in terms of congress, congress is a steady state. you just have to weep up with who is doing what in terms of committee staff and the individual members as they take on responsibilities. but that steady state and undiminished. >> great. now i want to turn to another area of global trade and investment. obviously sanctions makes us very complicated. you have certain partners who are not using u.s. origin goods, software, technology, or not trying to use u.s. dollar denominated transactions. and unless it is leading to trend of derisking. and wanted you all it make some commentary. bob, do you want to go first in that regard? >> yeah. and this is something we've had lots of discussions with staff. not just in the last year but before. at state, at treasury, and i think even hill staffers when we talked to them. if you look at the global marine insurance industry in part of the world where those transactions used to be in dollars, increasingly or to a material extent, we see other currencies biting into that. and not just for payments b

congress. congress passed the huge bailout, but to keep this from ever happening again, congress decided to put the small number of american banks that controlled more than $50 billion in assets. this is about 40 of the largest banks in the country, to put them on a watch list. those banks would be under tougher federal oversight and would be subject to some stronger rules to stop them from bringing down the economy again. a small bank in adams, massachusetts, would be regulated one way and a giant bank with offices around the country and around the globe would get a much closer look. that makes real sense. if this bill passes, washington will scrap those rules for 25 of those enormous banks. under this bill, a bank that controls up to a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets and has offices around the country and around the globe will follow the same rules and regulations and same oversight as a tiny, little bank in adams, massachusetts. now, that's great if you are a quarter of a trillion dollar bank, but not so great for anyone else. this bill isn't about restrictions on asset measures and

congress for his whole career. any dispute between congress and the president, he tended to take the side of congress. he loved lincoln and thought he was a wonderful president. that didn't apply to republican presidents. reluctant toam was vote for impeachment. thaddeus stevens was saying that johnson should be impeached months before bingham agreed to that. ultimately, bingham6 felt that he needed some reason to -- bingham felt that he needed some reason to impeached. i think that, with something like impeaching president obama, maybe the answer would be, that's not going to work, so why bother? mr. rosen: that sounds like that might well be the case. had a kind of sad second half after these extraordinary achievements that you described. bethen went off to and miss the japan follow-up of the supreme court's refusal to implement the 14th amendment. mr. magliocca: he's not renominated for another term in congress. at that point, people are tired of him in that district. congress,eaves president grant appointed him to be ambassador to japan. he had a wonderful time being ambassador, lived there with hi

congress actually acted? this has been a very chaotic fiscal year in terms of the budgetary process, the appropriations progress in congress. congress is supposed to come together in a bipartisan basis and actually pass funding bills before september 30th, before october 1st of every year. and that would be a year long funding bill that would fund you through the whole year. so one labor hhs appropriations bill that should govern for the year. but we are currently on the fifth short term funding bill of this funding cycle. so starting back in october, we essentially are kicking the can, lurching from funding bill to funding bill. we did have a brief shutdown just for the course of a sort of long weekend here in january, but largely what congress has done has been they funded education programs at the prior year levels, they have not or have not yet created school choice professionals that are in the president's budget. however, we're only funded now for another couple weeks. another few weeks. the funding expires on march 23rd. and so if congress is unable to come together again on a bipartisan funding solution and their appetite fo

congress to go about harassing men and women that's that's what you're saying stuart the spokeswoman for the set of majority leader mitch mcconnell has a hamster for you he was lying to congress it was deliberate his comments saying well this important issue is being discussed at no time was language from senate julep sen joe abrams' bill adopted to the legislation and or stripped. that i mean i don't know if. that's for other people to decide but that seems an awful lot like mansplaining to me to senator jill brown was she was kind of like saying they basically took the language of my there's no make the omnibus bill you're not going to vote it. honey you're just so it was never really there to you know but we haven't taken it off yet it's gaslight and you know it's literally that's gaslighting that's oh no you're crazy it wasn't there you're crazy you're the one who's always getting a little emotional the congressional harassment reform and the idea was that members of congress congress would personally pay for sexual harassment settlements when they're when they're found liable when they're found guilty so lawmakers can tap but one currently what's going on right now as we've seen is that lawmakers can tout taxpayer funds to settle with victims playing this game of like well is not really liable we may or may not be there but will settle anyway unless the victim opts for privacy under the access of minutes with and automatically be made public which i think is important if the victim of that harassment is ok with people knowing about it is ok with that it needs to come out we need to how much money was spent for these people to go around being scumbags and who was being settled with what do i read in the sons of like ok like you're somebody comes forward and says that this guy discriminated against me or this person social unrest was real and this person is an elected official yes we should know about this and i think it's absolutely rid don't kill this lea

congress after the southern states union had a similar political education. following his of relations with congress would be tested during the civil war. hecommander-in-chief, believed it was his primary constitutional duty to use armed forces to suppress the southern insurrection. still, what emerged was a partnership between lincoln and congress, including congress' role in financing the war, economic policies and the right to investigate wrongdoing in the military. wantedmbers of congress a larger hand in developing war policies. but lincoln successfully insisted, that the executive branch and the military commanders must manage the war. relevant congressional committees for example, thad deus'stevens, courtney to the nuts and bolts to run the government -- coordinated the nuts and bolts to run the government and provided the financial means for the war machine. lincoln dutifully signed these measures. he also approved economic legislation in which congress had taken the initiative. some of these measures had a long-term impact. the important pacific railway act, the homestead act, the land-grant college act, national banking acts, and the issues of treasury notes. that a mistake to believe radicals like stevens in the senatend sumner in the controlled the republican congress. the radicals, a vocal and shifting minority incr

congress for his whole career. so certainly in any dispute between congress and the president, he tended to take the side of congress. now although he loved lincoln and thought he was a wonderful president. so that really didn't begin until -- it didn't apply to republican presidents. basically. so i think bingham was reluctant to vote for impeachment. you know, he only did it -- thaddeus stevens was saying that johnson should be impeached months before bingham agreed to that. ultimately, bingham felt that he needed some reason to impeach. he thought the tenure of office act violation was the reason that could convince enough senators to vote for conviction. i think that with something like impeaching president obama, maybe the answer would be, well that's not going to work, , so why bother doing it? mr. rosen: that sounds like that might well be the case. bingham had a kind of sad second act or whatever after these extraordinary achievements that you describe, being at the center of the majors liberties. he then went off to be ambassador to japan and sort of missed the follow-up of the supreme court's refusal to im

