>> from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. john: issue one. september 11, 2001. president bush: this ideal of america is the hope of all mankind. that hope drew millions to this harbor, that hope still lights our way. and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness will not overcome it. john: on the first anniversary of the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, president

george w bush spoke in front of the statue of liberty in new york, america's traditional gateway to human freedom. that ideal of freedom is commemorated on site by emma lazarus's sonnet, quote 'give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. i lift my lamp beside the golden door' end quote. but today, 2015, some say that those words are faded. because today, facing the exodus of hundreds of thousands of syrian and other civilians from war-torn nations, america's lamp beside the golden door has dimmed. the u.s. has spent $4.1 billion supporting syrian refugees, but has granted asylum to only about 1,500. in contrast, far less wealthy ations, notably turkey and

lebanon, have maintain two million and 1.1 million syrian refugees respectively. jordan has taken in hundreds of thousands. and the european union is now indicating it will also accept hundreds of thousands of refugees. regardless, the massive migration has three main causes. first, many refugees believe syria will remain at war for many years. second, winter is coming and refugees are desperate to avoid great suffering in overcrowded, under-supported refugee camps. third, word has spread on social media that europe is offering an open door to all migrants, for economic reasons as well as for security. still, fearing terrorist infiltration of refugee migrations, commander in chief obama believes that the united states cannot simply open its doors to the huddled masses. does america have a moral responsibility to welcome

more syrian refugees? pat: not really, john. well over 40 million people in the united states who were born aboard. 1 to 12 million illegal aliens. we take in 70,000 asylum takers every year. i don't think it is first and foremost our moral responsibility to bring them to the united states. i do think we can and should help but they were outside the terror situation, this is syria. they're in jordan, lebanon and turkey. and the first port of call of after these places when they leave is europe. but the key point here is, john, all of the world -- africa and north africa and syrian refugees are watching and they see europe opening its doors. you're going to have an emmenace flood of retch jeels from all over the world or from africa and the middle east unless you call a halt to it in europe.

the united states can begin by saying we will help them where they are but we're not talk -- taking in scores of thousands or hundreds of thousands. john: secretary of state kerry id he'll ask congress to increase its quota to 100,000 annually. eleanor: i think we have a moral responsibility and a responsibility as a superpure and our hands are bloodied because of the invasion of iraq and many refugees are streaming there from syria. i think the u.s. -- we've given for more humanitarian aid. they're going to commit to taking a number of syrians every year so we're stepping up. the european union is going to meet next week and look at mandated quotas so that all the countries in the e.u.

participate. i'm very proud of germany. they were really stood up to this they've taken 800,000 people so far. they're committed to 500,000 each year but the syrians in particular, these are middle class people. these are architects and doctors. these are people with skills that are fleeing and europe -- actually germany in particular, has a very low birthrate. they see the opportunity in accepting these immigrants and that there's opportunity in immigrants in america in europe, this is a country built on immigrants. john: what about isis infiltration of the refugees? tom: they're attempting do -- to do that in europe but the real problem is the failure of obama's foreign policy and the secondary point is alassad's continuing murder of his own

people. we need to solve that. the failure going back to 2013, chemical weapons but the failure really to take on this sup feeds this and you see that overflow that human misery coming into europe and coming across the world. where america leads we can get the sunni arab monarchies to do more. john: do you agree? clarence: only as far as saying we have a responsibility. not the obama administration getting in it in the first place. tom: hundreds of thousands would have been killed under sue dam had he still been in power. clarence: we have a bad habits in this country, several presidents have, of making things worse. that is what has happened already in this region. tom: nothing has been working.

