geraldine is a federal employee. caller: stephen moore was on the show just minutes ago saying how great the economy was doing and the amount of revenue that the government -- the amount of revenue that the government has increased is incredible. feels thee president federal employees should not get a raise. host: just be clear coming is talking about the deficit, saying we need to rein iit in. why single out the federal workers for the pay cut. i do not think that one of them is telling the truth. host: we will go to rose in brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: i think what the president is doing, his executive order is a disgrace. federalher of two civilian employees, i think it is terrible. also, is this going to affect my social security that i'm supposed to get in january? host: it will not. this impact about 1.5 million and nonmilitary federal employees. --ler: so it does not affect host: it does not affect social security. i still think it is a terrible decision. host: this is on the white house website i

i work on issues related to the federal judiciary, the federal firearms policy, federal law enforcement. as well as vulnerable populations and overall justice issues. recently i did a report looking at human trafficking of native americans. whether that was happening on native american soil or native americans across the country. one of the recommendations we made had to do with the data. the department of justice didn't have as much information or weren't tracking whether human trafficking victims, the race of that victim. one of the recommendations we made was to do better tracking. host: cheryl is in washington, d.c., democrat and caller: good morning. thank you for being on this morning representing the homeland security. that the interesting data is talking about aliens. it is supporting just what the president has been talking about. whether you are a nonresident or a resident the mentality that we have for people now coming to america has gotten very disturbing to everyone. are asked take the data and put it back to the congresspeople who asked for it. i'm hoping that the data wo

what the federal government ,ealized is that in federal law there is a provision that predates obamacare, excepting short-term plans -- exempting short-term plans from federal regulation. this provision or exemption was much broader than anyone had realized. obamacare requires consumers to just specific types of coverage and opposes hidden taxes on consumers -- imposes hidden taxes and imposes obamacare, as well as a federal law that predates obamacare, imposes regulation on health insurance. one congress added those congress out- when of this provisions to federal law, it added it to an existing part of federal law, the public health service act. thank you. the public health service act -- here is a provision, the very first position -- provision in the affordable care act. asadds obamacare's rules amendments to the public health service act. service actealth regulates health insurance, which it defines as a contractor policy providing benefits consisting of medical care. this will become significant . 1996, congress had exempted short-term limited duration insurance from regulations th

. >> next a discussion about federal prison sentencing guidelines with a former federal prosecutor, a former counsel to the senate judiciary committee, and people who serve time in federal prisons. >> can you hear me? we're going to start. first of all, welcome to everybody. my name is kevin ring. for 27 years, fam has a fought more a fair effective justice system that respects our american values of individual accountability and dignity while keeping our communities safe. in short we think punishment should be tailored to the crime and to the individual and that prison should not simply warehouse people, but rather help them get on the right path before they leave. we meet today with time running out in the 115th congress but also with an incredible opportunity before us. as most of you know, the house of representatives may overwhelmingly approve the first step act, a bill that would make improvements to our federal prisons. in february, the senate judiciary committee led by chairman chuck grassley, approved the sentencing reform and corrections act and earlier this month president

because this program for the able-bodied adults is funded 90% by the federal cap, -- for the federal government, it's going to be on us. in gallup when you -- in california we found they owed the federal government $9.5 billion. we are always going to have to be looking at this issue. the problem is the structure of the medicaid program. it's an open-ended entitlement. fmap,r: why traditional we are a 50-50 state. so is that a problem to structurally or not? >> i think so. it's more of a problem for the able-bodied adults. i would support structural changes to the medicaid program to address the open entitlement issue. senator: it's the open-ended aspect you think drives the challenge with cost savings? >> correct. senator: mr. dodaro, your thoughts. where do you really see that area. >> there are two main things i think are important and potentially game changers here. that changes over time. by 2025,ry estimates total spending federal and state to be $958 billion. we're knocking over the -- knocking on the door of a trillion dollars spending. giving accountability people at the sta

