that's beside the point. it set the stage that the recruiting station that day was filled with young men. defend theired to country. a lot of them did not know where or what pearlas harbor was, but they came anyhow because they realize their country had been attacked unfairly. that's the reason we won the war. and that was the time when the policy ofnd effective the united states of america was to seek out and find and destroy the leaders of forces vowing harm to the american people. policy december 7,

but in the days or years following, some in the political circles decided to substitute for a two-fisted warning to creatures who made their threats by crashing airliners loaded .ith innocent americans happened.ted what has and i was encouraged again to hear the president of the united states last evening and again this morning to say in effect, .e are going to get them they are not going to get by with it. 1941was the attitude in and iranklin roosevelt -- am the only one present in the senate to hear him say it.

this is a day that will live in infamy. day that would better live in infamy. host: september 12, 2001. you were both in the united states capitol that day and we have to remind viewers that there was a time in which people in the buildings understood them to be targets. what was the atmosphere? >> the surprising thing was we came to work. most of the city was shut down. it was a ghost town. i had to come into work because the senate wanted to be in session. it was a very emotional day. you heard that and senator helms's remarks. he is comparing that from what he remembers to pearl harbor. it is a moment that brings people together. national catastrophe, crisis,

political issues get thrown out and there was a great sense of unity. that is what the senators were trying to show. >> the senate wanted to show it was still operational? >> they wanted to demonstrate that and convene at 11:00 that morning. they did so in violation of their rules. they had no order to convene that day. they have a standing order to convene every day. there was no authority to meet at 11:00 when the leaders wanted to meet. when the senate gaveled itself in, they said, we may convene at this hour. emergency times often require emergency processes. it was very important both bodies indicate washington was ready to do business. host: in our next section, we

wanted to demonstrate some of the procedural drama that our viewers have been party to watching over the years. the first clip is from 1988. we are going to watch this and have you talk about what is happening. this happened at 3:00 in the morning. it is an exchange between robert byrd and alan simpson, the assistant minority leader. let's watch and then we will learn more about what is happening. >> the facts speak for themselves. senators were not here. they were not here. they didn't stay on the job. they had their own order of the senate. i didn't single out any senator, any conduct of this unworthy

being a senator. i didn't impute any senator's character, integrity, or any such. i am sorry the senator took that position. i didn't realize when i walked the floor, things were going to be said about this. >> if i may. >> i yield. >> mr. president -- when i was making my remarks, i was here. as i said, the majority leader was there. you were right there. >> i didn't hear the senator. >> i know but you are in the chamber.

i would like to finish my explanation. >> i have the floor. >> we can go back and forth all night long. i am saying when i spoke, you were on this floor. >> i asked for the regular order. the senator addressed this -- this senator in the third person. >> i always do that. i do that when i'm in the chair and outside the chair. i said, mr. president, i want to finish my remarks. >> you did not use the personal pronoun "you." >> that was 3:00 in the morning, the exchange between those two senators. why are they arguing over how senators should be addressed in the chamber? >> i would like to thank you for allowing me to relive some of my moments of filibusters.

it just brings back some really fond memories. very often when substantial matters are stalled, they fight over process and procedure. there are a couple of things going on. senator byrd is taking umbrage at senator simpson referring to him in the second person. the senate's rules require that address each other in the third person and through the chair. that idea is a good 1 -- that business on the senate floor isto be personal. it is not you. it is the senator from west virginia. the remarks directed at the senator from west virginia are not supposed to be personal remarks. they are supposed to be institutional remarks. of course, this was an all-night filibuster. everybody's nerves are frayed. what had happened was in the , absence of a quorum, senate rule six authorizes the motion to request the sergeant at arms to request the attendance of

absent senators. the idea is a rollcall vote on that motion will produce a quorum since senators do not want to miss votes. in the absence of a quorum, a motion is designed to produce a quorum. let's say that motion does not produce a quorum. the role then authorizes a motion to direct the sergeant at arms to compel the attendance of absent senators. what does compel mean? it means arrest. that is what had happened earlier that evening. there was a motion the sergeant of arms compelled and arrest warrants were prepared in my office. the second most senior democrat, william proxmire, airing in mind that the vice president at that time, george h.w. bush, would not have been interested in signing arrest warrants. the most senior democrat was not available. he signed arrest warrants. with that the sergeant at arms , was sent in to bring in absent republicans.

>> how often does that happen that senators are essentially arrested? >> it does not happen often. it used to happen during some of the long civil rights filibusters. in the 1940's, the majority leader alben barkley had the senators arrested. one of those was the senior senator from tennessee. he was so upset about being arrested, he didn't speak to berkeley for years even though they sat next to each other. this is a rare occasion with the rule. also one advantage is i used to -- one advantage of being an historian is i used to go home at a regular time in the evening. around 11:00, i would turn on c-span and i would see alan still sitting at the desk. the clerks in the chamber are there whenever the senate is in session, whether it is 11:00 at night or 11:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the morning. you can see from the atmosphere

there that these senators are getting testy. senator byrd knew those rules inside out. he was an absolute stickler for the way in which the senate should proceed. he is pointing out he did not name any specific senator. he did not break any rules. he is in a sense telling his colleague if he was going to attacking him, he should have done it while senator byrd was on the floor. senator byrd throughout his career insisting the senate , operate the way the procedures and norms had been since the beginning. host: the public is used to the fact that the senate often changes leadership from one party to another. it is not often the change happens when the senate has already convened and is in session. it did happen in 2001. for background it had been the , contested presidential election.

tensions very high between the tedium parties, and there was a slim majority of republicans. what happened next? >> what happened is one of the senators, jim jeffords of vermont, chose to leave the anublican party and become independent and caucus with the democrats. that meant the democrats had a one-vote majority over the republicans. the numbers had been 50-50 up to that with the republicans point, holding the majority because the vice president was a republican. now the democrats had the edge. this is the only time in the history of the institution the party majority changed in the middle of a congress. there have been instances before in which one party started out with the majority and the other wound up with the majority because people died in office, but there had never been a device to switch the chairmanships of committees. in the beginning of this congress, the leaders sat down and worked out an arrangement

that said, we are 50-50. if one of us gets the majority, we will organize it that way. i don't think anyone anticipated when they signed that agreement it would be the democrats becoming the majority. everybody assumed if anybody switched, there would be an additional republican. because of the changes of the parties before had been democrats becoming republicans. this was a historically unique moment. not only did senator daschle become the majority leader, but all of the committee chairs changed. republicans stepped down. democrats took their committees. host: the clip we have is from 2001 when the new majority leader, tom daschle, is at the podium. let's listen. senator daschle: finally, there was another person who deserves special recognition. that is senator jeffers. last week, i was deeply touched by his courageous decision.

