the raskin doctrine.askin doctrine is based on nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard of what you have seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech, while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers case. elected officials, and we reviewed this in—depth under supreme court precedent would in bond, and by the way, bond did not earn his draft card, he actually still had had, it was part of his defence. but in bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections. and i remind you why because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion. because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that should n

the immigration legal doctrine is talking about was the plenary power doctrine. this is a doctrine of immigration law that holds that congress has the power and the authority to pass laws to exclude and support. and that authority is derived under the nation's sovereignty and it's inherent right to self preservation. the executive is charged with enforcing those laws and the judiciary should defer to congress as well as to the executive and their decisions upon whom due to deport or exclude. under this doctor and there is extreme judicial deference to executive and the legislative branches when it comes to immigration issues. we still see this today. what i found is that although people argued that ideological restrictions were a form of censorship and violated the first amendment, and that first amendment law should apply. that because of this interpretation of these restrictions as immigration law, the plenary power applied. thus insulated these restrictions from judicial review. this is something that that plenary power doctrine established in the late 19th ce

this year's doctrine of psychological torture that the developed through research in the death of the 19 fifties and was codified in the khobar counter-intelligence inter-dimensional manual. as to basic techniques on which all the rest of the procedures to run oneness sensory deprivation and the other is self-inflicted pain. the cia trained allied agencies in the techniques so in effect. knowing about dissemination about if used send these techniques to other armies could you take an ordinary individual like a draftee or recruit and make a person become an affective in terror.

david: another doctrine was named for you, the pottery barn doctrine. this came about when you became secretary of state. you became secretary of state under george w. bush. he wanted to invade iraq. you perley told him that if you go in there and you break it -- you apparently told him that if you go in there and you break it, you bought it, like the pottery barn. secretary powell: it was another reporter, another journalist got me in that. i never said that. one of your colleagues in the press did say that. and it made news. pottery barn. what a great line. so it stuck with me. so --the theory is right. the line is not something i made up. i thought, i will make money on this one. so i accepted it --not in any military manual. you will not find it, except among the troops. they still like it. they say did you come up with this theory out of nowhere. i said, no. if you look carefully, you will see it goes back to china's imperialism. it essentially says if you go to war make sure you have tried every alternative to satisfy the objective without going t

the impact of birth first of so called discovery of our country and how that translated into the doctrine of discovery a legal doctrine that continues to inform our status today elevating the federal government as it's understood by by legal scholars and court justices to a standard a level of legal title. that is superior. to that of the indigenous people our rights being reduced because of our so called having been discovered by europeans you go from the the discovery doctrine to the disease episode and then following that you have the diplomacy that then unfurled and the negotiation of many hundreds of of treaties that were formed during during the period of time. and so it was just a mass of activity in that and and affairs going on and it was all lubricated by the attitudes and the values that europeans brought with them and indigenous people's equipped with their own attitudes and values trying to cope with the dramatic changes that they were immediately subject to by all the things that were unleashed once colonialism unfurl and began to spread across across the continent. so there

this doctrine of psychological torture that the developed. through research on the death of the 19 fifties and was codified in the bark on intelligence and turkish and manual. as to basic techniques on which all the rest of the procedures to run oneness sensory deprivation and the other is self-inflicted pain. the cia trained allied agencies in the techniques so in effect you know knowing about dissemination about diffuse send these techniques to other armies could you take an ordinary individual like a draft or recruit and make a person become an effective in target.

the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers case elected officials and we reviewed this in depth yesterday under supreme court precedent would and by and by the way bond didn't burn his draft party actually still had it it was part of his defense. but in bond and in would the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech the highest protections and i remind you why because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go and that shouldn't be squelched by any political party on either side of the aisle no matter who's the more jordi party at the time why would the house managers make up their own legal standard of tell you why because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states supreme court that has existed force for more than half a century. they are you mr trump as an elected official has no 1st amendment rights it's the complete opposite of the law we've shown

