every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, douglas brinkley and amity slate discuss presidential leadership. and we look at the history and evolution of presidential libraries. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span, or on c-span now, join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, tech's, and tweets. fix , resident fellow of the german marshall fund. she's here this morning with us to discuss the u.s. and european responses to the russia ukraine conflict. good morning. guest: thank you for having me.

good morning. host: explained to our viewers exactly what the german marshall fund is, where it gets its funding, and what is its goals and mission. guest: is dedicated to strengthening the transatlantic relationship which means to strengthen the cooperation between the united states and europe. it receives funding from funds dedicated to the united states to support germany after the marshall plan. the core mission of the institution is to make sure that europeans and americans work together, understand together and are able to design joint policies together to make policy work. host: what's the latest on what's going on with ukraine,

russia and the border crisis. tell us where nato stands on this issue. >> we are currently in a very dangerous situation. there are hopes of diplomatic talks continuing with secretary blinken next week. what we see on the ground is the military preparations from the russian side and military buildup is very far advanced. we do see in the self-declared republics in eastern ukraine controlled by separatists, we see what might be used as a pretext for further military intervention in ukraine. nato's response so far has been no troops on the ground in ukraine. ukraine is not a nato member. but nato has communicated

towards russia that there will be consequences for russian actions, there will be a sanctions response, there will be a political response if russia invades ukraine again. so nato is very much united in its response. host: should ukraine be part of nato? guest: nato declared in its 2008 bucharest communicate that at some point in the future, ukraine and georgia will become nato members. at the moment the position is that ukraine is not ready to become a nato member because of the conflict in the east. president zelensky has argued at

the munich security conference that this is what ukraine once and he demands an answer from nato members but actually at the moment this is something very unrealistic and just not on the agenda that ukraine will become a member. host: one of the things we know that should happen in the next few days is a meeting between the u.s. secretary of state and the russian foreign minister. the hill newspaper has a story that briefly summarized what's going to happen. the state department announced on thursday that secretary of state antony blinken has accepted a meeting with sergey lavrov. blinken proposed the meeting and russia gave dates for late next week. the meeting will take place in europe provided there is no further russian invasion of ukraine.

if they do invade in the coming days, it will make clear they were never serious about diplomacy, he added. do you think this meeting between antony blinken and sergey lavrov -- first of all, how important is this? guest: it is an important meeting probably not in terms of outcome, but the meeting gives the opportunity to potentially delay russian actions and makes russia weight or perhaps not consider to change its consideration until the meeting takes place because would be very difficult objects if such a meeting were announced. this is a hope, but at the same time to be realistic, it could also be that diplomatic efforts continue while we see at the same time military actions being taken in ukraine.

this is a hope, but if we look at the military situation, it is very concerning. the hope for diplomacy remains. host: we have heard earlier in the show today that people have been looking at today february 20 as a day where something may happen one way or the other with the olympics ending today. with russia's exercise with belarus supposedly going to end today, but now we know they have said they are going to extend it. do you have any timetable on where you think russia will withdraw or convince -- commence the invasion of ukraine? guest: i think these days that were circulated basically

signaled the preparedness of the russian military forces. russian military forces are so far advanced in their preparations that military action could be taken at any time. that is what these days were meant to signal. of course political events like the end of the olympics could feed into russia's calculus in when it wants to start military action. what we have not seen, those unannounced de-escalation signs by russia. this was announced by the russian president before the meeting with the german chancellor that the troops will be withdrawn. this has not been implemented. at the moment we do not see any signs of de-escalation. more and more troops and soldiers have been sent to the border of ukraine. so unfortunately at the moment

we do not see any signs of de-escalation from the russian side. host: let me remind our viewers that we can take part in this situation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading social media on twitter and facebook. in our first hour we showed a lot of videos that came from the munich security conference. can you tell us exactly what the history of this conference is and who attends this annual event? guest: the munich security conference has been a conference after the end of the second

world war and throughout the cold war. it was a conference that was meant to bring together a high level diplomats and military representatives from both sides of the atlantic to discuss europe's security. it has been a meeting of the transatlantic community. today and in the last years it has become meeting which is not only important in terms of speeches but it has also become important in terms of the discussions that are held on the sidelines. what is significant about the munich security conference is certainly not only the speeches but also what kind of discussions are taking place on the sidelines and are there any diplomatic initiatives, any further steps which are discussed in person in munich.