his eloquent words. the senator has always commended -- commanded bipartisan respect because of the work he does. regardless of where he sits in the chamber, that is work that will continue. america will be better for it. this indeed is a humbling moment for me. i am honored to serve as majority leader. but i also recognize the majority is slim. this is still one of the most closely divided senate's in -- closely divided senates in all of history. and we have just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. a change of power during a session of congress. host: there is the new majority

leader, tom daschle, talking about the historic nature of it. what i would like to have you talk about -- i think we keep reminding you of these challenging moments, what it had been like operating with a 50-50 senate and then what happened when they gained a one seat majority. >> it was fascinating operating with a 50-50 senate. the identity of the vice president is what tips the balance. the senate leadership is not elected by the senate. the two parties elect their leaders. there is no action the senate takes to ratify that. they simply acknowledge and take notice of the fact that tom daschle is the leader because he sits in the chair. trent lott was the leader because he sat in the republican chair. which of those two is the majority leader depends on how you count noses.

and how people identify themselves. it was clear at the outset that and 50ere 50 republicans democrats. they worked out a power-sharing agreement that was to be effective, unless one party obtained a majority of all the senators. i think what they feared or what they thought might happen was there might be a death. they were concerned possibly some unlike senator thurmond, who is approaching 100 years old, might pass away. they did not want a reduction from the party ranks to tip the balance. they wanted there to be a firm majority with one party. it wasn't sufficient that there would be 50 democrats and 49 republicans. the leadership wanted there to be an absolute majority of the whole number. jeffords switch caused great consternation.

initially, senator jeffords simply wanted to leave the republican caucus and not affiliate with the democrats, in which case there would be 50 democrats, 49 republicans, and a n undesignated jeffords. that was not enough to turn the majority to the other party. senator jeffords was ultimately convinced he would identify himself as an independent "caucusing with the democrats." that qualifier identified him as a democrat, giving the democrats in our mind 51 votes and the advice to the presiding officer was the day before senator switch, senator lott was the leader. after the switch, the chair would address senator daschle as the leader. host this was an enormous : change in his ability to get

his agenda through? >> yes. very significant change. host our time is going to : evaporate quickly. i'm going to move on to another procedural one. in the age of harry reid, we kept hearing the threat to invoke the so-called "nuclear option." when they refer to that, what do they mean? >> it is a matter of forcing a ruling the senators would vote on that would in a sense establish a precedent that would overturn a rule or contradict a rule. they use the word nuclear because it is so controversial, they compare it to a nuclear explosion. the one thing people worry about is after a nuclear explosion what will be left standing? will the institution be left -- be able to function? both parties have been on both sides of this issue. in 2005, senator bill frist was the majority leader -- this is on nominations we are talking about here, nominations getting

bottled up. the senator frisk first proposed it. it did not happen. a gang of 14 senior senators got together and came up with a solution. when the democrats who opposed the nuclear option became the majority, they found the situation equally intolerable. and they eventually detonated it. although they detonated it in a slightly different manner than had been proposed. now that the republicans are back in, they haven't changed it. i'm not sure how the two parties will deal with this in the future and how long it will stay. host: two clips. senator mitch mcconnell before the vote and then patrick leahy of vermont announces the vote. let's watch and we will come back. senator mcconnell: just think about it. the majority leader promised, he promised over and over again that he would not break the

rules of the senate in order to change them. this is not an ancient promise. july the 14th on "meet the press." he said we are not touching judges. july 14, "meet the press." we are not touching judges. then there are the double standards. when democrats were in the minority, they argued for the very thing they now say we will have to do without. namely, the right to extended debate on lifetime appointments. in other words, they believe one set of rules should apply to them, to them and another set to everybody else. he may as just as well have said if you like the rules of the senate, you can keep him. -- you can keep them.

[laughter] senator mcconnell: huh? if you like the rules of the senate, you can keep them. senator leahy: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. are there other senators who wish to vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 52. the decision is not sustained. to the republican leader. senator mcconnell: i make a point of order. nominations are fully debatable unless 3/5 have chosen to bring debate to a close. under the precedent just set by the senate, cloture is invoked at a majority. i appeal the ruling of the chair nays.k for the yeas and

senator leahy: the chair has not yet ruled. under the precedent set by the senate, today, november 21, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the supreme court of the united states, is now a majority. that is the ruling. senator mcconnell: i appeal the ruling and ask for the yeas and senator leahy -- senator mcconnell: i appeal the ruling and ask for the yeas and nays. senator leahy the republican : leader appeals the decision to the chair. the question is now, show the decision stand to the judgment of the senate? is there a sufficient second? there is. the yeas and nays will call the role. host: there we see the senate in all its procedural glory in a debate over a procedural rule. what should we know about this? >> people should know that

process changes in the senate not so much by rules changes but precedents. when the chairge makes a ruling and if there is an appeal on the ruling. the ruling of the chair, based on my successor's advice, elizabeth mcdonough was , the correct answer. cloture requires 3/5 of the senators duly sworn. senator reid appealed the ruling. in these particular circumstances that appeal could , not be filibustered, there had to be an immediate vote. on appeal, the chair requires a majority. here, the chair only acquired 48 votes. so, the chair ruling on the advice of elizabeth mcdonough did the right thing. senator reid appealed the ruling of the chair basically to say where the rules say 3/5, it

means the majority and he had the votes. he had a non-debatable appeal and with that, he was able to alter senate procedure, not by changing the language of the cloture rule but by changing the manner in which the language is interpreted. host: as you are giving us this explanation, i am thinking back to a speech from senator robert byrd -- we said earlier he was the great institutionalist -- give very early in the age of senate television. c-span was there. i recall him saying, mastery of the rules can impact the outcome. we are seeing a demonstration of that. >> exactly. and that is what made senator byrd an effective leader. he knew and he could quickly respond. he made his opposition nervous to go up against someone who knew those rules inside and out. there is a big, thick volume on senate procedure. over 1000 pages.

senator byrd used to hold it up and say, every congress i read , through this volume again and i underline sections i think are important. this is that a book party. i was standing behind another u.s. senator who leaned over and whispered, this is a senator who never reads the volume. host: let me ask you since you are both off-duty now, are there any institutionalists, any senator who are masters of the rules like centerburg was? >> i have been out four years. host: that is a diplomatic answer. >> i would have to think about that. at the moment, nobody comes to mind. it is possible if we have a dialogue here and either of you want to suggest someone from among the current membership, somebody will stand out. we do tend to look at the leadership for procedural expertise. so i would start there. , i believe both senator reid

and senator mcconnell are institutionalists. i believe their staff spends time in the parliamentarian 's office. host: do you have an answer? >> even senator byrd did not come to the senate as senator byrd. it took him years to acquire the knowledge. there may be some junior senators right now if they are , going to be here as long as senator byrd was, and he was here cap a century and takes the institution is seriously, that will master the rules the way he did. host: our final point of discussion on procedural drama is on the filibuster. we have talked about it frequently. we are going to do the opposite of a filibuster, show you a one-minute clip of a filibuster.

