david, a student from marjory stoneman douglas high school and parkland, florida discusses the recent shooting and his score and his push for gun control legislation. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" sunday morning. join the discussion. on c-span, a panel discussion on president trump's use of executive power. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for coming. we are just a year into the trunk presidency. peopleld think that

would have conducted competent evaluations, how the president has executed his constitutional duties. since the president will take care that the law will be faithfully executed, president trump has taken away from the path of his predecessors and --en the boldness of his of of his many policies. rolling back regulation, appointing justices, trying to work with congress on legislation. if you are looking for such an evaluation, you would be lost in the hurly-burly of hysteria surrounding trump the man, what trump tweeted, or what he might have implied. here are three editorial titles. world knowstrump he's an idiot. odds are russia owns trump.

is it time to call trump mentally ill? this isn't from "the onion." it's from "the new york times." [laughter] fanatical hatred does disservice to the public. the aim was to bolster public reason and enlightenment. one fears the opposite. what seems like moral righteousness in the press may be hatred on account of the challenge of their dominance over public opinion. given this poisoned public atmosphere, tonight, we would like to take a step away from trump the man, trump the tweeter, or trump gossip and look at trump the executive wielding executive powers.

what has the president done in terms of executing his constitutional duties? we have assembled a top-notch panel today to try to tackle this. first on law enforcement and .mmigration next on the regulatory state will be adam white. and last, we have professor charles cussler who will speak on the president's use of the bully pulpit.

john, take it away. john: i'm going to talk about president trump and immigration policy. we could view immigration policy in three ways, through the lens of the citizen, the lens of a client, or the lens of a consumer. review ofe small r citizenship. not antters most is individual citizenship, but one's race, ethnicity, and gender. in this framework, there are clients and there are service providers. the overarching frame work is the administrative state. third, for some cato

libertarians, what matters is not whether one is a citizen or a client, but the consumer. for them, the transnational consumer in the global marketplace is superior to the right of a free people to rule themselves by determining, for example, their own immigration policy. immigration enforcement by the trump administration is an example of republican government, small r, placed on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. those core principles our sovereignty and consent, directly challenged by two forces in america today, by progressives and buy some libertarians. on the transnational progressive left, nancy pelosi makes a clear case for open borders. , north and american south in this hemisphere. this is a community with a border running through it." so much for citizenship.

a libertarian at the cato institute declares "america's for founding principle is the idea of natural right. freedom of movement is indispensable to the full use of those rights. to this -- to restrict an immigrant's ability to move to the united states not only in fringes on his natural rights, but upon the natural rights of americans who want to hire the immigrant." explains that the cato approach violates the core principle of government by consent of the governed. "since citizenship is the effect of a compact, there is no right to emigrate unless there is consent on both sides." in other words, illegal immigrants are here without the consent of the people. let's jump into the weeds and immigration. we see a unitary executive in nelsonwith dhs secretary , tom holman, attorney general

jeff sessions, chief of staff john kelly, and the president all on the same paid on immigration. trump's -- all in same paid on immigration. ice is going into sanctuary jurisdictions. if he thinksid, isis is going up -- ice is going away, it is not. we will increase our presence in california. in december and january, ice conducted raids in california, new york, new jersey, arresting criminal aliens. some argue that sanctuary policies are needed so immigrants will not be afraid to report crimes. this myth has no basis in reality. found no decline in crime reporting after the

implementation of tough enforcement program. consider the example of prince george's county in maryland. it has been a section where he best a sanctuary county since 2014. fear. live in gang control over businesses is enforced through extortion and intimidation. daily. the rebirth of the want -- intimidation daily. 13 was throughms a wave of unaccompanied minors from south america, given asylum to a boys 16, 17, and older and placed them with illegal immigrants, relatives, where they were recruited by ms 13. the trump administration has cracked down on ms 13.