me having served or dean and a --f years in federal prison, disturbed 14 and a half years in federal prison, i know the bureau of prison already employs a risk assessment when it comes to halfway house placement, etc. i was wondering whether you can talk about that a little more. >> the thing with risk assessment, i don't think all risk assessments are great, but on the whole -- and what you are comparing it to. if the choice is an algorithm risk assessment deciding who gets out of prison early or a correction officer with unbounded discretion, i will choose the algorithm every time. that can be tweaked and fixed so it does not cause racial disparities. it is very hard to get at that when it is simply someone's discretionary decision. that is part of the reason why in the law for employment discrimination and racial discrimination, we don't want discretion. we want more decision-making that is guided by rules that apply equally to everyone. i have some concerns about risk assessment, especially under this current attorney general, and how that will play out. but i also know that in t

we are at and investigate all federal programs. by that i mean if your agency is receiving money from any federal agencies, if you're into the is a serving money from any federal agencies we will on it or evaluate or investigate the purpose of what we are doing, to ensure federal money is being spent in the most efficient and effective way possible. >> host: is that happening when it comes to criminal alien incarceration? >> guest: it depends on how you look at it. when i talk about state information we don't have a complete picture of what that looks like and the reimbursement for the s.c.a.p. program are relatively low. the first reason we don't have the picture is because not all states are participating. the second reason we don't have the whole picture is the reimbursement rates are pretty low. as it relates to the federal level we have a pretty good idea because those numbers tend to be pretty -- >> host: why did you do this report? >> guest: we were asked by three congresspersons, senator chuck grassley out of iowa, represen

let's talk about federalism, they usually use the term -- the federal government and state. last time we are talking about the differences between state and local levels power. the debates of the federal level, anything much more contentious because so much governing authority was located. we talked about the system of layered authorities. they control over the rights of citizens and public interests. discussion brought over a wide range of dust. the republic interest. over the discussion over this broad area of the public --. they operated simultaneously, with local areas doing that thing and safety in that thing. two differentween kinds a lot. we have a universal law and which state had a monopoly over the globe authority. and what should the final appeared we had a particular --. made states were actually up of many localities. people thought it is not just a stake, it is many localities. a lot came from the forces and outcome the particular circumstances of people and places. time and let's --. we'll crush this whole federalism. areas did exert a live pair test a lot of

for federal data?>> so i want to gish between the national -- distinguish between the national background piece that jeff's talking about -- >> why? is the. >> the national defense authorization act directed the transfer of 70% of that to the the president of defense. >> okay. so it's a statutory -- >> yes. >> but gsa, department of defense is actually gsa's largest customer, so we do help them, we do partner on i. and on cybersecurity. we partner with almost every agency and providing them assistance. >> you know, i think this is fascinating. i think this will be one of those introductory meetings. i just, again, do not want to be in that spot where i have to, you know, sit and it just gets, responsibility gets passed along. and, you know, where i would be completely comfortable that you two are collaborating and there isn't going to be finger-pointing, i don't know what that's going to look like in five years or eight years. and so we have to design these systems not based on the personalities of the

we have and i remain concerned about skill gaps in the federal government's work force and the federalfforts to try to acquire the work force needed to deal with all of the evolving issues that government needs to deal with going forward. i mentioned improper payments. there are 90 different programs across with improper payments, this is not an isolated issues, but most of the money, 75% of it is in the medicare program, the medicaid program, earned income tax credit. now, i've been very concerned. i've testified recently on the medicaid program. the medicaid and medicare programs are the fastest growing federal programs. the cms actuary says medicaid 5.7% a year growth over the next several years. last year, 596 billion dollars combined federal and state money. it's estimated to be by 2025, over $900 billion a year. so, you know, i want to make sure that we're attending to improper payments in these health care programs because of the government's fiscal condition, but also, because of the rapid growth in these programs. it's important to get a handle on this issue. data act, i talke