article 1, section 8 of the constitution states in no uncertain terms that congress, congress shall have the power to declare war. congress shall have the power to declare war. the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to congress because congress is that body most accountable to the people. for far too long congress on the democratic and republican administrations has akd indicated its -- abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing war. the time is long overdue for congress to reassert its constitutional authority. if you think that a military intervention makes sense, then let us have that debate here on the floor of the senate and in the house and cast a vote. but that is not what we have been seeing for a number of years. and what senator lee and senator murphy and i are doing with privileged resolution s.j.5 4 is demanding that congress once again takes its constitutional responsibility for war and peace seriously. and i want to thank senators durbin, senator warren and senator booker for coming on board that resolution. and i hope this bipartisan resolution will gain more and more support in the coming

congress to go about harassing men and women that's that's what you're saying jon stewart the spokeswoman for the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has an answer for you but he was lying to congress it was deliberate his comments saying well this important issue is being discussed at no time was language from senate julep sen joe abrams' bill adopted to the legislation and or stripped. that i mean. i don't know if they were not the other people to decide but that seems an awful lot like mansplaining to me to senator jill abram was she was kind of like saying they basically took the language of my there's no make the omnibus bill you're not going to vote it. honey you're just so it was never really there to you know but we haven't taken it off yet it's gaslight and you know it's literally that's gaslighting that's oh no you're crazy it wasn't there you're crazy you're the one who's always getting a little emotional the congressional harassment reform idea was that members of congress congress were personally pay for sexual harassment settlements when they're when they're found liable when they're found guilty so lawmakers can tap but one currently what's going on right now as we've seen is that lawmakers can tout taxpayer funds to settle with victims playing this game of like well is not really liable we may or may not be there but will settle anyway unless the victim opts for privacy under the access or minutes with and automatically be made public which i think is important if the victim of that harassment is ok with people knowing about it it's ok with that it needs to come out we need to how much money was spent for these people to go around being scumbags and who was being settled with what they were really in the sons of like ok like you're somebody comes forward and says that this guy discriminated against me or this person social asked was real and this person is an elected official yes we should know about this and i think it's absolutely don't kill asli

congress moved to hold people in our white house -- myself included, in contempt. now it never came to that. and it was a bargaining chip, if you will. but, yes, congress has the ability to do that, to force the issue. they're not going to do it here. in this circumstance you are quite right. but one of the things that is abundantly clear is that mr. mueller is not going to roll over the which the congressill. the congress is not standing up for its constitutional prerogatives. that much is clear. but bob mueller is not in any way going to accept the idea that an individual, who is not the president, by the way, asserts executive privilege because he or she has been told by someone at the white house to do so. the executive privilege is the privilege of only person in this country, and that's the president. he has to invoke it, not any of his aides. >> so, john, tonight the "washington post" is reporting that robert mueller is investigating president trump's apparent effort to oust the attorney general jeff sessions last july. why does that interest mueller. >> well, again, it's not unlike the comey firing. it could raise the possibility of obstruction of justice. what was his intent when doing this? while he has the constitutional power to remove anybody serving at his pleasure in all of his -- be and all of his cabinet members do. if he does it to defeat a investigation by the special

congress -- congress has to be the want to say we will either spend less money or tax people. host: you mentioned supply and a man. let's talk about imports and exports. that was the subject of our first hour. the president plans to impose those tariffs on steel and aluminum sometime later this week. let's talk through the politics of that what that means for the folks in capitol hill. guest: there is a lot of reporting that the trump decision on the timing of this decision was designed to help the republicans in the western pennsylvania district where there are a number of in the heart of old western pennsylvania. a lot of union members are also in that district. they think that gives the momentum.s some i think there will be a lot of resistance from the president's own party on capitol hill. you of artie heard several senators -- you have already heard several senators not being a fan of the protectionist rhetoric and policy coming out of the white house. maybe a backlash as other industries get carrots thrown on them in the other direction. forward, how much support does he have within his own party in terms of shifting more protections? isn't anyre really support for the president's trade protectionism in the senate. this is probably the biggest fight behind the scenes, mostly behind the scenes the last x months, between senate republicans and the president as they send letter after letter and they sell -- and they say don't councilman after, don't impose these tariffs. the president has been strong on this issue since the 1990's when he first started talking about may running for president. you look at some of his speeches, some of them are on c-span actually, he talks about trade deals and how the united states gives getting taken advantage of. republicanst of like the idea of negotiating tougher or better but they worry that this is a blunderbuss approach when you should be using a scalpel. people like rob portman who was a trade representative for george bush wanted more targeted steel tariffs for particular kinds of steel. thatlso have this issue the biggest country that we import steal from his canada, a huge ally, only 2% come from china. there is support for congress to crackdown on china but this does not really do it. there will be pushed back but the president does not face the prospect of both houses passing a bill and overriding av to -- a veto. he has free reign here. a billhey could write specifically saying he cannot impose these tariffs? guest: yes, congress is in charge. they have deferred to the president and given him a lot of authority on trade and other issues. at any moment in time, who both parties linked hands and tried to roll them back, they could do that. some democrats are cheering this. they say it's about time we started to get tough on trade and they are applauding this. yesterday.ansion charles in millville, new jersey, line for independence, go ahead. talking about the gun control thing but if you are talking about the trade thing, i will give you my opinion. host: talk about whatever you want. the gun control, it's hard to get a gun in this state to begin within new jersey. even though it's harder to get a gun, we still

congress the congress is still. the vast majority of congressman still don't think that. russia is a part market can be a partner and mr hu pale who was a congressman for many years here in the stands what what the mood is in congress for that reason i don't think that the relationship between russia and america is going to improve anytime soon near dragger so rich in moscow thank you. brussels now let's get some reaction from the european union and indeed to nato go got massive joins us welcome again starts with a you watched survey action from them at this stage. no official reaction at this point but you can be sure that this will add to the uncertainty behind the scenes to the feeling that there is there anti european fuse holder within the white house are now step attentional the strengthening with a moderating boy someone who tones down a lot of the euro skeptic rhetoric coming from donald trump is now gone after just four hundred and five days someone who was here in brussels twice who sent a message to nato and to the e.u. that both institutions remain important that the u.s. still shares the same value at a time when donald trump was throwing around strong arguments questioning article five which is basica