21-hourthis was september 2013, senator ted cruz. green eggs to as the and ham filibuster. senator cruz: say, i like green eggs and ham. i do. i like them, sam i am. i would eat them in boat and on -- and i would eat them with a goat and i will eat them in a -- in the rain and in the dark and on a train. they are so good, so good, you see. so i will eat them with a box , and with a fox. i will eat them in a house and i will eat them with a mouse. i will eat them here or there. say, i will eat them anywhere. i do so like green eggs and ham. thank you, thank you sam i am. ,and i want to say to carolina and catherine, my angels, i love you with all my heart.

it is bedtime. give mommy a hug and a kiss. brush your teeth. say your prayers. daddy is going to be home soon to read to you in person. host that certainly couldn't : have happened before television cameras, a personal message to children. the popular image of a filibuster was in the 1940's movie "mr. smith goes to washington." with that famous filibuster on the floor of the senate. what are real filibusters like? what are the rules about how person mustividual stand for to be a filibuster? >> there is no technical definition of a filibuster. i do think that "mr. smith goes to washington" was a fairly accurate rendition of what a -- bonafide one-man filibuster is. a senator gets recognized at a

time when there is no time limit for debate and says he will keep the floor until he can no longer stand physically. we don't see that very often. that to me is what a filibuster is. in current practice, filibusters are not necessarily conducted by one individual. if the votes are not there for cloture, that means you have at least 41 senators who do not want a vote to occur on something. and they can take turns holding the floor, in which case a filibuster doesn't have to be a lone wolf activity. it could be a concerted effort i -- by as many as 41 people, in which case holding the floor is not that difficult. they can hold the floor, go around the clock if they wish. no one particular senator will be inconvenienced that much. the stuff, of course, since there at the desk through the whole thing. it is difficult for them. the make them talk filibusters, which senators want to happen now in essence, would be a tech , -- tag team of as many as 41

senators coming to the floor and taking turns keeping a vote from happening. host: i presume people watching this cloture means the vote to cut off debate. in the age of television, how have filibusters been affected? >> there are two kinds of filibusters. one is the kind designed to stop a vote from happening. no you will lose if it happens. it is what southern senators used to do to stop civil rights legislation from passing. more recently, there is another kind of filibuster, which is holding the senate all night long, to draw attention to whatever the issue is the senator is concerned about. we have seen a number of senators who have adopted this in recent years. proxmire did it. senator alfonse d'amato used to do this. one night, filibuster. the next morning, it would be

all over with. senator cruz did it. senator sanders has done it. lots of them have done it for one night. reporters would say, why are they doing this? it is to draw attention to an issue they consider is important and they fear people won't pay attention to. host in our final 10 minutes, we : will show you personal or emotional moments. there have been many in 30 years. we have time to show you two of them. the september 7, 1995. first, senator bob packwood and announcing he is leaving the senate. senator packwood: some here, senator byrd, some in my age group remember general macarthur's final speech at west point. duty, honor, country.

it is my duty to resign. it is the honorable thing to do. for this country. for the senate. so i now announce i will resign from the senate. and i leave this institution not with malice, but with love. good luck, god speed. host we need to convey to our : viewers senator packwood had been enormously powerful. chairman of the sending -- senate finance committee. he was obviously not taking his leave on his own schedule. what do we need to know? >> this is a senator leaving under a cloud. worried if he didn't leave, his colleagues would be forced to vote to expel him.

what you get from that speech is the tremendous emotion of a person who has devoted a large part of their career to serving in the senate. leaving under a cloud or for whatever reason is difficult. listening to a speech like that i was thinking, if only we had , c-span in the 19th century to hear henry clay's last speech or john calhoun's. clouds similar to senator packwood. i think we would hear the same kind of emotion and capture the humanity. host: humanity, but also coupled with the rules of the senate. senator packwood resigned because of accusations of sexual impropriety. i wanted to ask in the general sense about ethics. how have they changed in the past 30 years, under the glare of television cameras?

>> i don't believe any formal changes have occurred in terms of the ethics of the senate. i think in the modern era, when communications, the communications industry, is operating 24/7, everything a senator does in the senate, on the floor, in a hearing, in that particular office, they are public people. every action they take is subject to public scrutiny. for better or worse, members know that. they have to conduct themselves with a level of propriety possibly unheard of in a previous era. i think that is a good thing. host our next televised moment : occurred in 2009. you will watch then senator john kerry in a testament to ted kennedy.

who had passed away. senator kerry: i want to thank majority leader reid and minority leader mcconnell for the time they set aside for us today, to remember ted kennedy, our beloved colleague. my senior senator for nearly a quarter of a century. a friend, the man i met and had a great influence in 1962 when as a young man, about to be college student, i had the privilege of working in his campaign for the senate. mr. president to look at his , desk now, cloaked in the velvet and the roses, a desk from which he championed so many important causes, from which he regaled us, educated us and were

-- befriended us for so many years. even more difficult for us to think of this chamber, our nation's capital, or our country without him. on many occasions in the senate, he was the indispensable man. on every occasion in this chamber and out, he was a man whose heart was as big as heaven. whose optimism could overwhelm any doubter. and whose joy for life was a wonderfully contagious and completely irresistible thing. host: that was a tribute to senator kennedy. i wanted to use this closing piece of video to talk about senators as human beings. because we often see them in their public role and at odds with one another because the nature of politics is a blood sport without the blood. but you see these people in a different light.

here was a moment when the cameras capture that. can you talk about that? >> the senate is a personality driven institution. they spend a good deal of time together, and they used to spend even more time together when they would be in washington for months at a time. they got to know each other as individuals. they had to cross the aisle to work out arrangements with people on the other side. senator kennedy was superb at finding republicans to be cosponsors of his legislation. building that kind of coalition needed to get legislation through. they also remembered senator kennedy with his dogs, in the park out here. there were really nice moments in their careers where the politics didn't make as much difference as the personality. so it comes out in these memorial addresses. this has been consistent throughout history. when important senators have

died, every senator comes to the floor to mixing kind of reference to what that senator meant to them. those speeches are compiled in special memorial volumes. we historians find them useful because they tell you a lot about the character of the individuals. you could hear senator kerry's voice breaking. how much this individual meant to him. practically every senator stood up to commemorate ted kennedy. because he was such a towering figure. host i am also thinking about a : moment when senator kirkwood suffered a stroke. made his emotional return to the senate, climbing slowly to come back. will you talk about senators as people? >> people frequently ask me to talk about the standing rules. i say, don't think about the standing rules. think about the 100 standing, 100 sitting, moving breathing , rules.

the 100 senators, the institution, despite the rules that say you should not personalize debate, the institution is deeply personal, and the procedures of the institution that empower everybody to stall anything means you are dealing with 100 personalities. everybody is empowered in the senate. what that means is it is a community of 100 equals. some more equal than others but 100 equals. and it is impossible not to reach out to these people as people. successful senators become that way because they understand who their colleagues are as people. and i believe that senator kirk was helped up the stairs by joe manchin, a democrat from west virginia, and harrison under kirk, a republican from illinois.

different parties, different states, different arts of the country. i think that was a fabulous window into the soul of the senate. it's people. yes, they represent their states. but the human element is essential. senateconstruct of the and its processes. host we are closing our : discussion of 30 years of senate tv. the clips we have shown are gathered in a special website page on c-span.org. you can find it easily. we've got all these clips and other bits of historical information to mark the 30th anniversary of the televised senate. in the age of television, not only does c-span do gavel-to-gavel, but there are regular clips of the senate in session. in today's age when people are seeking to run for the senate, they will often use clips from the senate floor to mount their campaigns. senators are clipping video and tweeting it out on their twitter feeds.