state auditors are accustomed to looking at federal programs and the integrity of those federal programs in their state. can you explain why this should be a seamless transition to add to the single on it responsibilities, taking a look particularly at managed care and medicaid. >> the state auditors have very deep and long-standing knowledge of the state medicaid programs. in most states, seema verma mentioned this in her statement, it is not the number one budget item in the state. it is number 2. in some states it is 30% of the entire budget of the state so it is a very important responsibility. under federal law the single audit act as you mentioned, omb, states are required to perform an audit every year the medicaid program along with other state programs. >> all kinds of programs. frankly our state's budget, most state budgets are dominated by money from the federal government. >> in the omb guidance on this there is a circular that specifies what compliance issues need to be checked by the state auditors doing those audits. some states contract out those audits, the omb complianc

i think there is a role for the federal government in looking at federal payers and how federal payers manage preauthorization, billy requirements. requirements. and there is much more role in health insurance plans in taking steps to streamline these requirements to make it easier for patients. thank you for sharing your story. i think it is important to recognize the impact on patients. that is where we need to start. thinking about the burden on families and caregivers, i think getting to and interoperable system where medical records are able to be accessed from anywhere at any time in an electronic fashion, i think on someisakson touched of the challenges. health plans can only be one part of the solution. it has stored between plants, providers, and the government. so making it simpler in real time would alleviate a lot of the burden to have to bring in the patient in the first place. >> i want to echo what was said. i also want to make a comment. while the federal government has been slow to act in some areas, a number of states have been progress in terms of trying to inrease i

this is a federal government agency. this is the federal government being overreaching, right? this is a federal government agency, it's official name is bureau of refugees, freedmen and abandoned lance. it's a government agency that would oversee the transition from slavery to freedom in the south and it was there not just to protect the rights of free people, but it was actually giving food and shelter and sometimes opening up its hospitals and sometimes schools, too, even to southern whites, right? but it was portrayed as this awful overreach by most southerners, by most southern whites as this awful overreach of the federal government that was only helping black people. actually they were doing a whole lot of things. this he ended up being identified mainly with the freed people, the freedman's bureau. what does this picture show you? this is a contemporary illustration of the freedman's bureau. it has two views of the freedman's bureau. but what does this tell you? here is a man, he is in a uniform, he could be a freedman's bureau agent or union army person that they relie

the federal government is paying 90%. senator heitkamp: this is an because, asestion, we look as the economic challenges state-by-state, some states are wealthier than others, if you have a large state, that is not as wealthy, maybe you can answer this. what is the current -- on average in texas? administrator verma: the f-map texas about 65%. senator heitkamp: if that goes up to 70%, you will have increase costs. this does not help me much because i do not know what is trying this other than utilization. this is supposed to be hearing about waste, fraud and abuse and i think i share senator mccaskill's point of view about the need to work with state auditors. they have real skin in this game. i had my director of the department of human services tell me that 28% of its budget went to pay for less than 3000 people in nursing homes. at's something we need to talk about. instead of talking about all those things we get bogged down into, let's talk about health care. when you look at waste, fraud and abuse and you look at th

that today yes, with the federal government but the quÉbec government has negotiated with the federalthat's the answer to all sit down together and negotiate to find the best possible solutions. thank you. unfortunately, your time is up. we will now move on. >> i spent eight years come just for eight years. >> look at a study done by the institute, an organization formerly headed by your liberal in its minister, and it shows that the increased cost of housing in toronto due to municipal regulation and rake it is $168,000. in other words, redtape that you helped impose in the city of toronto increases the cost of each single house by $168,000. when they found out, mr. vaughan, you were here to testify about housing, i assumed that you're coming to apologize to all of the people who lost out on the opportunity to live near where the jobs and the opportunities are because of all of the red tape that you impose in increasing the cost of housing. and so now on the issue at hand, you said -- usage of the system of triaging illegal border crossers after the entry into canada. how much money

