example, the reaction to 9/11 when we went out and sort of reorganize the intelligence community. i'm not sure structure is the problem. there is a great tendency to think we can move the boxes around on the chart, shift or transfer authority for one place to another. i come back to something i mentioned earlier. i am overwhelmingly convinced that what makes it works are the individuals in these slots and the relationships they have with their colleagues. it's not enough that you know the others involved. it is whether or not you have worked together.

we benefited in want -- we talked earlier about 41's day. work together previously. that was a big help. we ran into problems initially. we had an opportunity to support a crew in panama. noriega was in power. we -- by the time we got our ed together, the crew had failed. the coup plotter had been killed. noriega was back in power. we had not worked as a team. we do not do a good enough job in the transition of getting the new team together and getting them to look real world problems and go to some exercises, place in war games, go back and look at the previous times when we had to use power.

what happens in the transition is to bring in the new crowd and to brief them. scare the hell out of them. you sit down and say, this is how you unleash america's nuclear inventory of the world. that is a very sobering brief. odds are you are not going to do that, hopefully, during the course of your administration. what you do not get is any sort of word during that period of transition of getting your key national security players together and having them actually go back and look at what their predecessors did, paul up three or four hypothetical, have somebody set good ouple fiofof games and let them get used to functioning with each other on the problems that will run into. i am aware -- that has not happened in administration.

>> one liz-like question. is there anything you'd redo? >> before you ask the question, talking about training and processing and exercises, how much of your past experience, in particular, the continuity of government exercises, did you think about on that morning of 9/11, when you were suddenly in the bunker faced with a nation under attack? >> it had a big impact. it turned out it had been very useful. as part of a lot of the programs -- they are still classified. that is one place where we actually had done some

exercises. it was one of those things that collect in thar morning. most report was to make sure you did not have all of the leadership bunched up in one spot so that our adversaries could decapitate the government. that is what the president stayed away for awhile that morning. i was in the white house and we had denny hastert to a safe location because he was next in line to the presidency. >> do think that is why you're able to focus so much on the specifics that needed to be done, as opposed to the trauma of the fact that we are under attack? were you able to set aside the emotions? >> the other thing it was important was getting the planes down. norm manetta played a very

important role there is the secretary of transportation. >> he is here, actually. >> he did great work that morning for as. those were our purpose -- getting the planes down so that we could tell which ones had been hijacked, because we have conflicting information. we were told there are six. turned up there were four, but we did not know that. the other thing was to make certain we had taken the steps to guarantee the survival of somebody who had a legitimate authority as president of the united states should that happen. >> do you what to ask another question? y-likeiz chenery question. if you get a chance to redo our take a different step that you took, what might that have been? the you have any regrets about anything done in a different way? >> do i have any regrets?

um, i've mentioned. you want something from my time as vice president heard >> you can broaden i. >> you can broaden that. >> in the first chapter of my book, i talk about my misspent youth. i redo some of that if i could. on balance, we got -- under difficult circumstances. obviously, i believe very much in the policies we pursue. with respect to what we needed to do to keep the country safe, as i said, from my perspective, it worked. we achieved our objective. at some price in terms of my reputation or are standing in the polls. under those circumstances, you do not -- politicians like to be

loved, obviously. and then that is important. >> do you feel loved? >> my grandkids. liz is responsible for 9 of thenm. i think, if i had to choose, i would rather be respected. that meant that some of the things that we had to do have to be done that even though we knew there going to be controversial. and you cannot operate under those conditions without breaking some china. i'm sure we did. but if i had to do it over again, i would. >> were you secretly running things? >> no. >> really? >> let me tell you one story that will tell you how much

power and authority i have. we had a dog named dave. we used to take him up to camp david, which was my undisclosed location. he loved it up there chasing squirrels. one morning and to come down to the dining room were the cabin is and the president's office and so forth. and walked in, and there was barney, the president's scottie. looked a lot like a squirrel. until the president said, barney -- tweeted.t's just been >> barney took off. and davey took off, chasing around the dining room table. they made a couple of circuits at the table when i heard the president, he stepped into the room and said what the hell is going on? so i grabbed dave.

he loved to eat. got him a doughnut. i drove up to the cabin where we were staying and got him inside. 50 minutes later, there was a knock on the door. it was the camp commander, navy capt decked out in his full uniform. he said, sir, until further notice, your dog dave is banned from laurel lodge. the president never said a word to dave. and that tells you who is running the show. it was the dnieper >> are you sure that instruction came from the president and not some other cobol? >> and the captain was not happy to be transmitting messages. it worked out are right and the end. nobody got hurt. >> i think we can close by having you tell, what were the most important lessons to learn from me as we were looking on this book -- working on this

book together? i am sure there is a long list. >> well, you had one rule that by.riteded to abide if in doubt, take it out. >> no. my rule was put more in. >> one of the great satisfactions of the book was working with liz. >> can you devolve your biggest argument over the bucket? >> no. because we left it out. >> there is something remarkable bart having your eldest child interested enough and how you spend your life to have them sit there for two years and listened to you tell them were stories . that is basically what we did. it really added enormously to the satisfaction of the product and the project. and i would not dream of doing

another book without her. we have not signed on to do any other box . were still resting up from the last one. it really was, it made the -- when liz was willing to sign on and be my co-author. >> thank you so much for joining us. liz cheney. back over to margaret. >> i hope you found that an interesting experiment in interviews. i will be taking suggestions for next year a father daughter and their views. maybe someday we will get mahlia and sasha to do president obama.

we're going back to our regular gramming. we will do another political panel. we have dave from slate. to fill in for capra from abc. during the presidential news conference. chris matthews has agreed to stay on. welcome, chris. charlie. just choose. are you all miked? >> david, slate. >> ok, good. i think we will need one more to

your attention. let me go over here. it will all be spending christmas together in the morning. i look forward to that. the primaries are moving closer to christmas. soon it might be thanksgiving. so we lost chris christie. we lost sarah palin. she does not want to be shackled by the presidency. she was to be free to work on fox and get the questions ahead of time. >> maybe we should have bristol ask her questions. >> we can bring thomas and caroline. reset the table on the republican primary. >> hi look at as 2/3 of the republican party is really conservative and 1/3 is the old-

fashioned republican party. this 2/3 that is that conservative, they want repairing -- rick perry. or someone like him. whether it is him or michele bachmann. they want someone who represents the conservative movement and a big way. but this is really, the next six-8 weeks are critical for rick perry, because he has to show -- does he have the capacity to grow and develop beyond a candidate who has been enormously successful in a one- party state. after all, texas is a two party state. what is the republican party and the other is the tea party. if rick perry grows, matures as a candidate, i think this

nomination is his. on the other hand, if he does not and he does not show that capacity for growth, and if the differential between say how mitt romney does against president obama versus are rick perry does against president obama, if it gets wide enough, at that point republicans have a heraart versus hope. >> you have republicans acting as if anybody can be obama no. is far enough down. can they take the goldwater-type risk because they want to break with tradition because the tea party ascended. do they go with a guy who is ine line? >> yeah. i look at the usual matt, since tim russert were doing so well. it will probably be ohio. there are guys with propellers

on their heads that work for obama that think that they can skip the usual order of the dance with the one that brought you. i do not know how you win a colorado if you do not win ohio. i think europe to start with the labor democrats. if those angry white people that were big coats to football games, i do not know how you win. here is my value judgment. they should not win. they do not represent the people there were going to represent, they do not deserve a second term. you have to represent the middle-class, working person who is disappointed in the economy or you have failed. the idea that you go for the more educated person, that is the theory they have now that they can reach people. mark penn will argue that there is more people making over $100,000 and that will vote for obama. what about the people making 50? that is the american people you're trying to reach as a democrat. bottom line -- i think the

republicans right now would have a competition in ohio with perry. i think the republicans would vote. the democrats would not vote. the minorities would not vote. the young people with the vote. obama has to get them checked out. right now if lands ohio to rick perry. and virginia and north carolina and to perry. by the times the republicans show their flaws and it's they're prepared i believe in luck. barack obama is the luckiest person i've ever heard of. because he ran an illinois against two people with marital problems and he ended up with alan keyes. they brought him to run against him. he had the nomination before he had the senate seat. he did defeat hillary clinton which was a tough campaign, but he had a lot of things going for him. he ran against john mccain when he is over the hill. i think if he runs against mitt romney at full strength, i would

bet on mitt romney. if he runs against rick perry right now, he would lose to rick perry right now. next year, against rick perry, that is a could raise. that is a pick in sports terms. >> let's pick up on the obama. he is now looking like a populist, fighting for the guy who lost his job and ohio. the vice president was telling him this morning. very fiery. the $5.00 fee for bank america. we're out there for you. no more bipartisan. we are all in this together democrats-republicans equal. he is blaming republicans. is that an obama that can win a place like ohio? is he going to be ever more feisty? >> he can do better. there are economic realities he has to deal with. he has to confront is a joy she were unemployment -- if we

believe goldman sachs -- it will be 9% unemployment by election day. i think they are grabbing whatever looks good. i'm surprised to hear the vice president and anybody in the administration talked and warm terms about the occupy wall street protesters. this is an untested. these are guys that were all there three weeks. i was in new york over the weekend. these are a lot of the harry at argus, the kind of guys that get arrest when the wto is in town. they embrace them faster than the republicans embraced the tea party. i think they are doing it because they do not quite understand why populist anger went for the right immediately. if ever, 2009, populist anger was right wing. -- february 2009. so i think they have tried a few things to capture the anger that

they probably believe is progressives and bonds of them, not to the party of mitt romney. >> right. so perry is the person left to embody the. we have trump, palin, bachmann, a that have gone away. herman cain is that a place until you'reark a vote waiting to fall on love with mitt romney? >> i think it is a safe place to hang out. there is a lot of that. i know the times when into this today. there is a certain legitimate question of seriousness here. what comes first? your book tour order presidential campaign ? when is the last time you're coming back to new hampshire -- mid november? >> he let go. it is not a book tour. >> i sat next to him on a plane.

>> interesting guy, smart guy. if you are not taking your campaign seriously, why should i? > so chris, we've seen bad debate performances before. the next one is october of love .nd car if mitt romney wins 10 debates, -- he's the suitor that comes to the date and she does not want to marry him. >> i do not think that she wants to date him. she wants to marry him. >> i'll change genders. they just don't like him. mitt romney is happy. they're not. astounds me.

16 grandchildren and a happy person. most guys looked at a guy and they look at the wife, she is happy. he is a cool guy. they do look at it that way. if she is miserable, and it looks like there is something that happened in that marriage, then they do not like the guy. that is my theory. i am getting into the real psychology here, but i do think these things through. i think people like -- he's got six replicants as kids. it's whatever. he's never had a hangover. he has never had a bad day. he is happy. look at the tea party. they're angry. they've got facial hair. they have bad hair cut. they smoke. they're angry people. they talk about the cause like

it is the civil war going on. sobor has nothing to do with them. he is not part of that purity has no problems with black americans making it in this country. he is none of that anger that a lot of them have at the grassroots edited. he is not mad at people with good degrees. he has good degrees. he is not resentful. he shares none of their feelings about america. that has to matter. peggy noonan who is a friend of mine has on occasion come along and written the reagan speech for someone who is not reagan. and i remember in your lens, i was crying like everybody else when bush gave that wonderful speech about being in an articulate guy, but rarely american. if she could give mitt romney a heraart for 45 minutes. >> an implant. >> and it will work because the republicans want to believe he is one of them. it will take a transplant with this guy. he is not one of them. are they going to outsource their nomination to a guy that is not one of them?

i do not think they want him. rick perry, they will route for. rick perry wins one debate and there will be ready to crown him. >> so welcome. so, chuck todd, nbc. jake, abc. the best. so, we've come up with one theory is mitt romney too happy a guy? >> to get elected? >> it gets his theory that was? who can get that angry vote. chuck? his challenge -- i have this theory about the election. when we change presidents, we want more of a stylistic change then sometimes a substantive change. and if you looked recent history, when we switched

parties, we have almost gone stylistically more than we have gone substantive. so obama was a stylistically different person, type a personality than president bush. president bush on the moral front stylistically different than clinton. reagan-carter. we can keep this going. stylistically, i've been -- what i cannot read my head around as i think mitt romney has to get over this idea that it will seem like too much like obama stylistically. the pragmatists in the room. he almost campaigns on it a little bit. i am in the private sector. sometimes facts change. you have to be able to change. is he going to able to stylistically be similar to the president and is that what the country wants? or do they want something different, something more of a brasher personality?

i think that is what the obama campaign was worried about not just with chris christie, but with rick perry 1.5 perry after the second debate of this idea that, the brash personality, the starker change . the brighter personality change might be more appealing to swing voters were concerned about -- they do not see the president leading in their minds. they are frustrating. nothing gets done but they think, how come you cannot do it? personalitys changing to the pressure kind to match the rick perry, to pick up on the anger? by the end of this he will not be mitt romney, he is obama 3.0 and he's angry about what is going on in the country. >> the calculation by the white house is that the great conciliator has failed.

