since changing is a you read out initially i think it's also one support about protecting minority rights i mean the fact is the voting rights act requires accounting of citizens and so if you have either legal immigrants who can vote or really go on the grants who also obviously 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 of los angeles and so from that standpoint if you have an under representation of citizens or an overrepresentation because of county in adults it 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 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 funny i know this is porton for several

different scientific endeavors be it 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 know that this is what you said this hasn't been done since the one 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're 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 are 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 is 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 they vary across the board and i think you are going to see a lot of folks are here illegally who are now afraid because it does feel. like the government stepping in their homes is crossing the line and you know 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 struction of the border wall. is divided over this as it is over so many things what have them in mexico that's a great question. larry as somebody who went up against donald trump forty two times in the primary i joke with my friends who work for the clinton campaign they only had to do it once when 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 place and pay for it now but to look at this decision the president actually clearly has broad authority to in times of a murder. and c. 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 all 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 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 or even to 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. and 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 we 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 green shoots doing the way that focuses on volunteers and digital activists 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 a few tech spanx here in new york but primarily it was done by organizing folks. set up from their homes and that was something that really wasn't possible 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 in the upcoming midterms are very much looking forward to to this that we've crossed what do you think of it should republicans focus on what they should and i agree one hundred percent what nate said up til 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 would act lose accomplish from a fund raising standpoint we don't have something like that really on the republican side we're trying to achieve it but i could be one example in the cruiser present campaign where i was director as you said of analytics and 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. at 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 all told former deputy attorney general when we come back you are watching politics.

time about email best of the judge by the needle i get it. but again.

carol going to be buying my mom commentary on the god you're walking me to the beach. maybe a little thing to do with that in a make believe does have images to cicero if you want. to. know about the natural again that the eyes bulging a good deal like the city because it. takes a full length a road salt lake i think cable you take a ladder. you know when you don't. see the teacher what did it cost to do.

what did you not through only did it space you. made. love to no they. said. cement climbed into no seven did especially that. alex you speak french. most of those of you have to disclose who was the same thing then send continue to compel sons busy times about to upset discuss. the most expensive fish in the world each one selling for tens of thousands of euros it continues to grow its entire life if it was thirty years old you might have a two ton fish out there and yet they don't get that big today because we're way too good at catching. it's only weapons off a much larger mission was once there and that was much more widely distributed we

have politicians that are in office for a few years they have to get reelected everything is very very short term our system is not suited and is not geared for long term survival and that's why we have the catastrophes. if i'm insurgent or terrorist group enjoys foreign sanctuary move no matter how much military put a show you put on them they will be in one way to. really hibernated themselves come by time include be like countering the us i'm not taking the roots. the 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 larry 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 his president ited 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 is 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 collins and so whether or not the president whether or not that would be relevant to to the president's testimony is what a quarrel eventually have to decide i think that's a bigger hurdle than that 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 essential 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 condo 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 john's the president can be deposed in a civil lawsuit about conduct that occurred before he was president donald trump suggested 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 the cohen release 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 puts 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 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 have kind of tied themselves up on that one would you think 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 kind of 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 or wise a little bit of a scandal and you can see as 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 under a can ask him 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 met it 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 that

of trump floated the idea of pardons for pullman for it and michael flynn the proposal suggests the president's attorneys will concerned what flynn the man the fort 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 if all the counsel. it doesn't necessarily mean that they they were they wouldn't have to testify would kind of 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 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 bigger threat 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 you know 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 is his attorney at the time one of the thing in 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 that than 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 a lease and 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 they're not confident how much of an effect will really have but i think the concern is that they'll be an undercount of non-citizens 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 happy larry 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 eat kind of. all i know a lot of my friends a fearful me kind of wake up every game go what's going to happen now what's next

is 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 on earth 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 out of 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 meant to say i'm going to sell my story unless you give it me that is they say you win cool what did you make of that kid's march. just was so proud so aroud 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 damn these hope out that this such great young minds coming up that it's going to be ok ultimately everything is going to be and the entire interview is john osborne airs soon right here and will be posted on or about t.v. 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 a dove or get use the politicking hash tag i solve this edition of politic.

naomi klein 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 minute. good intentions i'm not sure where that comes from. how does it feel to be a share of the greatest job in the world it's as close to being

a king as any job there is what business model helps to run a prison now we just do it on like a seed nobody you know visitation i don't know what comes in any more we don't have to serve them anymore it's cost effective that's what they want to get out they don't give a damn if you need to charge on that they're actually paying us to put it back into . the louisiana incarceration rate is twice as high as the us sandbridge what she could is behind such success. oh no. that's ok. i want it off. but.

the headlines are not saying israeli forces fired tear gas and life bullets at palestinian protesters along the gaza border reportedly killing three people thousands have gathered to demand the return of occupied territories also to come rushing to expel sixty u.s. diplomats and ships the american consulate and some in retaliation i have a similar actions by washington the state department says it could now take further measures there is no justification for the russian response you go through a sixty of their people are saying that these are your your action is justified there isn't wasn't we don't see this as a diplomatic tit for tat. and the fact checkers also need checking claims a u.s. conservative group which is launching a project online.