host: in europe, we know there is just about 80,000 american troops on the soil. exactly who is in command of those 80,000 troops? are they all under u.s. command? are they under nato command? who exactly is in charge over there right now? guest: it is always the united states that is in charge of its own troops, but some of them are directly under u.s. command. some of them are under nato command. it is important to notice is the recent increases in troops from the united states were not sent to ukraine. they were sent to eastern allies. they were sent to poland to reassure those countries in the east order ukraine that they will not be left alone in case there are any spillovers from a

potential war in ukraine and that is an important step to show nato allies that those countries that are bordering ukraine and that are members of nato and will be defended in any case are not left alone in this crisis. host: who is in charge of nato's military forces and what can nato bring to bear if needed? guest: in charge of the nato forces is the main commander of nato, which is usually a u.s. american and what nato is really dedicated to in europe is the defense of its allies. it is important to underline again and again especially in this crisis right now because there are a lot of fears that nato members might be drawn into a conflict. the u.s. troops in europe under nato command are there to secure

the members of the alliance. host: let's take a step back and talk about the structure of nato in europe just so our viewers can understand exactly what nato is and where it stands right now. how many countries are part of nato right now and what agreement to the countries in nato have to defend each other and countries perhaps like ukraine? guest: we have at the moment 30 members of nato and their commitment to each other is the so-called article five commitment which is to defend each other in case of an attack, which makes nato a very successful alliance and it has been a very successful alliance in the past. whenever there was a threat to a

member of nato, the other members will come to its help. that is also what happened in afghanistan when nato members came to the help of the united states. nato is based on the contributions, on the defense budgets that the members of nato have. the united states certainly by far has the biggest defense budget within nato. there is a gold by old nato members to spend 2% for defense expenditures, which is an ongoing discussion because of for nato members especially in europe there is always a trade-off to be made for defense expenditures versus domestic expenditures. this is the goal that all nato members have committed themselves to. host: there were a lot of

conversations under former president donald trump of nato members he said not paying their fair share for defense of europe. has anything changed between the united states and nato when it comes to funding? since the trump administration and during the biden administration so far. guest: this has been an issue because of the spending between the united states and the spending of some of the nato members. suddenly germany has also been a topic. so those members who do not meet the 2% goal at the moment have at least announced that they work towards that goal and that's also the commitment to the 2% goal is that countries work toward this goal and what we might see if we really have a military action by russia and ukraine that actually russia

will achieve exactly the counter results to what it wanted. what we might see in case of a military invasion is that nato members will spend more and will invest more in their own defense because of the actions taken by russia because for the first time again we have such a major scale military operation in europe. the result could be that exactly what russia did not want because they will feel the need to invest more in their security and defense. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. tom is calling from clinton massachusetts on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. basic question that i want your viewer to ask or to hear is the current situation in the ukraine

might be seen as the result of a colonial separation. in 1990, the ukraine separated from the soviet union and the people in the crimea and in the east thought that they could work together and be in harmony. that turned out not to be true. on the other hand, czechoslovakia decided to separate at that time into slovakia and the czech republic. today we are having this kind of a crisis because of border issues resulting from colonial separation. think of the disaster from british india. and also in the 1950's, khrushchev attacked crimea from russia to the ukraine ss are and made it part of the ukraine when

it wasn't previously. i wonder if nato members could have a conference with ukraine and russia to try and resolve the situation in terms of resolving a colonial separation and self-determination in these provinces of the ukraine. now in the crimea, there was a plebiscite after russia invaded. we are now in the situation we are going to be dealing with lots of real invasion. the crimean people rose up and revolted against ukrainian rule and russia came in to support them. the plebiscite showed crimea being overwhelmingly wanting to be part of russia. and you have similar situations in the eastern provinces. could a conference be held to

