angeles with tomi lahren and actor antonio sabato jr. please join us next sunday when "the next revolution" will be televised. . mark: hello, america, i'm mark levin. this is "life, liberty & levin," and our special guest, former attorney general ed meese. how are you, sir? >> fine, thanks, mark. mark: there's a lot going on in the country these days, but before we get into that, you were attorney general of the united states, 75th attorney general of the united states. we're going to get into that in a little bit. before that you had quite a substantial career, too.

i'm curious to know, you go way back with ronald reagan. how did you get to know ronald reagan and when did you get to begin serving ronald reagan? >> well, it all began right after he was elected as governor of california in 1966. at that time, i was in the district attorney's office in alameda county. that's the county in california that has both oakland and berkeley. both rather significant cities for various reasons, and i enjoyed my work there, i enjoyed working with the police. i enjoyed trying criminal cases, and i'm going to say reasonably successful, so i was not looking for a job. but one day out of the blue, i got a call, would i come up and meet the new governor or the governor-elect at that time? december of 1966. i guess i really didn't learn until much later how he had gotten my name, but actually, when i was in the district attorney's office, our boss,

the district attorney of alameda county was the chairman of what was called the law and legislative committee of law enforcement in the state. the chiefs of police, the sheriffs, the district attorney's all had one committee that represented them in the state legislature. my boss was the chairman of that committee, so one of his deputies would go up to sacramento and represent this group of law enforcement officials. i just happened to be my turn in 1961, so i was up there, and one of the senators in california remembered me in '66 when ronald reagan was forming his staff and cabinet, and so that's how they somehow had gotten my name from my previous work there, and so i get this call out of the blue, and so i was not looking for a new job, and went up to sacramento, met some of his transition team, and they asked me to come back to meet with him. so i met him. he walked into the office and asked me to come into his

private office. we talked, just the two of us, for a half hour. ir was so impressed with him, quite frankly, and surprised at the end of the half hour when he offered me the job, and became his legal affairs secretary, and his staff member who is responsible for working with the legal community, with the judiciary, with law enforcement, that sort of thing, and so i remember accepting on the spot, and then driving home 75 miles to try to explain to my wife how we were going to have a change in our life. and it was a great opportunity. i thought i'd do it for a couple of years and go back to the district attorney's office, but at the end of two years as legal affairs secretary, his chief of staff, bill clark, became a judge, and he asked me to be his executive assistant and chief of staff, and i did that for the remaining six years of his term. >> you were with him from the beginning. he was a true outsider and so

were you? >> i was definitely an outsider both to politics aertain to state government. mark: there were a number of riots, protests in the college campuses in california. how did the future president, how did governor reagan and you, how did you deal with these? >> well, one of the things that the governor did as these things were developing, that the time i was the legal affairs secretary. he had me go around the state with the principal people that might be involved in dealing with unrest with the demonstrations or disorders. the head of the state highway patrol, the head of the department of justice law enforcement branch, the head of the national guard, the director of emergency services, and we went around and talked with the mayor and police chief of each of the major cities in places where there were

campuses where you might have problems, and made sure that of two things, number one, they were prepared to deal with these situations, and secondly, to assure them that the state resources, the california highway patrol, if necessary, the national guard, would back them up so they could take firm action early in the game, and not let these things get out of control and then you have to fight back and try to regain what has been lost, which was the peace and order of the community, and so ronald reagan's idea was to be very firm, at the same time, to recognize that you give people the opportunity not to participate in disorder or riots or breaking laws, and to -- if necessary, listen to what the grievances were and to try to treat people fairly, but always with the understanding that no one has the right to either break the law or to trespass on other people's rights. mark: and there were some cases