clarence: we have a responsibility to take some leadership here. pat: let me say this argument. is it an durdty? the people fighting are isis and al qaeda on one side, the two terrorists, on the other side, assad, the russians and the iranians -- iranians. the great threat to the united states is the terrorists. the idea that we should send an army into syria. the turks haven't done a thing. tom: they're waiting. pat: look, they have an army that can walk in and kill i sills in three weeks and they've done nothing. tom: you've seen it with iran, the kid nappings. the tush iraq -- turkish construction. pat: the turks are fighting the kurds now. eleanor: it's their fight, not our fight. pat: exactly. jim: t.b.d. to be determined. issue two -- who does syria

gamble? in foreign language] john: russian president vladimir putin is reinforcing assad. he's sent an array of military personnel and advanced equipment to syria, for skirt purposes, president putin says but the obama administration believes these deploifments will fuel the syrian civil war and are meant to ensure president assad stays in power and russia retains itzhak says to syrian ports on the medicine train sea. and commander in chief obama has asked greece to reaches air

passage rites to russian flights between russia and syria. what is putin up to this time? pat: what putin is up to and it makes more sense than what we're up. to he's got ports in syria. a sad -- assad is an old ally. his enemies are al qaeda and isis, who are our ennis. -- enemies. he's coming in to help assad, as is obama. we want first and foremost isis and coiled to get 911 kill and would destroyed and anybody that's up for doing that, i'm with. the guy i don't understand is the president of the united states. the we -- why we -- if we can't make up our mind who our enemy is? eleanor: i don't know about that. it is so factionalized over there and i don't see that sending in troops are going to be the answer.

they are conducting air strikes and the more the merrier if these other countries are going to come in and battle against isis but i do think there's a diplomatic solution here and i do think it's at odds with what putin is doing. it may keep assad in power or there may be a place holder in his -- but this is going to take time and in the meantime you're going to have a lot of this human misery and that's what we have to step up to. tom: you have two sides of the same coin. iran is not an ally to our cause. the united states needs to be in the middle of that. this said, i do think there is the potential for peace process. but you carve out that area on the eastern side to the western side that they otherwise control. eleanor: interests that align. not every interest has to align. pat: the problem ask, tom, you

guys are so fixated on iran. isis is the enemy, al qaeda is the enemy. anybody who in the short run will help us kill them -- tom: there's a war in the region that is growing without our stepping into the middle east. [all talking at once] tom: american troops -- i'm not saying american troops should engage with the turks. eleanor: someone who lives there, knows the region. marvin kalb has a book out that gets into putin's held the war in the ukraine, a war that he won and trying to figure out what he's trying to do now in syria. he identifies with leaders when the populations rise up against them because there for the grace of god goes putin. pat: russia has also -- always

had an alliance with syria. that's been alive. they're the easiest people to understand in the world if we would only try to understand the russians. they're looking out for their national interests. eleanor: before that it was the state of russia and before that the state of the soviet union. he's going to do everything he can to bolster assad. pat: why not? eleanor: why not? fine, as long as they then operate against isis. john: ok. europe mounts up. i havethis is reason why asked the minister of defense, already starting tomorrow to carry out reconnaissance fights over syria so as to be able to envisage the possibility of striking daesh. john: france, australia and the u.k. are extending their military intervention against isis in syria. this week, as a result of the migrant crisis, and the expectation of the iran "done

deal," they are prepared to follow president putin's request to work together in order to defeat the enemy. >> so we believe that we have to be able to talk with all countries that could facilitate that solution and that transition. i'm thinking here of the gulf countries, i'm also thinking of russia, of iran, and many other countries that are already part and parcel of the coalition. john: and the so-called "bashar has to go" was put into hibernation. they will not interfere with any objectives of the regime. and they will generally follow u.s. leadership. but bear in mind they have plenty of autonomy left to efine their targets. >> should we choose, mr. speaker, to extend our air strikes into syria, we would be doing this in the collective self-defense of iraq. why are the europeans putting

this gun sight on isis and syria. clarence: isis is the center of the troubles right now. it's stirring things up over there. the europeans have always turned for us for leadership in this area and now with isis spreading throughout that region and up into europe, the refugee crisis, they're feeling more compelled to get involved and try to topple assad perhaps but the thing is we don't know what happens after he's toppled. pat: if you kill isis, which we'd like to do, not only do we have to kill them in iraq, which we're not doing effectively but you also have to kill i sills in syria. if the french and brits and russians and iranians and turks are in on that, why can't we get it done?