that does not work and that he needs to draw distinctions. that is what this jobs bill is about -- drawing distinctions. how it's paid for, all of the tax increases on corporations and wealthy americans. so you are seeing more of a primary obama then a general election obama. i think the issue with mitt romney is, first of all, i do party has ethe tea substantive issues with him. him.don't trust i ran into a republican official the other day and she was convinced that the anti-abortion or pro-life community will rally behind hosni. tsman.nst >> the problem with him is that

he announced he was running. if they were -- if he were not in the race, he should be announced to his running. >> he is the other one on the stage that is running a general election campaign. >> he looked presidential. he looked like he could be on mount rushmore. he looks electable. is that where the republican party is? is the angry group and the republican party angry enough to nominate the guy who is not looking so angry? >> i want to pick up on herman cain. some people have been trying to say is he a protest vote? but herman cain is not an elected official. and a businessman. he is actually -- there is frustration with anybody that has been in political office and in the political class. so the more you look like you're not part of the political class carrot i see why herman cain is getting -=- >> is this real? >> i do not think he is putting

together the campaign to make it real. you have to do something with it. but i think there is an opportunity there. i think there is an opportunity for anybody who can prove some sort of effective leadership say, in the business community, who came out of a non political class and said, and enough of this. what i would say is the same version of donald trump. the joke was before a sane version of ross perot or a successful version of donald trump. there is a question about how successful he is. i have invited donald trump attacks. >> you are fired. >> more of a fred smith. somebody who is just totally a had a good track record, who isn't connected to washington and is not connected -- there is something about herman cain that is tapping into that part of the

republican party. >> rick perry gets a piece of that by 186 seed in all this other things, trying to be non- washington. >> i think he n. herman cain are ideologically matched with the tea party candidates. i do not think one of them is angry. herman cain is not an angry guy. >> he's not. is the tea party ascendant, has it peaked? let me go around. >> it is a part of the republican party. we named it. game itself, but it has always been there. -- it named itself. this is the populist conservative part of the republican party. there is a populist aspect of the democratic party that every once in awhile rises up and uses its influence and picks its head up a little bit. there the question is, how responsive and how powerful of the force are they and the

primary? is that waning? we'll see. there are establishment republicans are betting it's waning. >> i don't think it's waning. this is not a new strain of the republican party. ultimately, it is not a majority of the republican party. so it will be powerful, but it will not be the be all and end all. >> of money people sitting on the sidelines seemed to be moving to mitt romney. paul singer. those who don't want the arranged marriage are nonetheless seeming ready to walk down the aisle with mitt romney. >> they are, but the tea party has lots of money. the three main party groups, i think last year they raised $59 million. david koch will continue for

funding one to the hilt. the financing. this is romney's to lose after christie dropped out. until monday night, rick perry has a chance and a debate about economics to prove that he will not stumble over and knocked the podium down if he debated of barack obama. he raised more money than mitt romney this quarter. we pay more attention to the money these guys raised than we do to the super pacs. people that have a grievance and a lot of money can mess with this for quite awhile. baldwin's head fell on the podium playing rick perry. mitt romney can win them all and

not get above -- put the 25% in perspective. which is mitt romney's cap so far. >> you are looking at a very large field at a lot of people doing window shopping. i think now the singing somewhere over the rainbow and pining for a new candidate, that period is over. i think these guys will sort -- the republicans have to make some choices now. my hunch is we've got two candidates that can raise a lot of money and have the durability to go really far. i think it will be fight kind of like obama-clinton. it will start off with a big field with joe bidens and dodds and bill richardson. two guys in going the distance. rick perry has a natural advantage because he is closer to the center of gravity of the party. on the other hand, if he does not close the sale and terms of being an electable general

election canada to be able to give the voters between the 30 yard line, i think mitt romney will be a republican nominee. if i had to bet, i would bet on mitt romney. >> will go around the table. we'll never had a huntsman moment. it's romney-perry. >> i do not think we are at the playoffs yet. the other title or less at stake -- the debates of the next couple of times will be about the conference title. instead of attacking mitt romney who is the front runner -- the western conference, the tea partiers will fight it ou.t herman cain thinks he can be president. he is taking crazy shots, real tea party comments that suggested he thinks that he can win this in a fluke. bachmann will be going after

rick perry. as long as they are going after the western conference title, they will not take on mitt romney yet. the danger is that that conference title will not be decided through next march. that people like herman cain will stay in it, maybe to sell books. michele bachmann will stay in it until for filing deadline. i think that is in june. and maybe rick santorum walt stick in there, which will mess up the western conference so that rick perry cannot unite the west against mitt romney as he goes into the tough contests in iowa. i think that is why mitt romney is the favorite in the republican party. >> can use to pad and -- skip ahead to vice-presidential candidates. senator marco rubio said he would not accept the nomination . what would romney or perry need

to do in their vice presidential nomination? >> i am not ready to leap ahead. we don't know what mitt romney looks like it after $30 million is dropped on his head for being a flip-flop on conservative issues. let's see what that looks like in 60 days, and then we will have an easier time. i do believe -- i buy into the fact that this anti-washington fervor that is up there, the disgruntled democrats and disgruntled moderate republicans. had christie whitman who was singing the praises of the third-party entity. i think they will have a vacuum moment, if they get their ballot access, and they might. they have enough money to do that. there are a lot of lazy moderate politicians in washington, who wring their hands after they leave washington. executors' talk about, how broken the senate is.

what would you do. ? you give them a free pass? i get to run for president without being in a primary. there is a lot of twists and turns with this. it will probably be obama- romney. this is a weird environment. let's and not immediately assume we're in for a traditional 2004 type of race and we could have some weird is going on turd >> we want anything but a traditional race. isn't perry going to have to do some self correction of his own on immigration? if he does the flip-flop, he will have to keep qualifying that. you don't have a heart to his core constituency? >> he has tried to back off that thing. the problem for rick perry.

the republican party has a history of nominating a moderate on immigration. the problem is that rick perry 's path to the nomination is lined by people who have a much harder stance on that issue, on illegal immigration, not just immigration. and that is problematic for him. but generally speaking, i agree with chuck. if i had to bet now, i'd bet on romney, but nobody has voted in an actual contest. we do not know what mitt romney will look like. and we do not know what kerry can look like. i still think he has great potential to be a strong nominee -- and we do not know what rick perry can look like. chris's analysis was interesting. i think it is possible that could ruin perry's chances. he's a first seed in that. >> can we call it the southern

conference instead of western? >> palin started it. >> he could sweep. it is not as though rick santorum, michele bachmann and herman cain are unbeatable. it is impossible to imagine rick perry consolidating the conservative base. to answer your vice president question, i do think -- the republican party has a fairly strong bench right now. there are people opting out, whether it is mitch daniels, chris christie. you have the newcomers like susanna martina's, sandoval in nevada. they have a strong bench. the democrats do not have a strong bench for 2012. we will talk about that in four years. >> with seconds left, around the horn once. >> i think it has to be a protestant. >> is it going to be the happy protestant, mormon?

>> the mormon thing has to be dealt with, evangelical. >> you show up your weakness. that is why mitt romney's list is totally different from repairing's like. i agree with jake. there's a huge list to pull from. whether it is rob portman, if you are rick perry, would be a good one. mitt romney has to go south. i think mitt romney does have to go protestant probably. >> he cannot have two cults. > i'm goingn t to disavow everything net chris said. >> to balance the more men -- to have the morning, we need the angry protestant. >> i think we will hear about bobby jindal. he had one bad speech.

bill clinton had one bad speech. he's better than we saw him two years ago. >> fat chance. >> we have short memories. not angry. >> you got louisiana to start with first of all. >> one proof, i think your v.p. more and more, you are seeing more president of canada is coming around to the idea of using your vice-presidential pick to send a message about how he will govern. >> sarah palin? >> i believe marco rubio. look at the track record of failed vp candidates. it is a murderer's row right now. sarah palin, john edwards, how

did that work out? kemp, joe lieberman. it is not as if anybody is political fortunes got better after doing it. >> republican sens they can win. i do not disagree with them. >> i think it will take a happy more than because he is electable. >> the rubio -- why should he use his political standing to shore up somebody else? i will be shocked if he is the nominee. >> i thank you for rushing here. >> in casey did not know, president obama had a press conference. we had to rush here. nine questions, 75 minutes. it might be his longest word to question press conference going. i asked three questions, so i cannot blame him. 2. 5. >> in between, the two uppeof yu had 5? thanks very much.

>> margaret, congratulations and thank you. we have made it to another washington ideas for . in five minutes, we're starting the planning for next year. i am steve clement. i wanted to say a word. in these sessions, we bring in 70 different people. we had former vice president dick cheney, vice president joe biden, former president mu sharaf with david bradley. a lot of experimentation -- daughter-dad teams. we will think about that. whether that were not carried we will kick down the road. i want to say thank you to all those who stay with us. i want to thank all of the c- span viewers and those of you watching on line. i want to thank margaret carlson and shelby coffey, two of the best partners and putting this on.

and also the president of atlantic a lot. >> a thank you. thanks so much for closing this out in the year before the election year. thanks for a much to our underwriters, allstate, bank of america, comcast, siemens, united technologies corp. and the university of phoenix. it took a lot to put this on across these days and we appreciate your support. thank you all for being here to the end. we hope to see you next year. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a story on a topic of your choosing. every good story has had a good beginning, a solid middle, and a strong ending.

>> you don't need the best of video equipment to have a winning product. today, flipcams do a great job of capturing video. if you do not have access to better equipment, do not let that stop you. if you need more help, go to studentcame.org. >> i found it useful to read the rules carefully and make a checklist. do not worry. the process becomes clear once you get started. >> another great thing about the c-span documentary is you can work alone or in teams. for example if you are a good writer but not handy with a camera, then get a friend to help out. not all the way both learn something, but you increase your chances of winning. >> you do not need to be an expert at video production to make this work. you can use your parents, other

students, teachers, and c-span as resources for you all along the way. this process is both fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anybody can do this. >> next week, senate is expected to vote on president obama's jobs bill. in his weekly address, the president urges passage of the plan which he says would send thousands of laid-off americans back to work. will also hear from south dakota senator john thune, chairman of the republican policy committee. he offers his view. on the jobs bill and talks about the effects of government regulations on job creation and pending trade agreement with

panama, colombia, and south korea. >> next week, the senate will vote on the american jobs act. it's a bill that will put more people to work and put more money in the pockets of working americans. and it will provide our economy with the jolt that it really needs right now. this is not the time for the usual games or political gridlock in washington. the challenges facing financial markets around the world could have very real effects on our own economy at a time when it's already fragile. but this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn here in america. this isn't just my belief. this is what independent economists have said. not just politicians. not just people in my administration. independent experts who do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and middle-class families all across america. but if we don't act, the opposite will be true ther-- te will be fewer jobs and weaker growth. so any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill needs to explain

why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation. if the republicans in congress think they have a better plan for creating jobs right now, they should prove it. because one of the same independent economists who looked at our plan just said that their ideas, quote, wouldn't "mean much for the economy in the near term." if their plan doesn't measure up, the american people deserve to know what it is that republicans in congress don't like about this jobs plan. you hear a lot of our republican friends say that one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. well, they should love this plan. the american jobs act would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. and if you're a small business owner that hires new workers, raises wages, or hires a veteran, you get an additional tax cut. right now, hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. this jobs bill will put a lot of these men and women back to

work. right now, there are millions of laid-off construction workers who could be repairing our bridges and roads and modernizing our schools. why wouldn't we want to put these men and women to work rebuilding america? the proposals in this bill are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts; if we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs that restore a sense of security for the middle-class. but we also have to rein in our deficit and start living within our means, which is why this jobs bill is paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. some see this as class warfare. i see it as a simple choice. we can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, or we can ask them to pay at least the same rate as a plumber or a bus driver. and in the process, we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job. we can either fight to protect their tax cuts, or we can cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. but we can't afford to do both.