ice has conducted operation raging bull from november 2017 memberssted hundreds of -- excuse me, sanctuary jurisdictions. these crimes include murder, kidnapping, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, assassinations, extortion, and blackmail. the justice department under requestedons has subpoenas for 23 sanctuary jurisdictions under the 1996 immigration law. justice has threatened to recoup funds previously given out and cut off grant money to 23 jurisdictions, which include chicago, cook county, new york, louisville, kentucky, jackson, mississippi, and illinois and oregon. the department of justice is re-examining the policy of administrative closure, which

many considered a backdoor amnesty by the obama administration. casesare 350,000 close to in administrative closures. these are illegal aliens that could be deported. backlogs have increased. cases.re 658,000 backlog that's over a million people with immigration violations that attorney general sessions is now reviewing to see what categories may be reopened. he is hiring additional immigration just as that work for the justice department under the bureau of immigration appeal. let's go into the weeds and look at one example of vetting people coming into this country. let's look at the k-1 fiancee visa. remember, the woman involved in in mass murder terror attack

san bernardino, california, was admitted into the united states under the k-1 visa. there are two steps. the first is a petition by an american citizen for his alien fiance to immigration service. this is supposed immigrant has to include face-to-face interviews. this process was often skipped during the obama administration. the obama administration approved 90% of this first step. that was in the last year of obama. first year of trump, it is down from 90% to 62%. there is a lot of fraud in this program and they started having actual interviews. the second step, the alien fiance is interviewed at a state office.nt counselor under obama's last year, 99% approval. under trump, first year, there is an increase of denials of 20%. a lot of fraud and poor vetting in this program.

that is being cleaned up. another program called voice, victims of immigration, crime engagement, by executive order to assist victims of illegal immigrant crime. voice would serve no good purpose. actually, the office serves several good purposes. to thechallenge sanctuary jurisdictions that protect criminal aliens and release them into the general population, where they are free to come it even more crimes against americans. kate steinle's murder in san murderer in san francisco had illegally enter the united states six times. he served over a year in various president -- various prisons for numerous convictions. we need to delegitimize the entire sanctuary secessionist

movement. the center of gravity in this force is the occupation of the moral high ground. the grand narrative that explains the immigration story to the public. the creation of voice is one is to make among others that should be used to seize the offensive in fighting for immigration policy that serves first and foremost the american people. in conclusion, almost all of president trump's administrative enforcement measures, almost all of them, have been fought tooth and nail by progressives, by some libertarians, and by elements of the administrative state, particularly the lawless judiciary. on this issue, progressives and many libertarians are allies. both of them are major adversaries of immigration law enforcement. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you for inviting me today. the heritage foundation does a lot of important work. it is an honor to share their stage for a moment to offer a few thoughts on the administrative state and president trump's attempts to reform it. the first year is an important inflection point. quoting winston churchill -- the start of your 2 is not the end -- year 2 is not the end, and at the beginning of the end, but perhaps the beginning -- the end of the beginning.

i think we can ascertain a danger in principle and in practice, of which i mean, if president trump wants to succeed in reforming the administrative state for the long run, i hope he will significantly change his use of the bully pulpit to help further that aim. let's start with the administration's good start. recently, the office of revelatory affairs says the administration has either stop or delayed nearly 1600 proposed pending regulatory actions. that's on top of the 15 major relations the administration has already rolled back, perhaps permanently, through use of the congressional review act. all the myriad reform efforts being undertaken by the agencies, the individual agency level process. it is an amazing start. in the aftermath of president

obama's administration, perhaps any republican administration would have taken -- would have undertaken summary literary forms. president trump and this house but unprecedented use of executive orders to energize and process. reform of all the things i could focus on in terms of successor for in this demonstration, i think that's a point that merits the most attention the use of executive order, as a tool for executive energy. is that of waiting for agencies to identify and pursue the right waitinges -- instead of for agencies to identity and pursue the right priorities, president trump set them from the top. he can't order agencies to ignore lawful statutes. discretion, the president can use executive orders to further direct and channel the agencies' use of that discretion.