separate the borders in a proper way? i understand some men like war. all it would take is some commander on either side to misjudge, make a mistake and we could have an all-out war when in reality no one really wants one. guest: and thank you for this interesting point. to the point about the colonial background of this conflict. the russian president has published an article in july last year where he argued that there was a historical unity between ukraine and russia that speaks very much to this point that ukraine is perceived as part of its fear of control and domination. the plebiscite in crimea was not

held under fair and free conditions and was also held under russian military forces being in crimea surrounding the parliament and basically forcing the result that it wanted to see , namely the annexation of crimea by russia. so this is not a path that would be advisable for the future because any plebiscite's have to be free and fair and that is also one of the difficult points for the moment in eastern ukraine that he have argues, elections have to be free and fair. the military troops have to withdraw. otherwise we will not see it for you and fair result of that. this is exactly the question discussed with -- which russia

sees differently and wants to have its own means of leverage against ukraine. there certainly will have to be diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict because there's just no other way of doing it. realtor instruments and military force to achieve its political aims is not something the international community wants to see in the future becoming the new normal in international politics. so diplomatic path is certain whether it will be a conference or other format where these issues will be discussed is important and at the same time we have to say that in all these discussions we have to respect the borders and territorial integrity of countries.

and it was russia that signed the budapest memo, an agreement which decided the nuclear weapons stationed in ukraine at the time will be transferred to russia and in return russia will respect the borders of ukraine. an agreement it also made with the paris charter. that is one of the difficult issues here, the lack of respect for ukraine's border. it makes its european partners and ukraine very concerned to what russian promises -- to what extent russian promises will be held. host: let's go to joann in

nevada. caller: i want to ask why do we have nine bases in germany when germany is causing the whole issue with their energy? and we've got to supply you with the gas. you never pay your bills. i just can't believe the crap that comes out of germany and i say get our bases out and stop this with ukraine. ukraine is a problem. russia has been there since 2014. germany get off your ass and start doing your job. host: go ahead and respond. guest: germany has been criticized for not meeting the 2% goal. other countries who are not yet meeting the 2% goal, it is a commitment to work towards this

goal. what is more difficult is the energy issue that was mentioned, the nordstrom to pipeline -- nordstrom to -- no word -- nord stream2 pipeline. it also does not have an lng terminal which would make it easier to ship lng supplies to germany and europe. so germany has a lot of homework when it comes to energy diversification. and europe in general has to do more for its energy security so that it's not the united states that have to ensure energy so

that is certainly a point and homework for the future. the revolution in ukraine in 2014 was a decision that was taken not about any nato perspective on nato agreement. ukraine wanted to sign an association agreement which would make trade easier. an agreement which has nothing to do with security policy. and under pressure from moscow, when the president of ukraine back then decided to withdraw from this agreement, we have seen protests on the street in ukraine by the population which wanted to continue a closer association with the european union. so that is a point where we can see back then, russia has reacted to these protests by

annexing crimea and destabilizing eastern ukraine when it was about a trade agreement. now we see also russian forces amassed at the border. it sums up moscow's resistance to any cooperation by ukraine with the west, with the united states and europe and basically regaining control over ukraine. this is perhaps a good summary of the last years. host: this is a good segue into what british prime minister boris johnson said at the munich security conference where he discussed the need for western europe to stand together and reduce its energy dependence on russia. i want to get you to react to

it. here is boris johnson. >> brixon will always stand up for freedom and democracy around the world and when i say that our commitment to security is immovable and unconditional, our deeds show that we mean our words. we are making the biggest contribution of nato, tech nato of any european ally because we understand the importance of collective security, just as our european friends stood by us after the state used a chemical weapon in salisbury. so britain will stand by you. but we must accept that these measures by the u.k. and allies, the intensification of nato's defenses, fortifying our ukrainian friends, they may not be enough to deter russian