congress. congress would have the ability to override the president with 2/3s vote like a normal veto. but it would provide a backstop against the excessive spending. right now all the incentives are to continue to spend a line-item veto that really gives the president the ability to make sure that our tax dollars are being spent wisely. >> congressman, my question is, does this somehow hurt congress'slity to have the kind of authority that they want, that they need? you basically answered that question by saying that if the president vetoes it, it would then get kicked back to congress. so there's another opportunity. yes? >> just liked any other bill. but i'd say, trish, when you're talking about the power of the purse, the real bite to the power of the purse and what the founders believed is the ability to withhold funds. if the executive branch is acting in a certain way, congress would not fund those i tens. in the line-item veto, the president cannot demand more spending with it. it only can be used to reduce spending. >> trish: we haven't we done this before? >> they actually passed a version in the 90s under newt gingrich with the contract with america. it got over 2/3s of both houses of congress and it was done statutorily and it was challenged in the court and the the supreme court overturned it. i think it was a wrong decision. what they did in the 90s was proper. neverth

aitken would present an entire bible and this was reviewed by the chaplains in congress and passed from congress to congress it self and reviewed. they gave robert aitken's permission to print this bible. this would be the first complete english bible ever printed in america, the only bible to receive congressional authorization to be printed. knowing that the crown held the rights to the english text, thert aitken included congressional authorization in each and every one of his bibles. u.s. united states citizen, knowing it was for bidden to own a bible not produced by the crown, you can now see that your government has allowed you to own this bible. not only did he include that in his text, but we also included the original congressional authorization, showing you that indeed. did one of the things i found amusing about this bible is that in the front page he tells you how to find him. it is three doors down above the coffee shop. apparently there was only one starbucks at the time in philadelphia. if you look at this particular authorization, you will see the name of charles thompson. to me he is one of

congress finally see what the vast majority of americans he, gun owners and non- gun owners alike but will their gun violence problems it's not going away unless congress musters up the courage to take it head-on or will congress continue to give the lip service of thought and prayers and do absolutely nothing. we have to ask because once again there was a massacre on american soil. once again it was in side a school and once again american children were gunned down. we keep living through a nightmare of gun violence that repeats itself in schools, movie theaters, churches, nightclubs, concerts and every single day on this street of thehe city's in every state around this country. sandy hook, aurora, charleston, san bernardino orlando, las vegas, sutherland springs in most recently parkland florida. mr. president, we can help stop this. we have the power to help stop this and the question is whether congress has a political will to do that. whether this institution will finally put families first, our children first and stand up to the gun manufacturers and the nra. i urge every member of congress to reflect on why they first iran for office. weer are here as public servants to serve the people to send us here

congress wrote rather than innovating and adopting its own new standard. by the way, the cloud act that has gotten some conversation this morning does have various factors that might be weighed. that is congress is decision if congress wants to do that if congress applies it under certain conditions. >> under this act, could you voluntarily disclose to the government or would that be a violation of 2702? >> it would not be a violation of 2702 of we voluntarily did something but it would be a violation of our obligations to our customers. >> if that is so, why can't the government just obtain -- question. another big its is a statute in which if was where the government used a warned, subpoena could not reach a lot of the emails. a subpoena would not reach emails that are in storage for less than 180 days. under a sixth circuit decision it could not reach them alone, that as individuals -- >> could not voluntarily disclose -- >> i'm sorry -- >> it seems odd you could voluntarily disclose, they could not ask for a subpoena? that does not quite mesh, does it? >> if we voluntarily disclosed, it would be a violation of our obligations to our customer and also by the way it would be a violation of european law. i want to

we parted ways on that it will go to congress for congress and then as a part of the if you call the strong. whether they accept or not litigation. most of the one hundred ten schoolgirls who were abducted in northeastern nigeria last month have been reunited with their families they were returned to their hometown of duchy by what appeared to be a convoy of boko haram fighters i'm sure is information minister says one hundred one girls were freed at least five girls reportedly died in custody and a handful remain missing from says former president nicolas sarkozy has been placed under formal investigation after being accused of receiving illegal campaign donations from the late libyan leader moammar gadhafi is alleged to received millions of dollars from gadhafi when he was running for office in two thousand and seven sacristy has denied any wrongdoing a russian air strike in syria's in the provinces killed at least twenty two people rescue workers say most of the victims are children who died while leaving a school in village further south in eastern guta a syrian rebel group has s

congress acted? this has been a chaotic fiscal year in terms of the budgetary process, appropriations progress in congress. what congress is supposed to do is come together in a bipartisan basis and pass funding bills before september 30, before october 1 of every year and that would be a year-long funding bill that would fund you for an entire year. is only one labor hhs appropriations bill that governs for the year. we are currently on our fifth short-term funding bill of this funding cycle. october, it is lurching from funding bill to or may notl, you may remember we did have a brief shut down a long weekend in january. congress has done has been funding education programs at the prior-year levels, they have not yet created the school choice proposals that are in the president's budget. however, we are only funded now for another couple of weeks. the funding expires on march 23. if congress is unable to come together again on a bipartisan funding solution in their appetite for the short-term funding solutions is diminishing , than we would potentially have another shutdown. that a, it seems likely shutdown has become

congress. congress has an obligation to enforce the constitution with respect to the executive branch. if the president wants to violate the constitution, he needs to be removed. and congress needs to get off its behind and investigate these emoluments and investigate this all i'm hearing is they don't want to deal with it. i think the judge has a critical role here in explaining what the rules are, then we're going to go about enforcing the rules. >> we will see as this moves on. >> we have a revolving door in the white house. today it is the va secretary, tomorrow, who knows. how can the trump administration govern in the midst of one shakeoff after another after another. and plant food. together, they produce three times the harvest to enjoy... and of course, to share. this soil is fresh from the forest and patiently aged to guarantee more of what matters... every time. three times the harvest. one powerful guarantee. miracle-gro. >>> trump firing another member of his cabinet late today. as the mueller investigation thickens and stormy daniels clouds gather i want to welcome dan rather. the author of what unites us reflections on patriotism. >> nobody in this business