it's that simple. there are too many people hurting in this country for us to simply do nothing. the economy is too fragile for us to let politics get in the way of action. the people who represent you in washington have a responsibility to do what's best for you -- not what's best for their party or what's going to help them win an election that's more than a year away. so i need you to making your voices heard in washington. i need you to remind these folks who they work for. and i need you to tell your senators to do the right thing by passing this jobs bill right away. thanks so much. >> for months, we have been saying the president obama has made our economy worsens he took office. this past week, even he admitted that the american people are not better off than there were four

years ago. since his inauguration, there are 2 million people more unemployed, 6 million more people living in property and 13 million more on food stamps. our federal debt has increased by 39%. that is more than $4 trillion. because of this additional debt, every man, woman and child in america now owes $12,000 more than they did on the day president obama was sworn in. president obama's policy are damaging our economy and his proposed solutions are not serious. his latest stimulus bill is so flawed that senate democrats are rejecting it. it is nothing but a rehash of the same failed ideas he has already tried combined with a huge tax increase. this is a cynical political ploy that is designed not to create jobs for struggling americans, but to save the president's own job. this cannot continue. there are common sense things

that we can do to give america the freedom and the certainty to create good jobs. for starters, we can finally implement the free trade agreements we have negotiated with panama, colombia, and south korea. today, 95% of the world's consumers live outside the u.s. washington should be doing all it can to lower trade barriers and help american sell more of our products to their customers. altogether, these three trade deals will boost u.s. exports by more than $12 billion. and all that you exporting means new u.s. jobs. 70,000 of them as a result of the south korean agreement alone. so i was glad to see the president obama finally submitted the trade deals to congress, after letting them sit on his desk for 1000 days. it is extremely unfortunate that we had to wait so long for the president to do something so simple to help promote american exporters and create american jobs. in one example, while the trade

agreements have languished, america's market share of wheat, corn and soy beans sold to columbia has collapsed from 78% in 2008 to 28% in 2010. over 1000 days, how many unemployed americans might have got a job if the president had been willing to stop playing politics and let american businesses compete? republicans in congress are ready to take up these trade deals so americans can get back to work. i hope the democrats will join us in this effort. while we are at it, if the president is finally ready to get serious about helping businesses hire more workers, he can rein in his run away bureaucracy that seems to be doing all it can to destroy jobs rather than create them. his national labor relations board has sued to force boeing company to fire 1000 workers who are building airplanes and south carolina, all because the workers are not in a labor union. apparently, the obama administration would rather have

people unemployed than allow them to work and non-union jobs. that is a destructive idea, and it sends a dangerous message to american companies looking to expand operations and create jobs. of course, a business owner will think twice about investing in a new factory and hiring more workers if he or she is afraid wash. will step in and shut them down just to appease union bosses. on top of that threat, there is the overwhelming number of rules and regulations washington piles on the backs of job creators. president obama's administration has pushed through more than 61,000 pages of new regulations so far this year alone. dealing with just these new requirements will take americans an astonishing 82 million hours and cost $80 billion. regulation and red tape kill jobs, increase our dependence on foreign oil, and impose costs that business owners cannot afford. in my state of south dakota, we

have one of the lowest unemployment rates. that is because our state has lower taxes, fewer government regulations, and is a right to work state. the republican plan builds on these kinds of ideas. we are calling for a regulatory time out, and affordable energy plan, broadbased tax reform, including lower rates, and policies that provide the certainty and stability are economy desperately needs. washingtontoo often washington e problem, not the solution, and we have seen the results since president obama was sworn in and move our country in the wrong direction. the president was right when he said that americans are not better off today than they were quite a chore years ago. if we're going to get off the wrong track, president obama has got to change course. i am senator john thune, and

thank you for listening. >> if next, the supreme court v.l argument in nmaples thomas. tomorrow on "washington journal," tom davis, president and ceo of the republican mainstream partnership, talks about legislative gridlock. wendy weiser has details on a report concerning 2012 voting law changes. and the chief political columnist at politico examines democratic presidents of the modern era. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> some people would say that to succeed in this world, we need to be more like china or brazil. i say we need to be more like

us. >> on this final sunday of british party conferences, david cameron sets the tone and goals for his party in the upcoming year. watch his keynote address from the conservative party conference sunday at 9:00 on c- span, and live wednesday, look for the return of prime minister's questions on c-span2. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments on the death row inmate's claimed that his lawyers abandon his case without notice. it caused him to miss a critical deadline for repeal. an alabama court clerk said the letter to the attorneys saying that the initial appeal had been to live. the letter was brought -- marked return for center. the time for the appeal sought -- expired. he had been defaulted even though he did not know of his lawyers lapse at the time.

the supreme court is expected to render a decision before the end of the term in june. this is an hour. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court. two factors distinguish this case. first, the state itself had a direct hand in the extraordinary events leading up to the default in this case. a second, the actions of maple's attorneys are not attributable to maples that this court has invoked in determining when conduct can be with a client. it the default at issue in this case is not fairly attributable to cory maples. the decision of the 11th circuit should be reversed.

>> i think that -- that's right, mr. chief justice. i would couple that, though, with the fact that the state initially set up a system for the representation of indigent capital defendants that relies extremely heavily on the good graces of out-of-state counsel to represent indigent capital defendants in alabama. >> well, put -- putting that -- that to one side, what if only one of the three notices had been returned? >> i think -- if only one from the out-of-state pro bono counsel? >> right. >> i think that would be a different case. i think what's remarkable about this case is you have both out- of-state attorneys, the notices come back marked "return to sender -- left firm" in an envelope, and the clerk does nothing. and what's extraordinary about that, mr. chief justice, is that the system in this case relies on the out-of-state attorneys to provide -- >> who says so? who says so? who says that they rely on -- you have a local attorney, and you have to have a local attorney for the case, don't you? and -- and you want us to believe that the local attorney

is -- has no responsibility for the case at all? is this really what the -- what the law requires? i -- i think there is a serious ethical obligation when he has the -- when he gets the notice. he is one of the attorneys for your client. and he got the notice, right? that one was not returned. >> that's correct, justice scalia. >> he failed to check with - with the new york lawyers who were working with him. why is it -- why is the state responsible for that? >> we have three points on the local counsel, your honor. first, the record shows that the notice is not attributable to mr. maples because mr. butler had disclaimed any relationship apart from facilitating the admission of out-of-state attorneys. >> disclaimed to who? to -- i mean, how could a clerk be expected to know that the local counsel really isn't taking any part? i mean - so was the disclaimer to the clerk? >> i think a -- a couple things on the clerk's perspective. first, we do think that it was well known in alabama that, under this unique system, out-

of-state attorneys were doing all the work in these cases, and local counsel were simply facilitating their admission. second, one of the -- >> well, who says that, mr. garre? i mean, is there anything in the record on that point, on the alabama system generally? >> a couple of the things, your honor. first, we do have the amicus briefs, which discuss that anecdotally. i would say that the state of alabama in its brief in opposition to this court a few years back in the barbour case specifically touted the role of out-of-state attorneys under its system and, as far as i could tell, didn't mention local counsel once. so, i think it was fair to say that it's known that the out- of-state attorneys here were doing all the work. but even if the clerk -- >> you're begging the question, which is how is the clerk supposed to know this? this is a functionary in the clerk's office who sends out notices, receives back mail that's not returned. there has to be some local counsel that does work. >> well -- >> how is he supposed to know the difference between those that do and those that don't?

>> what -- what -- i think the clerk would be imputed with knowledge, general knowledge of the system. but beyond that, what the clerk know - knew was this -- he knew that two of the three notices that went out were returned, both to the out-of-state attorneys, which ought to be an extraordinary event in the life of any court clerk. >> but, you know, even if local counsel is as you -- as you describe it, and nothing in the record establishes it, even if he is a functionary, surely the function would include when he gets a notice, that he makes sure that the -- the people who do the real work know about the notice. >> of course. but the point is -- >> he didn't perform that function. >> in this case, the local counsel didn't perform as a mail drop, and that was intentionally so. his own affidavit makes that clear. and i think what's important is the state itself must not have viewed -- >> but he didn't have a mail drop? i just didn't hear what you said. >> my point was that ordinarily a local counsel would serve as a mail drop. he would forward notice. in this case, mr. butler made quite clear from the outset he was not even performing that role. the role that he intentionally performed was to admit out-of-

state counsel and to let them do the work. but the state itself -- >> to whom did he make that clear? you said he made it clear at the outset. to whom? and where is that in the record? >> it's in his affidavit, your honor, the petition appendix page 256. >> his affidavit after - after the fact, right? >> that's right, your honor. >> did -- did he tell the clerk of the court that that was the case? >> he did not. >> yes, you know, i'm counsel of record. he's the counsel of record, right? i'm counsel of record, but i don't even do so much as to forward notices to the guys that are doing the real work? did he tell the clerk that? >> he did not tell the clerk -- >> that's extraordinary. >> but the state itself, your honor must not have viewed him as a meaningful player, because when the default at issue in this case occurred, the state sent a letter -- faxed it -- to mr. maples directly on death row in alabama, without -- >> you said that even before that. in the rule -- you said the rule 32 -- didn't you say something about -- the -- the notice that went from the prosecutor to maples did not go to the local counsel, right?

>> the clerk sent out notices to all three attorneys of record, the two out-of-state counsel and mr. butler. mr. butler did receive the notice. he didn't do anything, both because he hadn't assumed any role beyond facilitating admission -- >> did the -- did the prosecutor -- i'm not talking about the clerk now. the prosecutor had a filing in connection with the rule 32 motion. did the prosecutor send that to, well, everybody? maples and everybody? >> he did not. the state -- and this is at page 26 of the joint appendix. the state served it on his out- of-state counsel and not mr. butler, his local counsel. and when the default occurred, the state contacted mr. -- mr. maples directly in prison, which would have been unethical if the state had known or believed that he was represented by counsel. >> but you seem not to rely on what the state as prosecutor did. it seemed to me the state as prosecutor was recognizing that maples had no counsel. therefore, sent -- said you'd better file your habeas, this is how much time you have --

sent it just to him. >> i absolutely agree with you, justice ginsburg. i think that that is further evidence that everybody knew that mr. maples didn't have any local counsel in any meaningful sense. >> where does the constitution say, by the way, that you have to give notice, that every judicial action has to be noticed -- >> well -- >> to the parties to the case? the federal rules don't -- don't require notice, do they? >> the constitution doesn't say that explicitly -- >> and the federal rules don't say it. you don't have to give notice in the federal rules, do you? >> we think notice of a postconviction order in a capital case would at least implicate a due process interest in receiving notice, that it's reasonable -- >> capital cases are different? if you're going to go to jail for life you -- you don't get notice, but if -- if it's a capital case -- >> i think under the -- >> no, i mean, it's either a rule for all criminal cases or it's not a rule. >> well -- >> and if -- if it's a rule for all criminal cases, the federal rules are unconstitutional, you're saying. >> the mullane case specifically takes into account the interests of the individual receiving notice. there could be no greater

interest of an individual than receiving notice in a capital case where the individual's life is at stake. ultimately we don't think this court has to find a constitutional violation. it has to find that the event -- >> once you're in court and you have a lawyer, it's up to your lawyer to follow what goes on in the court. that's the assumption of the federal rules. and it seems to me a perfectly reasonable assumption. and i'm not about to hold that -- that they are unconstitutional simply because an extraordinary requirement of notice, which is not required by the constitution, has gone awry. >> here mr. maples did not have an attorney that was serving in an agency role in any meaningful sense. that's laid out in ms. demott's amicus brief. it's laid out in our case. what's more is the state didn't simply just, we think quite unreasonably, rely on a role that local counsel was not performing in alabama -- >> what if -- but - your case it seems to me turns critically on butler's role. how much, in addition to what he did or didn't do, would he

have to do to put him in a position where he was in fact representing maples in your view? >> i think that the ordinary role of local counsel, which would have been to, at a minimum, forward notice in the proceeding, would be a meaningful relationship. the relationship that -- that professor demott describes here is one of sub-agency. and, in fact, if you look at the alabama rules, they put the onus on the out-of-state counsel to associate the local counsel. that's at page 365 of the joint appendix. the out-of-state counsel did that. mr. -- mr. maples wasn't involved in that transaction. >> where do we look -- where do we look to see that it's standard practice for local counsel throughout the country to contact out-of-state counsel when something like this is received? i remember a case from the federal system in which local counsel appeared and did exactly what was done here, moved the admission of an out- of-state criminal defense attorney, who then tried the case for a year, got sick, and the judge said to the local --

local counsel -- come on in, you're going to take over this trial and try it for the next months. and the local counsel said -- whoa, i only signed up to move the admission of this fellow. the judge said -- that's too bad. you're counsel of record, and you have to take over the case. i don't understand that what is alleged to have occurred here is that far out of the ordinary. >> i think mr. butler -- just simply saying, i'm going to allow -- i'm going to facilitate your out-of-state attorney to represent you, but that's my role. he has, quote, unquote, "no role" outside of that. >> he can't define his role as a lawyer. once he appears before a court and says, i am counsel of record, he has certain responsibilities. it's not up to him to say what his responsibilities are. >> well, clearly that's right. >> and if they don't extend even to forwarding notice, even to making sure that the people who were doing the legwork in the case know that -- that the clock is running, my goodness, i can't imagine what his responsibility is. it's not up to him to define it.