tom: the problem is you are not going to be able to defeat the islamic state unless you marginalize the iranian influence. look at what they're doing in baghdad at the moment against the prime minister. they're attacking soldiers and they are kidnapping -- pat: if it weren't for iran, isis and coiled would be in damascus today. if not for iran and hezbollah. they've been the bulwark behind assad. tom: then we wouldn't have the islamic state. hundreds of thousands of syrian dead. leanor: you know -- geo politics i like in etch-a-sketch. you connect all kinds of dots that don't exist in reality. john: ok, ok. tom: leads toe a regional war -- pat: already in it. john: let's move on.

this is getting a little boring. what's the likelihood that russia will join in the fight against isis? clarence: i think it's growing in likelihood because russia has a very strong interest in that area and it's not clear for the european union what else to do right now except to -- since he isn't supporting assad so much. offensive the russians support assad. they see him as under attack from a radical sunni group, i.e. isis so naturally they're going to be on the side of assad. if you're looking for a silver lining maybe it's there and the fact that everybody is waking up to the facts -- pat: why don't the americans step up and realize we have some unsavory friends here. we did that in world war ii when we got alone with stalin. touchdown chemical weapons? pat: what do you want assad to do, quit and say give to it

isis? eleanor: actually, assad is losing on the battlefield. pat: he is losing. but if he goes down, who do you think rises? isis. eleanor: actually, another -- figure. i'm sure they could find someone. john: issue three -- goodbye, mckinley, hello, denali. >> we've made a couple of announcements today. obviously the big one was returning the most magnificent peak in our nation to its original name, mount denali, spg the people of alaska have been asking for since 1970. john: mount mckinley is the highest peak in north america. president obama has changed its

name to mount denali, which means the high one in the language of the nateive people of alaska. but not everyone is happy, especially citizens from ohio. after all, mount mckinley was named after ohioan mounts mckinley. he served ohio in the u.s. house of representatives and the governor's office before becoming the 25th president of the united states on march 4, 1987, an office he held until december 14, 1901 when having been shot by an anarchist, president mckinley died. question, is this name change justifiable? have you thought about this? clarence: i've thought about it a lot. i've been to alaska and people already call it denali in alaska. although i'm a fell ohioan, proud buckeye. although i wasn't tonight --

went to i.o.u., the outcast. nevertheless, mckinley never went to alaska. he was never in the state and every alaskan knows it. it was always called denali before non-natives arrive and i have no problem with it being called that now. john: what kind of public service did mckinley sfliveed he was practically everything. in the house of representatives, a united states senator. pat: you're missing something. at 17 years old he volunteered and fought with the union against jackson in the valley. he was at antuetam creek. he was a good man, a protectionist. t.r. said he had the backbone of a chocolate eclair. he took up -- us to war against spain. one day in 1902 after a long night he said i prayed to god all night and god has told me to

take the philippines. that's how we got them. john: there's one thing you haven't mentioned, he was assassinated. eleanor: the mountain was name for the him when he was name for the re-election. before he was assassinated. some gold prospector was out there and came up with this bright idea. but the state delegations, republicans from alaska, have wanted to restore to original name for some time so this is entirely appropriate. hype appropriate with a lot of bipartisan spoimplet. and the support of people in alaska. pat: when we had my campaign, we won alaska in 1986. they all called it denali. we flew by and it was denali. tom: i think we could potentially call it denali-mckinley. john: why bother?