as we close here what is the , effect on the institution of all this video coverage? >> it is a more open institution, more than when i came there in the 1970's. in ways that the senators of that era would be shocked to see how available and accessible it all is. it has not been an easy transition. i remember once, senator ted stevens became furious when he felt he was ambushed by someone who is trying to videotape him with a cell phone. of course there are rules about , where cameras can be. in the chamber and around the chamber. it takes a lot of adjustment. it takes a lot of figuring out what you can do and cannot read -- cannot do. it also takes generational changes. we have the younger senators coming in who are much more adept at the newest technology. but the old institution continues. it has a form, a structure. the members have to adjust to

the institution just as much as the institution has to adjust to the new generation. and to the new technology. we have had galleries since 1795. the galleries have gotten larger. they have gone worldwide. they have adapted to the digital technology of the era. far more people can have access than ever before. >> i always tell people the senate is an acquired taste. to the extent that greater exposure will allow more people to acquire that taste, that is a great thing. host: with younger members, is there a push for more openness, adding more cameras, allowing journalists to bring their own cameras in? >> you look at the clips of the first senators. notice the camera is looking down on him. for a while, the senators wanted to sit in the back row, because they felt that was the better camera angle. now the cameras have been adjusted. the technology adjusts itself to

the institution and finds better ways of operating and i'm sure there will be all sorts of new devices that will come along, because the members of congress really do want their constituents to know what they are doing. host: can they bring their own cell phones onto the floor? >>, there is a sign outside no electronic devices inside the chamber. that you can blame on thomas jefferson. he was the first to say, you cannot read a newspaper when a member is speaking. the rules committee took a look at that and said, a laptop or a cell phone is not much different from looking at a newspaper. you are supposed to listen to the person speaking and give them your attention, and that rule remains. host: and they are different from the house in that regard. house numbers can bring their iphones or other devices on the floor of the house. that's one difference between the body. >> well, the senate is the upper body. host: let me say thank you to the historian of the senate

emeritus and former parliamentarian of the senate emeritus. and thank you to the historian's office, which was enormously helpful in the research for today's event, and our own dr. robert browning at the c-span archives for his assistance in identifying the clips you saw today. i thank you gentlemen for being with us. as we close here, back to where we started with senator bob dole,, then-majority leader on the first day of senate television talking about the historic nature of this. senator dole: no doubt about it, today is historic in many ways. it is exciting in many ways. now the tv inthat the senate is here, that the public has the opportunity, and we underscore we hope this is opportunity. i doubt we will ever be without

television, except for that period when we pull the plug to take a look at ourselves and see what we might do to correct certain areas. i think today, we in effect are catching up with the 20th century. we have been the invisible half of the congress for the past seven years. we have watched our house colleagues with interest, at least i have with interest. and the tv coverage of members of the house. in my view, this is a challenge to the senate. i said a number of times, i had reservations. i believe all of us probably, publicly or privately, have reservations. we are going public. we will be watched by our friends and by people across the country, and i would hope as i have said before, that the

senate may change, not as an institution, but may become a more efficient body because of televised proceedings. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> if you missed any of our special programming marking 30 years of senate coverage on c-span2, you can watch an encore airing tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern. america's created by cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. "the hill" report secretary of state john kerry said that whoever called for deleting several minutes of video from a december 2013 press briefing was being "stupid and clumsy and inappropriate." is in paris turn

to restart peace talks between israel and the palestinians. here's more about the editing in a briefing from the state department today. mr. toner: you will have seen today that congressman schiff it's -- converse minchin fits and congressmen -- congressman chaffetz and congressmen ry oyce have asked to open an investigation into this. asking for the department to turn over all of the documents related to the investigation of what happened. have you gotten those letters? have you responded? what will your response be? you have been resisting -- well, let's start with that. mr. toner: ok. we have seen the letters. we were on the receiving end of the letter from mr. senator -- sorry.entative chaffetz,

are in the process of studying the letter, and we will make every effort to be responsive. >> it is a pretty short letter. when you say "responsive to his request," when you say you will make every effort to be responsive, does that mean you will produce the documents and communications by june 8, like he requested? mr. toner: i would just say, we are looking at the letter. we are in the process of seeing how we can be responsive, and under what time constraints. >> do you know, is there an issue that might prevent you from being responsive, that could prevent you from turning over the fruits of the legal advisors' investigation? mr. toner: look, we are always

responsive to congress. >> you could be responsive by saying no. mr. toner: we strive to be responsive to congress, certainly. i just can't stand up in front of you today and say, we will meet their demands by x date. we are looking at the letter and we will get back in touch. >> you have been somewhat they threw you have been somewhat resistant to the idea of an ig probe, because he said this was a very specific incident and the ig generally focuses on broader thematic issues. has that position changed, or do you think chairman rice has a point -- chairman royce has a point? to toner: as we make pains make this point, frequently the oig operates as a separate entity, so it can decide for

itself whether it wants to look into this incident. i think my point yesterday was att, the point about looking audits, investigations, what have you, but also that there was, as we talked about at length t yesterday, there was no rules broken here. we did conduct an internal investigation, but a letter has been sent to the ig to make that call. i'm not going to pronounce one way or another, or make that decision for them. >> you had said before, both you and kirby said before, you didn't think it was necessary. is that still your position? mr. toner: we didn't, but we certainly won't -- >> you did and what? mr. toner: we conducted an internal -- >> i understand that. mr. toner: we did not think it was relevant to the purview of the ig. >> is that still your position? mr. toner: that is still our viewpoint, but it is up to the ig to decide.

>> given that you still don't think it is necessary, are you now planning to continue your own investigation, your own review of this? youother day you said no, still don't know who did it. mr. toner: we don't. we will, look into it as we talked about yesterday. we still don't know who made the request. we also said, if there is more information that comes to light, we are going to look at it and we are going to consider it. >> but there's a difference between standing and hoping that information drops out of the sky into your hands, and actively going out and looking a for it. there has been a lot of criticism from up on the hill looking at this, saying, what has been done so far is fine, but it is incomplete and there needs to be more information about this, why it was done, who did it, and some kind of accountability, even if no rules

were broken. mr. ner: well, that's precisely the point. whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not -- >> that's a completely separate category. mr. toner: we believe that we have investigated the incident, to the point where, to which we can. and what we have sought to address is the fact that there was an absence of a clear policy about us, and we have addressed -- about this, and we have addressed that. >> so the criticism you have been on the receiving end of over the last couple of days has not at all suede or changed -- or changed your view point about continuing to press ahead to get the answers that lawmakers and others are demanding, is that correct? mr. toner: it's correct to say that we believe we have conducted an inquiry into this

incident. we have, to the extent that we can. given that no rules or regulations or policy was broken, we have sought to correct that going forward, but we believe we have exhausted our efforts to look into the incident. go ahead. >> i don't think, the point is not whether a specific rule or regulation was broken. but it is a public trust issue that was broken, credibility that was broken issue here. it didn't have to be about this. it could have been about anything. it could have been about aid to borneo. it's more saying, important perhaps because it was about the iran negotiations, but in fact any deletion or editing of any part of a briefing on any subject should be wrong, and not