>> that's exactly our point, justice scalia, which is that he forswore any responsibility. the lawyer in the holland case just had those responsibilities, too. he abandoned his client. this -- what mr. butler here did here was inexcusable. but there's another factor at play here, and that's the confusion that the court itself affirmatively created when it sent an order that, by its terms, directed that all counsel of record receive it. and that's what the order said -- it's on page 225 of the joint appendix. and -- >> before you get to the court, could i ask you about what the state attorney, the prosecuting attorney, knew? did the prosecuting attorney know that these two individuals from new york were representing this person? >> certainly, it knew that they were counsel of record in the proceeding. i'll let my -- my friend answer that question. what we know, though, is when the default occurred, it took the extraordinary step of faxing a letter directly to mr. maples in prison, which would have been unethical if it believed he was represented by counsel. >> all right. so you think you have -- in your view, the counsel of record knew that these two people in

new york were part of the representation. did the counsel -- i mean, not the counsel of record. the counsel for the state. did the counsel know that they hadn't gotten the notice? >> well, i don't want to speak for my friend. i don't -- there's certainly nothing in the record to -- to establish that they knew that these out-of-state attorneys didn't get notice. >> is there any reason to think that the state attorney or whoever was prosecuting thought that the local counsel was likely not to do much? >> yes. >> yes? ok. >> the very actions it took, justice breyer. >> all right. now, so it's possible -- we'll find out later -- that the state - the prosecuting attorney who works for the state knew all those things -- one, he's represented by counsel in new york. two, they didn't get the notice. three, the local attorney isn't going to do anything. and conclusion -- they likely knew he didn't get the notice, but they are asserting that this is an adequate state ground

to bar him coming into habeas. is that the correct posture of the case? >> that's true, justice breyer. >> so, all we have to decide is whether under these circumstances the state attorney's knowledge of all those facts mean that the state cannot assert this is an adequate state ground. >> right. and i think the state's actions -- >> do we know that he knew all of those facts? >> no, justice scalia -- >> of course, we don't know that. >> but we know -- we know what action it took, and that action was an action that assumed that he didn't have meaningful counsel, or else it would have been unethical. >> let me ask you - >> counsel, can i -- >> let me ask you this, if i may. i don't know if -- i don't think the briefs covered it. it may be in there. do you know, in alabama and/or nationwide, in how many capital cases there is no appeal? >> i don't know that, justice kennedy. i think the alabama system here created a system in which it would allow for appeals, not only in direct appeals, but

postconviction proceedings. the extraordinary -- there are several extraordinary features of the alabama system, and we think that ultimately they helped to facilitate the extraordinary and shocking events in this case. >> what if -- the new york lawyers did not abandon mr. maples prior to the time that they left their law firm in new york, right? >> that's right. >> so, their conduct prior to that time would be attributed to him, right? >> i think that's right. >> right. part of their conduct was setting up their arrangement with mr. butler where he would show up as counsel of record but not really do anything. so, why aren't the consequences of that arrangement attributed to maples as well? >> well, i don't think they would be attributed. i think what you're looking for is whether the default itself is attributable to maples. the new york -- what -- what the out-of-state attorneys did is they left the representation without fulfilling their duty to notify the court or mr. maples. mr. maples was sitting in a prison cell in alabama under the reasonable belief that he was represented by counsel who

would appeal if an adverse decision was issued. >> mr. garre, can i go back to justice kennedy's question? this was not an appeal. the question was how many capital cases is there no appeal. he had been convicted and had appealed, right? the -- this is -- >> the direct proceedings had concluded. >> the direct proceedings were over. he had appealed up to -- up to the state supreme court. did he seek cert here, too? >> he did, justice scalia. >> he did. and this was a postconviction -- >> it was, but when the state sets up that system and allows for appeals, it can't arbitrarily deprive him of an appeal based on the sort of circumstances here. >> that may be, but i don't think it's extraordinary that there be no appeal, i mean, postconviction. >> i'm not aware of any state that does not allow appeal in postconviction proceedings. >> it can be allowed, but it would not seem to me extraordinary that it not be sought. >> at this point -- >> well, in -- in this -- in this case, there was a direct appeal, and then there was this proceeding that we're talking about here. the trial judge waited for 18

months. so, you would think there's some merit to the underlying claim. any statistics on whether or not -- on how often an appeal is abandoned or not pursued in this kind of case? no statistics? >> no. i mean, the statistics that i'm aware of are that habeas claims are in a material sense often successful in capital cases. we've cited those in our reply brief. here we think the underlying claims are quite serious. the question in the case is really not who shot the victims. the question was whether mr. maples was going to be convicted for capital murder or murder that would result in life imprisonment. >> i'm -- i'm aware of the allegations. >> and i think, going back to the court's and the clerk's actions here, one of the things that exacerbated the chain of events here was that you had an order which directed that all parties would be served. mr. butler did say that he saw that that order directed that the out-of-state counsel would be served, which created an added risk of the likelihood --

>> mr. garre, i have two questions for you. is that -- is this state the only one that doesn't appoint counsel in a postconviction capital case? >> well, i believe that alabama may appoint them. they don't provide for appointment in all cases. i believe georgia is another state. but in that respect, i think -- >> but the vast majority do? >> absolutely. >> in capital cases? >> the vast majority do. >> all right. number two, i thought there were two questions in this -- in this part of your case. the first is, don't we have to decide that abandonment, which you have termed, is cause -- >> yes. >> in a -- to excuse a procedural bar in a state court. >> right. and that is -- >> so we have to decide first whether we extend holland to this setting. >> well, i think they're

independent grounds. if the court concludes that the state's own actions -- >> that's the due process. i'm talking about -- yes, both we would have to decide. but assuming -- we have to decide the first question. is -- >> well -- >> will we extend holland to this type of situation? >> i don't -- i don't -- i just want to be clear on this. there are independent grounds. if the court concludes that the state's action -- >> yes, i -- i understand. >> but with respect to the attorneys, that's right. >> yes. >> could we find -- >> what -- what is the line, mr. garre, between abandonment and just plain old negligence? >> it would be the line established by agency law going back to justice story's time. >> so, if his local counsel simply goofed in not -- not advising the people that were doing the legwork in the case, why -- why is that abandonment? >> i think it's actually more of a situation where he disclaimed any meaningful role at the outset. i think, you know, the real abandonment going on here was the attorneys in new york who left without notifying the court or their client. but that -- >> well, putting aside the

question of local counsel, could we find that there was an abandonment if the law firm of sullivan & cromwell continued to represent mr. maples after the two young attorneys left the firm? >> the court could. >> and does the record show that they -- they did not represent mr. maples, that this was done purely by the two attorneys? is there a finding by a court on that? >> there's not a finding. we think that's the better reading of the record, and i'm happy to explain why. but most importantly, we think it's irrelevant whether he was represented by the law firm in the fictional sense. he was represented by individual lawyers in that proceeding. they were the ones who mr. maples agreed to have represent him in that proceeding. the alabama courts made specific findings that mr. maples's lawyers were ms. ingen- housz and mr. munanka. it said that after the default. at that time -- >> but in the -- in the practice of a law firm, these were very junior people. wouldn't the law firm have to have some involvement in giving them permission to provide this

representation? i mean, usually there's something like a pro bono committee and a higher level. can -- can such junior associates just go ahead and say, we want to spend a lot of our time defending a man on death row? wouldn't they have to get some kind of permission? >> i think one would ordinarily expect that. and we're not condoning the actions here. i would say that, at the outset of this litigation, there were individuals from the legal aid society who were well familiar with capital cases involved. they apparently dropped out of the case. but we know -- >> well, what do we know about mr. de leeuw's role, mr. garre? >> what we know is what mr. de leeuw has said, which is that he was involved in the case at some point. it's not clear what his involvement was. at the oral argument in the eleventh circuit, he said, on page 302 of the joint appendix, that he was - they were awaiting further action from the court. so, we don't know what his involvement was. >> mr. garre, we don't know, we don't know. isn't that just proof that if we were to find that holland

applied, the holland exception applied, that we would have to remand this case? >> i think that would be appropriate, your honor. of course, we think the court should find that the holland -- the holland exception, or more particularly -- >> in that regard, there is one part of holland that you don't really address, which is that holland contrasted a statute of limitations issue with respect to access to a federal court with a procedural bar and said that the state's procedural bar had interest of federalism, that we had to be cautious of ignoring a state procedural bar because of federalism. if we were to extend holland in the way you want, how do we justify ignoring federalism in that situation? >> that's right. there are those distinctions. our point is that holland recognizes that attorney conduct that amounts to abandonment is external to the

client under agency and other principles. coleman itself recognizes that external conduct is not attributable to the client and can't be a basis for cause. so, the federalism interests are simply not implicated in the case where you find that the attorney's actions are external. and we think if you look at the principles you looked at in holland, agency law going back to justice story's time, the principles of professional standards of care, you would find that an abandonment -- of course, that must be external to the client. justice alito said in his concurring opinion that where someone is not acting as an agent in any meaningful sense, it would be grossly inequitable and unfair to attribute the agent's conduct to the client. >> mr. garre -- >> that's the principle we're asking here. >> could we go back to the state of the record? you've said a few times, and your brief does, that the record is skimpy on various important matters. would you go further and say that the record is irretrievably corrupted, tainted by conflicts of interest? >> i think there are conflicts of interest here. they're laid out in the legal ethics brief. the sullivan & cromwell

attorneys were representing mr. maples up through the argument, the decision in the eleventh circuit. but i think -- for purposes of what this court would do, i think a remand would be appropriate, because if you conclude, as we think you should, that abandonment of counsel would be an external factor, then it would be appropriate to remand for further proceeding. we don't know what these other attorneys were doing. the record doesn't show that. >> we do know, though, is that they were not counsel of record. >> we absolutely know that they were not. >> so, we know that the two who were listed as counsel of record -- >> they were not. >> were not representing him, and they hadn't told the court. >> they were not counsel of record. mr. maples never agreed to have anyone else represent him in a way that could bind him. the alabama court specifically found not only that they weren't counsel of record, but they were not authorized to practice in alabama. this is on page 223 of the petition appendix. >> but it seems to me it's up to you to produce the facts that would justify our reversing the case that you're asking us to do. >> we asked -- >> and you say, well, we don't

have these facts. well, send -- send it back so i can - no, you should have gotten the facts in the first place. if the record doesn't show the things that you need to show to get this case reversed, the case should not be reversed, it seems to me. >> but the petition did include a request for an evidentiary hearing. and i think the problem is that both the district court and the court of appeals short-circuited the inquiry into counsel's actions because it believed that coleman v. thompson applied in the abandonment situation. and where a court made that kind of legal error, it would be appropriate for the court to send it back and say, no, coleman v. thompson does not apply in extraordinary cases of abandonment, or an attorney's actions cannot be attributable to a client under agency law. >> when did you first make the abandonment claim? >> well, i think we've argued -- >> when was it? wasn't it first made in the -- in the request for rehearing? >> i think explicitly. now, we think -- two points on this. we think -- >> that's rather late. >> we think that all along they argued that the attorneys' actions established cause. that's why both the district

court and the court of appeals addressed that and rejected it erroneously under coleman. that -- >> that isn't abandonment. that isn't abandonment. the attorneys' actions established cause. that does not mean abandonment to me. >> we think this falls squarely within the rule of yee v. escondido, where -- where the party makes the claim below -- which they made the claim here that the attorneys' actions established cause - you can make new arguments, different arguments. and i think, particularly given that sullivan & cromwell had been involved early in this case and the possibility of conflicts of interest would make it appropriate for this court to consider our abandonment issue, which was raised in the petition for rehearing, explicitly raised in the petition for certiorari -- explicitly -- we think that it's properly before this court. if there are no further questions at this time, i'd like to reserve the remainder of our time. >> thank you, mr. garre. mr. neiman. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- in trying to sidestep coleman, maples is advocating at least

three principles that are incompatible with the way our justice system works. first, maples is asking this court to hold that due process required not just actual notice to his attorney of record, john butler, but in fact something more than that. >> let's say the three notices are sent out. all three of them come back, ok? let's even go further and say the prosecutor knows that nobody representing mr. maples received notice. what happens then? >> in that case, your honor, there would be a much more substantial argument -- >> yeah, i know it would be more substantial. that's why - [laughter] >> my question is what happens? are you prepared to acknowledge that in that case, mr. maples had been abandoned by all of his lawyers, it was known to the prosecution, and, therefore, the failure to file the notice should not constitute an adequate and independent state ground barring collateral relief? >> i don't think that the return of all three notices would justify necessarily a finding of abandonment in toto

by all the lawyers. it could signify a number of things. i do think that it would raise questions about whether the clerk had a due process obligation to do more under jones v. flowers. >> what does the return mean when you get -- get a notice returned? it just said no longer at sullivan & cromwell, is what the two of them said, right? >> yes, your honor. >> does that necessarily mean that they've abandoned the case? it just means you got the wrong address, doesn't it? >> that's correct, your honor. >> isn't that the only thing it means for sure, these lawyers are no longer here at sullivan & cromwell? >> yes, your honor. >> i don't know how that would be an indication of abandonment. can't you switch a law firm and keep the client? >> absolutely, your honor, although the presumption generally is that the client stays with the firm. but that's correct. the client certainly can move firms when the -- when the lawyer moves firms. >> mr. neiman, i think we're blurring two issues. we're not talking about abandonment in this respect. we're talking about notice going to no one, and the -- and

the clock ticking from a certain date that no one knows about. they were preparing for a hearing before this judge. so they weren't anticipating that he was going to rule without anything further. >> that's correct, your honor. they certainly were preparing for an evidentiary hearing, and, in fact, contrary to my friend's statements about what we know about mr. de leeuw's involvement in this case, on page 228 of the j.a., maples expressly alleged that de leeuw and others at sullivan & cromwell were preparing for the evidentiary hearing. but -- >> but as far as -- as far the record shows, de leeuw was not on the record at all. there were three counsel of record. two of them - well, let's go back to this -- this -- the first issue. the state by its own conduct showed it didn't regard butler as any kind of representative, because it didn't even send its rule 32 response to butler.