where that occurred. >>nd -- mark: didn't tolerate it very much. >> no, as a matter of fact, there were a couple of situations where it was necessary to bring in state resources to support the local law enforcement, and in one case to call in the national guard to prevent property damage or people being hurt in the community. mark: and now let us jump ahead a little bit. ronald reagan decides he wants to be president of the united states. the first go-around delegates in california proposed reagan. the second time he takes on gerald ford and almost beats him. the third time around, he beats the field and he's nominated president of the united states. you were with him pretty much going all these occasions. what can you tell us about the man? i mean, you saw him behind the scenes. we saw him in front of the

scenes and so forth and so on. you saw him as governor. you saw him as a candidate. we'll get into the presidency in a minute. how did he treat people? what about his principles? what was his mission? >> he was -- he had very definite ideas. for one thing in 1968, he didn't feel he was really running for president, but people were promoting that idea. some of them within his own circle o advisers. i frankly, along with bill clark, the two of us, he was the chief of staff at the time, we didn't think it was a good idea for him to run for president. for one thing he was doing a good job in california, but a lot yet to be done. and secondly, new to the game of politics. and i don't think he ever felt he was really running, but a number of people he was the favorite son candidate in california, and there was a reason for that, and that was to bring all the segments of the republican party which it

been torn asunder, a few years before to particularly in the goldwater-rockefeller fight of 1964 and he wanted to bring the party back together. for that reason he ran as a favorite son candidate. and then at the convention in miami, there were people who wanted him to be kind of a backup in case the man that they were supporting, which was nixon at the time, in case he faultered in the second or third ballot, they wanted to have a place -- a conservative to rely on, and so that's why they put his name. mark: did reagan like nixon? >> i think he did, i think he did. i think he respected him and liked him, and he also -- he believed that nixon would be a good president and so he was very supportive of nixon, and then, of course, in 1976 he regretfully ran against an incumbent republican president, gerald ford. because he liked ford also. but he felt the country was on

the wrong track in two ways. number one, the administration, then, was still essentially taking the programs and the philosophy that lyndon johnson brought in with the so-called great society, and they were continuing those programs, and even building on them both in the nixon and the ford administrations, so he felt that the government was growing too fast, the federal government, and spending too much money. and the other thing was, he had studied communism from the early days, his early days in the 1940s, when he was president of the screen actors guild, and the communist party usa tried to take over the movie industry in hollywood because they wanted to use it for propaganda. they tried to infiltrate the various unions, and one of the unions was the screen actors guild where ronald reagan was

the president. he fought the communists and root them out so the communists didn't have a stronghold in the major communications vehicle in those days, the movies. so he read about communism internally in the united states, but he also read about international communism, and so he developed his own ideas, in 1976 when we had so-call detente, the idea of communism and freedom existing side-by-side, he knew that was not a stable relationship. and therefore, he felt the soviet union was actually cheating on this idea of detente. and as a result of that, we were being weakened, and the forces of oppression, particularly where the countries behind the iron curtain were under the strong yoke of the communist, this is not a good way for people to continue to live in those countries. for that reason, he essentially took on the foreign policy of the then-existing

administration. mark: he almost won. >> and he almost won in '76. mark: and he was disappointed. he almost won, he was disappointed, and martin anderson and others who worked for him, said the next day he was off and running again. >> well, i think that's a little bit of an exaggeration, i don't think he was really -- i think at that time, at that time he was in his late 60s and nobody had ever run for president or at least been successful for president at the age of 70, so he was still uncertainly, i think, and my personal conversations with him, he was uncertain, but he didn't want to rule it out. and so he wanted to leave that open as a possibility and, of course, as he moved ahead, particularly as jimmy carter became president and he saw things continuing to move in the wrong direction, that was when he firmly believed that it was important he run again,

which he did, of course, and quite frankly, ronald reagan at 70 was better tha many people at 50 in those days. mark: now you have people like biden who are 74, talking about running and so forth. it's almost absurd. >> it's absurd biden running at any time. mark: reagan in his private life dealing with and you others very close to him, a compassionate man? >> very compassionate. you know, we had a tragedy in our family, and when i came back into the office, the first two people that were there, this is the day after it happened, was -- were ronald and nancy reg know. >> you lost your son. >> yes. they couldn't have been more compassionate, more helpful. you know what he did? he said you have to take time, a week, and get your family back together. and he gave us camp david so we could have a place away from everybody else where we could be with our family. in fact, the time our son was