and then between the states and the federal government is it appropriate be told the federal government will wait in on the stage employees? >> no. i don't agree with that. but i think this process and they do support the working draft that it is a good start to a process. i would not make the assumption that they do not support the working draft i would say that they would support provisions it's too get started and with the provision and then to have those honest disagreements. and by word we do that over those who are doing their jobs? have got death threats. >> i appreciate the hard work you are doing and my experience with bipartisan support this issue is a huge issue i cochaired the endangered species act and my democratic cochair was the former attorney general of new mexico we saw a lot of common ground how to best work the recovery of listed species to employ the best science to give the states the more prominent role. i know senator ernst talked about it but in terms of expertise in the state of alaska we have thousands that are the top experts in the field or in the world. en

on the federal level, ms. verma is right. we need the federal protection there as well and our recommendations have been to ask cms to be more specific and stringent on approving state demonstrations, to give more information on the sources and the uses of the money states are using to fund their share of the program that they're not shifting costs. so, the federal government needs to be vigilant and while it's a very appropriate and i agree with states need flexibility. it has to also though protect the federal, and in the past there have been approvals given to the state that haven't protected the federal government's interest and that's what's driving the costs and i-- minister and i have had conversations about this and she agrees and hopefully they're going to move in that direction. you can get the flexibility and accountability, but you need to protect the federal government's interests. >> thank you. >> senator, hoeven, just during this hearing, i've got three or four ideas for hearings drilling down. i've got a lot o

we are here to talk about a change that the federal government has made it how it implements federal health insurance laws and regulations this is a change that hasn't really received the attention it aserves because it really is bit revolutionary. it's a huge victory for those who are fighting for better and more affordable, more secure health care. it's a huge victory for those who are trying to provide relief to consumers from obamacare. and on that score, it's really a more significant step than anything congress or the president have done so far. it's a more significant step in congress is repeal of the individual mandate penalty, for example, which lifts at the end of 2019. it's a change that can alter the political dynamics of this issue of health care reform in a way ovations toto mourn make health insurance and health care -- access to medical care better and more affordable and more secure. i want to talk about three things. first come out of the change is basically made obamacare optional. you can still enroll in obamacare if you want, it will still be there, but people do

debt -- federal statute. arizona law defines health insurance coverage as a health care plan that pays for or furnishes medical or health services. what that means is the governor of arizona or the department of insurance or what have you can do the same thing hhs did at the federal level. they can say we have the authority to regulate health care plans, but no authority to regulate renewal guarantees. even though arizona law limits short-term plans to less than one year, there is nothing in arizona law prohibiting insurers and consumers from stringing together multiple consecutive short term plans and protecting the consumer from re-underwriting with a guarantee. minnesota, going back to this table, minnesota -- michigan it is less clear whether michigan would be able to do that i administrative action. if it can like arizona it is a lot easier than getting through the legislature. minnesota would require statue to be passed. minnesota law prohibits short-term plans from covering pre-existing conditions that

this federal reserve, well, you could teach a whole class on the federal reserve right. but in short, one of the country's wealthiest financier j.p. morgan just prior to his death designed the federal reserve. federal reserve pushed through congress. the reserve prints our money. prints our money. a mostly private bank. it prints the money, or actually nowadays what it does is it digitizing money creation more often than printing. then it loans out the money usually at one or 2% interest. that's where the interest rate is right now to leading banks. to goldman sachs, j.p. morgan, to bank of america and then they loan it out making profit to the difference to ordinary people like you or business. more often than not, use that money to lend it to hedge funds. to wall street speculators. if you look very closely at a $1 bill it doesn't say u.s. treasury note on the top does it? it says, federal reserved note. same if you look at a $5 bill, right. or a $10 bill. or a $20 bill. oh. look at that. there he is. wow. there he is. andrew jackson himself. that's strange. what is he

it and the federal government doesn't have the resources to go in and force federal law on all these places. we have seen that with sanctuary towns and cities and states. they don't have to enforce federal immigration law. this is black letter constitutional law the federal government can't force them to do this. we can also come in other areas there's some states have tried to do this on firearms. montana passed a law saying that they montana manufactured a gun does not have to follow the restrictions of the national firearms act to complete that hasn't been litigated yet in terms of whether i can get around the interstate commerce issue but certainly montana as the state is not going to be enforcing the law there, looks like. >> and i think the marijuana policy issues a great example of how states have the power to block washington on certain issues and in some cases that's the good thing for liberty. and i think we sometimes forget, it's interesting to know why we think this because if you look at the original constitutional design, states are really empowered in our system. we of

