oh. klein the face off her is writing extensively on environmental issues and social justice issues went to these conferences and quite a rake and her takeaway was that a bunch of people all showed up and this is a danger to the local economy and to the local fabric of society so the first thing that strikes me is that lefties like bayle me feel they have a monopoly on good intentions which i'm not sure where that comes from.

a contentious census controversy over the trumpet ministrations intend to add a citizenship question in the twenty to twenty u.s. census what's behind this change that's first up on this edition of. politicking on larry king monday disrupted in the streets of announced a controversial changed to the next official count of people living in the united states that is their intent to start asking participants in the census about citizenship status the last time the question was asked of everyone was in one thousand nine hundred fifty critics immediately labeled this action is anti immigrant while the administration says the change is critical to the enforcement of the. voting rights act an important tool in protecting against racial

discrimination during elections this begin with our political planet joining me from washington d.c. is chris wilson director of research in digital strategy for the ted cruzes campaign in two thousand and sixteen and he is c.e.o. of w d a intelligence and in new york nate lerner grassroots director of the bill the way of organization executive director of the democratic coalition and creator of the app hash tag boycott from. all right chris we'll start with you what's your reaction to the administration including this citizenship question i thought the census was about how many people are living in america well it's sort of common sense change in is that you read a missionary i think it's also one in support about protecting minority rights i mean the fact is the voting rights act requires accounting of citizens and so if you have either illegal immigrants who can't vote or illegal immigrants who also

lobbies they can't vote and what that does is undervalues all the citizens and those are citizens and when it's down to it this doesn't really affect states like oklahoma or iowa or places like that where it's affecting is the minority districts outside of houston texas for example or outside off angeles and so from that standpoint if you have an under representation of citizens or an overrepresentation because of counting adults that actually cannot vote then what you're doing is you're under valuing those voters and providing a situation that does not provide the protection necessary for people to voting rights act is meant to protect and the other aspect of this is this for the party of the so-called party of science to be against actually counting people in the right way it's a little bit surprising i think somewhat when i mean that this is portland for several different scientific endeavors be an economics be a social sciences be a political science is important we count people to allocate in the right manner and i think that's those are all important commonsense changes nate was your reaction. well i think always no doubt this is what you said this hasn't been done

since the nine hundred fifty s. and there's a reason for that it's very regressive it doesn't make any sense that it's a huge misstep by the government what's going to happen is you're going to have folks in the hispanic and latino community who are now afraid to respond to the census and they are therefore going to be under represented in the results that we see and then that's also for a gerrymandering because that's going to affect the way congressional districts are drawn and it's really upsetting to see the government taking this step and what's funny is for years under the obama administration republicans were had this bizarre conspiracy theory about the census that it was going to be used for government. oversight and over use and they refused to take in many cases now we're seeing that in reality and it's really an unfortunate. because twelve states are going to sue the administration over it led by the new york state attorney general i'm asking in the original the purpose of the census to find out how many people are living in

america what it is and it still will do that and that's an important aspect where you're exactly right but i think the assertion that somehow people would be afraid to now answer the census is a best speculative and at worst laughable if someone is afraid they were going to be arrested or deported because they fill out the census and check a box well the fact is they would have filled out the census in the first place if you're about to be arrested or you're afraid of being deported you're probably not responding to government questionnaires as it is i think with the states that you see they're going to file suit here the ones that know that they are counting people who are not voters and they are somehow and they are then drawing congressional districts that are representing people based on adults who can actually vote and so you are going to see states like california new york that have probably been over represented at the congressional level lose seats to those that are actually counting united states citizens and i think one of the fundamental aspects of this that really you see a line drawn the sand is do you believe a congressional district should be a portion and allocated based on united citizens if you do that and you for this

nate who should we know who's a citizen who is not. yeah absolutely he said the purpose of the census is the know how many people are in america there's a lot of reasons why we need to know that vary across the board and i think you are going to see a lot of folks who are here illegally who are now afraid because it does feel. like the government stepping in their homes is crossing a line and it's not fair to assume that because some once or illegally they're not they're going to therefore become for answering the census when you add this question there's a lot that comes with it there's a lot of tension right now between the government and immigrants both those who are here legally and illegally and i think you will lose a lot of legal immigrants a lot of folks who were born in this country simply because they don't want to risk being hassled by the government being rest house of ice agents it's the climate we're seeing right now is very it's an immigrant and it has a broader impact beyond just the census and when you add this question to that then