killed, unfortunately, our family was literally all over the world. i had a son in the army who was in south america. i had a daughter who was with friends up in alaska or in the northwest someplace. my wife was traveling. i was traveling in the west coast, and we were able to bring our family back together. that was the kind of thing he did. even when he was governor, i remember one instance when this was in the middle of the vietnam war, and a young man, a young man i think a sergeant or so in the army had, sent him a letter, and enclosed $20 and said, dear governor, our first wedding anniversary will be on such and such a date, about two weeks ahead. would you mind taking this money and buying some flowers and getting them to my wife? and ronald reagan, of course, not only added a few dollars, quite a few dollars for a

little better bouquet and literally went to the man's house and personally presented this to this army sergeant's wife. those are the kinds of things he did. he had friends like frank sinatra and others, and when he would get a letter from someone who had had some hardship or a kid saying my bike was struck and destroyed, he would point this out to the friend and that friend would anonymously take care ofhavehat mission needed to be to help some person somewhere in california. mark: when we come back, i want to talk about your tenure in the reagan administration. you did a number of remarkable things that are still having an effect today. and don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, you can watch levin tv every week night? on crtv.com. i hope you'll join us, you can go to our website at crtv.com or give us a call,

844-levin-tv. 844-levin-tv. we'll be right back. ♪ applebee's to go. order online and get $10 off $30. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

. mark: welcome back. attorney general meese. you were attorney general for really quite a significant period of time. you were the 75th attorney

general of the united states. one of the areas where you really pioneered was the principle of originalism. what is the principle of originalism and why did you find it necessary 30 years ago, maybe more than 30 years ago to go around the country and make these prominent speeches about it? what was your objective? were you pushing back against the courts? go ahead. >> originalism is really taking the constitution as it is actually written and then having the courts interpret it as, in fact, what the words actually say. and the originalism is what was the concept, what were the ideas, what was the meaning behind those words that are on the paper of the constitution? what did the founders of this country have in mind? and to be sure that the courts

are not making up and substituting their own personal preferences, their policy ideas or political biases for what is actually on the pages of the constitution, and what the original meaning, the original understanding of the founders was as they wrote those words. the constitution is an amazing document. the fact that it's lasted over almost 2 11/2 centries, where yu ok at france, for example, where they had a couple of dozen constitutions because they have to keep rewriting them. the founders were really well-educated people. they studied other civilizations, other successful governments so, they got the best of the ideas but also learned about the mistakes that had been made. that's why they didn't try to create a municipal code or anticipate every situation. they've put into the constitution a set of principles, a set of ideas which, in fact, were then

implementing the declaration of independence, and you almost have to read those two documents together in order to what happened they did. so the constitution now was the framework of how a government should be organized and then the various principles in which that government should be operated. so the idea of originalism was for the interpretations by the courts and by the other branches, by the president, by the congress, to be faithful to what the constitution actually said, and we had gone a long ways from that, particularly in the 20th century, from the early 1900s, you had a group they called themselves progressives. they really weren't progressives at all. they were really people who were trying to turn the country and the constitution in a different direction from what the founders had in mind and what they put on paper in the constitution. so that was the reason to try

to bring judges, particularly, the federal judiciary of the supreme court, back to what the constitution actually said, and the laws passed by congress. so we didn't have courts and judges usurping the powers of the congress, usurping the powers of the executive branch, and also quite frankly, changing the way in which the constitution was being read. mark: it's amazing because you felt it necessary to go out there and make speeches and press the case, and as i recall at the time having worked with you, the media got very angry with you. the media couldn't believe here you are rejecting this notion of a living and breathe constitution, and telling the courts and anybody else who's involved in the law, you have a duty to show fidelity to the document itself, and yet in some quarters that was