host: this is a federal pot of money? guest: it is a federal pot of money. people need to understand what the federal department of education was designed to do. we do not have a national school system. we have state run systems. 60's, where you had some states that had segregated schools, or you had lots of states that said we do not serve special ed children, or girls are not allowed in these programs, only boys, the federal role was to combat discrimination, to make sure students civil rights were respected, no matter where you went to school. what we are seeing in the federal department of education is the dismantling of student rights. host: a school with 50 students in cheyenne is different than what is necessary for a school in chicago. nea president lily eskelsen garcia is our guest. phone lines. parents can call in at (202) 748-8000, teachers at (202) 748-8001, all others (202) 748-8002. you can start calling you now. i did want to get your reaction to betsy devos at that cabinet meeting. guest: she has a mantra of states rights. the federal governm

they had neglected to build a federal courthouse a federal courthouse only a few days prior congressad grudgingly agreed to allow the supreme court to share committee room number two with the district court and district court and court of appeals. this is the size of a small classroom except for the crimson robes hanging in the corner. overlooking a swamp, trees and a muddy creek somebody had named it the tiger. no formal bar or bench justices set behind a table facing the lawyers with two rows of chairs which were provided for the spectators. the public has little interest in the languid calendar with only six cases a year. this scene in the physical location of the court undisclosed the status of the nation's nation's highest court. chief justice marshall sat between the colleague with all freighter far greater experience the first associate justice appointed by washington and the last american judge a boston yankee who rarely spoken offering few opinions with his tenure on the court. his shoe buckles and three cornered hat branded him old-fashioned and he wore that with dignity. t

and now that is who is talking on federal prosecutors. once you're cooperating with federal prosecutors, you don't just get to tell tales about michael cohen. you don't get to choose any one they know that you'll cooperate about. once you're cooperating, particularly if you've been given immunity in exchange for your cooperation, you're cooperating on everything. in this case it may turn out to be fascinating. once elected, the national enquirer and american media took few strange turns including this spring when they published this. this is a big glossy publication that has no advertisements. it is priced at $13.99. it was put on the shelves at walmarts around america. it is declaring the awesomeness of saudi arabia. it literally describes saudi arabia as the magic kingdom thufltout the book, that's how it is describe. disney might have something to say about that. this ami publication from earlier this year includes this photo of this odd duck guy in the oval office posing with donald trump behind the resolute desk. this guy is an advis

to the federal appeals. he can surrender to federal law enforcement officials. that picture right there that we're seeing from cnbc, that's michael cohen entering 26 federal plaza which is the location of the new york fbi field office. from there, steve, he's going to be in position to -- he will actually i believe be fingerprinted and that will start the criminal process for him from the standpoint of actually at that point entering into this plea agreement we've been talking about. that's essentially where it's at and that's where he is. the courthouse from there, it is likely that they will drive him to the courthouse and then from there he'll make his appearance. he will announce his plea and then i expect that we will see him this afternoon. there's really no underground entrance or exit that he will go through at either one of the courthouses. we should see him again this afternoon but i would be surprised if the fbi didn't actually drive him directly over to the courthouse once he's gone through. agai

you want two federal felony trials? the judge is saying to the defense lawyers, listen, prosecutors never give anybody the option to drop one of their trials. they're giving you the option to just go on trial once. are you sure you're not willing to take them up on it? the defense lawyer is yep, your honor, we're sticking with the plan. two trials. the judge is like, okay, your funeral. here we go. so this second trial is about to start. and it's weird. and it will happen before the judge who finds it remarkable. in the judge's words, unusual that manafort has decided to have a second trial. incidentally, this will who will be presiding in the trial is the same judge who ordered paul manafort held in jail instead of house arrest because of the allegations that he was tampering with witnesses while he was out on bail. so this next case for manafort is not promising for a lot of reasons. but it will also be significantly different from the case in virginia where he just got convicted on eight felonies. we know about in pa