causes a lot of folks here legally to have that concern about it and i think they will be under-represented as a result and i would i would never say that california or new york are overrepresented in government if anything they're under-represented. just some of there is. it was used now being reported the truth is probably pushing for the u.s. military to fund part of the construction of the border wall. is divided over this as it is over so many things what have been the mexico that's a great question. larry as somebody who went up against dollars from forty two times in the primary i joke with my friends who worked for the clinton campaign they only had to do it once for ted cruz we ran against him forty two separate times so. in my sleep i hear the people chanting that mexico is going to pay for the wall so it is that's clearly not what this would allocate at the time now you can't it's impossible say would ultimately happens down the road whether there are terrorist places pay for it now but to look at this decision the president actually

clearly has broad authority to in times of emerged. see or in times of national security to reallocate funding now the question is where does this money come from and there have been a lot of examples given of overspending in military situations we can all think of you know hammers that cost seventy thousand dollars and things like that whether or not how this is allocate i think is still open to debate and we don't know that has been stated but the president does have the authority to do that if i think if he were to go take this away from the new spin it's been created for new troops or taken for veterans that would be incredibly unpopular i think you would see people rise up in congress would stop it but if it is taken away from areas in which there may be the ability to cut some waste and relocate that's a wall then this probably something that he would have support on so i think the question there's still a lot of questions to be answered on it and it's certainly a creative approach and one that would would accelerate the process of building the wall which was

a key part of his campaign promises. so this whole situation is very indicative of trump's entire presidency first of all it would the budgets already been set this would have to go back through congress in order to happen i guarantee congress is not going to take away money from the military to pay for a border wall that we don't need i wouldn't i would even say this is have emergency because immigration from mexico right now is net zero we're losing as many people as we're gaining and it's absolutely absurd that we be taking money from our troops money from veterans money from. central military personnel and putting it towards a wall that we have no use for if the democrats did this for one of their pet projects. republicans howling all across the country in so it's just it's another example of how trump is running the government the same chaotic state as his businesses where you know he's a great p.r. guy i'll give him that but when actually comes to the nitty gritty of the finances and getting the job done he simply is not up for the task and we we've seen this

time and time again we're seeing this now with the government budget and with the national debt which just broke a new record and in fact would have to borrow twice as much as we did last year up to a trillion dollars now. it's just it just shows that president trouble wants to run the government like a business but he's not very good at that to begin with so it's just it's all coming together and you're seeing it every day from from washington unfortunately i need a question for you you are the grassroots the way that focuses on volunteers and digital active those campaigning rather than t.v. ads and. technology and innovation the the upcoming midterm they will be absolutely critical what we're seeing right now is a complete change of the political landscape we've never seen to that sort of degree that we've never seen before and we've seen them glimpses of it already in alabama virginia pennsylvania all this has been made possible because there is this

complete new wave of energy released. across the nation both with voters and then also volunteers and smaller donors who are getting involved at a level we really never seen before and it's incredibly exciting but what's great is we have so much new technology that can harness that energy and use it more effectively and a great example is speaking for example our organization sent over ninety thousand text recorder limb with two hundred forty volunteers that was mostly done remotely we held it a few tech spanx here in new york but primarily it was done by organizing folks to set up from their homes and that was something that really one of impossible a couple of years ago is a lot of new technology coming out that's allowing folks to to organize remotely and digitally and really use that energy that's out there i think it'll be absolutely critical to taking back the house and senate would do in the upcoming midterms are very much looking forward to to this that we've cruz what do you think should republicans focus on what they should and i agree one hundred percent what

nate said up till the part about taking back the house and senate obviously but i do think the aspect in the use of technology is absolutely essential and i and i will i will surrender the point that democrats have really led republicans that you look at what active lose accomplish from a fundraising standpoint we don't have something like that really on the republican side we're trying to achieve it but i give you one example on the cruiser present campaign where i was director as you said of of analytics in digital strategy we had an app that we had ninety seven thousand people download a game of five campaign activities it's kind of some of the things that nate was talking about the text messaging but we had fifty two million activities taken on behalf of ted cruz and the campaign profesor president what allow people to do is if they lived in alaska hypothetically and they had a friend who lived in iowa that might vote in the caucus it connected them together and i think the use of technology whether it's on the republican to the democrat side is an important development because it really brings us all together and it allows us to talk to each other on a one on one basis and take us away from the larger of the campaign advertising back and forth in the negative ads and allows us to actually speak to voters. about

issues they care about and even have their connection with their friends that they can visit with about issues and so i really am optimistic about the use of technology to bring bring us all together and kind of change the face of politics nice to end this on a bipartisan note thank you both very much thank you larry. the lawyer for adult entertainment perform a stormy daniels once a federal judge to grant permission to depose president dumb move trump. what's the likelihood of that i'll talk to a former deputy attorney general when we come back you're watching politicking.