>>caller: i want to talk about the doctrine of free speech exemplified by shouting fire in a crowded theater. what is the culpability of a person who would intentionally seek out someone that they knew suggested were was badly educated or emotionally unstable and sat next to them in a crowded theater and say do you smell smoke? wouldn't a fire be terrible? i think i see a lot of the suggestion taking place in some instances. >> you have done what 99 percent of people do when they think they are paraphrasing that line from justice holmes but you left out a very crucial word which i think answers your question. he said freedom of speech does not extend to falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic. if the theater really is on fefire we want them to shout that because it is life-saving but if it is not and endangers people by falsely telling them it is in creating a panic , then naturally does satisfy the notion of a clear and present danger. that would justify the speech. >> that example of falsely shouting fire is an example that word satisfy the brandenburg standard he on -

this doctrine of psychological torture that developed. through research on the death of the 19 fifties and was codified in the bar counter intelligence and target and manual. it has 2 basic techniques on which all the rest of the procedure is to run oneness sensory deprivation and the other is self inflicted pain. the cia trained allied agencies in the techniques so in effect you know knowing about dissemination about diffused send these techniques to other armies could you take an ordinary individual drafted or recruit and make a person become an affective interrogator. and it seems that milgram experiment was likely part of this project. but i learned of incidents such as the destruction of millions of men women and children perpetrated by the nazis in world war 2 how is it possible i ask myself that ordinary people will courteous and decent in everyday life can act callously in you mainly without any limitations of conscience. under what conditions would a person obey authority who commanded actions and went against conscience these ar

and in another case he-- he started, he and justice brandeis started developing a much richer doctrine of free speech protection, but for many years in dissent not in the majorityments all of these cases, of course,s are tests of the first amendment and we're going to pause for a moment and actually revisit the first amendment to the constitution, it case congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peacebly to assemble and to for the government of grievances. and the founders, why they were drafting the first amendment in the bill of rights? >> i think they, the founders considered the right to speech as fundamental to the american system of democracy, the ability of people to debate matters of interest and to become informed for their ability to exercise their political power as well. and recognized the importance of letting truth hopefully bubble up from wide open debate. but it's interesting that in some of these-- in this case of the schenk c

you're on the air. >> i wanted to talk about the doctrine of free speech exemplified by shouting fire in a crowded theater. what is the culpability of a person who would intentionally seek out someone that they knew to be suggestible? someone very badly educated or emotionally unstable, and sat next to them in a crowded theater and goes, sniff sniff, do you smell smoke? wouldn't a fire be terrible? i see a lot of this suggestion taking place in some instances. >> bertie, you have done what 99% of people do when they think they are paraphrasing that famous line from justice holmes, but you left out a very crucial word. which i think answers your question in large measure. he said that freedom of speech does not extend to falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. if the theater really is on fire, we want people to shout fire, because it would be lifesaving. but if in fact the theater is not on fire, and it endangers people by falsely telling them it is, and creating a panic, then that truly does satisfy this notion of a clear and present danger that would justify suppressi

this doctrine of psychological torture that the. through research in the deck of the 1950 s. and was codified in the bar counter intelligence and target and then all. it has 2 basic techniques some which all the rest of the procedures to run one is sensory depravation and the other is self and foot the pain. the c.i. a trained allied agencies in the techniques so in effect you know knowing about dissemination about if you just send these techniques to other armies could you take an ordinary individual drafted or recruit and make that person become an affective interrogator. and it seems that milgram experiment was likely part of his project. when i learned of incidents such as the destruction of millions of men women and children perpetrated by the nazis in world war 2 i was a possible ask myself that ordinary people will courteous and decent in every day life can act slowly and you mainly without any limitations of conscience. under what conditions would a person obey authority who commanded actions that went against conscience these are exactly the questions that i want to

this doctrine of psychological torture that the. through research and the death of the 19 fifties and was codified in the khobar counter-intelligence interrogation manual. has 2 basic techniques on which all the rest of the procedures to run one is sensory deprivation and the other is self inflicted pain. the cia trained allied agencies in the techniques so in effect you know knowing about dissemination about if you just send these techniques to other armies could you take an ordinary individual like a drafting or recruit and make a person become an affective interrogator. and it seems that milgram experiment was likely part of this project. but i learned of incidents such as the destruction of millions of men women and children for betrayed by the nazis in world war 2 i was a possible ask myself that ordinary people will courteous and decent in everyday life can actually sleep in you mainly without any limitations of conscience. under what conditions would a person obey authority who commanded actions that went against conscience t