isn't that so? >> no, your honor, i respectfully disagree with that assessment of how we can read the service of the rule 32 answer. under alabama law, a - a pleading or an order may be served on only one counsel of record when a party has multiple counsel of record. so, for example, that answer was served upon mr. munanka at sullivan & cromwell, but it was not served, expressly at least, on -- >> what about -- >> ms. ingen-housz. >> what about the notice that he had -- he had lost in the alabama court and he'd better, if he wants to go to federal court, do something about it? that notice went only to maples, right? >> that's correct, your honor. the -- the state's attorney in that -- in that instance decided to send a letter only to mr. maples. of course -- >> and mr. garre made the point that if maples were represented, that that would be improper, to -- to send a notice

to maples alone. so, the -- so, the state's attorney must have thought that maples had been abandoned by his lawyers because he didn't notify any of them. >> your honor, the record does not reveal why mr. hayden decided to send the letter to mr. maples alone. one -- >> of course, he didn't have to send the letter. that letter had no legal effect, did it? >> that's correct, your honor. >> i mean, it was just -- by the way, your time has expired. i mean, this is not - what could the lawyer do about it? >> well -- >> it wasn't a required notice that he had to give to the lawyer or to anybody else. >> that's correct, your honor. >> so he just made this extraneous, volunteered statement to maples instead of to his lawyer. i don't -- i don't know what that proves. >> at that point in time, the state case was over. so, it was hardly clear if mr. hayden was going to do something that he didn't have to do under the rules.

>> why did he do it? why did he do it, then? just gloating that -- that the fellow had lost? >> what was the point of it? he must have thought there was a problem, right? >> your honor, he certainly was aware that mr. maples's lawyers had failed to file a notice of appeal. but -- and his letter reveals that he is very aware - >> is that surprising? i think justice kennedy asked your adversary -- how often do appeals lie from the denial of state postconviction remedies? >> your honor, i agree with my friend that we don't have statistics on that front. i think it's fair to assume that, for the most part, when a rule 32 petitioner loses at the trial stage, they're going to appeal. >> in a capital case. >> particularly in a -- in a capital case. >> that's correct, your honor, although there are some instances in which a capital petitioner or someone on death row decides that they no longer want to invoke the process of the courts, and they're ready for their sentence to be carried out. >> i just have two questions going back to the very beginning, when we were talking about the misaddressed or the

unreceived mail. when the notices come back "no longer at sullivan & cromwell," that's just as if it said, functionally, don't you think, "wrong address"? >> not quite, your honor. i think that -- that the notice saying that the person's no longer at sullivan & cromwell indicates that the person is no longer at the firm. i guess the notice could come back -- >> i mean, it's pretty clear that they didn't get their -- get the mail, get the letter, because it's sent back. >> that's correct, your honor. >> one other thing while i'm talking with you, and it's a tangential point, perhaps. could the state of alabama under your laws waive what you allege to be the procedural default? if you thought there was substantial merit to the underlying claims, even though you take the position that they ultimately should be rejected, could you have simply waived the procedural default and

allowed the appeal to proceed? >> i don't think the law makes that crystal clear, your honor. but i certainly know of no law that suggests that the attorney general of alabama necessarily has to assert every single potential defense within his or her arsenal. >> has alabama ever waived lack of timely appeal in a capital case? >> i'm not aware, your honor. >> counsel, could we go back to the chief justice's initial question? let's assume the two letters went to sullivan & cromwell and came back "left firm," as they did, and that the letter to butler came back "deceased." would there be cause in that situation to excuse the state's procedural ground? >> perhaps, your honor. it -- it would depend on why the

letters came back from sullivan & cromwell, i suppose. >> well, we -- we know that the -- that both lawyers in this case didn't move to another firm. both of them took jobs that precluded them from representing this defendant. so, i don't know how i define abandonment other than i take a job where i can't work for you anymore. >> the -- the cause argument in that case, your honor, would be substantially stronger, as i said before, in part because death, of course, is an external factor. so -- >> so, you accept -- i don't mean to interfere with the question, but -- so, you accept the idea that there is a distinction between malfeasance and abandonment. >> your honor, i think we'd be prepared to recognize that, in certain cases, an abandonment of a client by an attorney would terminate the agency relationship with -- between the attorney and client. and -- >> ok. so, then the only thing -- the only thing we're talking about is whether, on these particular facts, there has been abandonment or not.

right? >> that's correct, your honor. >> from your perspective. >> yes, your honor. but one thing i want to stress is that my friend has suggested that an evidentiary hearing or further evidentiary proceedings are necessary on this particular question because we don't know what role the other attorneys at sullivan & cromwell played in the matter. >> but we do know they weren't counsel of record. we do know that the only two counsel of record were no longer representing him, and he had no reason to know that they weren't, but they were not -- they couldn't represent him. the two -- the only two out-of- town counsel were the two who disabled themselves from representing him by taking other jobs. >> your honor -- >> so, there was no one from sullivan & cromwell other than those two on the record. so, on the record, they had abandoned him, and there was no substitute. >> i disagree with that assessment, your honor. >> well, the argument is that on the record or not is determinative for the out-of

town counsel, but it is not determinative for the in-town counsel. the fact that he is counsel of record doesn't count, but the fact that those two are does count. and only when you combine those two does the man have no counsel. right? >> yes, your honor. there is that inconsistency in maples's argument. on the one hand, maples says that butler -- or that the other lawyers at sullivan & cromwell weren't his attorneys because they weren't counsel of record. but butler was counsel of record, but he wasn't his attorneys. >> the notice inquiry is supposed to be a pragmatic one. as far back as mullane, we've said that the question that we're supposed to ask ourselves is -- is this what somebody would do if they actually wanted to accomplish notice, if they actually wanted the person to get that letter? so, i'm just going to ask you, general, if you were a lawyer in an important litigation and you send off an important letter to two lawyers, your principal adversaries, as well as to a local counsel who you think may

not be involved in the substance of the litigation, you don't know for a fact, but you think that there is some substantial likelihood that he's not particularly involved, as local counsel often aren't -- so, you send off this letter and you get it back from the principal attorneys, and you ask yourself -- huh, should i do anything now? what would you say? [laughter] >> your honor, i suspect that, in those circumstances, i might well personally do something else. but, of course, my prerogatives as solicitor general of alabama are quite different from the prerogatives of a clerk in morgan county, alabama. >> but the -- >> whereas the clerk has to believe that it's an important letter. right? it's not important enough to be required by the federal rules. how important is it? >> justice scalia is right. i'm assuming that a letter disposing of a -- of a ruling in a capital case issued after 18 months when nobody knew that

that letter was coming, that that's an important letter for a death row person to get. so, justice scalia is right to that effect. so, you get this, and you say, well, you would have. but that's the question that we have to ask about the clerk as well. the clerk -- the question for the clerk is, if he had really wanted the person to get notice, what would he have done? >> no, your honor, i disagree. the -- as far back as mullane, this court has said that at the end of the day, actual notice to a party, particularly within the jurisdiction, is the finish line for due process purposes. mullane expressly -- >> you can see from these questions that the arguments that you're making in this capital case, which is sui generis, are pushing the court to consider rules that would have far-reaching effect, such as a rule that places upon a clerk of the court a constitutional obligation to serve counsel with important documents in the case similar

to the constitutional obligation to serve initial process in the case. and the question that i would like to ask is whether this -- the -- whether you as the solicitor general or the attorney general of alabama have an obligation to push this matter in this way. this is a case where -- as i said, it's a capital case, as we all recognize. mr. maples has lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own, through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances. now, when his attorneys moved to file an out-of-time appeal, why wouldn't you just consent to that? if he did not receive an effective assistance of counsel at trial, why not get a decision on the merits of that? why push this -- this technical argument? >> there are several responses, your honor. first, at least at the rule 32 stage, the -- the notice of appeal deadline was a

jurisdictional one. and you're right, the state did oppose the motion for an out- of-time appeal, but there wasn't much the state could have done even if it had consented -- >> there's no -- >> on that front. >> there's no possibility under alabama rules for an out-of-time appeal in this circumstance? no extension? >> the holding of the alabama courts here, as recognized by the eleventh circuit, was that this would not be an appropriate circumstance for an out-of-time appeal. now, as to the question about -- >> is that a discretionary matter or is that a flat rule, once you've passed a certain time deadline, you're out of -- you're out of luck. there's no opportunity where there's good cause for an extension? >> there is opportunity where there's good cause for an extension. but what the court held here, what the alabama court held here, was that this circumstance in which the person had counsel of record, and counsel of record hadn't notified the court of their address -- of their changes of address, and, more importantly, mr. butler, who was, in fact, serving as mr. maples's agent in this case and received -- >> well, this goes to my earlier question, and continuing justice alito's line of

questioning. if the state of alabama had told the state court, in all of the circumstances, we think there should be an out-of-time appeal granted -- you're -- are you indicating that the state court said, well, that's a good idea, but we can't do it because it's not appropriate in these circumstances? >> that seems to be the holding of the court of criminal appeals in this case, your honor. >> did you -- did you oppose it? did the state oppose the out-of- time appeal? >> yes, your honor, the state did oppose the out-of-time appeal, and the state pressed the procedural bar in federal court in this case. but the state had every prerogative to do so, in part because this court recognized in coleman, a case where the petitioner undoubtedly could have said that he lost his right to his appeal through no fault of his own, that the state had the power to do that. there are good reasons for the state -- >> could the state in - excuse me. could the state in the -- in the federal litigation have waived the procedural default?

>> your honor, i think the law's not exactly clear on that, but i know of no law that would say that the alabama attorney general has to press every single non-jurisdictional defense at his or her disposal. but he did not do so here and had good reason not to. that's in part because coleman says that this is how procedural defaults work. there are good reasons for procedural defaults. they are grounded in the same equitable principles that led -- >> but you agreed with me earlier that abandonment is an exception to the adequate and independent state grounds. so, under your view of the case, coleman was not necessarily controlling. >> your honor, if i suggested that abandonment itself is an exception to the aisg doctrine, let me correct my earlier answer. my suggestion is that abandonment can sometimes allow a court to determine that a particular lawyer has become external to a client, that the agency relationship has been

terminated. of course, merely becoming external to the client doesn't mean that the abandonment itself will constitute cause. the abandonment also -- or the lawyer's ending of the relationship would also have to impede the ability of the remaining members of the defense team or the defendant himself to comply with state rules. the defendant himself to comply with state rules. here even if there is some argument that they did not abandon their client, i don't think there is on record. even if there were some argument on that front, it is not clear that the actions actually impeded the ability of the remaining members of the team. >> >> when -- when lawyers stop representing a client, as the two did, isn't there some obligation of them to tell the client and the court, we're no longer representing you, and arrange for substitutions?

there were never any substitutions on the record of the other counsel. the record says these two people are representing -- they both -- and those two weren't. they never told the court, and they never told maples. isn't there some obligation on -- on their part to the court when they stop representing a client to advise the court? >> yes, your honor, i think there is. but i don't think that means that what happened here constitutes cause. the record is clear, as mr. maples himself has alleged, that ingen-housz and munanka arranged for this case to be handled by mr. de leeuw, and the record makes clear that mr. de leeuw was involved in this case in representing maples even before the default occurred and even before ingen-housz and munanka were -- well, even -- even before ingen-housz and munanka left, i should say. >> is it -- is it -- i'm still unclear on one factual thing.

did the state's attorneys know that the letters had come back? >> your honor -- >> or should they have known? >> your honor, the record is not clear on that point. i can represent to the court that the state's attorney did not know that the letters had come back. i -- >> do they check the -- do they check the docket every so often to see what's happened? >> most -- most attorneys have an obligation at some point to check the docket, and that's -- that's one problem with the position that mr. maples has taken regarding mr. butler here and the ability of these parties to obtain information from the court. but in this case, it's my understanding - and this is not on the record. but it's on the record obviously before this court now. but it's my -- it's my understanding that the state had no idea that mr. maples's attorneys had not -- mr. maples's two attorneys in new york had left their firm or had -- >> why did -- >> then why did they -- why did they send to maples alone the notice, you'd better file your federal habeas?