aggression and it is therefore vital that we learn the lessons of 2014. whatever happens in the next few days and weeks, we cannot allow european countries to be blackmailed by russia. we cannot allow the threat of russian aggression to change the security architecture of europe. we cannot permit a new division of our continent into spheres of influence and we must now wean ourselves of dependence on putin's oil and gas. i understand the cost and complexities of this effort and the fact that it is easier said than done. i'm grateful to the chancellor's assurances about nord stream2. we must ensure that by making

full use of alternative supplies and technology, we make russia's threat redundant and that will be the work of the months and years to come as well as the necessary steps that we in the u.k. must take to protect our own financial system. host: i want you to react to that. guest: that was a very powerful speech and it also demonstrated that one issue that u.k. has been criticized for in the past that it allows too many loopholes for money laundering, especially for money from russia. it seems to be taken more serious by london. host: let's talk to dave on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning.

could you fill me in on what it comes down to as far as the way putin looks at his gain of this? are all these sanctions, allegations especially from germany and their situation of energy, where does putin see an advantage with all those allegations and the sanctions we are going to put on them as being enough once he gets in there and takes whatever he figures is to his advantage? where does it stop in his point of view of where his advantages are to germany as well as the u.n.? i will take my answer of the air. thanks. -- off the air.

thanks. guest: it's an interesting point to think about the cost benefit analysis for moscow at this point. it's different from the cost-benefit analysis that many countries in europe and the united states would make that war would be very costly. there would be a high human cost and since we have those sanctions that the cost for russia's economy would also be very high. the cost-benefit analysis at least what we see on the ground seems to be different and moscow and the russian president has set himself he assumes that sanctions will just come anyway because the west is dedicated to keeping russia down. and at the same time the russian leadership has invested in

building up with reserve funds that will help buffer the impact of sanctions. there is now a shift away in germany from a belief that russia is a reliable energy supply to a more skeptic perspective given that we have seen in the last year that russia has not provided additional supplies at a time when supplies in europe were low. russia has a lot of leverage over europe, on the other hand energy is one of the main incomes for the russian budget and the most important income. so the question is how much is a response can moscow do without hurting itself when it comes to

disrupting energy supplies to europe given that those are so essential for the russian budget. this is at least a response that has been announced, a strong sanctions response as a deterrent for russia not to take military action in ukraine. host: bob is calling from eagle river, wisconsin. caller: the thing i want to comment on is russia, ukraine to germany, why is that our issue. they aren't part of nato. germany is, but russia and the ukraine are communist countries. they aren't part of nato. wouldn't it be more productive for the united states to go back to under a trump we provided the world with oil and gas. why don't we just start supplying them and then that

would take some of the pressure off of russia being the only supplier for these countries? why doesn't america simply open up its gas and oil reserves for the free world? guest: to put one issue into perspective, russia and ukraine are both not anymore communist countries after the end of the soviet union. especially ukraine is a market economy. russia is a state-controlled economy. we certainly have seen a shift in the domestic composition of russia after 1990. to your question, ukraine and what is happening now in ukraine does not only met because of ukraine and because it is sort of the eastern neighborhood in europe. it doesn't matter because there are some principles at stake.

whether we want to live in a world where borders can be changed by military force and were massive military threats are used to achieve political aims and this is a question which is most important for europe because history has taught europe and then also the united states which has become again and again engaged in europe that if they are not certain principles that you can agree upon, like the principles that border should not be touched, that military force is not acceptable, then you will always have conflicts on the european continent. it's about how countries want to work together and live together and in the end, both the united states and europe are very much integrated in the world. they are not isolated islands.

so any actions that will be taken by russia will have effect also on europe and what is happening in ukraine is also observed by other countries. especially china which is certainly very closely watching what is happening there. the last point to the energy issue, there will certainly be an energy transition on the way. which will in the long term put the challenge to russia's model of selling oil and gas to the world and thereby sustaining itself. this will be a long-term challenge. so at the moment russia's oil and energy supplies are still highly important to the world and also especially to europe.