it's going to be called the powell doctrine. and i said well in a nutshell here's what it is. make sure you look at the politics of it. make sure that you know what you are getting into and if you cannot find a diplomatic way to get out of it and have to go to war then you go with overwhelming force. i don't use the term overwhelming i just say decisive meaning you will prevail. we did it in panel law and several other places and then desert storm came along and that is whate we did. >> eventually you've retired from the military and publish a book on your life but it was so popular people said the author of this book, maybe he should run for president himself and why did you not run for president in 1996? >> because i'm not a politician. i wasn't meant to be a politician. when i faced a military problem i always had to look at both sides and not just it's got to be this way. i always had to study both and i spent over 35 years at that point just being a soldier so i gave it serious thought. i put my feet on the floor, shook my head and said this is not you. so i went downstai

that's a lot of the john quincy adams doctrine. once you're in a state of war, we can emancipate slaves we wouldn't be able to during peace time. lincoln is the speech in 1859 in which he says you leave the union. if you leave because the report is elected president, we are under no war, no longer under allegation to return and repeat that in his inaugural address and begins to adopt that. it mainstream antislavery it was john quincy adams was one of the earliest, it could be done for time but couldn't be done in peace time slavery. >> that was a long-winded answer but. >> popular in massachusetts. >> greatest ex-president we've ever had. [laughter] peter, struck by your statement that after december 1862, lincoln never mentioned colonialism again. i wonder if you could expand upon this. >> i thought it was uncontroversial, the last public statement he makes comes in his december 1816 -- 1862 annual address. it's a very interesting statement because it's framed as an attack on racist justifications for compensation and an indicatio

they could not have right wing radio hosts when the fairness doctrine was in place.ave voice to a lot of reagan like ideas, the shrill antigovernment rhetoric. ross: some pictures to show you quickly. donald trump's first atlantic city casino has been demolished. in its heyday, it dominated the new jersey skyline. it hosted boxing and wrestling matches, concerts, you name it. here it is today. as you can see, it only took a few seconds to come down. it took three thousand pieces of dynamiteo implode the building. it was just days after donald trump was acquitted in his second impeachment trial, so of course his critics have seen it as a symbolic moment, including hillary clinton, who tweeted a waving hand them a. that it -- emoji. that is it for this edition of outside source. i will see you tomorrow. narrator: funding for presentation of this program is provided by.. the freeman foundation. by judy and peter blum-kovler foundation. pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. and by contributions to this pbs station from viewers like you, thank you. ♪ ♪ man: yo

what you think about the doctrine? this is the proclamation that the occupied territories leadership says it is forever part of russia. i will ask you to address that, but i would also appreciate your sense of significance in terms of the war of the closing of the -- [indiscernible] russian forum. hanna: even the ukrainian media covered it briefly. the doctrine as well was mostly laughable. and he linguist will explain exactly when and where this territory was part of ukraine -- any linguist will explain exactly when and where this territory was part of ukraine. that is local manipulation that creates images to support the interests in russian society and we should not forget about that didn't is very important -- putin is very important to the russian federation. both to explain why he is in the the area but also to detract from our issue. that is why we did not care about -- [indiscernible] legally, for ukrainian legal entities, is not as great for the foreigners. [indiscernible] politically it was definitely an over

was in play. >> the fairness doctrine is what prevails in one form or another in most other countrieseans that if you do ten minutes with somebody on the right you gotta do to be on the left. my job is to get an audience. you don't get an audience with amateurs. you don't get an audience with people who have a single issue who just want to get on their unborn people. i've got this guy come in, i have too. i have to have in there for an hour. i cannot really introduction. i can talk to them but i can't debate him because he got it is time. it was the most boring radio show i have ever done. but we had to do it in order to get the license approvals tonight when ronald reagan bravely decided to get rid of the fairness doctrine not the new competitive playing field opportunity is what gave russia's opening. >> i think people didn't know what to make of him. they thought is this guy talkshow host, is he a political commentator, is he an inner cane or, all of the above. he has found traditional conservative views in a very untraditional. >> there is nobody taught me what to say on the radio