they didn't send it to those counsel. where did they -- what made them send it - send that notice directly to maples and not to either of the sullivan & cromwell lawyers? >> again, this is -- this is information that's not in the record, your honor. but it's my understanding that counsel looked at -- looked at -- figured out what had happened, figured out the appeal had been missed, had calculated how much time mr. maples had to file his 2254 petition and, based on his 20 years of experience, said that in light of the fact that the state court proceedings were over, the most prudent thing for him to do would be to send the letter to maples himself. >> so, he had figured out that something had terminated the relationship between mr. maples and his lawyers? >> no, your honor, i don't think that's -- i don't think that's an accurate characterization of -- >> well, even -- >> of what exactly happened in this case, but in the very least, his lawyers had missed -- had missed the deadline. >> even if you assume that he had figured it out, that -- you would have to impute his

knowledge to the clerk of court to -- to find the -- the fault on the part of the state that's alleged here. >> well, more so than that, your honor. >> did he tell the clerk of court that he was only going to send it to maples? >> as far as i know, no, your honor. but, of course, the cert -- the notice came back to the clerk long before the state's attorneys sent the letter in this case. but that's an important point, i think, both with respect to the clerk issue and also the abandonment issue. the relevant question here is not what the assistant attorney general of alabama thought happened in this case. the relevant question on the clerk issue is what the clerk knew, and that of course is governed by rule of the rules governing admission to the alabama bar. the relevant question on abandonment is, had maples in fact been abandoned? had -- had these attorneys left him completely without counsel? and the record definitively establishes that that had not happened, both because mr.

butler remained counsel here and in a much more meaningful way, i think, than my friend suggests. and -- >> counsel, could you tell me -- i'm assuming you've practiced in your state for a while. >> yes, your honor. >> how frequent is it in the alabama capital system that local counsel takes the laboring oar, or even an active participation, in the defense or actions of a capital defendant? your -- the amici here says generally they did what mr. butler did. they just facilitated the - the admission of the volunteer attorneys. was that your experience? >> your honor, of course, that information's not in the record. we respectfully disagree, as a factual matter, with the factual assertions made by the amici on that front.

>> all right. if we have to send it back, i guess we'd have to say what the rule is. so, what -- what is the rule? what about a rule that says, where in fact attorneys do abandon the client and the local attorney does as a matter of practice in the state do virtually nothing except to facilitate foreign representation, and where the state had cause to believe -- cause to believe -- that all that was true, then the state cannot assert this as an adequate ground. that's all. >> your honor, a remand would not be appropriate in this case on those -- on grounds for a number of reasons. >> because? >> one is that rule of the rules governing admission to the alabama bar made emphatically clear that the role of local counsel was not simply -- >> irrespective of what the rules were, you'd have to show that -- you would have to show that, in fact, in the state it is a practice such that the local counsel doesn't do much of anything except facilitate,

because this is a state of mind as to whether the state -- and the state knows that. if he shows both of those things and shows that the letter came back and shows this was abandonment or close thereto, then the state ought to know that this individual had no idea about filing a piece of paper and thinks somebody else is doing it. and that's enough to say this is not adequate state ground that would block federal habeas. now, your argument against that is what? >> at least twofold, your honor. one, as a simple matter, those factual assertions were not made below. so, in order for the court to remand on that particular issue, it wouldn't be a remand for an evidentiary hearing, on whether those allegations -- >> i've seen in the briefs. there's certainly a lot in the briefs that seems to say that. >> there is certainly a lot in the briefs that says that. but one problem mr. maples faces here is that he had the burden

as the petitioner in this habeas proceeding to make the requisite factual allegations that he believed would establish cause. >> mr. neiman, am i correct that under the alabama rules when an attorney is represented by more than one attorney, the notice does not have to go to all of them? >> that is correct, your honor. >> it can only go to one, right? >> yes, your honor. >> so, as far as local counsel knew, he was the only one to receive notice of this thing, right? >> that's correct, your honor. >> is it correct or does the notice -- most of the notices i see list the people who have been served. were the new york people listed on the notice that went to butler? >> yes, your honor. the notice -- >> well, then he knew he wasn't the only one getting notice. >> right. >> or he knew that he was the only one who was supposed to get notice. >> well, the -- the cc line in this case cannot establish cause and cannot be deemed state interference for any number of reasons. the first is that -- i suppose it could only be held to establish cause if it would have been reasonable for mr.

butler to assume that the cc line communicated a message that it was perfectly ok for him to do nothing and to not take further action, based on what is on the cc line. and there are at least three reasons why that would not be a reasonable reading of the cc line. the first is that the cc line doesn't communicate that ingen- housz and munanka, who were the people listed on the cc line, will in fact receive the order. all it says is that the order will be sent to ingen-housz and munanka. the second is that the -- even if it would have been reasonable for him, for mr. butler, to assume that ingen-housz and munanka would receive the -- the order in this case, it would not have been reasonable for him to have done nothing, given that rule of the alabama rules made him jointly and severally responsible for -- to the client and to the court in this case. >> i guess the problem is, accept the rule. it exists. but if a lawyer says, i don't care, i'm not going to do whatever the rules require me to do, what more do you need

for abandonment? if a lawyer comes in and says, i understand this is a rule of the court. i understand that i'm supposed to do x, y, and z -- i don't care. i'm just not -- that's the question. >> yes, well -- >> what's the difference between "i don't care" and abandonment? >> i -- your honor, i guess i should just make -- make a couple points in response to that. first is that, as i understood the question posed about the cc line, that is all about not abandonment, but whether the clerk -- the clerk's actions can be blamed for -- or the default be blamed on the clerk. >> we're not talking about the notice issue. we are talking about the abandonment question. >> on the abandonment question, if it really were -- if it really is true that butler had decided he was going to do nothing in this case and not represent his client and not be an attorney for the client, then there might be a viable argument that butler was not -- was not -- had abandoned the client in some way, but that is

not the -- a reasonable reading of the record in this case. >> if we find -- >> butler -- >> if we find that these lawyers did abandon their client, will there be some sanction imposed upon them by the bar? i often wonder, just as when we find that there's been inadequate assistance of counsel in a capital case, does -- does anything happen to the counsel who have been inadequate in a capital case? >> your honor, i suppose it would depend on exactly what the allegations are -- >> have you ever heard of anything happening to them? other than they're getting another capital case? [laughter] >> your honor, i have not. certainly the rules provide that a breach of the rules of professional responsibility would be sanctionable by a state bar, both against the alabama attorney here and the new york attorney. >> you said -- you said a few moments ago that butler did more than your friend suggested. what more did he do? >> well, of course, we discussed in the brief the very -- the undisputable fact that

butler filed numerous things, and after the default occurred in this case. but even -- >> well, after the default, sure. but what did he do before? >> butler's affidavit certainly - that was filed in the state court proceedings certainly doesn't say -- i was in this only to swear these people in or move for their admission and nothing else. what butler says -- >> what did he do more than that? >> butler said -- says, on page 255a of the petition appendix, that he agreed to serve as local counsel. "local counsel" has a specified meaning under alabama law. >> well, you made a fairly serious suggestion that your friend had not accurately represented what butler did. and you still haven't told me one thing he did more than move the admission of the out-of-town attorneys. >> well, let me withdraw any suggestion that i am saying that butler had in fact done something that's -- that's clear on the record. and my time is up. may i finish? >> sure.

>> the -- my point was that butler did not simply agree just to move these people -- move these people's admission. butler said he would be local counsel. and local -- the role of local counsel is defined by rule 7. it includes an obligation to attend hearings, conferences, and the like. it also -- >> thank you, counsel. thank you. mr. garre, you have minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. we agree that this is a sue generis case. the facts are extraordinary, the facts are shocking, and ourr position is simply that under this court's precedents and the extraordinary facts here, mr. maples has established cause to excuse the default. with respect to local counsel, apart from the fact that the state communicated directly with mr. maples, an extraordinary step after the default, maybe the other telling thing is that in 2006, alabama itself eliminated the local counsel requirement for pro bono proceedings, recognizing that it could only create problems. it didn't add anything. with respect to abandonment, i understand understood at times my counsel -- my friend, to

acknowledge that abandonment may establish an external event with respect to the client. if that's so, then i think it's clear that we're at a minimum entitled to a remand. there were statements about what was clear from the record. i think, at a minimum, the record is not clear on a number of things that this court would have to get into if it were going to consider adopting the state's position that mr. maples was not abandoned. mr. maples was in a prison cell. his attorneys of record did not tell him that they had left the firm. they were required not only to tell the court -- >> we don't have to adopt the state's position that he was not abandoned. we have to adopt your position that he was abandoned. >> and you have a record of the attorneys leaving with not only not notifying mr. maples, not notifying the court, and not obtaining the court's approval, which is required by rule 6.2 of the alabama rules of criminal procedure. >> what is troubling to me about the abandonment argument is that -- is the fear that if the court says that abandonment is cause, there will be many, many cases in which the allegation is -- my attorney

wasn't just ineffective and negligent. the attorney was so bad that the attorney in effect abandoned me. and that will substantially change existing law. now, how can that be prevented? >> working through agency principles that go back to justice story's time, working through principles established in this court's decision in holland and that will be applied in holland. the lower court in holland issued its decision and found that mr. collins had abandoned mr. holland, using this court's precedent as a guide. so i, think holland already recognizes that attorney abandonment can be extreme. well, we're just asking the court to apply the same principles in recognize that what's external in one context cannot be not external in the other context. >> counsel, do you know how often holland's relief has been granted -- since it's very recent, but how -- how frequently holland's relief has been granted by the courts below? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i'm not aware of any flood of

relief in such cases. i expect that this would be very extreme. i think the facts here are about as extreme as you can get. >> mr. garre, how do we distinguish between abandonment and simply a botched, a very botched, transfer of responsibility within a law firm? >> well, where you have counsel of record leaving without obtaining the approval that they're required or telling the court, i think that is abandonment pure and simple. beyond that, you would look to agency principles, whether there's a breach of loyalty. this is going to be a fact -- you would want to get into the facts, although i think it is a very high bar. i think the holland decision makes clear it's a high bar. i think this case thoroughly passes that bar, but it's something that the courts will work out applying agency principles and applying the court's decision in holland. recognizing what holland said in this case isn't going to create any new rule. it's simply going to extend logically the recognition that attorney abandonment is external to the client as it always has been under agency principles. with respect to notice, this court doesn't have to find a

constitutional violation on the state's part. it's enough for cause that the court find that the state's actions are external. and i think the key inquiry is what justice kagan recognized, which is you look to what a person who is actually desirous of providing notice would do. in this situation, the clerk got two notices back, "left firm." it opened it up. it would have seen an order in a capital case, and it did nothing. i don't think anyone who actually desired to provide notice of an inmate with his life on the line would do nothing, reasonably, in that situation. mr. maples is not asking to be released from prison. he's asking for an opportunity to present a serious constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to a federal habeas court on the merits. if the claims are as meritless as they suggest, that clearly will have little burden on it. but simply allowing those claims to be adjudicated on the merits in federal court will go a long way to preserve the legitimacy of the system of criminal justice in a case in which a man's life is at stake. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. counsel.

the case is submitted. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> during deliberations, the only people allowed in the room are the nine justices. >> in my first or second to conference, i was paying attention. i fail to hear the knock on the door. they both got up and answered the door. it made me feel like i was about two feet high. i learned from that. one of the most important jobs of the junior justice is to remember you are a doorman. >> john paul stevens on his new memoir "five chiefs." >> some people say that to it --

to succeed in this war we need to be more like china or india or brazil. i say we need to be more like us. >> conservative leader and british prime minister david cameron says the toll -- the tone and goals. watch his keynote address sunday at 9:00 on c-span. look for the return of prime minister questions on c-span 2. >> if you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you are crazy. every bit nanette republican the world has a bill of rights. the bill of rights of the former evil empire was much better than ours. i mean it literally. we guarantee freedom of speech in the press. big deal. they guaranteed street

demonstrations, protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. that is wonderful stuff. of course, just words on paper. >> tuesday the role of judges under the constitution. watch the rest of the discussion on line at the c-span video library. it is washington he were way. next, a vice president biden, speaker john boehner, and former vice-president dick cheney are among speakers in washington. after that, president obama and center john thune. then a hearing on prescription drugs. >> i would like to start by

saying unequivocally, and categorically, that i deny each and every allegation against me this state. >> when i ran for president i said we would cut the deficit in half by four years, we cut its and 60%. >> this weekend, a look at the 1990's with the 20th anniversary of confirmation of clarence thomas and the 15th anniversary of the 1996 presidential race between bill clinton and bob dole. look for the complete schedule at c-span -- c-span.org/history. >> some of the speakers from an event hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. this portion is two hours and 45

minutes. [applause] >> i know i am getting older, but the fact that i can block disney's. -- but i can -- >> he would rather hear from a president and me? >> you know, i know where i m. >> sorry. >> mr. vice president, it is good to see you. >> it is good to see you. too. >> , what do you think the world a steve jobs?