that is precisely what president trump did in at least two important ways. first, issued 13 777, requiring old ruleso repeal two for every new one. and cap in the total cost that agencies can impose on society. present since reagan have use executive orders, but this executive order and these particular tools were new. important and welcome innovation in redoubling the white house efforts to oversee, manage, and limit the regulatory process across all executive agencies. itause of the new approach, will take some ironing out in practice. but it is an innovative and important development. second, in addition to that across-the-board executive order, president trump issued urgingecutive orders

policies for reform. he announced new corporate supposed for financial reform, for my -- for financial o regulars to vindicate. he and us new policies for energy independence and economic growth to be pursued by the epa's reform of obama's unlawful and excessive clean our plan. -- clean power plan. these example five the administration's and a genetic -- energetic approach. i think these executive orders exfo five alexander hamilton's view of executive power and good i think these executive powers exemplify alexander hamilton's view of executive power and good government. hamilton stressed the importance of energetic executive and domestic governance as well. president trump's executive orders so far is an energetic

president leading the administrative apparatus and conveying energy to agency leadership. furthermore, these orders promote transparency. accountability flows all the way to the top, not just getting trapped in the bureaucratic apparatus. these policies are connected to the president himself in our constitutional system. that's a good thing. his agencies will need the energy in the days and years to come when the administration's right reforms face immense challenges in the courts, in the court of public opinion, and in the agency themselves, thanks to the self-styled resistance movement. frankly, as we enter this process, president trump's own rhetoric will make the work of reform harder, not easier, to complete. last year, federal agencies began, and proceedings to undo

.bama agency regulations the matter will turn to court were parties will chose us policies before skeptical judges. are judges are supposed to be fairly deferential to the agencies' conclusions. resumes a fairch amount of expertise and reasonableness on the part of the executive branch. how deferential will judges be to trump's agencies, at least on controversial policy? last year's immigration reform harbinger ofbe a what is to come in terms of the judges scrutinizing agencies how thepticism, given president talks about policies and the aims that the administration is pursuing. here is a much more significant and longer-term concern.

generally sustainable long-term regulatory reform requires serious legislation. this is a generational project. but there is at least some cause for hope in the future. in the senate, a bipartisan coalition of senators introduced major reforms in the administrative procedure act. senators portman and hatch were joined by high camp and mention first serious reforms. but it will require sustained legislative dialogue and bipartisanship. pulpite of the bully makes -- does president trump use of the bully pulpit make this process easier or more difficult? pronouncements's

are serving a much different ends to a much different effect. to theounterproductive administration's agenda. address,rst inaugural george washington stress that, "the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure immutable as a bulls of morality governmentmise of will be exempt if i buy all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command its role in the world." washington was right. an american president should promote republican virtue and good and the white house should be able he pulpit for winning the affection of our citizens, commanding the respect of the world. i hope president trump will begin to do so for the good of his country after the good of his own administration's reforms to the administrative state. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. it is a lovely occasion and i am happy to be here and i want to thank arthur melick who has put together this interesting panel. my focus is not on executive power or the administrative state. those have been covered. but the bully pulpit. i shall begin my distinguishing subject from the pulpit, the bully in the pulpit, which i think is the way a lot of people in washington look at donald trump in general and especially

trump's rhetoric. i thought i would say something about the specific character of president trump's use of the pulpit. those of you having countered may recall rhetoric that there are three characteristics that oratory and little speech of any kind exhibits. three characteristics. aretotle called these .alse, pat us, and logos

is ethos, ethical proof, what is the character of the speaker? what does the audience think about the speaker and how does he use the audience's perception of the character to help him in his persuasive endeavor? speech ispolitical always about more than the argument. it's about the character of the person making the argument. is he believable? does he reach you? that leads to the second characteristic, pathos, or passion. what passions in the audience does the speaker appeal to? how does he attempt to play upon and to win the audience's trust in him and to move their emotions in the direction of his arguments. and argument, logos, reason is