acceptable. mr. toner: a couple of points on that. first of all, you know, and we have said this from day one when these allegations first, surfaced the incident first came to light. one video was edited. we have a knowledges that and we that and weowledged have taken steps to make sure it does not happen again. but there was always a transcript available of the briefing, and there was always a video available of the full briefing. so i understand and i appreciate the tough questions that you all are asking in this room, and we are doing our best to answer, but there's a lot of overblown rhetoric about what happened, what transpired. anbelieve we have conducted inquiry into what happened. know why this was done

or why this was requested, so we are asking ourselves the same question, but we don't have any further leads to investigate. as i said yesterday, we are at a bit of a dead-end. we will continue to as we get more information, we will pursue that. but what's important here is that we take steps so it doesn't happen in the future. >> did you get an answer to my question regarding whether or there are internal telephone records that would allow you to figure out who did this, or who made the phone call? mr. toner: right. so we did check with irm, and internalm is such that

phone call records are only available for a 24 hour period. so those records, internal calls, would no longer be available. >> do they go somewhere else? are they inaccessible? mr. toner: i believe they are just gone. that's my understanding. >> did the office of the legal ifisor seek to find out there were telephone records? mr. toner: they did not. ? >> why not? mr. toner: it returns to the point i was trying to make with , as regrettable as this incident was, and it was aoubtless that, there was not for furthere investigation into the incident. we did interview the person, who by the way came forward and

offered their recollection of what happened, but beyond that we didn't feel, the legal office did not feel they needed to pursue this further, did not have the grounds to pursue this further. >> well, either you want to find out or you don't. and if you want to find out, i don't understand why you would not ask a question that even somebody like me, who is not a lawyer and, would think of. maybe there's a record here, a phone call. and i don't understand why they wouldn't -- you don't have a broken rule or a broken lock. but what i don't understand, it all goes to credibility. if the idea is to do a credible review, even if it is not an investigation, why wouldn't you turn over every stone? mr. toner: we have to be mindful of the privacy of individuals involved, and also be mindful of the authority with which we can

carry out any kind of examination of what happened. onre was no legal basis which to continue to look into this incident. like i said, when we get new information, we would certainly pursue that. >> another thing. i am told that, you recall that that allday kirby said the person could recollect was that somebody had asked that this be done. i can look up the exact quote. all this person could remember was that they were called and asked to do this, and they believe it came from elsewhere. i am told that the person also, however, said that they didn't think it was former spokesperson jen psaki.

why were we not told that on wednesday? saying all they could remember was x, but it turns out they remember more than that. we learned about it later. mr. toner: it's a legitimate point. one we have no obviously corrected by putting that out there -- now obviously corrected by putting that out there. we were concerned by some of the coverage that jen psaki was being sullied by, allegations she somehow, this came from her. we recognized we needed to clearly refute that, so we did. >> citizens have got to feel

that their vote matters, that their voice matters, and whether they can't spare a single cent to help someone running for office or they can write a big check, that their concerns will be listened to and followed up on. >> sunday night on "q&a," tammy baldwin talks about her career in public service and wisconsin political history. >> bob the follett senior helped helpedla follette senior bring about the change where senators were not appointed by the legislators, but demanded elections. if that i don't know was the first, but the idea it would not be the party bosses who made the decision of who the nominees were in smoke-filled back rooms, but rather the

people who were going to get a chance to vote in free and fair elections. >> sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a." republican presidential candidate donald trump at a campaign rally in california. then a discussion on efforts to combat isis and al qaeda. after that, federal reserve d on theael brainer u.s. economic outlook. now, republican presidential candidate donald trump speaking at a campaign rally in redding, california. residents of that state, along with five others, will vote in primaries this tuesday. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

mr. trump: this is amazing. thank you folks. redding, we love redding. thank you very much. i think it's 104 degrees. is everybody ok? if anyone not feeling well, come up here, we have plenty of water to share. this is hot out. so i want to thank you all. you know, they got some very bad news, the worst jobs report in 6 and a half years, ok. i don't know if you saw that. 30,000 jobs. it is going the wrong way. they have been kidding themselves. they are playing games. it's going the wrong way. they had a labor participation rate, it fell to 62.6%, which is one of the worst in many, many, many years. so we know what we're doing. we are going to turn it around

and make america great again, bring back our jobs, bring back our jobs and bring it back fast. so you remember the 1237 and they said, i don't think trump will reach it. maybe at the convention. i said we are going to reach it easy. who would have thought we reached it long before hillary clinton? she can't close the deal. she can't close it. she's working hard and can't close it with bernie. good old bernie. we love our bernie. i tell you what, what a mess she's in. and the people with bernie don't want to vote for her and they want to vote for trump. you saw that poll. because whether you like bernie or not, he's right about one thing, trade is a disaster for our country. that's the one thing he is right about. the trade deals that our country

are an absolute disaster. hello. look at all those people over there. this is crazy. wow! i wish these camera guys would spin it around. they are so dishonest, 100 something degrees out here to have this number of people. are we happy to be here? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: on june 7, you have to get out and vote, because you know, we are setting records. we have already broken the record, in all fairness. i like that cap. he has the same cap i have on. hunters, the n.r.a., they gave me the endorsement. you saw that. great, great people. wayne and chris, they are great people. they gave me the earliest endorsement i think they have ever given to anybody. national rifle association. we are going to protect your 2nd amendment. we will protect your 2nd amendment.

i love you, too. nice guy over there. big strong guy. i love you. so, look, we have had an incredible period of time june 16 we started and it's been an amazing ride. all over the world they are talking about it, it's a movement. they said they have never seen anything like it. the biggest crowds of anybody by far. the other night, bernie had 3,000 and i had 17,000. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and they talked about me, donald trump made a speech, never mentioned the number of people and bernie has had a massive crowd of 3,000 people. i tell you what, the press is so biased against us, but i believe we have the numbers. i really believe it. you know, they used to call it the silent majority, now i think we are going to call it the

noisy majority. we are not silent. in san jose, we had an amazing crowd. it was packed and it was incredible and at the basketball on, which is that area, the san francisco game, and we had some crowd. it was absolutely incredible. and it was a love fest inside, no problems whatsoever. we went on and spoke and had a good time for an hour and i said i want to get you guys so you could see the warriors, who won. but i wanted to get them out and i said we don't want to get out. we had an amazing time. that was it and we wrapped up and everybody was cheering like crazy forever and they walked out and they get accosted by a bunch of thugs burning the american flag, burning the american flag. you know what they are?

they're thugs. build that wall. you're right. [crowd chanting build that wall] mr. trump: we are going to build the wall, folks. don't even think about it. you saw -- i have a lot of endorsements and paul ryan just endorsed me and mitch mcconnell, but we have tremendous support. when you think that in the history of our party, more votes than anybody that has ever done this before. think of it. more than dwight eisenhower. i mean he won the second war, more than ronald reagan who we all love, more than anybody and we have a lot of endorsements and we are very popular within the party and polls are coming out showing we are doing well and winning. the fox poll came out a few days ago and we are winning by three

points. we are beating hillary. did you see that phony speech she made yesterday. and people think, oh, did she speak well. she has a teleprompter here and there. do you notice, donald trump is a bad man. donald trump has a bad tone. we need a tough tone in this country. we don't need this kind of stuff anymore. she said, i don't like the tone of donald trump, that was a while ago. she said i don't like his tone. and i'm saying to myself, they are chopping off people's heads and killing us at the border. our country's a mess. we have the worst jobs report in 6 1/2 years. our labor participation rate, you are talking about decades of a disaster. people are making less money now than they made 18 years ago and working harder.

and i'm supposed to have a nice tone. hello, everybody. how's everything. we are going to bring back our jobs. we are going to take our country back. we are going to run it properly, folks. and you are going to be proud of your country again. and you know they do research. u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a., i like that. i like that. so california, good place. i'm going to play heavy in california. i think we can win it. i mean we get crowds like this all over the place and didn't even give you a hangar. they don't give hangars anymore. but it's amazing the kind of reception that we have. and every magazine and every newspaper whether they like us or not and i say folks, i'm a messenger. am i doing a good job?