congress? and it dependsan on the jewish community in america because i believe that you can find common ground while still standing your ground and the has been a hallmark of all i have done in congress and we have seen this in congress with support for israel, whether it sling, dome, and david the iran sanctions, or the memorandum of understanding with the $38 billion put into security. at the same time, things have become polarized and the way i would suggest, and your leaders know this better than anyone, trying to to everything in stopping people from injecting partisanship into this relationship and push back. if you are a republican, reach out. if you are a democrat, would reach out. getting involved in seizing on whether it is , these are reform issues that the jewish community has been uniquely active on and they are appealing to young people. what happen with the holocaust community, so may do not know that history. then, the last thing i would say about this is finding friends that you did not know before. travelinglot of time with john mccain. he says to say hello, by the way. with senator mccain and graham, we spend the last new year's eve and we were in the baltics and john mccain has always stood up he

congress. congress passed the huge bailout, but to keep this from ever happening again, congress decided to put the small number of american banks that controlled more than $50 billion in assets. this is about 40 of the largest banks in the country, to put them on a watch list. those banks would be under tougherrsight and would be subject to some stronger rules to stop them from bringing down the economy again. a small bank in adams, massachusetts, would be regulated one way and a giant bank with offices around the country and around the globe would get a much closer look. that makes real sense. if this bill passes, washington will scrap those rules for 25 of those enormous banks. under this bill, a bank that controls up to a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets and has offices around the country and around the globe will follow the same rules and regulations and same oversight as a tiny, little bank in adams, massachusetts. now, that's great if you are a quarter of a trillion dollar bank, but not so great for anyone else. this bill isn't about restrictions on asset measures and investments,

congress. that is usually the responsibility of the solicitor general. if congress passes a statute and a federal appeals court overturns that statute or says that it won't apply in the way it's supposed to have applied, the way congressd, then usually the solicitor general will defend that statute in the supreme court. we weren't given any explanation other than a brief they filed, which said this is not an appropriate vehicle for the supreme court to consider the situation. >> and many people may not know that you lost your first wife in 9/11 because she was on one of the planes. >> yes. >> and is that why this issue is so personal to you? >> well, i've represented in the past victims of terrorism. i think that everyone feels the same way. we have a brief that was filed in our support by the entire house of representatives. we have a brief by 23 senatorss, including ted cruz, elizabeth warren, charles grassley, all across the spectrum. everyone feels that this is a way to combat terrorism, by allowing victims of terrorism to sue for their damages in american courts. and of course, i think all of us sympathize with that. we're simply asking the supreme court to make sure that the statute that was passed by congress t

congress. congress appropriates dollars with very specific instructions on how to spend them. this is the president's latest effort to fund the border wall he promised repeatedly during the campaign that he said mexico would pay for. >>> investigators for special counsel robert mueller say they have uncovered ties between former trump deputy campaign chairman rick gates and someone with links to a russian intelligence service. according to court filings, that person lived in moscow and kiev and was in touch with gates in september and october of 2016. >> the revelation came in court filings ahead of the sentencing of alex van derzhan. the dutch lawyer who worked with gates pleaded guilty to lying to special counsel about interactions with gates and that unnamed person. >>> the fbi doubling the staff dealing with huge document demands from congressf criticism the bureau is slow walking its response. fbi director chris wray putting 54 people in two shifts on the job of reviewing thousands of documents subpoenaed by house republicans. they relate to fbi decisions republicans have criticized as showing political bias including the fbi probe of hillary clinton's private e-mail server, potential fbi abuses of foreign surveillance warrants, and the investigation that led to the firing of former deputy director andrew mccabe. a justice department source tells cnn attorney general jeff sessions has fumed at the pace of the fbi response and it's unacceptable. >>> it is official, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg will testify before congress over facebook's failure to protect user data. sources tell cnn he felt he had to after facing calls from the media, from the public and lawmakers. senate judiciary chair chuck grassley wants him at a hearing on april 10th. facebook also has a new legal headache. it's being sued for allegedly allowing housi

same time there was a congression congression congressional vote.ning somebody and that somebody looks like he's going to win. >> the president was in this part of pennsylvania over the weekend. did his presence in pennsylvania or even just his presence, period, is it an asset? is it a liability? >> i think it depends on the district. in this district his approval rating is equal to his disapproval rating. i don't think he changed very many votes. polling average had conor lamb up two percentage points. looks like he will win a little less than that. perfectly normal error. the president's approval rating nationwide is around 40%. he is a liability in many more districts than he is helpful in. >> so quickly you wrote when parties do well in special elections they usually do well in the mid terms and, of course, vice versa. looking for our political magical eight ball what does november look like? >> the only other year that looks like this year so far is 2006. if you remember in 2006 democrats won control of the house and flipped the senate as well.

congress. has congress touched this issue in any significant way and what might it be doing in the years ahead? guest: congress has definitely looked at the issue and different members have discussed it, but congress is not moving in any major way right now. it is working with the highway regulatory agencies and companies to figure out how to do this new technology. ithost: last call, jerry from et brunswick, new jersey. caller: good morning. i just turned it on, so i apologize in advance if this question has been asked before. there was a recent incident in san francisco in which a passenger in an autonomous and my was ticketed, question really relates to whether there has been any consensus in either the insurance industry or in law enforcement regarding the liability of people in an autonomous vehicle. thank you. guest: that is interesting. i am not familiar with the story of a passenger being ticketed. that seems odd to me. it kind of seems like ticketing a passenger in a taxi. if by passenger you mean driver that was the emergency backup driver, that kind of makes sense because essentially that driver is

congress shall have power to do there were. let me repeat article one section eight states it is congress that has the power to declare war. congress gave the power to authorize terry conflicts that gives the account to the people a not to the president or congress but that is the issue we are debating today.oo mr. president, with the democratic and republican administration has abdicated that constitutional rule to authorize war the time is long overdue. that is constitutional authority and that is what today is about and that is why i am and 14 cosponsors of this revolution, that is what we are doing with the senate .resolution 54. what we are planning is if congress wants to go to war in yemen or anything else, vote. venture constitutional sponsor ability. and then in the past democratic president. the president but what does that mean in the text but what the hostility mean? but we are not really engaged scribed war in yemen. we really are not engaged. so please tell that to the people of yemen's homes and lives by weapons march made in the usa dropped five planes to be killed by the u.s. military but then to have a saudi arabi