the third. you have the proof of character, proof of passions, and the proof from reason. say, something very briefly about each of these in connection to president trump. riskinglthough i am many generalizations here, the leading elements in the ethical presentation of trump, how does he present himself ethically, is a form of courage. and speaker, he starts from returns to a sense of courage and defensive -- defense of one's own. aher speakers start from different sort of ethical reputation. ownage in defense of one's

does not require that when be perfect or ethically high-minded. in a certain respect, it is suitable for president trump's political speech he kiss he has a speech because he has problem in front of ordinary ethics and morality. " you don't believe me, read "anyever trume -- never trumper ." i don't think they have really advanced our understanding of mr. trump, his agenda, or our understanding of. the political situation of the country. they have reduced a very large pile of invective, which is

getting larger everyday. the amazing thing is how come parents in the ineffective this argument has been. it has been repeated again and again and again on the left, on the right, on television, in editorial columns. mr. trump is a very bad man. he's a liar. i don't need to go into specifics. you know what they are. he is accused of many vices and many sins. me the amazing thing is to that these arguments have not really inhibited his believability in the political sense. they have not prevented him from winning political victories in the past year. and they have not proved the thoughtrd that they they would prove, although it is

there long suit, these kind of arguments. on the contrary, precisely because he takes a stand in a way on a kind of assertiveness, a certain kind of courage, these things are less important to his , to his assertiveness then it would be fewer starting from a different point of view. some examples of what i mean by courage in this particular way -- one of the peculiarities of rhetoricedirect it -- is that he'll ask him is that he lacked some was completely the typical republican guilty rhetoric is that completely the typical republican guilty conscience. under candidates had a very

typical republican point of view on the question of civil rights and race, which is they feel guilty about their party's southern strategy, their party's complicity in resisting affirmative action, and various other kinds of things. as far as i can tell, there is nothing of that in mr. trump. thes much closer to position of clarence thomas that race on this question of and racial remedies than he is in the position of jeb bush or any other major republican engendered who may come to mind. important for his

own argument as for clarence thomas, but i think it is still quite remarkable. also, the kind of courage more specifically that he represents is associated in a way with his repetition as a builder. he calls himself a builder. he calls america a nation of builders. he is many things besides that. he knows his way around a construction site. he knows his way around a tv studio. his career has included things other than being a landlord or a builder. but still, that is where he comes home. that is how he chooses to present himself. himself almost involuntarily with a certain kind of brazen masculine, assertive ethics that comes with that job, the job of a builder. he gets things done.

he is impatient with words or mere verbiage. he will build a beautiful building. he will build it, but he will build it quickly and he will build it profitably. and you can count on that. one could go on and flesh this out, and the question of courage radiates. but that's enough for that. . question of pathos,, passion i think the term here is greatness. make america great again. his appeal to the passion skews to the noble, let's say. he doesn't neglect justice, which is the fundamental political passion. but his heart seems to be more in the noble then in justice as

such. he certainly is capable of attacking the injustice of a establishment that has monopolized money and income for the lasterica 20 years or so. he is in a way more eloquent and more naturally persuasive when adjoining one the of the way they have attempted to monopolize on her -- monopolize honor. the way they look down on the white working class. the way they look down on the poorly educated. . remember this during the campaign, he said at one point, looking at paul resorts, i love the poorly educated. [laughter] something no other republican candidate would ever say.

and so, this disdain for the disdainers, this defense of popular honor against the experts in the ruling class, you might say, gives him a very keen nose for unearned success and for liberal hypocrisy, which is a very important arrow in his quiver. i mention only one word -- pocahontas. final thing, on this question of lagos, or the actual argument typical so far of president trump. as a non-politician and as an amateur in the field of politics, trump is in some ways a little logoslike. havenot -- he doesn't

historical examples. he doesn't have a ready set of comparisons like most political speakers and politicians. he hasn't thought like that. he hasn't read those things. but still, if one could say reagan went to the question of limited government and recovering limits on governments the integrity of the nation to being one people. a people that is worthy of love, being americans first. i think america first is in a