of a candidate for federal office which would clearly be an illegal campaign contribution under federal law and clearly he was referring to donald trump. go ahead. what are you learning? >> that's right, wolf. also says this is being done to influence the election. so you have to wonder, really, if the president, if donald trump was not the president, would we be looking at a very different scenario here in that michael cohen would wind up cooperating a cooperating and we said who would be the big fish? if donald trump wasn't the president he could be indicted and perhaps he here would be the big fish and looking at a different situation. keep in mind based on the reporting we did here at cnn that there was a lot of concern that through the fbi and really the u.s. attorney's office there in new york that they couldn't indict the president and the idea of using michael cohen as a coop r cooperator is difficult. if there was an indictment here, that the president, donald trump, would likely be an unindicted co-conspirator and significant on so many, so many levels and i think everyone is

and to train educators in their use and would reverse longstanding federal policy prohibiting federalunds for arming teachers. last week democratic senator chris murphy from connecticut spoke out against devos' proposal, arguing it goes against guidelines about the use of title iv federal funding. >> title ive language allows for money to be used to try to quell viviolence, but there is a specific phrase here that seems to give clear guidance to the secretary because you can use the grants for us to -- school environment free of weapons and yet reportedly the secretary is about to issue guidance saying that money can be used to load schools up with weapons. that is indirect contravention of the statute itself. and certainly in contravention of the spirit of federal law given the ax we passed earlier this year that prohibits school safety dollars from being used to arm teachers. amy: senator chris murphy of connecticut speaking last week. murphy's district is home to the 2012 sandy hook elementary school shooting that killed 20 children who were six years old and 7 years old, along wit

they despised federalism.the same people today who achieved the centralization of government who you have five justices who determine whether it is or not a fundamental right. bedamn the public. thousands of bureaucracies that passes thousands of laws where congress will pass hundreds and the conversations coming down from on high and let us get our liberty back, let us get our constitution back, let us participate in our government, and then we have people saying no, don't touch the constitution. is that about right? >> it's accurate and it's interesting because that movement to prevent people from using article 5 starts in about the 1970s after roe versus wade roughly. it comes from chief justice warren berger asked by a seminal figure on the left, phil schlafly and asked what you think about overturning the convention, asking about overturning roe versus wade. he doesn't like the idea and says we might lose our beloved constitution. they then begin a campaign that lasted 50 years roughly, saying it would be

this is not federal superiority. shared a recognition of stewardship working with states and local communities, local environmentalists and others to make a plan to make it better. what is your view on climate change contributing to these wildfires? climateyou talk about change a lot of people want to talk about the causes. we're talking about the impact. we go through cycles of climate change. i have a grant if you would like to see it, it would be interesting, that shows -- i have a graph that shows climate change from 1940-1945. we had millions of acres of forest burn. we had a cycle from 1945-1985. the fact is, what are we doing about this? the solutions are saying, if you want to debate the cause, you can do that. we are about focusing what we can do today in order to longere the impact of fire seasons, hotter fires, and drier conditions. that is what this is all about. on wildfire suppression -- >> we are already in the transfer range. we are trying to calculate on a weekly basis. when we make it to september 3

outreach and federal power. it's interesting as well. >> excellent point. andrew johnson present a big problem for us. he is a states right democrat before the war. and because of an assassin's bullet he becomes a president. and he is clearly not on board with the republican program of black rights. and he is clearly not on board with his expansion of the federal government in order to ensure the rule of law in the south. he is not going to go with that and that would create one of the biggest constitutional crises in american history. the first time an american president is brought up on articles of impeachment. we are getting ahead of ourselves. but i'm glad you got up johnson because we will be talking about that today. today in the lecture we will talk about the issues raised by reconstruction, we are going to talk about johnson and reconstruction press -- and how congress implements a program of reconstruction based on the idea of black citizenship. and comes close to impeaching andrew johnson. now, as i sa