congress act. congress has to be pushed. the nice thing about what has taken place in independent redistricting or ending gerrymandering is that the pressure is coming from the bottom up. that will lead to great change. up until now, the decisions about how legislatures work on redistricting was always a top-down model. both parties would send their people to the states. they would draw the maps. they would determine what those maps would look like. when you had people who already have power, you say, now you are going to have to give it up, it is very difficult. i believe it will be the courts now that will say, determine, and then it will be from the states themselves. then i think congress will act. certain it will come right now from the congress. >> i think there are 16 states that have some type of activity around redistricting form -- reform. mike was saying that was happening in georgia to develop reform. we have a number of states with ballot initiatives. , aside from the maryland case and the wisconsin case, are there any other redistricting cases you think could make their way to the supreme court? two cases andse the north carolina cases, the court is going to have before it the opportunity and those three cases essentially exhaust the legal theories anybody has come up with yet, clearly smarter people than we are who may come up with other theory if those cases fail particularly in the north carolina case, that is the most thorough opinion written in the fields. it covers for constitutional grounds -- four constitutional grounds. reversed, thes supreme court will be saying, they cannot do anything about this. it's fair game. which means if you think the legisl

congress to talk about this issue. here's part after what he had to say. mark: so the short answer is i'm happy too if it's the right thing to do. facebook testifies in congress regularly on a number of topics. some high profile and some not. and our objective is always to pride congress this extremely important job to have the most information that they can. but we see a small slice of activity on facebook. but if congress gets to have access to the information across facebook and the intelligence community and everything so much what we try to do is send the person at facebook who will have the most knowledge about what congress is trying to learn. so if that's me, then i am happy to go. what i think we found so far, is people's whole job is focused on an area but at some point, i would imagine that there will be a topic where i am the sole authority on and will make sense for me to do it. >> although you are the brand of facebook. people want to hear from you. mark: that's why i'm doing this interview. i think the question in a congressional testimony is what us the goal? that's not a media opportunity, right? or at least it's not supposed to be. the goal there, i think, is to get congress all the information that they need to do their extremely important job and w

congress wrote and the job of this court is to interpret the statute congress wrote rather than innovating and adopting its own new standard. now by the way, the cloud act that -- s that thought in some conversation this morning does have various factors that might be weighed that's congress's decision if congress wants to do that. and it's a decision that applies in circumstance -- >> under this act -- could you voluntarily disclose this to the government or would that be a violation of 2702? >> it would not be a violation of 2702. if we voluntarily did something, but it would be a violation of our obligations to our customers. >> if that's so then why can't government obtain this by subpoena? >> so -- that is another big question, this is -- a statute in which a government and used a a warrant. a subpoena could not reach a lot of these e-mails because subpoena would not reach e-mails that are in storm warning for less than 180 days and statute and circuit decision couldn't reach them at all that is individuals private -- voluntarily disclose that they couldn't have a subpoena. >> seems odd to me that if you could voluntarily disclose but they couldn't ask for a subpoena that doesn't quite -- mesh does it? >> your honor, my point is, i recognize we have difficult statute h

yemen has not been authorized by congress as required by the constitution, article 1 section 8 of the constitution states congress shall have the power to declare war, congress, not the president, not the pentagon, not someone else in the executive branch of government but congress. in 2015, then president obama initiated military involvement in yemen. without authorization from congress, the current administration has continued obama's war. sen. sanders, sen. murphy, cosponsors and die, giving congress a chance to fix this error by debating and voting on our nation's continued involvement in this unauthorized, illegal war in yemen. if, as our opponents claim, this war is necessary, then surely they can defend that argument before this body and before the house of representatives and ultimately secure authorization from congress just as the constitution demands under article 1 section 8. it if on the other hand they cannot defend this war and they cannot persuade the majority of members of this body, majority of members of the house of representatives that this is a war that needs to be fought, then it needs to end. let's have an honest reckoning about this

congress for the most part. with the intent of reforming congress, as i talked to -- dozens of these members, and i asked what motivated you to run for congress in the first place. they did not site the need for -- reforming the seniority system or redistricting power among the sub committees or changing motion to recommit. that was not the reason. they were not aware of the earlier reform efforts for most part and jimmy roosevelt group or julia hanson select committee or dick bowling select committee or the extensive reform proposals of the democrat study group. they didn't know about that. that wasn't their motive for running their motive for running over and over i found as i talked to they will was to wednesday the war in vietnam that was why they came to washington. and within four months with, they passed a resolution in the caucus offered by bob carr that cut off fund for war in vietnam. and so by their standards they were quite a successful group. let's remember what that, why they felt so strongly it be that. they dime washington at a time when the -- public criticism, the public attitude towards government was extremely negative. th