way a distraction from the argument he is really making because it is not an isolationist argument and it is not a foreign policy argument. it is an argument from the nature of political life or --itical right that a nation that justice like charity ought to begin at home. there's nothing radical about that here in there's nothing new about that appeal. yet, in nearly early 21st century, it comes across as strikingly courageous and different from the kind of political argument that one hears elsewhere. it is central to putting americans first, putting the people's authority, their sovereignty over that of the government, including that of the administrative state and

directing executive power on their behalf to their and. with that, i shall subside. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for your remarks. i wanted to go charles and the rest of the panelists and thanking those here at heritage for graciously providing a space for this argument. this is when we think the claremont institute will continue to have. it is a question against the fundamental questions of the structure of our regime and one really that goes back to a rolling crisis in american

government that is at least 40 years old, perhaps inaugurated by reagan's breakup of the old liberal consensus. before that, it was a progressive consensus that wanted to reorient government away from the view of the separation of powers and especially for a topic today and political control of the branches of government and replace it with administrative rule, expert role, the neutral and an of government independent rather than an independent branch of rulers. the central question in the last election. we want to continue to have this argument. a great disagreement over trump helps stoke the fires. i think and hope it will continue to make this debate both ashen and high-minded. this panel spirit of

today. i don't mean to pick on adam, but one thing you said spoke directly to this larger context and to the extent that i agree with john and charles a little bit more. i just thought it would be a nice jumping off point. you said president trump did not create our current political division but he is exacerbating them. i think that's true but i may view it more positively than you do. to the extent that our modern initical parties, especially the last period, have sorted themselves and for the last -- these two camps, every aggressive rule by experts on the one side and returned to limited government and popular control the other, we are at loggerheads on that question, which is a regime-level question. but we need to tighten the contradictions and continue the exacerbation. one of these parties has to win the segment definitively and

advance for a generation or more on a project of reform. you brought up washington. but don't forget jefferson who said we are all republicans. we are all federalists. is the he meant republican party was no more after that. david: -- adam: i grant the point that the principles i am glad to see this administration pursuing, principles i dedicate my work those are things in which you fundamentally must not compromise the matter of constitutional principle.

i agree, amplifying the differences between our approach in their approach and trying to rally the american public to our side rather than theirs is a noble cause. i didn't mean to suggest otherwise. meantime, there are reforms that can happen, important reforms a can happen. i singled at one in particular. it will not be enacted this year. reforms isundamental something that can be achieved in a political lifetime. something we should start -- strive toward. i do not see that being more likely in light of the way the president talks about his opponents, talks about other americans. i can go on at length and i don't want to belabor the point, but it is important that the fight to reform american government, to bring it back to structural constitution is

fundamentally important. but i never thought the moment at which we would see advance on that would be the same moment when so many republicans would be downplaying the importance of that other fundamental constitutional value, the one talked about in the federalist papers while talking about constitutions -- structural constitutionalism and that's virtue. with seeingrtable that side of republican government and american constitutionalism downplayed in service of pursuing the structural constitution. i don't want to let go of that. charles: i think we all share the goal that adam is saying. constitution,the put it simply that way.

the problem is the progressive left is now dominating most of the institutions in our country. besides the administrative state, think about what i like to think about as the cultural leviathan, the mainstream media, the universities, the human rights departments of fortune 500 countries, silicon valley, hollywood, the mainline churches , the fact that george washington's plaque was removed from christchurch tells us something about our culture. we cannot sibley talk about republican virtue or taking these small steps. over,the left has taken there has to be a rather vigorous almost revolutionary opposition to this progressive project, to overthrow this

progressive project. no political movement has succeeded without having both good cops and backups. and that includes immigrant revolution. -- good cops and bad cops. and that includes the american revolution. what you have now is a strange situation. usually the vice president is the bad cop. here come you have the president playing the bad cop role. since no other republicans wanted to do it, somebody had to. john: i agree with almost everything that adam said. charles: i don't think anyone would not like to reach for the edit button on the twitter feed of the president occasionally at least.