host: dan is calling from independence, missouri. we are about to run out of time. can you give us a quick question? caller: yes. i heard that even though china did not send a representative to the munich security conference that they did phone in and supported the idea of boundaries that should not be -- the general idea that russia shouldn't ignore ukraine boundaries. i would like to get her verification of that and how important she thinks that is. thank you. guest: that's a very good question. in the past it has always been, the mantra of the relationship has been we go along if it is

helpful and if it doesn't hurt the entrance of the other side. once it creates costs, there is much more reluctance to support each other. we do not yet see a fully fledged alliance and certainly not comparable to the nato alliance. we see this interesting game and dynamic that at some point china tries to distance itself from russian actions. at the same time china has its own conflict and with taiwan, it doesn't seem plausible china's statement that it supports all these principles. so it is very much a game and dynamic, who supports who and which costs are they willing to

take in support of the other side. host: we would like to thank dr. liana fix who was a resident fellow at the german marshall fund for talking us through the u.s. nato and european response >> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up morning, historians douglas brinkley discusses the survey of presidential leadership. and we look at the history and evolution of presidential libraries. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments,

text messages, and tweets. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. quick season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the gulf of tonkin

incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. quick certainly johnson secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones that made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people who signed to kennedy the day he died. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span now mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> vice president kamala harris held a news conference after attending the munich security conference, giving an update on the situation in ukraine. >> good morning. >> this is an important trip, to be here at the munich security council, in particular this year, as i said yesterday, we are looking at a moment that is a very decisive moment. certainly one of the founding reasons for for nato, which is european security. >>, connection and alliance between europe and the united states has been productive. the other meetings we had were

in furtherance of the ongoing collaboration and partnership with our allies. it was important and that you all know this is a moment that is very dynamic. it is not every hour. certainly every day there seem to be new moments of interest and intelligence. so we have affirmed, that being said, through these last couple of days that this alliance is strong. stronger than it was before. this alliance has purpose and meeting -- meaning founded on shared principles that are at play now. one of the most important is about mutual respect for territorial integrity, which is what is at play in terms of

russian posturing as it relates to ukraine. at stake is the nato alliance in terms of our unity, joining together through sometimes compromise. certainly oh -- always through collaboration to be a unified voice, especially when these principles are being compromised. reporter: during your meeting with president belinsky, could you talk about what he asked the united states for? vice president harris: so far we have transferred $650 million in aid and made loan guarantees and

that is on top of the work we have done collectively through the nato alliance to provide support for ukraine. reporter: is there anything new you are offering ukraine? vice president harris: this is a dynamic situation and depending on what happens in the coming days, we will reevaluate the need ukraine has and our continuing support. reporter: are you taking part in the nsc meeting? i wanted to follow up on your meeting with zelensky yesterday. after the meeting he shared frustration with countries like the u.s., saying an attack is likely to happen but the administration has said retaining sanctions holds onto

leverage. but if you believe pickton has already made up his mind, what leverage do you have, why not put sanctions in place? vice president harris: the purpose of sanctions is deterrence. let's recognize the unique nature of the sanctions we have outlined. these are the strongest we have ever issued. it is directed at financial institutions and individuals and will exact absolute harm for the russian economy. reporter: do you feel the looming threat will deter them? vice president harris: we strongly believe, and remember sanctions or product not just as the perspective of the united states, but a shared perspective

of our allies and we have agreed the deterrence of the sanctions is still meaningful. we still sincerely believe there is a diplomatic path. the window was still open, but it is narrowing. we believe the deterrence effect still has merit. reporter: would you talk about how the u.s. would get out of this potential conflict with russia? what is the endgame? after imposing sanctions and possible military action, how does the u.s. disentangle from this? vice president harris: i would characterize it to fit -- differently. we do not consider ourselves to

be entangled. but we are allied with -- listen. we are talking about the potential for war in europe. let's take a moment to understand the significance of what we are talking about. it has been over 70 years and through those years, there has been peace and security. we are talking about the real possibility of war in europe. so our position is clear. as a leader, which we have been, ringing together the allies, working together around our collective and unified position that we would all prefer, desire, belief it is in the best interest of all that there is a diplomatic and to this moment.