congress. congress is incapable, incapable at this point of resolving anything the way a serious investigator with the fbi like bob mueller can do, and that's why he is there. >> certainly the house is. let's remember this investigation in the house intelligence committee has been partisan, has been broken from the start, ever since senator said in the last segment, the chairman went running with his hair on fire to the white house to tell them something they already knew which turned out to be very political, part of the reason he had to take a step back. this is a shame because as you said this is supposed to be the committee that does oversite to find out what went wrong, to fix it in the future. just the fact that republicans have decided to present the findings on their own without consultation is evidence of how broken it is. let's just be honest. the summary of what manu was told and what we have in fronts -- front of us, and is partisan. wouldn't go as far as you did, phil, but in a family friendly way, it is not in keeping with facts we have seen from the intelligence community and it is not in keeping with everything else we have seen, even from their sister investigation over in the senate, which is bipartisan so far. >> and it is pretty extraordinary, they didn't even inform and consult with the democratic minority in the house intelligence committee, let them know this was coming up. >> right. they had a dry run for this with the dossier memo controversy a few weeks ago. republicans on the house committee literally found there was no major penalty for pushing ahead without reaching consensus with their democratic counter parts on a committee that normally the intelligence committee is seen to be less partisan than other committees. wolf, i think that among other things i agree with everything everybody else said, this is a rush job, right? president trump has been in office 13, 14 months, special counsel mueller has only been on the jobless than a year, only appointed last may, and they're trying to gallup to conclusion where there's still a lot of questions. >> i would go further than russia, i say whitewash. the fact they made these conclusions, more importantly, made conclusions without being able to interview key players or forcing the issue through subpoena which they have the power to do on the republican side, they're not doing it. >> the russians are watching. putin is watching. how is he going to react to the republican majority report? >> he is going to react in a way he already has. you have an interaction with the president that turns the american people told by their intelligence community that the president intervened, he said i talked to them, i believe what he said, what do you do, the same people that attempted to murder a former russian spy in the uk. they say what's the down side to proceeding. one final point, the tragedy is not that the republicans and democrats differ on what happened in the last election about donald trump, the tragedy is you have two sides that have opportunity to say we have differing opinions whether the russians favored donald trump, but have a unified set of assessments on what we do going forward to protect ourselves. that's the tragedy here. >> over the months as we have been talking about this, there are lots of conversations about whether in fact there was collusion, collusion is not a crime, as evan perez pointed out before. this report says there was no coordination or conspiracy between the trump campaign and the russians which takes it a step further if you ask me. i think it is up to bob mueller to figure out the rest of that. this committee without doing other interviews, one part of the committee, without doing the interviews, without getting documents, without talking to key players who may or may not have been available to them without subpoena, maybe mueller didn't want to interview them, to make these sweeping sort of statements is stunning to me and beyond what they should do. >> gloria makes a good point. this is a political document. just the way it is. everybody should keep their eye on the bob mueller ball because that is a real investigation, real probe with real interviews and with power that republicans in the house had to some extent and chose not to use. >> we are just hearing from bob mueller's boss, deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein. we're going to share what we're hearing after a quick break. un, we're attracting the world's best talent to central new york. and turning the airport into a first-class transportation hub. all while growing urban areas into vibrant places to live and work. across new york state, we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov. to grow your business with us in new york state, fthere's flonase sensimist.tchy and watery near pollen. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually,duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncans wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to time to bask... in low prices! find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. refreshing, isn't it?. tripadvisor. >>> we are back with breaking news. house intelligence committee, republican majority members of the committee concluding there was no collusion between the trump campaign and the russians, concluding the russians, repeat, did not try to help donald trump win the election going against the u.s. intelligence community's assessment. rod rosenstein that oversees robert mueller's investigation said this awhile ago. he said special counsel robert mueller is not an unguided missile. i don't believe there's any justification at this point for terminating the special counsel. should there be any concern right now, phil mud, that because of this house intelligence committee conclusion there will be an effort to get rid of mueller? >> absolutely. look what happened in four to eight weeks. had a lot of attacks on mueller before he came out with incredibly compelling indictments on 13 russians. when you read the report, it was as much indictment as intelligence report about the activity of 13 russians and other russian entities. you saw quiet about mueller in the aftermath of the indictments. i believe for the people that don't like mueller, including the president, within the next hours, you're going to see a tweet storm, maybe from the president himself that uses this as evidence to say not only is this all a hoax but the man who is responsible for the investigation, robert mueller, needs to go. i think this will reignite those that want to take out mueller after they were undercut in the wake of russian indictments. >> let me play for you, deputy white house press secretary yesterday speaking about this. listen to this. >> there's been zero evidence after a year of investigation we've seen of actual collusion between the russian government and the trump campaign. the president who would be aware of any types of efforts has been pretty clear, understands and knows there's no collusion. >> go ahead and react to that. clearly they're going to use the republican majority report as evidence, it's over, let's move on. >> right. the president's lawyers up until this moment, i don't know if they're going to continue, have been very successful in getting the president not to tweet about bob mueller because they understand it is counterproductive. so he hasn't done that. now he's clearly going to tweet about what we expect, he'll tweet about the house committee and what they said and this proves there's no collusion, mueller ought to shut down his investigation. but might feel embolden then. might feel like i don't need to take any action against mueller because i'm going to have a congressional committee, maybe another one, who knows, on my side in all this. so as far as the pr war, as far as facing any kind of punishment in congresser else, he's going to feel like he has the wind in his back now. >> the house intelligence committee republican majority, they're going to make the point now that whatever context there were between trump campaign officials and russians were either inadvertent or ill advised, low level. >> that's what they say here. we all will be interested to see what the meat is attached to the bones that we have now once they actually brief the democrats, number one, then give the public the full report. you know what, collusion has always been something that we don't know the answer to truthfully. there's evidence of contact, no question, but taking that from there to collusion is a whole different story. the thing to me that just seems totally not plausible is the notion that in the top lines that they put out, house republicans, that there was no thumb on the scale. that russia didn't try to flip the election for donald trump. even based on what we know vis-a-vis the box on facebook, we know wh

congress will try this train. i think it would be driven by the states and the courts. i think at some point in the future as it builds momentum from the states, then the congress will be, but it's hard enough even when we have consensus to see congress act. congress has to be pushed. the nice thing about what has taken place on independent redistricting is that, or ending gerrymandering, is that the pressure is coming from the bottom up. that will lead to great change. up until now the decisions about how legislatures would work on redistricting was always a top-down model. both parties would send their people to the states. they would draw the maps. they would determine what those maps would look like. so when you have people who already have power to say now you have to give it up, it's a very difficult step. so i believe it will be the courts now that will determine, and then there would be from the states themselves. and then i think congress will act but i'm not optimistic that it will come right now from the congress. >> thank you. >> we have to keep the focus on. >> i do think there's about 16 states that have some type of activity around redistricting reform, whether its publication events that are think micah was saying hap

congress, and signs authorisation for robert to present the bible. he, himself, would produce the first english bible translated from the septusion or the greek. thompson theharles first secretary of the continental congress, but was signatory showing john hancock's signature on the independence. he designed the great seal, and would become the first united states citizen to translate a america.n he was an interesting fellow. so as we continue our journey, you are looking at of our screens. debates ke on various history. >> there was, among the 12 apotles. one trader, traded with aities. should be no wonder that there many thousands, should be judizists that betray of ir country for pieces silver. >> saint peter and saint paul, when they speak of the civil government and what we owe to it. it mutts christians in mind was the il governments order and institution of god itself. legal government. we disobey god. one we were the just at deals with the concept of submission or betrayal. big topic during that time when america was sort of, paving their own course. which way are we, are we to the rule or betrayers of it. there was a lot of - lot of going on. we have taken the topics on here. many nly in film, bu