but the other side, the reason why -- where i would apart from you a little bit at least -- the other side of republican virtue is republican corruption. is how and toow what extent republican institutions, including constitutional ones are corrupted. the great example is congress at least one of the first examples, . the problem of the administrative state could not exist without congress having created the ad ministry of state . congress seems comfortable with the administrator state. it enjoys a lot of benefits from the administrator state. it avoids a lot of things and costs because of the administrative state. and it shows very, very little

virtue in terms of a will to returnitself in order to in some sets popular control -- some sense popular control of government to the people through their congress. populism has always seemed in a a word of limited usefulness in describing what is going on now.r politics in the era of the administrative state, the people can do very little themselves directly. there are elections, but there's very little else that they can do. to changefew handles the government. the courts will stop them. we have examples in california of conservative initiatives using techniques of democracy only to be struck down by courts, federal courts or states courts, very activist courts.

any of the ways in which people could get control of its .overnment again i don't need to tell you this. it's not available right now or at least don't have much efficacy. it would be very useful if the president would actually speak to that problem and put some pressure on congress morally and intellectually on that point. if he looking for subjects for tweets, there's a huge subject waiting for him. ryan: i think we have time for questions. >> this is for you, dr. kessler. i know you are talking about as onent trump if those of courage in defense of his own

and it has not had an effect now, but do you think in the long term it might impact the midterms or the next election? to me, personally, it feels like we are at year 8 instead of year 2.r you year i think of it as the start of exhaustion. charles: i understand your assessment. there is a danger in the peculiar way he asserts his courage, if you want to call it that, the kinds of fights he picks, many of which he can't

-- he can't win the fights, but he can get some benefit out of having the fight. but there is also a collateral is the that, which public is consumed perhaps more than it needs to be or ought to -- by theday today day-to-day controversies that the president sometimes unleashes. i think that is a problem for him. on the other hand, and politics, every advantage has a disadvantage and vice versa. he has done reasonably well in wellirst year, extremely

in some respects. so it see what happens. adam: looking ahead at the next election cycle, i'm wondering if he is not and do saying something more. he is giving them the same sense his ownthat amplified political base. john: i think what he is doing is to push the overton window, the climate of opinion, the opinion corridor, issues that

were never discussed before. getting back to immigration firmament, the majority now favor limiting legal immigration, which would have been unheard of a couple of years ago. this is basically due to president trump. , at some exhaustion point, every president does exhaust himself with the public. but by moving the overton window, he has made it impossible to go back to the and jeband the romneys bush. the situation is altered within the republican party. >> the sense of hysterical overreaction to everything the man does began before he was

sworn into office. fair to't think it is lay the sense of exhaustion entirely at the feet of the president. no, i wouldn't do that. it is the media that creates the moment here of exhaustion. but without the existence of social media, we would be having a very different kind of conversation about this. it is not all his fault, but he has exploited the technologies and the opportunities that have come to him in a very vigorous way to move the climate of opinion. but the test in the long run is -- is he persuading people? of can move them because immediate concerns, interest, fears, but are you changing the minds of your own party and then

the majority of the country in the long run? and that is his challenge. that is very hard to measure certainly this early in the term. >> i want to follow up on that question. this is ably public, right? a bullyit -- this is pulpit, right? doesn't it seem that he is keeping the media often giving to the people? it is really an invention of teddy roosevelt. he meant it to imply that powers are not limited

to those actually specified in article two of the constitution. and that one of the most important powers he has is simply the power to fascinate the country and to concentrate the attention of the country on the moral message or the political message that he is delivering. and through that, to move public opinion, thus the congress. since woodrow wilson and teddy roosevelt, we have called it leadership. that is a critique of energy, critique of the notion that there is not enough energy in the executive. the constitutional powers don't give him enough play in america politics. the president didn't used to be

at the center of american politics in quite the way he has ever since teddy roosevelt and woodrow wilson, basically, in the 20th century. are some interesting constitutional invocations are questions to be raised about the bully pulpit. but it is now an accepted part of american political life for liberals and conservatives and democrats and republicans. great short role reforms are in the reagan administration. president reagan campaigned on the need for easing regulatory burdens, making government more accountable. in the very opening weeks of reagan's first term, his task force created this new apparatus, this structure for white house oversight of agencies. it was immensely controversial at the time.