controversial? >> well it was controversial and certain organs of public opinion, prominent newspapers, prominent commentators on tv and radio took offense at this because it didn't jibe with their left-wing thinking, and therefore, they were trying to thwart what we were doing. and incidentally, this was not just my idea. this really came from the president. ronald reagan was a great student of history, particularly the founding. he understood. as a matter of ft, iyou g back and read his speeches, you will find references to the constitution replete throughout his speeches because that's what he believed his job was, was to faithfully interpret, faithfully follow the constitution. and so it was his idea, really, that we should adhere to the constitution. he said this very eloquently in the installation of bill rehnquist as the chief justice and nino scalia as the

associate justice in rehnquist's spot. he put it very carefully, that he said the constitutionalists, the people who wrote the constitution, they didn't agree on a lot of things but the one thing they did agree is the constitution should be faithfully interpreted by the courts, and that judicial restraint, that is recognizing the tremendous power that judges have, that they had to be restrained in exercising that power in order to preserve the liberty of the people, and so this idea of talking about constitutional fidelity was something that it wasn't just in the justice department or the attorney general's office. it was something that he felt should permeate the entire federal government. mark: you had quite a remarkable staff over there at the justice department. you had among others sam alito, who is now a justice. >> right. mark: john bolton, who's heading over there as national security council and numerous others, so you focused rather

specifically and purposefully on how you hired people at your department of justice. >> yeah, we had a great team, including yourself, mark, you did a great job, too. but these were outstanding lawyers, people who are faithful to the constitution, and also people who are very skilled and experienced in the work that they were doing. and you mentioned them, we also brought in a lot of people who worked at the state and local level. lowell jensen, for example, my deputy, had been the district attorney of alameda county. steve trott had been in the district attorney's office in los angeles. mark: both of whom went onto be federal judges. >> they both went onto be federal judges and top officials in the department of justice, and we also brought in a lot of young people, people in law practice for few years, that were in their 30s and some of them in the early 40s, and

we've had a cadre of people then that went back out into the legal profession, came back in other administrations, and i was very proud of the group they was privileged to work with in the justice department. mark: many of them became professors? >> yes. mark: was this your idea? you wanted to create a future generation of prominent originalists who can help spread the word? >> absolutely. a group of people who can serve in subsequentdministrations and went into academic work. steve calabrese. >> the next one runs club for growth. >> right. >> the interesting thing, i was very fortunate that the federalist society, which was a group of lawyers, started as a group of law students dedicated to liberty, dedicated to the constitution, i had all three

of the original founders there. was one other from -- who later served also in the government, but i had three of them on my staff, and they in turn found other young people coming out of the law schools who could start in as interns. mark: that was very, very impressive. that organization is still out there, pressing those matters. we'll be right back. pssst. what? i switched to geico and got more.

more savings on car insurance? a-ha. and an award-winning mobile app. that is more. oh, there's more. mobile id cards, emergency roadside service... more technology. i can even add a new driver... ...right from her phone! geico. exct great savings d whole lot more.

when you think of miami you think of,you know,rich,glamour but 5 miles away from the beach there's people who have never seen a beach.

i was confused why somebody was in this situation especially in america. ♪music:oooh,oooh,oooh so when i started joshua's heart foundation it was a key thing to be able to engage youth in the foundation. to help them participate. ♪music:oooh,oooh,oooh i think passing on the torch and lighting a new flame in another person to do good is probably the point of the bigger missions i have. ♪music:aha,aha,aha so we are each making a bigger difference. ♪music:oooh,oooh,oooh that's it! just giving back and producing love for everybody.

>> live from america's news headquarters i'm kelly wright in washington. china retaliating against president trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum by putting tariffs of its own on more than 100 products from the u.s. beijing is adding a 15-25% surcharge on everything from frozen pork to wine. this move by china's heightening fears of a possible trade war that could damage the global economy. epa chief scott pruitt accused of renting a room. president trump's transition team here, says this scandal could end prewitt's job in the administration but epa ethics officials say the agreement followed all ethics violations. i'm kelly wright. now back to "life, liberty & levin."