>> i was watching some of the show's last night, his commencement speech at stanford in 2005 -- if you have not seen yet, you should see it -- and someone said this guy democratized technology in eight way that if put in the hands of ordinary people, estimates that were only heretofore available to nasa scientist, to doctors in an operating room -- and he put them in the hands of ordinary people. that struck me that he democratized the use of the most advanced technology on earth. i think his contribution huge. the gets up every morning, looks in the mirror, and asked whether or not it does what the last day in my life when i'd be

doing what i am doing today? that is how he approached life. my doctor said it differently. it is the lucky man and woman who gets up every morning, ' on the floor, and knows what they are going to do. >> the democratization of how we get news and information, what kind of impact did that have, not just on news and information, but on the political and policy debates in the country? >> in one sense, it has made policy debates a little more difficult to focus and have in a way that there is no -- i remember when i first got elected 400 years ago and david halberstam had just written a book. this concentration of power,

three networks -- i thought to myself, this is his point about it should be more open. sometimes i wish there were only three. i am not being facetious because there was based marshaling of the most important issues of the day in one place where the debate could be a forum that was already available. you read 70% of people watching evening news. and it was news. the flip side of that, this democratization has taken on the ability to take down governments cannot bring down tyranny, to fundamentally organized -- and change the way people organize themselves. on balance it is much healthier. there is no governor on any of this. there is no editor. a lot of material gets out in the public's fear that is

species. my view is, and my deceased wife always kidded me when i said this -- i have great faith in the american people. i really do. i take the people around the world are digesting this and are separating the wheat from the chaff. on balance, it is over one way positive. >> why is the economy getting worse? >> the economy is getting worse for a number of reasons. it is not that it is getting worse, it is not getting better at the rate it should get better. >> there are a number of reasons for that. domestically, i think that brinksmanship -- playing brinkmanship with the national debt was a serious mistake. i take us been downgraded is a sight -- has a psychological impact on the markets here.

it is not within our power, but it is within our orbit that the scare of the fall, the possibility of the default of greece, whether or not the europeans can build a firewall strong enough to prevent the contagion to move to the banks in france or the collapse of italy. there are 30,000 to 50,000 -- 30 million to 50 million apartment units in china that are vacant. people are worried about the real-estate bubble there. we need to focus on what we can control. rican now control, we can now give it a jump start by passing this jobs bill. the vast majority of the independent validates say it will create the 21.7000002 million jobs. it will increase the growth of gdp by a couple of percentage points. the things we can control are

the things that frustrate me the most that we are not able to get done. >> what is more to get it done? the president is campaigning for it, but even though it believed it right, in this town that is not enough. >> i take what is core to happen is we have to challenge -- as you have reported, i have a good personal relationship with eric cantor. i have a great relationship with john boehner. i know what they are against, but i do not know what they are for. there was a report that these sessions -- pete sessions said after the jobs bill was at traduced that obama had his back to the wall. why should we help them now? not him. help the united states. i do not know any republican in the path that has been against cutting the payroll tax for

businesses as well as for employees. we had people supporting that just a year ago, including the most conservative members. i do not know any republican that has taken the position that we should not be working on infrastructure they have not taken the position that it does not make sense to get those 6 million people paying 6% of their mortgages to pay for% of their mortgages. i do not know what they are against. as the president said i thought so. nearly a month ago, we had at 30 must to have this campaign. these folks cannot wait. how many people do you know who will go to bed tonight staring at the ceiling and literally wondering whether they will be in that house next month? >> this president is campaigning.

he is campaigning on tax hikes and selling this bill. he is very much in campaign mode. do you support what democrats are saying? >> here is what we said we introduced that bill. we said this was how we pay for it, but we are open. you had overwhelmingly in recent polls millionaires think they should pay more. tea party falls state millionaires to pay more. the middle-class thing. republicans think. what is the problem? "this is argument. i asked you as someone who understands tactfully out to move legislation. what happens to get it passed? >> we have to go to the people. that is what the president has decided to do. that has been my point of view for a while. you have a lot of folks who were elected last time to the congress, meaning 2010, who are

in districts where it is not going to matter. but you have a lot of folks in the state of pennsylvania. five r d party associated who represent swing districts. we should go to the people. we should be asking everyone of those congresspersons what are you against? the only way we are going to change this is we are not going to change it by getting the leadership of the republican party to take on their membership, we are only going to change it if we communicate to the american people what we are proposing is sound, reasonable, and there is no good reason why republicans do not support it now. >> does the economy slipped into recession if the government does not fail to support it further? >> i do not think so. but i do think it stays sluggish and stagnant if this does not pass. there is a concern about recession. it is one of the things you

have talked about on "meet the press." there is not a real concern about europe. we are working as hard as we can. the interlocutors, with our counterparts are encouraging europe to do what they know they have to do, but it is politically very difficult to do it -- to build this far wall. i can picture a worse case scenario in the euro zone that could have an international contagion. >> i am reading -- reading the book "boomerang." our subprime crisis did a lot of damage to our banks, but the government could still bail the banks out. here you have countries that are destroying their banking system. can the eurozone survive? ">> it can, but this is a wrenching moment they are going through.

they need to have a alter col. are they willing to take the risk needed to take to maintain this union? our belief is they can and will. our hope is that they will. it is interesting to me if you read "boomerrang," if you take about what our republican friends are talking about -- i listened to john boehner's speech to the chamber. he talked about liberating the economy. the last time we liberated the economy we put the middle-class in shackles. the fact is everything they are talking about are the very things that got us in trouble liberate wall street from the new restraints on them.

talk about how we are going to increase the tax cuts for people, particularly at the upper end. all of the things we tried before. the very things that got us where we are are these things that are being proposed. we have to have a head-on debate in this country about frustration. what we have done has not totally corrected the problem. people are still hurting. we understand that, but there has to be debate. if we continue along the path we are talking about and make the kind of changes we are unable to make, like fair distribution of the tax burden in this country -- i was just watching cnbc. they had a corporate died on their talking on a squawk box saying, "the problem is we think corporations should pay 28% and make us more competitive

worldwide. industries are paying 35%, but the financial sector is paying 20% per "our problem is getting everybody to get in the game. it is not that we are slowing up corporate tax reform, corporations are in disagreement because there will be winners and losers. we talk about because buffett rule. i call it the reagan role. this is ronald reagan, 1985. some of those loopholes are understandable, but in practice they make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver is paid to% of his salary. that is crazy. do you think the billionaire should pay more? all of this stuff about us talking about class warfare, give me a break. >> most millionaires to pay

more. >> no, the vast majority of millionaires pay more money than the bus driver, but on a progressive tax cut thing they do not pay at the rate they should pay. if you -- what warren buffett was really talking about is his effective tax rate, i forget what he said it was -- the secretary making $55,000 is paying 28%. that is not what teddy roosevelt had in mind. that is not what has been the process for the last 100 years. let's let me ask you about wall street right now -- the occupy wall street protest movement. do you in the president's stand in solidarity with these protesters? >> that is a really fair question.

let's be honest with one another. what is the core of that protest? why is it increasing in terms of the people it is attracting? the core is the bargain has been breached with the american people. the american people do not king the system is fair or on the level. that is the core of what you are seeing on wall street. that is what started the tea party. bp party started why? tarp. they thought it was unfair we were bailing out the big guys. look, the bargain is not on the level anymore in the minds of the vast majority of americans. >> our banks the "problem in this economy? >> banks are part of the problem in the economy. there is this overwhelming gut

reaction to bank of america putting in a $5 fee. the american people know, they do not guess, they know the reason the ceo of bank of america is in the business is because they, that guy making $50,000, bailed him out. put his financial security on the line when his government said we are going to come up with a trillion plus a dollar to bail them out. then they turn around and say, by the way, we are only projected to make $17 billion next year, but you know what? here is what we are going to do. the middle-class folks, these guys with these data cards, car on their backs and we are going to charge them five bucks more. at a minimum, they are incredibly tone deaf. at a maximum, they are not paying their fair share of the bargain here. middle-class people are getting

killed. >> an editorial in the wall street journal this morning said, wait a minute, mr. president, they are responding to your roles. are they not the best to be profitable with there are restrictions on overdraft protection and so forth? >> like say to my kid, "this is the deal. i not only do not what you driving the car when you do not have a license and i have caught you." my son says, "i cannot do that anymore. i have to steal a car. i have to get around somehow." [laughter] the you know what i mean? >> you are suggesting that they are wrong in seeking to make a profit in a different way based on new regulations. the people are going to hear this and say this is the problem with these guys. they are fundamentally anti-

business. >> 99% of the american people are like that. i am not worried about how that is going to be perceived. what i am worried about is the failure of the banks to understand that in a circumstance where it was viewed by the congress responding to the american people that the tax being placed on their porches of goods when they swipe a card is now forcing them to go out there and at another feat when they are already making a profit. you can make a lot more profit. there are a lot of the things they can do. at least when you charge extra for backs on airlines, people are really angry, but they have heard how people relate how banks are going bankrupt. i do not want to do it, but if i do not do it, the airlines will go by rep. nobody thinks the banks are going bankrupt.

guess what, they are a lot more liquid than they ever were. that is what they are thinking. you cannot blame the american people for feeling an overwhelming sense of frustration at this moment when they are hanging on by their fingernails and, all of a sudden, they come along and say they are going to make a healthy profit next year. we have to have this additional income coming in. >> let me ask you about accountability. the president of the approval rating stands at 42%. the view of his and your handling of the economy is pretty low. either the biggest efforts -- the big efforts you have made as an administration turn the economy around, or they did not -- and they appear to have not done that -- either you are accountable or there is only so much government can do.

>> it is two of things. if you look at all the polls that you cited before as well, a clear majority of the american people to blame their financial straits of the last administration. they understand what got us in this trouble. they understand it was no regulation, no documentation loans, these wacky estimates they are taking risk on, the leveraged -- they get it. but we are in charge. they are looking to us to fix it. they are frustrated and i do not blame them. if you were ever raised in a household where someone what their job, you understand the frustration and anger they feel. we are in charge. we have turned it around. we had but for -- we a created jobs. not nearly enough. they are offset by the failure of the republicans to support the stimulus efforts and we had for the counties, cities, and states. they have laid off 300,000

teachers. -- we have taken a hit. but i think what they understand is we have kept it from getting extremely worse. we have made it better, but not good enough. i think what the 42% represents is how they feel. they do not think enough has been done. that is what i think you are beginning to see. i think we have to take this to the american people and say this is what we want to continue to do to keep us on the road. the car is out of the ditch, it is moving along, but it is only moving at 25 miles per hour. they are used to going 60. >> that does not sound like a lot of accountability to me. the stimulus plan was a big and you got it passed. health care reform, which you initially thought was a bad

idea in terms of political capital, got past. that was sold as part of our economic security. things have not turned around. >> again, there are limits to what government can do. >> i know we are in charge, but that is the other guy's fault. >> there are limits as to how fast government can make up for eight years of spending, no oversight, putting two wars on the credit card, a health care bill on the credit card, but richardson drug bill on the credit card, a tax cut of -- tax cut on the credit card. there are limits to how rapidly government can work. there are also limits to what government can do when one party decides we are going to do nothing.

nothing. let me say it again, we are going to do nothing. what have they proposed to stimulate economic growth except the same exact things that "liberated the economy before." get rid of dodd-frank. let wall street go back to its old ways. increased tax cuts for the wealthy. that has not worked. it is very difficult in an environment where one team says not only are we not going to compromise on moving forward, we think the old method that got us here works. the american people, their frustration is real, but at the end of the day -- u.s. for the "it before, there was a mayor named kevin white in boston. i was just elected at age 29. i was doing an event in boston for the democratic party. kevin white was elected in 1970.

in 1972 he was in trouble. the press came -- the press said, how do you feel now? he looked at them and said, "look, do not compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." [laughter] this is about the alternative. >> just to button that down, you talk about whether the jobs bill is. to be passed -- this president does not have a partner among republicans on capitol hill. >> i take the bus of a partner in the bulk of the leadership, but they are seriously hamstrung. i can tell you without in any way violating confidence -- in king john boehner and eric cantor would tell you we had a much bigger proposal.

i was personally negotiating with them as to how to deal with the debt crisis. they could not sell it. i believe that it is erick kanter, he would have to say no. i have a bad habit of saying what i believe. >> i do not want to get in the way of that now. [laughter] >> cut this is just joe biden's impression -- i truly believe that a fair kantor, joe biden, barack obama, john boehner were allowed to settle a deal in a room, we would have a deal. >> they are not strong enough leader to get it passed. is that your view? >> my view is that their party is not the republican party that we all know. one of the worst things that has happened to us, in my view,

is we need a strong republican party. we need a republican party that is united. we need a republican party can sit down with and say, ok. this is the deal. can you deliver? i think part of what this is about is going over the heads of the congress to their constituents and make the case. for the people to respond either to our arguments or to theirs and decide whether or not they are going to put pressure on their congresspersons to support this jobs bill or not. >> you said two things that amuse me. is the republican party strong enough for its nominee to be this president? >> absolutely. it is strong enough to be both of us. no matter what the circumstance, at the end of the day the american people right

now barker -- many of them are in real trouble. a larger percentage as stagnant wages. a significant majority of the american people believed the country is not moving in the right direction. that is never a good place to be going into a reelection. whether it is your fault or not your fault, it is sometimes irrelevant. i am counting on what i read out there. the judgment of the american people to decide they know the whole we are in, they know how far we have come out, they are dissatisfied with how fast we are going, and they will have to choose whether or not the path we have set the country on is the path we should continue

on or we should go back to liberating the economy. >> the president said this week he is an underdog. my question is with the enthusiasm with which he was swept into office -- the tears on election night because people were full of hope -- how in the world did that happen? he became an underdog for reelection. >> let me make a comparison. when franklin roosevelt came into office, we had been in flat depression for two years. no one had any doubt about how we got there. when we got sworn in and we have the inaugural parade and the president and i were sitting out there in front of the white house, afterwards we both walked into the oval office. he sat behind the desk and said, "joe, we bought in to buy. if we had been sworn in march 20, it would be clear how we got to where we were at."

that does not matter. we are in charge now. the fact of the matter is, the american people are dissatisfied with the state of the nation at the moment. that by itself is enough to make to the underdog. if you look at it in statistical terms -- former presidents in positions of unemployment have had difficulty of winning. at the end of the day, this ends up being the situation where the american people are going to have to make a choice. our job as leaders is to lay out clearly for the american people, this is not a referendum, this is a choice. if you do not like what we are doing, understand it. got it. >> who is the nominee against you? >> look, i have spent 30 years try to figure out the democratic party.