[cheers and applause] mr. trump: it's incredible what's happened. and people are saying it's the most incredible political phenomenon. one of the pundits told me the other day and said you know, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, the job you've done is so incredible. you came from nowhere and never did this before and fighting 17 governors and senators and professional politicians, i have been fighting them all my life and i like fighting, but you have been fighting these people and week after week you are down to 16, you are down to 14, you are down to 9,, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. and they said it hasn't been anything like it. it doesn't matter whether we win or lose.

it will be in the history books forever. they said it never happened. bill o'reilly said, the single greatest political phenomenon he has seen in his life. and i'm saying what the hell are we talking about? we have to win. we have to win. we didn't come this far to lose. we are going to play california because i think hillary is pathetic and should be in jail for what she did with her emails. she should be in jail. she should be in jail for what she did with those emails. she wants to play a little tough. you know, she polls it, every word she said was polled. i don't have teleprompters. it's called up here and memory and called other things. and i speak from here and from the heart, ok, because that's what we need.

and every single thing she said yesterday was polled and her people wrote it out and don't see the teleprompters. they said oh, they didn't know that. she's reading the script and she would read a line and phony audience. she would have the phony audience and the guy in the back going now and they clap. and these pundits -- if i ever did that, i would be run out of town. but for hillary is ok. what she said was so many lies. like he wants japan to get nuclear weapons. i don't want them to get nuclear weapons. i want them to pay us the kind of money we have to have so we don't lose money protecting japan and germany and saudi arabia. we have to do this. and south korea. i mean we are protecting south

korea from the maniac in the north and we're protecting them. he actually said -- you know they said would you mind having negotiations with north korea. no problem. who the hell cares. i'm not going there. but you have a negotiation. they said we will never talk. how stupid are these people? they have been selling our country down the tube. they have been spending money, who knows if the talks work, maybe they will, maybe they won't. and putin said donald trump is a genius and next great leader of the united states. they wanted me to disavow what he said. how dare you call me a genius. how dare you call me a genius, vladimir. wouldn't it be nice we would get along with russia. i'm not talking about weakness.

i know about negotiating. hillary clinton is a weak person. she is totally scripted. she is a thief and she should be in jail for what she did to our national security. i mean the only problem is i would like to run against her, if you want to know the truth. she should be. what she has done is terrible. so, look, we have -- i can't believe it. look at all the people out there trying to get in. look at those people. look at that. look at all those people. they couldn't have pulled these fences a little bit further out? you don't want them to come in. you have enough people here. that's the way life works. life is vicious. so when we talk about the different attributes, you look at the word tone, but i'll use a different word, bernie sanders

said that hillary clinton has bad judgment. she has bad judgment. we are in a cyberworld. this is now a cyberworld. russia is knocking us off. china is knocking us off. they are stealing so much. what china's doing with our intellectual property, stilling billions. we aren't doing anything about it, during her regime. you look at what's going on. here is hillary all loused up with a simple email system and asked why did she do it? i understand why she did it, because she's a thief. i get why she did it. but talk about judgment, how do you have a president with that kind of bad judgment. she could have used the government stuff. she could have taken the government server, assume everyone is listening. i always do every time i pick up a phone. you sue their ass off if they

are and drop a little lawsuit on them and make them pay. but you know what? for her to do what she did puts our country at risk. she's secretary of state. she's got people like huma, anthony weiner, wife of anthony weiner, how would you like anthony weiner to be having all these secrets. guess what, she tells anthony weiner. i know anthony weiner. i don't want him knowing anything. and i never ever want him to tweet me. does anybody want him to tweet? she's married to anthony weiner and goes home -- that's the way life works. she goes home. who the hell wants that. this is not right. it's not right. general petraeus has suffered greatly and many people suffered

greatly for doing far less than what hillary clinton did. and you know what? to me, as the woman just said, but she got away with it. it looks like she got away with it -- unless i win. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and everything will be fair, but we are going to have an attorney general and the attorney general is going to take a look and see, because you know there's a five year or six-year statute of limitations. so she really is running for some very important reasons for herself. look, when somebody does something so wrong as that, they have to pay the consequences. she put our nation in difficulty. did you see her i.t. specialist, he's taking the fifth. the word is he's ratting her out like you wouldn't believe it, but they want to try and favor, -- save her. that's not the way the government is supposed to work. they aren't supposed to be trying to save her but supposed

to be doing the right thing. but the press never lets up and it never follows that story. it never follows the real story. so do you remember in iowa, i made a speech. and i said let's raise some money for our vets. and i figured we would raise half a million, two million. we end up raising almost $6 million. and i got bad publicity. can you imagine? this can only happen to me. i have more calls and more e-mails and more tweets two -- @realdonaldtrump. if i to eat something cnn and , fox says donald trump, i'm sitting there tweeting, donald trump has issued a major statement. you know we have like almost 9 million on twitter.

and similar number on facebook. on instagram, a million and a half and soon going to be 20 million people. that's like owning the "new york times" without the lawsuits. and then they say, you shouldn't -- my opponents, they have three people, they said you shouldn't use your twitter. i say why? that's like in golf don't use , your driver. we use anything you have to do to win. we are going to win. we got to win. but it's true. we raised almost $6 million and the dishonest press, and they are so dishonest, not all of them but many of them, they are so dishonest, if i would have done nothing, it would have been fine. i said let's raise some money for the vets. i'm glad i did it. i got more thank u.s. from the

-- thank yous from the vets. we gave to many, many groups. they wake up and get $100,000 in the mail, $250,000. one of them got $1.1 million and they are great. they are great people and they appreciated it. but they put the negative spin on everything. no matter what we do -- you know it's funny. the "new york times" puts me on -- get a medic, please. ok. you just take it easy, darling. it's hot out here, right. right over here, medic. right over here. we love you. we love you. some of these people got here five, six hours ago. [applause] how's that?