the white house took on a sustained campaign in support of their reforms. furthermore, the white house undertook a sustained investment of resources in seeing those reforms succeed. there is a great article in the affairs" of "national where he traces the history of these reforms through the reagan administration and beyond. the reagan administration by formulating sound reforms,, by standing behind them expendingly and capital to see them succeed in the world managed to entrench major success in regulatory reform. so much so, when president clinton was elected and democrats assumed he would rollback, he did not roll back. that is the power the bully pulpit in, nation with constitutional powers -- in combination with constitutional powers.

the presidential twitter is here to stay. that is certainly here for good now. ryan: time for one more. charles: that's a good argument for calvin coolidge. [laughter] ryan: one more question in the back. >> if you weeks ago, bobby jindal, former governor of louisiana, wrote a wall street journal article saying that trump saved the republican party by bringing back disaffected low and middle class, blue-collar workers who had traditionally had voted democrat. he went on to say, having saved the republican party, it was time for trump to leave. but put that aside for a second. who well sin the republican party out there could now attract that same group of

people that he has brought into the republican party? was there anybody on the stage with him during the last debates that could pick up that mental? or -- mantle? bench,epublicans have to in the minor leagues or somewhere else, people who can continue to draw on that segment of the population? john: in terms of policy, there's no question that senator of arkansas, tom cotton, certainly in policy, he would be the most likely person to carry out. almost every policy he is involved with, whether it is immigration or foreign policy -- crime, for example, he is law and order. he stood against the big effort on so-called criminal reform promoted by many folks.

he stood against that. sessions was sort of a forerunner of the populist uprising with president trump's victory. tom cotton may be the future. it looked for a while as though there might be a series of primary challenges in 2018, and there still might be in 2020, from the steve bannon right to try to move the party and especially the senate in a trump-esque direction. i was thought that was a fantasy. and now i think there is no more circle inon

really i'm not sure there is in the party. now i think it will come in a different way. if trump is successful, he will have imitated. and the party, rather in a series of ideological confrontations, more likely now the process will be more peaceful and gradual in which a new cohort of candidates will come forward. and out of that cohort would be potential competitors to tom for future presidential nominations. all for coming. and join me in thanking the panel. [applause] [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. 2017]

>> this week, the white house did not release a presidential weekly address. the democratic weekly address is by ted deutch. he talks about the school shooting and preventing gun violence. representh: i florida's 22nd congressional district, home to marjorie stallman douglas high school. last week, our community suffered unspeakable tragedy. the 25th deadly school shooting 1999.columbine in on wednesday, february 14, as school was ending, a 19-year-old

gunman entered the halls carrying a weapon of war that he bought legally at a gun store. he fired over a hundred rounds from a semiautomatic assault rifle in four minutes. he killed 17 people. they were students, teachers and coaches. they were our neighbors, our friends, our family. students side -- students died saving the lives of their classmates. teachers died saving the lives of their students. many others were injured. the startled douglas community -- the stoneman douglas

community deserves your thoughts and prayers. but it is not enough. we owe them action. for those who say it is too soon, for those who always say it is too soon to make change, you muslim with the knowledge that it is too late for the -- you mustents live with the knowledge that it is too late for the grieving parents. it is too late for the marjorie stoneman douglas committed team. we are tired of hearing that it is too soon. after 20 years of columbine, we mass death problem that is uniquely american. only in america is our inaction marked by the next slaughter of our children in schools. only in america have a chosen to protect the profits of gun corporations over the lives of our students.