[laughter] with little success, i might add. i have no idea. klutz mr. vice-president, thank you. i only wish this was sunday morning. [laughter] [applause] >> i thank you, mr. vice president. next up we have speaker of the house john boehner group vice president biden told us was a friend of his, being interviewed by national journal.

>> hello. am i on the wrong side? >> mr. speaker, whenever you say. >> mr. speaker, welcome. by happy coincidence, the provision of the united states was a press conference in about 10 minutes i am going to give you an opportunity you do not often have, which is to look oppose cameras and ask the president of the united states a question. >> well, mr. president, why have you given up on the country and decided to campaign full- time instead of doing what the american people sent us here to do, and that is to find common ground to do with the challenges that face our economy and our country. >> there you go. cable news, have at it. [laughter] >> and what a great way to get started. >> the vice president was just on this stage. he said roughly the following --

there was a rough agreement between yourself, erick kanter, the vice president, and the president of the debt ceiling. but for the availability of you or mr. cantor to control your rank-and-file republicans, that deal would have gone through. he said the republican party was divided and weak and that is what is holding the country back. >> all year i talked to the president about the need to do what i call "the big deal." i think it is critically important for our country to do with the debt problem that we have and the best way to get there would have been for he and i to come to some agreement. i put every ounce of effort that i can and could and to try to come to some agreement.

the president said he needed revenues. i told the president i would be willing to do revenues, but only if the president were willing to really look at fundamental reform of our entitlement programs, which are a big driver of our deficit and our debt. i put revenues on the table even though the president never said, not one time, ever said yes to any meaningful reform of our entitlement programs. when the president called me and asked for $400 billion more revenue, before he ever agree to any changes in the entitlement programs, that is when i decided we would never get there. to never get the president to a point where he would say yes to real changes in our intimate programs, i put myself out as far on a limb as i could

possibly want to try to come to some agreement. but it takes two to tango. the president would never say yes. >> let's look at these legislative record for your first year in congress. your own republicans have defied your request to vote with them. that indicates, both to the white house and the larger audience, but there are times on significant votes where you cannot keep your own side together. does this week in your hand legislatively and in a high- stakes negotiations with the white house? >> there is no question it does. when i do not have 218 in the wheelbarrow at one time, i do not have the strongest hand i can have. having said that, when you look at my colleagues -- and these are not freshmen members by and large, these are more senior members. that has been misunderstood. some of our members just what more. i want more, too.

they want more change. but what if faster. i do not disagree with them. when you have a senate controlled by the democrats, you have democrats in the white house, my job is to move the ball down the field, did things done on behalf of the american people, and i tried to get as much as i can, but i want to move the ball down the field on behalf of the american people. >> will you correlate those desires with what is a historic and perpetually low assessment of congressional approval. i have been around capitol hill since 1990. i have never seen consistently a disparity of 7% of -- or more of approval or disapproval. how much of that is your fault? how much of it is the fall to not be able to get things done? >> progress has been america's

favorite whipping boy for 200 years. >> not to this magnitude. >> the american people are concerned about our country. they -- the concern i have seen over the last year is turning to fear. when they watch washington, they do not see the kind of answers that they expect. we have a unique system. right now we have a divided element. when we are having principled arguments in opposition with each other, the american people do not like to see it. i understand that. but my job and our job every day is to listen to the american people, to express their will as we try to address the big challenges that face our country. >> you helped create the super committee. what should the public expect and do you have any sense it will not make its stated goal

of putting a proposal before congress by november 23 and they get the deadline extended -- that this all could be for naught? >> based on my experience with the president and my long conversations with the president and vice president over the course of this year, i believe the congress and administration has to act. we have a big deficit problem. we have a big debt problem. the problems in europe continue to loom. their problems are larger than ours. it is incumbent upon us to show the american people that we can do the right thing. it is also incumbent upon us to show the rest of the world that they can address their big challenges as well. as a result, i am firmly committed to ensuring that the so-called super committee come to an outcome and a successful outcome. >> that will include some source of tax revenue? >> i am not going to predict what they will and will not do,

but there has to be an outcome. >> does your willingness in conversation to the president to entertain increases in revenue send a signal that you would like the super committee to act upon? >> i made it clear to the republican members of the super committee that i expect there will be an outcome. there has to be an outcome. the sequester that was built behind this is ugly. it was meant to be ugly so that no one would go there. i do not underestimate how hard it is. to beat to come to an agreement by the so-called super committee, but we have to get to one. we cannot let these challenges continue. you just cannot keep kicking the can down the road. >> let me ask you about an issue of very alive in the senate today and could be alive in your chamber. there is a bill in the senate with 61 co-sponsors of

identical legislation. alan west said we should bring it to the floor. the senator from ohio supports this legislation. you do not. why is it dangerous and will you reassess your assessment of that if it passes the senate? >> there has been concerned from my part and, frankly, from a lot of quarters here in america about how the chinese have manipulated their currency. there has been every effort that you can imagine out of our treasury department over the last seven-eight years addressing that with the chinese. there has been significant improvement in the valuation of china's currency as a result of these conversations. but for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, i think, is long, dangerous, you could

start a trade war. a trade war, given the odds -- given the economic uncertainty here and around the world, is very dangerous. we should not be engaged in this. i have made it clear what my position is. i think that the president agrees with me. but why is the president not speaking up? is he do busy -- is he too busy campaigning? why is he not out there making it clear that this is ill- concealed? i believe he agrees with me, but he will not say it. >> on imports and exports -- the charles schumer were here he would say, we have about $100 billion in imports. china says exports to us. a trade war would harm them economically. charles schumer describes, as does lindsey graham, china is a

currency bully. is it not? >> they have a lot of challenges in china. i have always believed that engagement with the right thing for our country and the right thing for the world. definitely a commercial relationship between the chinese and the united states is in both of our interests. they are probably the largest buyer of united states agricultural products. there is a balance here. i think for the long-term good of our country and for the future of our kids and grandkids, maintaining this solid relationship is good. any relationship is not going to be perfect. there are imperfections in this relationship. the administration needs to continue to work with the chinese to get their evaluation

of their currency correct, but this is not, in my opinion, and a proper role for the congress of the united states. >> you mentioned campaigning. i would like to know to what degree you were either relieved or alarmed the sarah palin is not running for president. [laughter] >> i'd like sarah palin. i know sarah palin. i spent a couple of days in alaska with her before she ended up in this odyssey the last few years. i think she made the right decision for herself. i i think she can play a role in the upcoming elections and i wish her well. >> do you want her on the campaign trail with house republicans who are seeking seats they do not currently possess or once they try to defend? >> i think it would be very helpful. >> you suggested the president spends an inordinate amount of time campaigning. are you saying it is

complicating your efforts to achieve results for the american people? >> let me put it this way. i have had my share of disappointments this year. this supported the president and i could not come to an agreement of the debate deal. disappointed that we could not pass stronger legislation in the house from some of my own colleagues. but nothing has disappointed me more than what has happened over the last five weeks. to watch the president of the united states give on governing, give on leading, and spend full best time campaigning -- we are on the hill legislating. we have moved dozens of bills over to the united states senate that would help create jobs in america. they are sitting there. no leadership from the president. i cannot tell you how dangerous

a situation our economy is in. how dangerous the situation in europe is. yet the president some 14 months before the election throws in the towel and decides he is going to spend all of his time campaigning. we are legislating, he is campaigning. it is very disappointing. what's the vice president a few moments ago said he believes you are a partner of his and the presidents. if i hear you correctly, you are declaring here and now the president is no longer a party -- a partner of yours. >> i will sit down with the president at any day at any time to seek common ground. yes, we have different ideas about the appropriate role of the federal government in our country and our society and our economy. but just because we have very different views does not mean we should not be seeking to find

common ground. he sent his jobs bill up. mr. cantor and i sent him a letter outlining areas we could find common ground, whether it be free trade proposals, whether it be the infrastructure ideas and the long term highway building, whether it is the tax credits he outlined. that is our job. our job is to find common ground to help our country. while the american people know we will not always agree, they do expect us to get something done. but it takes two to tango. all year i have reached out to the president, but you have to have a willing partner. all year i have asked the president send the trade agreements up. here we are on the eve of a visit by the president of south korea and we are going to have to move these trade bills with

expeditious speed in order to maintain our relationship with a very good ally. >> the country is approaching the 10th anniversary of the war in afghanistan. the country, to put it mildly, is conflicted about the ongoing war. how much as it achieved, how much longer should it continue, and has president obama been as effective, more effective, or equally effective as president bush? >> i think if you have watched the past three years i have been very supportive of the press the's decisions in iraq and afghanistan. -- president's decisions in iraq and afghanistan. the president has continued the effort to take on the taliban, to take on al qaeda, and to help ensure that america stays

secure. i think our number one responsibility as the federal government is to ensure the safety and security of the american people. i think that making sure in afghanistan that the enemy does not have saved a corral in which to plan attacks on americans here and abroad is the goal. we need to have success of their. so far, the president has done just fine. >> there are those who would say a solid bin laden, anwar al-awlaqi, made him a more effective prosecutor on the war -- of the war on terror than president bush. would you agree? >> if you look to the prosecution of the war effort against the enemy in the tribal areas, there is clearly more been done under president obama than under president bush in terms of a more aggressive effort. >> mr. speaker, this is an

ideas forum. last night, steve jobs -- he had a career that was innovative, then he was fired, then he came back. that is, in some ways, consistent with your trajectory here in washington. [laughter] >> i will not argue, but what is the gist of the question? [laughter] >> will you ever or have you ever worn blue jeans and a mock turtleneck in public? [laughter] >> atthat would probably be no and no. we live in the greatest country in the world. our forefathers gave us an economic system that produced opportunities for our citizens on like any other country in the world.

i came here for one reason -- to make sure that those opportunities were available to our kids and grandkids. a lot of americans do not believe the opportunities that all of us in this room had will be available to our kids and grandkids because we are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. it is america's free enterprise system, it is american openness, it is american diversity that has allowed us the opportunity to succeed and, frankly, the opportunity to fail. you cannot have one or the other. you'll always have both. i just think that the government has gotten too big. it has gotten way too involved in our society. it has become way too expensive. all of that gets in the wake of what i would describe as the american dream. but in america, listen, i was born with a glass half full. i am the optimist.

if i was not, i sure would not be here. i want all americans to believe and understand that they can do anything they want to do. they can succeed. they can innovate. this is america. i used to go to law school. i do not go too many of them any more because i end up in too many poor schools with great kids, most of whom will never have a chance because they are in a rotten school. i get a little worked up over it, as you all know. my message to all these kids is, listen, you can grow up and be whatever you want to be. i think most of us have to work for a living. lifework becomes life central activity. go do something you like.

succeed in something you want to succeed in regardless of what it is. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. [applause] >> next up, we have the former president of pakistan with david bradley interviewing him. thanks, david. >> good morning, mr. president. good morning, everyone. president scharf is exactly 10 years older than i am. the volume of what he put into his 68 years far surpasses my his 68 years far surpasses my 68