. mark: attorney general meese, we've just had this incredible -- i don't know how to describe it, budget process without a process or spending process. apparently, the leadership met both parties. they come up with this massive omnibus bill, over 2200 pages. most of the other members didn't see it. senators are complaining they literally had 24 hours, they could not propose any amendments. house members saying they had 17 hours. and yet they both passed. what do you make of this? is this what is intended by the frameers of the constitution? >> absolutely not. i believe this budget and quite frankly most of the budgets we've seen in many cases for several years, we haven't even had a budget until almost halfway through the budget year. the budget goes from october to october. and today, we're just about

halfway through the budget for 2018. now how can people even plan in the various departments in the military where they're trying to look ahead to acquihe most modern weaponry and that sort of thing to do research and development. no way they can plan when they are halfway through the budget year and get a budget and know what the resources are going to be. it's both a disgrace and quite frankly an embarrassment to both parties. and particularly to the leadership right now that we have had this situation. you mentioned, no one has read the budget. i bet there's not a single member of congress that has read the entire budget and knows what's in it. as a result, there are going to be a lot of things popping up there, probably things that if people are deliberating about the budget and had the opportunity to study it calmly and dispassionately, they wouldn't put a lot of the things in there that are there. there's a lot of waste in

there. there's a lot of things that the government shouldn't be doing and hidden in this massive budget. they haven't had a chance to read it but also it's way too much. there is not, for example, in the department of education which shouldn't even be there because there's nothing in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to get involved in education, but instead of cutting the budget like the president asked, he wanted to reduce the budget. his suggestion as i remember, was a 10% reduction in the department of education. instead, they increased that budget by 6%. that doesn't make sense. so it's wrong in terms of the size. it's wrong in terms of the power that it gives the federal government and absolutely wrong in the process, or the lack of process as you point out. mark: i mean, we're supposed to be representative republic. the vast majority of our representatives weren't even involved in the process, and the american people have a right to participate, too. you know, there are supposed to be 12 appropriation bills, they have the committees.

i would be curious to know what's going on. and so what happens is we, the people, 24 hours before, we can't read 2200 pages either. we get the news reports, things pop up. look at this expenditure and this expenditure but it's too late for anybody to do anything. do you think this is because the system collapsed. do you think it's intentional because they want to ram things through without much debate. what do you make of all this? >> it is somewhat intentional because quite frankly good budgeting means that you have to make decisions. you have to make decisions about wha ought to be in. you have to beore important is there ought to be decisions what should not be in. things that should not be funded by the federal government. and certainly the overall size, adding to the deficit, adding to the national debt is in the wrong direction. we ought to be reducing and have a good economy that we are

now gaining under this administration, we ought to be reducing the national debt not increasing it. so i think in many ways it is intentional but it's also because the whole system has gotten out of whack. you point out appropriations bills. what the original founders had in mind was that there would be appropriations bills and that congress would appropriate a certain amount of money for each of these things that they would go through committees and would, in fact, be looked at. it was some care as to what got included in the budget, rather than having unseen forces over a couple of weeks in hiding, actually, putting together a budget and putting it in front of the body, the elected representatives and say take it or leave it. and that's the wrong way to budget anything, but certainly wrong for a country like ours, where we are spending too much in the federal government and where the power of the federal government is expanding, not retracting. mark: and i see chuck schumer

is thrilled to this, goes to the senate floor praises it. nancy pelosi praising it. the real conservatives in the house and the senate, can't believe that this was put forth with the republican house and the republican senate. the spending increases on discretionary domestic spending up almost 15%. why? what's happened to the republicans? >> i think the republicans have just abdicated their position of leadership, and they're not providing leadership to even represent what the country has in mind. i don't think there's any sound member of the body politic really thinks that we should be adding to the national debt, that rather should be reducing the national debt or at least not making it worse. also. i think almost every citizen recognizes the fact that there are things the federal government should be doing, and anybody who knows anything about the government knows that there's a lot of fraud, a lot