congress. congress is considering regulating social media giants like facebook, the house is poised to vote on a $1.3 trillion spending deal today. you will hear today the omnibus deal. 2,232 page spending package that you can almost guarantee almost none of your lawmakers will have read in its entirety. can they avoid another shutdown tomorrow night? we'll see. >> cnn is learning about four topics robert mueller wants to ask the president about. it comes as president trump defends his call to vladimir putin. >>> and police finding a 25-minute videoc confession on his cell phone. a lot to cover this morning. live in san francisco with an exclusive interview with mark zuckerberg. lori, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. i think for a while we are all wondering where is mark zuckerberg. i came to his office to talk about what has been a rough year and incredibly rough couple of days for the company. you know what, guys, he sat down with me and he started out by saying what a lot of people wanted to hear him say, which was i'm sorry. take a listen. i'm going to start with just a basic question, mark. what happened? what went wrong? >> so this was a major breach of trust. and i'm really sorry that this happened. we have a basic responsibility to protect people's data. and if we can't do that, then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people. so our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn't happen again. >> facebook asked is us to share our data, to share our lives on this platform and wanted us to be transparent. and people don't feel they have received that same amount of transparency. they wonder what's happened to their data, can they trust facebook. >> one of the most important things we need to do here is make sure we tell everyone whose data was affected. and we're going to do that. we're going to build a tool where anyone can go and see if their data was part of this. >> the 50 million people that were impacted, they will be able to tell if they were impact bid this. >> we are going to be conservative on that. we may not have all the data in the system today. so anybody who might have had data affected we're going to tell. going forward, when we identify apps that are similarly doing sketchy things, we're going to make sure we tell people too. that is definitely something looking back on this i regret we didn't do at the time. and i think we got that wrong. we're committed to getting that right going forward. >> i want to ask about that. when this came to light, and you guys knew this a long time ago, that this data was out there. don't you think users have the right to know their data is being used for different purposes? >> so -- yes. let me tell you what actions we took. in 2015, journalists from the guardian told us that they had seen or had some evidence that data that this aleksandr kogan who built this personality app had sold that to cambridge analytica and a few other firms. that's against the policy. you can't share data in a way that people don't know or don't consent is to. we immediately banned kogan's app. further, we made it so kogan and cambridge analytica, we asked for formal certification that they had none of the data from anyone in the facebook community, that they deleted it if they had it and they weren't using it. and they all provided that certification. so as far as we understood around the time of that episode, there was no data out there. >> so why didn't facebook follow up? you say you certified it. why wasn't there more follow-up? why does it take a big media report to get that proactive approach? >> i don't know about you, but i'm used to when people legally certify that they are going to do something, that they do it. but i think this was clearly a mistake in retrospect. >> was it putting too much trust in the developers? >> it did. that's why we need to make sure we don't make that mistake ever again. >> knowing what you know now, do you believe facebook impacted the results of the 2016 election? >> oh, that is hard. i think it is really hard for me to have a full assessment is of that. the reality is that -- well, there were so many different forces at play. the organic posting that people did, the vote campaigns that we did. the pages that both candidates ran, the advertising they did. i'm sure that all of that activity had some impact. it's hard for me to assess how much that stacked up compared to all the campaign events and all the advertising on facebook and all the other efforts. and i think it's also hard to fully assess that. the organic activity, which we are quite proud of. >> and the bad actors. >> and also the bad stuff. i think it's hard to fully assess. if you told me in 2004 when i was getting started with facebook that a big part of my responsibility today would be to help protect the integrity of elections against interference by other governments, you know, i wouldn't have really pwhraoefld that that was going to be something that i would have to work on 14 years later. that that was going to be something that i would have to work on 14 years later. >> i'm going to challenge you. do you believe you have done a good enough job yet? >> i think we will see. it's clear in 2016 we were not on top of a number of issues we should have been, whether it's russian interference or fake news. but what we have seen since then, a number of months later there was a french election. there we deployed some ai tools that did a better better job of identifying russian bots. >> i can hear commitment. do you think they are meddling right now with the u.s. midterm elections? >> i'm sure someone's trying. and i'm sure there is v2, version 2 of whatever the effort was in 2016. i'm sure they are working on that and there will be new tactics we need to make sure we observe and get in front of. >> speaking of getting in front of, do you know what they are? >> yes. and i think we have some sense of different things that we need to get in front of. >> you hear him talking quite a bit about this. now, facebook right now is under a tremendous amount of pressure financially and legally with lawmakers around the world asking mark zuckerberg to show up, to testify. i asked about this. i said there are for you to testify. will you show up? listen to what he said? >> the short answer is i'm happy to if it's the right thing to do. facebook testifies in congress regularly, some high profile and some not. we will send is a person to facebook who will have the most knowledge about what congress is trying to learn. if that's me, then i am happy to go. >> you know, i followed up and said i think people want it to be you. you are the brand name of facebook. mark zuckerberg is facebook, facebook is mark zuckerberg. that's why so many people wanted to hear from him in this moment of crisis. off times when there is a moment of crisis in the tech world, maybe it is not the ceo that always comes forward. but the difference here is that mark zucker board, sheryl sandberg are brand news. this is so incredibly personal to us. we have seen so much happen in the last year that i think people really want the leaders to step up, show up and give us a little transparency, guys. >> you would flip the reality and say point me an example when you had a major corporation like facebook where it was called to the carpet and you didn't see the face and the head of th

congress as required by the constitution. article one section eight of the constitution states that congress shall have the power to declare war. congress, not the president, not the pen again, not someone else within the executive branch of government but congress. yet, in 2015 then president obama start initiated the military environment in yemen and did so without authorization from congress. the current administration has continued obama's war. senator sanders, senator murphy and our cosponsors and i are now giving congress a chance to fix this error by debating and voting on our nation's continued involvement in this unauthorized illegal war in yemen. if, as our opponents claim, this war is necessary then surely they can defend that argument for this body and for the house of representatives and authorization from congress just as the constitution demands under article one s section eight butf on the other hand they cannot defend this war and they cannot persuade a majority of members of his body and members of the representatives that this is a war that needs to be thought that it needs to end. let's have an honest reckoning about

congress. congress has an obligation to enforce the constitution with respect to the executive branch. if the president wants to violate the constitution, he needs to be removed. and congresss behind and investigate these emoluments throughout the trump business empire and all i'm hearing from members of congress is they don't want to deal with it or construe the emoluments clause the way the justice department does which is exceedingly wrong in the connect interpretation of the constitution. the judge has a critical role here in explaining what the rules are, then we're going to go about enforcing the rules. >> we will see as this moves on. thank you. that's got to be the last word. >>> when we come back, the ever revolving door in the white house. today it is the v.a. secretary, tomorrow, who knows. how can the trump administration govern in the midst of one staff shake enough after another after another? dan rather is here to discuss that. wemost familiar companies,'s but we make more than our name suggests. we're an organic tea company. a premium juice company. a coconut water company. we've got drinks for long days. for birthdays. for turning over new leaves. and we m