what's the point? tom: you do want to remember president mckinley, who served his country with distinction and was assassinated. the real reason he dialed, from what i understand is that the doctors did not stop an infection. john: did it involve an act of congress to rename the mountain? eleanor: congress will not revert that -- john: in 1917 an act of congress was passed formally naming it mount mckinley after the assassinated president and civil war hero. tom: now they've made it back to denali. john: by what authority? pat: the republican congress didn't do it. eleanor: and they're not going to overturn it. john: sally jewell, better name? secretary? clarence: alaskan republicans

also like the denali name. john: let's look at this again, maybe next week, and see whether we can't bring back the rest station -- eleanor: no, we don't want it. john: issue four -- white collar crackdown. >> we can't return to the days when big banks and bad actors were allowed to write their own rules. john: president obama doubled down on his reform to wall street and sally yates declared war on white-collar criminals. in new directives on white-collar crimes released by yates to all attorneys offices nightwide, the focus is going to be towards corporate executives. in recent years the justice department has been criticized for not prosecuting more individuals. on thurltsmls yates stated that the justice department's new mission is "not to recover the

largest amount of money from the greatest number of corporations. our job -- job is to seek accountability from those individuals who break our laws and vimmeds our citizens. it's the -- victimize our citizens. it's the only way to truly deter corporate wrongdoing." are these positive changes? eleanor: i think these are positive changes and long overdue and i credit loretta lynch, the new attorney general. she doesn't come out of the revolving door and i think she really is going to be the sheriff of wall street. they've collected tens of millions in finals from these big wall street firms but it means nothing to them and if you send the message that individual exec i was the are not immune, i think it's a powerful deter rant but it's still hard to prove cases because you have to show wrongdoing. pat: i think she's dead right, john. look, the bank of america was hit for a $16 billion fine but the bank of america per se did

nothing. some executives are the guys that should be prosecuted and punished. when you take $16 billion in a bank you're hurting the shareholders who are innocent, the workers who are innocent. you drive down the stocks and do all these things. i'm with miss yates 100% on this one. clarence: so are a lot of vormentse out there. this has been a sore point with the obama administration. they've been reluctant to prosecute because it costs so much and d.c. so hard to do. yates is saying hang the cost, you need justice and the only way to put a scare into these executives is to go after the executives as opposed to the corporation. john: have you heard of populism? clarence: certainly, yes. john: what does it mean? clarence: donald trump and like everybody run for office these days. 24 is why the non-office holders

are more popular among the republicans and democrats right now. john: since you have penetrated what populism means, is there a populism model that is beginning to sweep the country? clarence: at this point -- it's always there. it rises and falls and certainly now is a time when it's rising very fast. the obama administration i think is part of it. eleanor: we can't let a show go by without mentioning donald trumpet he's out there as a populist. he's for ending the special tax break and jeb bush has come out with a tax plan which still favors the rich. this is all part of the populist move about economists. john: what about the gentlemen you just mentioned? offensive i like some things trump says but that doesn't necessarily mean i think he'd be a good leader for the country. john: you don't think he could

handle the presidency? have you seen his ratings? eleanor: he's 30% and i feel like his floor and ceiling are probably about the same. john: really? eleanor: i don't think an outsider candidate like that has a hard time to actually get the nomination although it's possible. tom: i think this is positive because as pat says, the people do sump when the bingse, these billion-dollar fines come onto then. who knows where the government spends that money but at the same time, yes, bring some responsibility. you see executive misconduct alongside executive success. it's very expensive because these people have very good lawyers but at the same time it's important. it brings consolidation. people have more faith in the system. john: the fact is that u.s. attorneys have been given the green light by washington to prosecute business leaders. do you agree with me? peter o.: no, i don't.

look, -- pat: no, i don't. 16 billion had been stolen. somebody stole it. it wasn't the bank of america. eleanor: the administration may back off of some of this. john: prediction, the snament vote to kill the vote on the nuclear agreement on iran will hurt the democratic party? >> no. >> no. john: the answer is yes. bye-bye.

hello and welcome to kqed newsroom. i'm thuy vu. this week three santa clara county corrections officers were charged with beating a mentally ill inmate to death. on tonight's program we'll talk with the judge who runs the santa clara county mental health courts. we'll also talk with federal judge jeremy fogle about the impact of his ruling on california's lethal injection procedures. first, lawmakers have just a few more hours to pass or kill bills. the state's legislative session ends tonight. john myers of kqed's california politics and government desk has been following the action and joins us now from sacramento.