of waste, and a lot of mixed management that could be corrected and which would save money but also be much truer to the constitution, which saw a government that was only doing those things which a federal government had to do because the states and local governments couldn't do them because they were truly national in scope. and instead, we're dealing with things like school books. mark: school lunch. >> school lunch, and all kinds of things at the local level, which shouldn't be one size fits all, dictated by congress. mark: when we return, i'm going to ask the attorney general what do you think about the supreme court today? we'll be right back. turn up your swagger game with one a day men's.

♪ get ready for the wild life a complete multivitamin with key nutrients, plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing. but their nutritional needs remain instinctual. that's why there's purina one true instinct. real meat #1. a different breed of natural nutrition. purina one true instinct. now, try new purina one true instinct treats. if you have moderate to severe or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques.

and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people king otezl reported weight loss. your dtor should mor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.

. mark: attorney general meese, the president made a wonderful selection of neil gorsuch on the supreme court. there's a couple of other

wonderful justices, alito, thomas and so forth, we miss scalia very, very much. what is your take on the supreme court in terms of originalism? >> i think the supreme court today is better than it has been in the past. i think we have normally we have close to five votes for constitutional fidelity and that's very important. as you point out justice gorsuch has been a great addition. probably one of the clearest writers on the court is clarence thomas, who is very careful and actually would go further to move the court in the direction of constitutional fidelity. so i think that we have great prospects, and that's why it's so important that we continue to have a president who brings in the constitution and in the appointment of judges at all levels back, remember the courts of appeal also are going to handle most of the things

and the constitutionality of laws, constitutionality of federal executive actions are mostly decided at the court of appeals level, and then some excellent appointments there. we have to make sure that is maintained. the 5-4 balance in the constitution is a delicate balance and could use a couple more constitutionalists on that court. mark: sometimes we don't get the five. >> sometimes we don't, unfortunately. mark: what do you think about president trump and his selection of judges? i think it's been fairly exceptional? >> i would say it's certainly been outstanding. president trump has been very careful, and frankly he's looking in the right places to find those judges for all levels of the court, particularly the courts of appeal and the supreme court. he's looking to the federalist society which is committed to constitutional fidelity. the heritage foundation, other similar sources who believe what the founders have in mind.

mark: can you see the urgency of putting people who have fidelity to the constitution on the court when you see some of the rulings by the district judges appointed by the prior esident obama with respect to immigration. so o the decisions have been truly outrageous, have they not? >> absolutely. first of all, the judges at the district court level have gone far beyond what is traditionally their role, that is to make decisions for particular cases and certainly decisions that only apply in the area where they have jurisdiction. instead, these judges are issuing what they call nationwide rulings at the federal district court level, which is really unusual and has not been done that way in the past. and quite frankly i think that when judges do that, they ought to be immediately stopped by the next level of the courts of appeal and have these issues decided at that level or at the supreme court level before they make she's very radical changes in what the law is,

particularly in the matter of immigration. immigration is something that by the constitution is specifically reserved to congress and to the executive branch, and congress in turn has passed laws giving the president considerable say over how their laws passed by congress are to be interpreted and implemented, and the idea that judges would overrule them and actually turn what is the statute law on its head is absolutely wrong. mark: yeah, and i think that, we see other levels of lawlesess when it comes to sanctuary cits and so forth. don't forget to join us on levin tv every week night, crtv.com or give us a call at 844-levin-tv. that's 844-levin-tv. i'll take you there. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales.

oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. (avo) get 0% apr financing on all-new 2018 subaru outback models. now through april 2nd.