we have the federal sovereign and state sovereign. now some of the issues that you raised -- are some of those within the responsibility of the state sovereigns? you have talked about the school to prison pipeline. yes, we have federal laws and guidelines that impact education, but there is certainly a role for states and county municipalities. so you are not attributing all these things to the federal government? rebecca: absolutely not. i think particularly around the issues around the attacks on the americans with disabilities act, one of the things we continue to hear, particularly in the legal field, is there is a roving band of disabled people doing what they call drive-by lawsuits, specifically driving by any business they find not acceptable and filing a lawsuit. what we have been able -- and this is a great opportunity for state engagement on an issue. what we have determined in doing the research is that there are only a small number of lawyers in a small number of states -- i believe 11 firms that have perpetuated thousands

instead she wants the federal government to do it. the point that you mentioned that came out yesterday is a follow-up to a plan that came out last week that was really a reinvention in which he proposes reinventing corporate governance and in particular billion-dollar companies would have to get a federal charter rather than the state charter so she would be moving the locus of control from the state government to the federal government. that is a big deal. i think what you really see with both of these plans and when you put them together is elizabeth warren and justice and comfortable with market mechanisms with leaving corporations to figure out how they want to run their business. instead what she wants is for lawmakers, for the federal government to be doing that. kennedy she also ascended to the -- comfortable with individuals taking ownership which is weird because she has worth up to $10 million. that is her net worth. that puts her in the 1%. she is. heavily invested in mutual funds >> like a lot of lawmakers she's worth a l

federal sovereignty. that is with the government is supposed to do. establish sovereignty over the land it claims but to establish and preserve racial supremacy. that was a long tradition of the federal government in the west. in the east, the southeast and before that we considered how the federal government explored with racial equality during the reconstruction. unable to convert that into reality this is not with the federal government have been created to do. it was not created to promote racial equality. one of the questions and answers is how and why the federal government would assume racial equality. whether it does it successfully or not is a different matter. why would it come to assume that this was its role? what do we make of all this? i am emphasizing racial inequality. there is equality that has no meaning in the 1870s. a great question to put to you after an exam in which you are thinking about citizenship and freedom. i have been emphasizing any quality so far today. what were the roots

this is the federal government being overreaching, right? this is a federal government agency. its official name is bureau of refugees, freed men and bain doned land. a federal agency that oversees the transition from slavery to freedom in the south. not just there to protect the rights of folks but giving food, shelters opening up hospitals and sometimes schools, too, to southern whites. but it was for trade by this awful reach by most white southerners, that the federal government was only helping black people. actually, they were doing a whole lot of things. they ended up being identified mainly with the freed people, the freed man's bureau. this a contemporary illustration of the freedman's bureau. this has two views of the bureau. but what does this tell you? here is a man, in a uniform. he could be a freedman bureau's agent or a union army person that they relied on. what does this tell you about the role of freedman's bureau in the post-civil war south? any takers? ryan? sorry, tasha. i'll let her speak first. >> kind of talking about the division between the black and t

it is all there, rachel, as you know, in what the federal prosecutors released on tuesday. it says in their documents that the trump organization paid $420,000 to michael cohen, which was money for the stormy daniels payout, and that michael cohen had sent them invoices monthly, $35,000 a month saying legal fees. >> yeah. >> now, that's a company that is deducting from its taxes legal fees, and they are fraudulently labeled legal fees. you cannot deduct payments to the girlfriends. those cannot be deducted. and it's tough in a company like the trump organization. but you can't. >> that's the funnest day of tax law school. when you find out what you can do with the payments to the girl friends and what you can't do. they are in trouble here because it wasn't legal fees. it was payments to the girlfriends. and if they were deducted -- if they weren't deducting it, if they weren't taking it off their taxes, that implies they knew it wasn't legal fees. that's a problem. but if they were deducting it as legal fees, if they were putting it on their taxes, as you say, that's tax f