the russians are coming for well over the last year and a half this is the message western audiences have been served up twenty four

seventh's what is behind this hysteria what does this message aim to achieve always russia is supposed to react importantly are we facing a possible conflict. politicking the attorney representing stormy daniels the point star embroiled in controversy after alleging the sexual trysts with donald trump and allegations of attempts to buy her silence on the matter has filed a motion in federal court seeking to depose the president and his lawyer michael cohen in the matter how likely is that to happen and how does it change the case one way or another we'll talk about that. former deputy assistant attorney general appointed during the george w. bush administration that was presently of the a member of the mcglinchey stafford law firm thank you for coming bob thank you are

ok the attorney for stormy daniels he says to federal judge to allow him to depose the president and his attorney i think that will go through. well i mean certainly based on the clinton case that the precedent is set that the president can be deposed in a civil matter while he's president out of states i think the bigger hurdle he has as to whether or not the president is a necessary witness to his case because right now it's case isn't about. whether the president had an affair or not his case is about this confidentiality agreement he set up with mike cohen or the story daniel set up with michael cohen and so whether or not the president whether or not that will be relevant to to the president's testimony is what a quarrel eventually have to decide i think that's a bigger hurdle than than whether the president be deposed at all because i think it's pretty clear that he could be if it were justified. it was her interview on sixty minutes significant. i don't think it really advanced the ball that much

frankly i think that clearly her attorney is on t.v. a lot and getting a lot of traction and it looks to me like what he's trying to do and what she's trying to do is bait the president into denying that they had a relationship so that they can sue the president for libel for essentially calling her a liar and right now the president is remaining silent it looks like one tom was actually listening to his lawyers probably smartly by not saying about it. in his filing her attorney said it was firmly established that a sitting president is not afforded special protection from a civil suit regarding conduct before he entered office he cited clinton versus joins you gree that's basically true i mean i don't think i think the president gets some special consideration the courts instructed in that case to you have to balance the fact that the president is president and is going to have time restrictions and you want to make sure it doesn't run run wild in terms of length

but in terms of the basic principle that after clinton v johns the president he can be deposed in a civil lawsuit about conduct that occurred before he was president donald trump cigs it doesn't appear on the now infamous nondisclosure agreement is that legally significant to mr trump or to her. i'm not positive it is because pretty clear that cohen earlies to be a pretty good argument cohen's acting as his agent in that case and the pseudonym for donald trump i guess the use the initials d.d. in the agreement are in there and so where his not his signature i think it may have been authorized or signed by his authorized representative it put the president a little bit of difficult situation because on the one hand he's not a signatory to that agreement but the other hand my understanding is his personal lawyers are trying to enforce the agreement in an arbitration proceeding in california to make sure the stormy daniels you know doesn't talk any further so it's kind of odd in one instance they're saying he's not

a signatory of the agreement another instance they're trying to enforce the agreement that he's not a signatory to which you know sometimes the law will get things a. little a little crazy and i think his lawyers of kind of tied themselves up on that one goes is going. you know it's hard to say i don't think it matters on the political support front i think that most voters had a certain view of the president and that view wasn't inconsistent necessarily with what we're hearing about even if stormy daniels or the the other woman are to be believed that they most voters took that into account and so i think what's happening is you've got something that's politically or kind of entertainment wise a little bit of a scandal and you can see his lawyers trying to manufacture a legal hook into that but it's not quite there yet and so i think they're trying to keep it alive longer so i think that you know really the question is does this

turn into a legal hook where you know you could get the president underoath and ask direct questions and they are a clinton situation where if the president lies there can be a problem so i think that right now it seems like most people probably believe the women must be upright understand the president's denying it because he's a married man and isn't going minute and most people are willing to let that go but the question is can this be manufactured into a legal dispute by her attorney at the new york times reporter on wednesday the new trump lawyer floated the idea of pardons for pullman afford and michael flynn the proposal suggests the president's attorneys will concerned about what flynn the money for it might reveal to the special counsel do you see that happening and by the way if he does pardon them does that mean they can testify for the townsell. it doesn't necessarily mean that they then they wouldn't have to testify would tend

in the circumstances yeah i saw that report and it's it would obviously be some incentive to pardon them in terms of to give them incentive not to cooperate with special counsel i think now that both have pled guilty and it's probably likely said we're going to say to the special counsel i don't think pardoning them would necessarily help the president too much as much as it would help them if the president thinks they were wrongfully charged or that the charges were trumped up but the reason you would pardon them before they pled guilty would be to keep them in the posture of don't cooperate don't say what you know and it's unclear i think the white house denies that or at least sarkozy sanders denied that from the podium that dad had those conversations but certainly it's big news if he did because obviously the president would not just be pardoning political allies of his would

