>>chris: congresswoman, jane harman.ake the guns first was kind of extreme even for the fiercest gun-control advocates among democrats. what are the chances that for all of the emotions when this is said and done, nothing meaningful will get passed by congress? >> i think they are significant. and it's heartbreaking. a significant chance congress won't be able to do anything. i would say is not a debate between guns were no guns. it's a debate about what level of protection, give kids in school. how can we take guns away from mentally unstable people, especially assault weapons. i was in congress in 1994. diane feinstein had a bill to take away assault weapons which past. 10 years later it expired. i do think something like that, more focused on mental health. >>chris: so why do you think nothing will happen? >> because there is no fundamental agreement about what should happen. even this tiny bill about registration is stuck because some democrats want more than that and they think - - >>chris: not about registration. a

>>chris: congresswoman, jane harman.ke the guns first was kind of extreme even for the fiercest gun-control advocates among democrats. what are the chances that for all of the emotions when this is said and done, nothing meaningful will get passed by congress? >> i think they are significant. and it's heartbreaking. a significant chance congress won't be able to do anything. i would say is not a debate between guns were no guns. it's a debate about what level of protection, give kids in school. how can we take guns away from mentally unstable people, especially assault weapons. i was in congress in 1994. diane feinstein had a bill to take away assault weapons which past. 10 years later it expired. i do think something like that, more focused on mental health. >>chris: so why do you think nothing will happen? >> because there is no fundamental agreement about what should happen. even this tiny bill about registration is stuck because some democrats want more than that and they think - - >>chris: not about registration. ab

nichols joins us live from seoul, south korea and also with us former california congresswoman jane harman now director of the woodrow wilson policy center. do we really think kim jong-un is serious about denuclearization? >> the only person that knows the answer to that question is kim jong-un. we know he spoke to the chinese. we know the chinese in just a few hours are gog be here in seoul briefing. we don't know if he was honest about his intent to the chinese. what we know is the chinese through their state media has said that he has indicated a willingness to have those negotiations with the south koreans and the americans and crucially to discussion the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. that's a major sea change that any leader from north korea is indicating that that is up for discussions, that's going to be part of the conversation, the negotiations. he could potentially have with president trump as early as may. >> this had sort of the feel of a movie, right? you have this relationship between xi and kim widely reported for years as being cool, now suddenly and misseriousl

we now welcome congresswoman and a president and ceo of the wilson center, jane harman joining us fromn. the administration is now acting, is this a strong enough message to russia? jane: it is long overdue and it is in the right areas and after very careful investigation. there should be no question that this is the proper action. it also aligns in terms of time with action that the reason may, -- theresa may is taking on the chemical attack on british soil, which may not just an danger that former spy and his daughter but other vicinities as well. of circumstances and coming down hard on russia for aggressive action against the west and the u.s. is the right thing to do. the twoaving said that, intelligence agencies and officials previously were sanctioned under the obama administration. how much of a difference will this make? jane: maybe that list of officials can't be sanctioned to much further, but from what i heard there may be additional indictments and certainly more that can be done in britain to deprive russians living in britain or at least having homes in britain that woul

joining me now, "new york times" columnist nick cristoph, presidency of the woodrow wilson center, jane harman. thank you both for being with me. jane, secretary tillerson says the conditions and time are right, quote, in the president's judgment. do you believe the president is right? >> well, a chinese commentator this morning called this a happy surprise. i think the time is right to move away from military threats and whose button is bigger and start talking. i give tillerson a lot of credit. i mean, he set the stage. trump may have derided him, but he was there. i give the republican of south korea huge credit for this. perhaps the chinese played, too. oh, by the way, the u.s. congress insisted on very strong sanctions, continuing them on north korea. so, there are a lot of players that set up the opportunity for president trump. what should he do with this opportunity has to be carefully considered, including by him. i mean, blowing this would be a tragedy. giving the north koreans, the dprk, an equal stage is a hard thing to contemplate. they are also exporting some of the ingredients t

former democratic congresswoman jane harman, director of the woodrow wilson center.osh holmes, mitch mcconnell's former chief of staff and now a g.o.p. strategist. michael, how do you explain it? the president is almost haunting governors and republican members of congress in the two listening sessions this week not to be afraid of the nra, then he meets with the nra and he appears to start backing off some of the things he said in those sessions. what happened? >> i think of a president who wants to get something done. he like all of us wants to find a way to increase school safety, to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. to sum up what the president said really was unfair. you look at somebody like senator toomey and his criticism of him. i've disagreed with the senator in the past, he has somebody that has approached this issue with nothing but the utmost integrity. what makes this issue so hard for us as a country is as one of the flash points in a cultural, civic breaking apart that really does risk tearing our country. your one half of the countr

jeremy bash, jump in and speak about your time working for jane harman in the years when the intel communitye house and the thsenate were dealing w what we thought were imminent threats to the homeland. post-9/11 there were state secre secrets held by democrats and republicans in confidence of a republican white house. there were programs they were read into. not only did dmnone of those programs leak, the communities were the only places where were even discussed or debated or even known. how far gone is that era? >> not only from the time i was chief counsel of the committee in the mid 2000s, certainly when i received as cia chief of staff, we really relied on the intelligence committees. we told them our operational activities including i can remember briefing the committee leadership on the bin laden operation. and not only did it not leak, but we could count on the committees to give us guidance, provide oversight, and at critical moments for congress to provide funding so we would have a stronger intelligence capability. for the intelligence committees to break down really weakens amer