. mark: welcome back. mr. attorney general, i want ask but criminal justice rm meant by criminal justic reform and there seems to be a movement behind this? >> well, there are various aspects of criminal justice reform, some of which are very good, such as working with people who are leaving prison after serving their sentence

and helping them re-engaged and re-entry into society in a constructive way where they don't continue their criminal activity that got them there in the first place. there is also a lot of misinformation going on. people trying to get sentences reduced and they talk about mass incarceration. we don't have mass incarceration in this count three, connotes the idea what franklin roosevelt and earl warren did in 1942 when they rounded up japanese people and put them in camps. actually, every criminal in prison, some of them tried very hard to get, there quite frankly by the number of crimes they committed before they were ever convicted. in addition to that, every person has an individual adjudication of their particular case. we don't have mass incarceration, we got to get rid of that term. and it's very important that we not change the sentencing in the way that would get back to where we were in the 50s and

60s where almost no one went to prison where. they tried probation, super probation, super-super probation, anything to get people out of prison. and crime increased 20% in a two-year period, the peak being '79 and '80. drug abuse was rampant. we had a lot of difficult problems during that period of time because of the undeserved leniency taking place. if we're changing sentencing, it ought to be done very carefully and in a very deliberate manner with careful evaluation of what happens. now probably there are some laws that should be changed. that's why we have a sentencing commission at federal level. that's why states are handling this. but where there's this mass opening of the prison gates such as california. we've seen serious increases in crime. mark: and i've never understood this argument, some of these

are petty drug offenses and so forth. we don't know that. lot of these people have pled. they may have committed harsher or more hash offenses. this is an administration focusing on other priorities and so forth? >> often there is a plea bargain as they call it and the person has pled, particularly in the drug field, has pled to possession or possession for sale, when actually they were major dealers selling drugs or otherwise involved in the distribution of drugs. mark: not only that, the supposition here is that our entire criminal justice system which is dispersed, i mean you got local courts, state courts, federalcourts, all kinds of courts, judges, grand juries juries and such, that somehow everybody thinks alike and the goal is to keep putting people in prison. that's not the way it works, is it? >> absolutely not. as a matter of fact, when i was in the prosecution business as deputy district attorney, you

worked carefully often with defense attorneys to work out appropriate solution, particularly when mental illnesses involve something like that, you try to do what was fair and also what was just. mark: all right. we'll be right back. feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin 24 hour relief when allergies occur. day after day, after day. because life should have more wishes and less worries. feel the clarity and live claritin clear. ♪ with esurance photo claims, you could have money for repairs within a day. wow! that was really fast. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance, click or call.

termites, we're on the move.24/7. roger.

hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. mitzi: psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? watch me. ( ♪ ) mike: i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ( ♪ ) joni: think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it. they're moving forward with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin.

don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. mitzi: with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx.

welcome back. i'm here with edward needs. i want to ask a question. i've asked several of our our guests. where do you see this country in 20 years? >> frankly, i am somewhat concerned and where we will be in two decades, particularly if we continue with this freespending and the increase in the national that is of the power of the federal government. we need strong leadership to move us back toward the constitution and backed what the founders had in mind.

we need to preserve the liberty of the people in a sound economy and the kind of government which provides a limited role f t federal government and the government has state and local levels but i think that's possible but it will take strong leadership in the kind of leadership we were privileged to have under ronald reagan. we saw all those advantages with international affairs and in terms of the economy and in terms of what's happening to people of our country. we need to return to reaganism for how the federal government operates and how congress operate and how the courts operate, being faithful to the constitution. >> do you think we got a good shot at it. >> i think we do. we were in pretty tough shape with the carter administration in 20 years before that. i have hope that our country, which was truly plastering our

two countries would continue in that direction. >> it's a great pleasure for things for joining us. leaderladies and gentlemen, it was a pleasure having you. join us next week on life, liberty and 11. >> i will burn the town and have blood. [ dogs barking ] >> it's this way. >> the negro is my equal. he is the equal of every living man. [ bell tolling ] >> let's go. >> she is determined to make all who oppose her feel southern steel. >> this guilty land will be purged with blood. >> 85 years ago, this country was born. is this the year that it dies? >> if war with the federal government is the result, then so be it. ♪