[crowd chanting trump] mr. trump: she ok? we want to make sure she's ok. she was here for five hours, they say. five hours, some of them here for seven, eight hours. we love you. are you ok, honey? give her a hand, everybody. give her a hand. [applause] mr. trump: that's great. she's tougher than all of us. and look at the medics and the police, what a great job they do, right? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: e.m.t.'s. give them a hand, by the way. great job. thank you, darling.

she looks like she's in good shape. thank you very much. that's true, the police, the medics, firemen and the job they do and they are not appreciated. they are going to be appreciated again, folks. is she good? everything good? that's good. that's good. thank you, honey. so we're going to do things that haven't been done in a long time. we are going to start winning again. we don't win anymore. we don't win anymore. even a report that you see, it was like a bombshell. they expected 150,000 jobs. turns out to be 38,000 jobs. and they are bad jobs. people say we don't have good jobs. our good jobs are moving to mexico along with the companies that are moving there. they are moving to china where china is making all our products

and devaluing their currency. i had a meeting today and must have had 50 chinese people. people from china or formerly from china. and they all love trump. and cnn was there, jake tapper was there and we had an amazing time. and john dickerson, also a good guy, he was there from cbs and they looked outside and said who are all those people. people from china that are endorsing trump. and nobody could believe it. i don't blame the chinese government. and i don't blame the mexican government. i want our government to be smart. i want our government to get away with the kind of things they get away with. but we have leaders that don't have a clue. and hillary clinton's at the top of the list. she's incompetent. let's face it. first of all, she's always got

problems, whitewater, impeachment, lie, he didn't have sex with that woman. two months later, he's well, he didn't. these are lying people. we don't need another four years of the clintons. it's a mess. it's a mess. so what we're going to do is we are going to have a strong temperment, not that weak temperment. i don't like his temperment. i don't like his tone. there is nobody was a better temperament than me. i have a temperament for winning. i have won all my life, and we are going to start winning for you. temperment is very important. it's very, very important. but we need strength. we don't need these weak people. they talk about, well, i think his temperment isn't good. i guess they do polls. they say how can we get trump.

i believe i have the greatest temperment there is and the temperment that this country needs at this time. i could slough it off and say, i have a wonderful temperament. i'm a wonderful person. i have a tough temperament. but we need a tough temperament. we need a tough temperament. now, my temperament is totally controlled, so beautiful. i built an unbelievable company. i did so many great things. i just read about a school where the clintons are involved that got $16 million, and it is a scam. why aren't they sued? they scammed the school. why aren't they being sued? it's a big story, but these people don't want to talk about it. temperament is a very important word. we need toughness in town. we need toughness in temperament. frankly, i really believe this, i think that hillary clinton is unfit to lead our country,

certainly at this time. . think she's unfit she doesn't have what it takes. you are going to go through four more years -- i call her obama light. it will be at least as bad, and maybe worse. think about what i said. they are scamming us with cyber, living in a cyber world, and here she is all screwed up with the e-mails. she doesn't know what the heck is going on. you talk about composure. you talk about temperament. you talk about all these things. who would be so stupid, to do what she did with her e-mails? i mean, who would be so stupid? so we are going to turn this country around. we are going to do things that are going to make you so proud of your president, but much more importantly, so proud of your country again. because when people say, ideal

with all these countries, i have great deals in all these countries, so many deals. they say, they laugh at us. they say, what's going on? they don't even believe it. even the people from china this morning, you will see because i think it will be on cnn, probably on cbs, you'll see, they say, mr. trump is right. we can't, they cannot believe what they get away with. i have the largest bank in the world from china, the largest bank in the world, master bank, a tenant in one of my buildings. i know the people. they are sort of friends of mine. they tell me, we don't believe we can way with this. they know me. i don't know if they know i will be reviewing this, but they say, we can't believe, we can't believe we get away with it. so we are going to turn it around. now, a couple of things. we need strong borders. you got to have borders. either that, or we don't have a country.

16,500 border patrol agents two weeks ago endorsed me. the first time they have ever endorsed a presidential candidate. i asked, what perfect room to ask, as opposed to some consultant who wants to suck you dry with fees. they know less than that beautiful young woman standing there. all they know is how to get fees. i asked, let me ask you, how important is the wall? tell me, how important is the wall? i feel better about it. they said, it's vital, especially in terms of stopping the drug traffic pouring through the borders. but a real well. you see the wall they have? they take a pogo stick and they go right over the wall. they actually built a little rant, and they go over it with a car loaded up with drugs, then come back over the same ramp. there won't be any ramp with my wall, folks. it will be a serious wall. a real deal will.

it will be way up there. a big, beautiful wall. maybe someday they will name it after trump, but i would much rather have a statue in washington, d c. we are going to build that will. mexico is going to pay for the wall. we have a trade deficit with mexico of $50 billion a year. $58 billion. that doesn't include the drugs pouring across the border. yet we have companies moving into mexico. they just took the world golf championship at of miami and brought it to mexico, and people of miami are furious. they brought it into mexico, signing a six-year deal. they take everything, because we allow it to happen. but we're not going to allow it. i used the example of carrier air-conditioning in indiana. we won indiana big. that was going to be the firewall for other people

running, and it was a firewall for me. i won a landslide. thank you, bobby knight. and others. we had incredible, incredible support. so many different people i knew i was going to win indiana. cruz, itlet's say ted would not be here right now. give up. up -- always i think we can win. california, after we are going after the state of washington, we are going after places that no other republican goes after. half.e a hit of a tighter if we do not win them it is over. whereas the democrats can lose numerous states and they can win so we have a tighter path but i

am not your typical person. have 31,000 out we people. they hardly showed that because that was the day the kid was jumping on the police car hell out of it. they probably did not arrest him. who is tougher at the border, between that and the border patrol but sheriff joe totally endorsed me. no one tougher than sheriff joe. they had a couple of people protesting, they put those people in jail so fast everyone else scattered. i said that is the way it has to be done. that is the way it has to be done. we need strengthen our country and i see it but the thugs last night in san jose and then the democratic mayor gets up and i guess she said i think it was donald trump.

when we have a protester inside which is not very often i say a very gentle. please do not heard him. take care from and he wants to shout. if he punches you in the face smile is -- as your nose is pouring blood out of it. a very nice. we had a case where we had an african american guy who was a fan, great, great guy. i want to find out what is going on with him. look at my african american over here, look at him. are you the greatest? you know what i am talking about ? ok. we have an african american guy at one of the rallies and he is sitting there behaving and we had protesters inside the arena. ku kluxe dressed in a klan outfit and they are running around dressed as the klan and the places boeing. this african-american gets up and he slugs these guys.

by that time their hat was off because it got ripped off because they were running up the stairs but this guy, a great guy, i think he was a military guy for a long time. he slugged this guy wearing the ku klux klan outfit. by the time he got up to the top you could not see it was a cook klan outfit, when the african-american cold cocked this greatt was like have tremendous african-american support. the reason is i will bring jobs back to our country. we will bring jobs back but when these sleazy people, these dishonest people who never showed the crowd, when they showed that event, it made it guy was onhe white

my side. said, ican-american guy had enough and no one is going to run through an arena like that and they reversed it and it is a disgrace, ok? me tell you well we are on the subject we're going to bring jobs back to this country. we need our jobs. we're going to make it very expensive for companies to fire everyone and leave. one in three lost manufacturing jobs over a fairly short time. that is a lot of manufacturing jobs. your crime rate is way the hell up. when i go to connecticut, landslide. maryland, landslide. rhode island, landslide. delaware, landslide. the week before that we had new york, super landslide. they know me in new york. we have three people running.