that is where we want it to end. reporter: the president has already said that our citizens would be facing some economic hardship. what would we be facing? vice president harris: we are aware that when america stands for her principles, it sometimes requires us to put ourselves out there in a way where we would maybe incur some costs, energy costs, for example. but we are taking specific and appropriate steps to medicate -- mitigate what that cost might be, if it happens. reporter: he seemed to question

the sincerity of allies in terms of a desire to admit ukraine to nato. is there a reaction from those pointed comments from the president? vice president harris: i appreciate and admire president zelensky's desire to join nato and one of the founding principles of nato is that each country must have the ability unimpaired, unimpeded, to determine their own future in terms of form of government and whether they desire to be a member of nato. therefore, no other country can tell anyone whether they should

or should not join nato. that is the point of sovereignty. so why respect president zelensky's desire to be a member of nato. nate it was about nations coming together as a group, making decisions collectively around the principles and the conditions and standards of membership. that is the process. it does not happen overnight. no country can say, i want to be, and therefore i will be. that is at the heart of the issue in terms of russian aggression towards ukraine. you planted the flag so firmly on that issue, given that putin's main demand is swearing

that ukraine will not be admitted. is it a surprise that president zelensky would say it at this point vice president harris: i am not going to second-guess president zelensky's desire for sovereignty, but i will say this. let's recognize the position he is in now. his countries virtually surrounded by russian troops. i believe he came here, this is my belief, he came here to make a very clear point. i told him in our meeting, the united states stands with you. this community of allies and

partners, why he came here, i will not second-guess. but his country is virtually surrounded by what most reasonable people would believe are hostile troops. reporter: it was said late last week that the swiss sanctions probably will not be part of this going forward. given the administration has said they will start high and stay high, how do you do that without the swiss sanctions? vice president harris: we will take us one moment at a time. reporter: does the u.s. have

evidence that putin has give the order for attack and whether that evidence is shared and agreed upon by allies, including zelensky? vice president harris: as the president has said, we believe putin has made his decision. but i will also say as part of our relationship and partnership in the context of the alliance, we do share information, certainly. we want to make sure we are all working with the same information when we make these very critical decisions. i said it yesterday on the stage, not everyone agreed about what the consequences should be if russia invades ukraine.

we have to meet and discuss it. i spent time with the chancellor of germany yesterday and the president of e.u.. when we look at the significance of of the we will obviously reassess depending on how the days and months ahead roll out. reporter: do you believe the u.s. and ukraine are more on the

same page about what intelligence suggests and they have been in the past? vice president harris: there has been direct communication of the intelligence. and nothing is being held back. reporter: the prime minister of italy does not agree with all of the sanctions. yesterday he said he does not feel energy should be sanctioned. doesn't that undercut the u.s. approach to impose tough, severe financial sanctions? vice president harris: as i said, this is an alliance of nations that each have their priorities and individual concerns about anything we do going forward and how it would impact their specific country, economy, and security. i would not deny italy from having their own concerns. we all do. that is part of the process.

italy is very much on the table in terms of these conversations in terms of how we would do this in a way that it meets the intended purpose, which is about deterring russia from invading a sovereign nation. we'll understand, including every country in europe, what war in europe looks like and what it can mean for the citizens of each of those countries. thank you. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪

>> buckeye broadband support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, historians discuss the result of c-span's fourth survey of presidential leadership and look at the history and evolution of presidential libraries. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets.

>> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast. presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the gulf of tonkin incident. the march on selma and the war on vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people who signed to kennedy the day he died. and the number assigned to me now. and of mine are not less, i want them less right quick. if i can't ever go to the

bathroom, i won't go. i won't go anywhere, i will just stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings. ♪ susan: ryan walters, a new book, "the jazz age president." you are asking americans to take a new look on warren g. harding. why? ryan: he is one of the most maligned presidents in american history. the reason for that