congress. congress has not only the authority, but the obligation to declare war. and certainly does not fit under the authorization for the use of liryt s paed after 9/11 to attack those in theted -- involved 9/11 attack were associated forces. so it was a very good argument. decrat defected and voted for this and that so many -- all most all of the republicans have shown themselves to be the war party and to not want to take on a constitutional dlare war or not to declare war to allow president trump to continue with this war in yemen. so i think we should go back and look at all of those who voted in favor of continuing this war to tell them they have the blood of yemeni people on their hands. and when we see those amateur graphs that president trump held up to talk about all of the weapons sales and showed the states in which there were jobs being created by those weapons sales, showed them in red, think of them as the blood of the yemeni people. that it is their gifts and their d in their famineating jobs -- that is creating jobs. and ask yourself of the morality not just of president trump, but this country and congresshat will be delighted by the creation of jobs on the backs of the people of yemen are suffering the largest catastrophe in the united states. what does this say about our country? what does it tell the rest of the world about the morals of the u.s.? amy: and the crorinc s arabia, mom and bin salman, even before he was crown prince and take it over this power after arresting, what, hundreds of people in saudi arabia, number of members of the saudi royal family, right after jared kushner met with him in saudi arabia, he was in charge of this war even before he was crown prince. >> that is right. this is his war. that is right when anyone talks about him as a reformer, no, he is not a reformer. he is a war criminal. -- shakedown down that hpresided over in saudi arabia is one of the most bizarre things, taking over 200 of the elites of saudi arabia and regain them into the skilled in prison in the ritz hotel and then demanding they turn over a lot of their assets to him under his control

congress do? david: that's a good question. for years congress delegated a lot of trade authority to the president because typically presidents, democrats and republicans were more free trade than the typical congressman. in both parties you had one protectionist members. i think congress is stepping back and learned a lesson. we should not give away our power that way. they could try to repeal it. i don't think they would get the votes for that. they could hold up the extension of trade authority because that , has to be renewed in a few months, and negotiate with the president using that tool to pull back the tariffs. the majority of republicans in the house, and i think you would find the same in the senate do not think this is good policy. they want the president to succeed, but they think this was a bad mistake. i have said in a couple of articles, i think he was badly served by his protectionist clique. it told only half the story. they talk about disparity in manufacturing, but they conveniently leave out all the services and capital investment in america is doing quite well. if you tell somebody only half the story, it is difficult for them to make a good decision. steven: it appears they are on the ascendancy in the white house. how much does that concern you?

congress needs to fix this coverage provision. they did not shut down congress's authority to address the problems. they struck down congress's authority for evidence. what happens is this powerful says you can change loss faster than congress construct them down is taken away. us whohours, those of said things were getting better seven or eight years ago, either something changed or the confederates are coming out of the attic because now all of a sudden every voter id law and the south -- states are looking at doing things with regis assuring -- redistricting. now the white vote in the south is prominently -- predominately republican. all the steps taken were to make voting more difficult to read if you were to look at the texas voter id law, it makes it difficult to register to vote based on the variety of different forms you need to have available. best expert testimony from litigation trade a alabama, alabama shuts down whole bunch of motor tags agencies mainly in black counties because it indicates people to register to vote -- ondeed -- impedes people to registered to vote. you see small efforts to push back coming out

congress. congress has failed to act on this for 20 years. and further, what we are finding is there are more and more efforts in communities across the country because of inaction, where elected officials are breaking up the partnerships that we have developed with our state, local, and federal partners to maximize our ability, to share resources and intelligence so that pea can get the bad guys off the street n this case get them out of the country when warranted. so that our citizens can be safe. >> democrats say, and even some republicans in border states, say that a wall in and of itself is a tremendous waste of money, there's a lot of things you want to do. that physical barrier, isn't perbly effective. terribly effective. >> it's not true, i have been down to the border three times, also to the borders of israel. i have seen what the israelis have done. combination of you do need barriers at certain points, you need cyber security at certain places, seismic sensors, observation posts. there's a whole combination of things. certainly along the border there, the terrain doesn't allow for a wall at every place. but the walls are important and they are effective. we do need them and we have needed them for a long time. >> what do you think about the president's idea of trying to get the financing secured through the pen to gone? >> well -- pentagon? >> one thing about this president i'm proud of and happy to support is the fact that he's looking for whatever way he can to take care of the needs of the people, the things that he knows are important to america and to our safety. and he'll look for any creative way he can do it. as long as it's within the confines of the law, god bless him. we have waited 20 years. any of us, if we were in a private business and our boss told us we had to complete four or five projects and took us 20 years, we'd probably be fired after the first three years. congress plays politics with this while the president is trying to really do something that's going to make a difference. and that's why the sheriffs are right behind him. and will continue to be. >> you mention the politics of it. and it does seem like that that is exactly what has gotten in the way, people in the past that were for funding border security now that it's call a wall or wall system don't want anything to do with it, don't want their name attached to it. how do you get it back to the place where it's not just about politics, it seems like that's getting in the way of getting it done. >> well, you do what's going on right now, which is the cher efs of this country are mobilizing, you're seeing citizens mobilizing, you're seeing county commissioners in california pushing back. this country, i think, is starting to rise up. they have had enough with the inaction in congress. they want something done. we pay people to go down there, represent our interests, and do something. all we

congress to congress itself and reviewed. they gave robert lincoln's -- permission -- this would be the first bible printed in america. they held the rights to the thereforext area where you as a united states citizen at a time knowing that it's for didn't own a bible not produced by the crowd -- by the crown, your governance has allowed you to earn this particular bible. not only did he include that in his text, we have concluded the original authorization, showing that congress did indeed -- included in his text. one thing i find amusing about very frontin the page, he tells you how to find him. it is three doors down above the coffee shop and apparently there was on a one starbucks at the time in philadelphia. i find that amusing. if you find a copy shop you will be able to find the print shop of robert aikins. you will see the name of charles thompson. he's a very first secretary of the continental congress. he authorization for robert aikins to print the bible. so he himself would produce the first english bible translated in america from the greeks. this would make charles thompson not only the first secretary of the continental congress, but he was also the signatory that show the authorization of john hancock signature on the declaration of independence. and then he would become the very first united states citizen to translate a bible in america. a pretty interesting fellow he was. journey,continue our we look at several of our screens. these on -- th