be parting people who are witnesses in the very investigation of the president is under scrutiny in what appears to you to be a bigot's went to him stormy or or mole. i think mahler by far. i mean stormy the end of the day is a civil suit you know at the bottom of which you know. you know maybe she proves that they had a relationship i think most people wouldn't be knocked over if that were the case i think mahler is a bigger risk because he's got the president one thing you've been clear on is the president is loyal to his family i mean miller's got his family in the crosshairs she's got the president in the crosshairs and you know i haven't seen the evidence yet that there's anything there yet you know we didn't you get people under oath and they give conflicting testimony there can always be a problem is there's a lot of risk involved so i think that you know i'm always going to top flight team of prosecutors and you have to handle it with caution even if you are innocent as the president maintains he is but the you know the president also has

a hard time sometimes controlling his impulses and so his interview with mahler if you has one would be you know i think fraught with a little bit of peril for whoever his attorney at the time one of the thing in the the area the president's proposing a change in the twenty twenty census right to ask people if they are citizens. what do you make of that. well i think the impacts are more political than then than anything else and i think that. folks are concerned i think the democrats in particular are concerned that having that question will dissuade people from responding to the census and we won't get a full count particularly of non-citizens the census requires that all residents be counted whether they're citizens or not and that that information and question now disclose whether or not you are our citizen now that information can't technically be shared with anyone and so people should be willing to fill it out but i think

that the you know the fear is that people won't i tend to think it's good information to have and you know the reality is the census. asked a lot of interest of questions it asked how many people are living in your house you know you may be violating at least ask how many bathrooms you have at ash or race it has all kinds of things and i tend to think the people who would be afraid to interact with the census worker just aren't going to answer the door are going to fill out the form at all as i don't have you know wait to get to you know question five and then decide they're not filling it out so not confident how much of an effect it will really have but i think the concern is that they'll be an undercount of noncitizens and you know obviously for redistricting purposes and voting rights purposes and allocation of resources you need that information thank you so much for your time today that's fabulous you know sharon osborne as the outspoken co-host of the talk on c.b.s. is what was one of the judges on x. factor and is the meteoric one of the world's most famous families i spoke with

earlier this week about the emmy nomination she and her talk show co-host recently received and we also talked about our current political climate and she offered her opinion of the stormy daniels scandal as well here is some of that interview what do you make of what you're seeing in washington. you know kind of. and i know a lot of my friends a fearful me kind of wake up every game go what's going to happen now and what's next just yeah you don't feel secure or dead everything be smooth and people are in control of what they should be in control of and running it professionally for me i i wake up afraid of what is going to happen who is he going to insult today and somebody is going to get crazed at him and you know it's all going to settle into jamaica stormy daniels i really do feel she's telling the truth because why would

somebody and over one hundred thirty grand if there was no foundation if it was nothing to it you just go go away lady and you know we'll see you in court if she was pressurising men for money if it was because we don't know if it was her pressurizing them to say i'm going to sell my story unless you give it me. just say one cool what did you make of that kid's march. just was so proud so we're out at those kids and they don't cave they are more than that aids i mean what hope what hope you watch something like that and you go families help out at this such great young minds coming up that it's going to be ok ultimately everything is going to be in. the entire interview was john osborne airs soon right here and will be posted on ora dot tv keep up with my twitter feed at

kings things for information on when that will happen while you're there send me a tweet on what you thought about today's program adultery get use the politicking hash tag solve this edition of politic.

say oh my client the famed off her who is writing extensively on

environmental issues and social justice issues went to these conferences in puerto rico and her takeaway was that a bunch of people of showed up and this is a danger to the local economy and to the local fabric of society so the first thing that strikes me is that lefties like they all may feel they have a monopoly on good intentions. well i'm not sure where that comes from. we don't. know. that our guys. are going to last. so. far.

this i was told headlines on r t international russia expels sixty u.s. diplomats and shops the american consulate in st petersburg in retaliation notice about our actions by washington the state department now says it could take measures. there is no justification for the russian response throughout shakespeare there are people who are saying that these your your action is justified there isn't wasn't we don't see this as a diplomatic tit for tat. throwing open its doors to refugees germany is now struggling to deport some sixty five thousand failed asylum seekers simply because they have no idea. a conservative group in the u.s. launches a new.