this is like attornment. the next election after sunday is may 7. i think you will see the real volatility. >> if you look at my screen on here. i am looking at the european high-yield credit index on the bloomberg. it's amazing. reallyrisks haven't reacted to le pen. still banking on the draghi field. we are scooping up bonds obviously. credit markets are at risk here i. think we have had record issuances for every year for the last six years and we continue to the issue quite well. i don't see a big effect on most investment rate spreads. i don't see a big widening as we move to the selection. jonathan: is that complacency? >> i don't think it's necessary complacency as much as you might have a more extreme candidate like you said. and given theat way the political system is set sense, thoseder politicians will have less of an impact. draghi is having more of an impact. monetary policy has more of an impact. the economy has improved. it's not rate. it's at a level where i might support field levels. part of the other thing you see is we are arguin

attorneys and you are an attorne attorneyl yourself and then ultimately elected to the senate. so much was between the private law practice and has been in the government sector. why has that been the career in the life that you've chosen? >> guest: part of it is to follow the lesson i learned as a child which is america is a special place and getting the government right for america is a special thing to do even if the state and local level. it has given me the chance to see the government from a lot of perspectives and it is that array of different perspectives that has helped inform this book. >> host: >> guest: the core argument of the book is the corporations and all these other entities that are in some coordinated way trying to influence the system in congress and successfully doing it and so why is it different now than i was decades ago do you think, and i know that citizens united is at the top of the list of. the extent to which corporate lobbying dominates in congress i think is about 30-1 over everybody else by recent studies. that's probably been so since the 1970

don't you feel she's in a precarious position right now andr don't you feel her attorns are going to say listen, there's a lot of implications here and there are a lot of laws here, and you get tripped up. it might be easier for you to plead the fifth. you think any attorney would tell her that? >> it's kind of inconsistent with what she said. she said she did nothing wrong but i've been a lawyer. maybe i tell my client i have an abundance of caution. don't answer any of these questions.aw i don't pretend to be a legal expert on the unmasking but i'm going to try to find out about what the rules are and if they were violated. but if she took the fifth, it would be up to us to say is it important enough for the country to give immunity to give to the bottom of this? >> bill: it's a story that is now politicized. your democratic colleagues in the senate don't want any part of this. >> we'll see. oothe white house has been good. i want to hear from brennan and clapper. >> bill: i understand. don't you think the senate is about as polarized as you've ever seen in your career right now?yo

had any collusion or contacts related to the hackings or whether they're operating as agents of a attorn agents foreign power. we don't know. >> you have done incredible reporting on this. what's your thought about that? >> there's a piece as we reported that lawyers for flynn had alerted the white house during the transition period he might need to file forms as a foreign agent. it's not like it was entirely a big mystery he had any contacts with russian outfits or the turkish government. it would be difficult for the administration probably to claim there's absolutely no knowledge of that. this goes back to the original question of whether this is an omission by mistake or an omission by something slightly more mysterious than a mistake but doesn't live to the level of a conspiracy or an actual concerted attempt to hide something they knew was really bad and really wrong and that really is determine wlag the level of that -- what the level of intent was. it's going to be difficult but it does depend in large part, the seriousness of this omission does depend on making that determinatio

attorne attorney ane acting chinese attorney for the southern district of new york joon kim is here. [applause] he is the boss never guess the subpoena power. i want to say a couple of things about joon. he is as fine a leader and legal mind as i know. and he cares about the u.s. attorney's office and the department of justice just as much as i did. he is smart that i am, which is helpful, and to the extent people might think incorrectly that things change just because i'm gone, they are wrong about that. i don't who the future leader of the office will be calm and leadership certainly matters, that i know so long as joon is in the office that everything that we were doing according to what we appreciate our response but it was, wishes to do the right thing the right way for the right reasons, with that office is trademark excellence, integrity and independence will continue absolutely unabated under joon. so thank you for your friendship and for your leadership of the office. [applause] >> though i am no longer the u.s. attorney, that's been established, i just want a quick word abo

no, he fired his acting attornes general sally yates and accused her of having betrayed the department of justice. he would not be safe any futured harm occurs at the fault of the course and called them obstructionist or not they need to his will. they are not supposed to bend to the will of the executive. president tribes disdain for the courts makes it all the more important that the open seat on the supreme court he filled byom somebody who seen as an impartial administrator just is, someone who does not have a sett political ideology.su unfortunately, mr. president, neil gorsuch does not meet thatd important test.he his record and testimony shows that he applies a very cramped reading of the law and consistently time and again sides of powerful corporate interests against the rights of workers, consumers and individuals. when he had an opportunity to explain the bias, he chose instead to evade the questions and answer with platitudes, not subjects. but he is undoubtedly a skilled lawyer, his record reveals he's outside of the judicial mainstream. his decisions have closed the doors