we're tracking that across the federal government with h.s.i. every time they make a drug seizure locally we want to know how it got there we want to take action to prevent it next time. mercedes: governor what are you seing in terms of the counternarcotics, in terms of shombs drugs crossing the border, what impact is it having on your state? >> as a border governor in a border state, these are things we deal with every day. we have long seen it as public safety. and to hear the president talk about it as border security being national security is something that has broad support in the state of arizona and i believe even when you get out of the state of arizona. when -- this is not a partisan issue inside our state. so when we talk about stopping methamphetamine and we all know about the opioid addiction epidemic we have inside our country and we've lost over 900 arizonans to that in the last year. but that has also brought a spike in heroin and it has brought a spike in fentanyl and synthetic drugs. there's much of what's going on in arizona t

the federal system such an outlook.these are ridiculous we have these third strike life sentences, just east of conan sentences. the idea of the federal system is concerned with such small quantities of drugs stands the whole federalist system on its head. for us and it's because we know some people are in prison would provide relief to them that's why we care about that and we think it's an important component. the second step has to be deep broad sentencing reform that gets a little bit back to punishment fitting the crime and justice being allowed to do their job. >> i would add we will know a lot more after the first step is implemented because one of the provisions in there is reporting requires the attorney general to report on which programs are reducing recidivism and that hopefully will help guide the next level of reform. we also need cultural change within the federal bureau of prisons. congress can pass all of these bills that it wants to but if at the end of a frontline correctional officers are not impleme

the federal law for supervisors of elections. texas, this little texas utility district in travis county are denied by the attorney general's office. they bring a lawsuit and they go to federal court. the supreme court says you know what you are right. you should have been allowed to bail out. you have met the standards. attorney general's office is not acting in good faith toward you. you need to be allowed to bail out. but in writing the opinion that chief justice also articulated his belief that congress created a flawed law and did not update the coverage formula. here's what happens. shelby county alabama, suburban county outside a birmingham seeks to get out from under coverage of the voting rights act section 5 and to be set free. they are denied by the federal courts in the attorney general. they appealed to the u.s. supreme court. 5-4 decision. the supreme court says you are right. the coverage formula is too old. 40 years old. they have 41-year-old data. congress would caution the circumstances of shelby county or not t

bush administration and the federal government more broadly.dling of hurricane katrina cost over 1,800 americans their lives. heck of a job fema director michael brown was soon out. and president george w. bush was haunted till the end of his presidency by that line, brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. really? was he? one lesson to be gained from this is don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back. what about when you start patting yourself on the back way, way after the fact, after it's crystal clear how badly you did. this week, puerto rico announced it has had to raise the death toll associated with hurricane maria from 64 deaths which had been the previous death toll to now 2,975 lives lost, almost the exact same number of americans who were killed in the 9/11 attacks. over 1,000 more americans killed in puerto rico in hurricane maria than were killed in the gulf in katrina. for some reason, these facts about what went wrong and the response to hurricane maria and how wrong it went have not made their way to the oval office or maybe th

>> that federal data is only for federal prisoners as you probably know.ederal prisoners account for fewer than 10% of all prisoners in the united states and that's not representative of a crime. an example, 2016 almost 18,000 homicide convictions in the united states but only 85 through the federal courts because they simply don't prosecute homicide. so if you want to take a look nationwide at convictions and incarcerations of people -- that's a much better way to do it. >> tucker: it would be. it would be. it would be, but we don't have those data. the most conference of data we have are from the federal system. >> that's not true. >> tucker: it is true, actually. not every state keeps those dat data. >> the state of texas actually does. the conviction by immigration status. texas has a lot of illegal immigrants. >> tucker: why are you blowing past this? if 44% -- about 7% we think is illegal. 44% are noncitizens, how do you what's going that? i thought every noncitizen was better than a citizen. >> they are not, obviously. but immigration laws are prose