i got 62%. i won so much that people could not believe it. way above projections, i knew i was going to win. even for you, with the people who know me do best, they give me a tremendous vote of confidence, and we won it. then you have these guys, donald trump is not at 50%. i have 12 people running against me in some of these states, right? ever notice that? here is a guy, mr. trump will not run. this is the finest field of talent ever assembled in the history of the republican party. that was before i ran. i listen to krauthammer say this is the finest group of talent ever assembled in the history of the republican party. i looked at my wife and said, maybe i should not run. except krauthammer does not know

what he's talking about. he is overpaid. he was the big one for the war. go into the war. go into iraq. fight like hell. lose thousands of lives. it's been $2 trillion. you know what we got? nothing. you know what we did? we gave iraq to iran. and i have been against it. with that being said, we are going to build our military so powerful, so strong, nobody is going to mess with us. our military is to pleaded. -- depleted. did you see those things on fox and cnn where they had a sort of documentary on what is going on with our flyers, right? we have these great airmen. what is going on with our equipment? our f-16s, f-18s, they have the fighters, but they don't have parts, so they go into a plane

graveyard where they dump the old planes and they are stealing parts for our fighter jets. and they are stealing parts from museums, they are going in and taking parts because they want to be able to continue to fly. this is the united states. can you imagine them doing that? and then they spoke to these young pilots, these great guys, and said, well, what do you think? they are leaving. as soon as their term is up, they are leaving. they remember how great it was 15 years ago when they started. this is the united states, folks, and we are never going to be doing that kind of thing again if i am president, i tell you right now. i tell you right now. so we have a lot of things to do and we are going to do things the right way. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its hich is responsibles caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption co.owhich is responsibls caption contewhich is responsibs caption content and accuracy. caption so we have a lot of things to do and we are going to do things the right way. hillary clinton is not a talented person. she is not a natural. she was not meant for this job. she is greedy. she is greedy as hell but, she does not have the talent for the job. she is not a natural for the job, and she is just not a natural talent. honestly, folks, look, beyond me, if you choose a hillary clinton, this country is going to die. it is going to die. she is not respected by other countries. as an example, when i said japan, look, we may have to which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its captirawhich is responsible fors caption conwhich is responsibles caption content and accuracy.

stiff, john this kerry, not once did he get up from the bargaining table and say sorry, folks, you take care of yourself. leave the room, double up the sanctions. they would have called him within 24 hours. and by the way, the biggest loser in that deal aside from us is israel. israel is beside themselves over that deal. that deal is a disaster for israel and the middle east, because you will have countries now start to arm up and arm up big. it is a disaster. this is the president we have.

i believe that hillary clinton is going to be worse than obama, ok? i believe she has less talent than obama. she has less natural ability than obama. and i'm not saying that --, because he doesn't. he has an agenda, folks. nobody could be so stupid and make deals like this guy is making. remember this. remember this. obama has been talking lately, talking about donald trump, and normally i would not want to attack the president. i would not want to say bad. i would rather not. he started speaking. now he has been very quiet lately, very quiet. you know what? he started speaking. once the attacks, we are allowed. he will go out and campaign for

hillary. hillary hates obama, you know that? she has hated him for years. obama called bill clinton a racist. bill clinton hates obama. he hates obama. hates him. the biggest surprise to me is that he made the speech at the convention for him. honestly, because he hates obama. hillary clinton can't stand obama, but now hillary will do anything he says. you know why? she does not want to go to jail. you notice? all of a sudden they were going to disassociate themselves with the president. all of a sudden anything he wants, she will do, because it seems -- let's take the word "seems" out. they are protecting her from going to jail. and she does not want to anger the president by saying, i disagree with you on this trade, so she agrees with just about every single thing that he wants to do. yes, sir.

no, sir. i think she should start calling him sir, ok? and that is what is happening, folks. we are going to have a whole different thing. remember this about obama. i always thought one thing, i never thought he'd be a good president. i thought he was going to bring the country together. i thought he was going to be a good cheerleader. he has been a disaster cheerleader. no, no, i know what she said. it's, you know, hey, a lot of people say that, by the way, but i thought it would bring the country together. she can't bring the country together. it's not there. he's divided the country. wealthy, eight less than wealthy, white, black, he has been the great divider. he has been a terrible president. hillary clinton will be worse, believe me. she will be worse.

she is going to be worse. she has a chance of being far worse. look at the libya deal. look at it. you know it's among the finest oils in the world, right? it is one of the fine oils in the world. you know what? isis has it. i met with the fiancee of the ambassador who was killed. yesterday, she is supporting trump, a very nice woman, and she tells me stories about hillary that are unbelievable, unbelievable, horrible stories about hillary. i said, are you sure that you are supporting me? i thought she would be on the democrat side. she said, i am supporting you, but she told me stories about hillary that are horrible, horrible. she said the ambassador was like a great guy. what they went through was

supposed to be beyond comprehension, including the other three young people. and remember the ads, the phony ads with hillary, who do you want answering your phone at 3:00 in the morning. she was sleeping. she was sleeping. she was sound asleep, or who knows, but she did not answer the phone. i say she was sleeping. i say she was sleeping, because she has no energy. i say she was sleeping, all right? you know, i say was a terrible thing. and benghazi has never really been picked up like it should be picked up because the president never picked it up. it is an honor you are here in this kind of heat. i know a number of you went down. i love you all. you're going to be so happy and so proud. you have to go out on june 7. you have got to go out. you have got to vote. because we are sending a mandate. we already won, and we are now ahead by millions and millions above the people that came in second. i won't even tell you who it is. we are ahead by millions.

the bigger mandate we have, the stronger the movement will be. and most important, get everyone of your friends, and in november, you have to vote. i will be back. i will be back. in november, in november, you have to go and vote. let me just tell you, we are going to start winning again. we are going to win with our military. and we are going to knock the hell out of isis. and it's going to go a lot faster and a lot easier than people understand. we are going to knock the hell out of them. we are going to have strong borders. we will have the wall. we will be proud of our country again. we are going to repeal obama care. 60%, think of it, in texas, 60% blue cross blue shield. 60. it's going to be worse for other sections. and don't let them take that november 1 announcement and make

it december, because that alone will destroy their chances of winning the presidency. remember, don't let that happen, because they're trying to do it. they want to have a later announcement date. so we are going to start winning with so many different elements of life and our country. we will save our second amendment. hillary clinton wants to abolish it. she wants to abolish our second amendment. we are going to save our second amendment. we are going to win. we are going to win at every single level. i joke, i joke, and i have fun, but it is not a joke when we are

going to win, win, win. we are going to win so much, three or four friends, great friends in the audience, and i say they're going to come see me at the white house, mr. president, sir, we are winning too much. the people of california don't want to win so damn much, mr. president. please stop this winning. we are not used to it as a country. we are used to losing all the time. we can handle it. i'm going to say, i'm sorry. we are going to win, win, win. we are going to win with trade. we are going to win with military. we are going to win by getting rid of obamacare and replacing it. we are going to win at the border. we are going to get the wall. we are going to let people come into the country, and they're going to come legally. we are going to win so much and we are going to make america great again. i think they want to help everybody else.

they want to help everybody but our country. we are going to have a policy of america first, make america great again. we will do it. get out on the seventh and vote, and boy, you better vote in november. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. we love you. thank you. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> ♪

♪

♪

♪