and went to review the doctrine of that book. but i want to present these specifically with their relevance to the here and now. because we are facing as we noted no sometimes critical challenges. that's a service that i can provide in my capacity as an smith scholar. it is to try to simply open up some of the ways smith himself can give us some guidance on these friends. so organizing following, briefly going through each of these four, france, sympathy impartial spectator ship and virtue in the morality of the market of society . did you try to lay out what interested b smith central doctrine . and how we speak to our moment. so with that, let me begin with smith. he's quite simply, lynch then of cms in the story begins the book and dedicates the first of its seven parts. he uses part one to define sympathy and he defines it as something as my contemporary were departed not smith of course but he defines it is like a hardwired sentiment were all inclined to feel . specifically defines somebody feels to some degree, a fellow fee

that required to all the 3 major stations reported the same news as soon as the fairness doctrine went out and we had talk radio and opinion and fox news and rush limbaugh and all the rest of it so what i said to my colleague was the psychosis isn't in the person who had a belief the psychosis is in the culture the doctor caution that i think i agree with the a diagnosis completely having studied and working as they it's as well as in many other countries but you know ultimately and the end of the day you will have to ask yourself a question why do you have such a major split i mean. you know the support of supporters and opponents of the bill is how many argue about how many people voted for him and how many people voted against him but ultimately your country is split right in the middle and it's right you don't get to such point in 4 years definitely not and in fact if you are looking at the polarization trans and the united states you know they began well back in the sixty's they accelerated with a collapse of the soviet union but. they were exacerbated in recent years so let me po

i am talking obviously about the carter doctrine. that was of 1980 which was designed to stop potentially a soviet bid to dominate the region and expanded by president reagan the following year to fluÑ;im internal regime, specifically iran. they just come through revolution. with those comments in mind, i will leap one question in your mind. bearing all i've said, doesn't it make sense for the united states to wind up its commitments in the gulf when the overall context that surrounds u.s. cage meant is not so different as it was at the end of the second world war? u.s. allies and partners continue to rely on the gulf and we still control access to that by mediating supplies that travel overseas and controlling access to markets. thank you. >> thank you, everyone. and we have nathan from race university. i'd like to thank the history center for organizing this event and for inviting. me i would like to think all of you for coming to hear this discussion early on a monday morning. a few weeks ago, on october 11th, the u.s. defense sec

the rasken doctrine.eningen doctrine is based on nothing more than protected speech based on party label next to your name. regardless of what you have seen or heard from house managers if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech while any speech made by republican lengted elected officials is not protected. the creation of the rasken doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house manager's case. elected officials we revealed this in depth yesterday under supreme court precedent bond and bond didn't burn a draft party still had it it was part of his defense. but in -- bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that lengted officials hold the highest protections of speech. the highest protections and i remind you why. because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that shouldn't be squelched by either political party on either side o

because i believe on the passing of rush limbaugh who was the product of the end of the fairness doctrine, the ability to spew one side vitriol on the public air waves without having opposing viewpoints, that began the trend that was transferred into the internet where you had silo of totally internal discussion, self-reinforcing echo chambers where no one heard opposing viewpoints. and rumors and lies could spread rapidly to the point where individuals became like dry grass where terrible ideas coul spread rapidly and overcome individual will. so, that's one point here that, can we look back far enough to examine thech roots of these kis of negative changes in the earlier policy changes? >> gotgu you. that's allen there in brooklyn. governor, go ahead. >> allen, you've got a -- you've hit one of the problems of this democracy right now because i o gave a talk the other day and one of the questions i asked was, can you have a real democracy if there's no unified lead source of information? now, i'm old. i grew up at a time of walter cronkite. walter cronkite said something, everybody beli

i do want to talk about doctrine of evidence.first of all, they sent us their evidence on tuesday, the ninth at 2:32 p.m. by e-mail. i was in this room trying the case already. when they sent their evidence, the due process. they used evidence that was half wrong two or threet nights ago with senator lee and had to withdraw it. they try to use it again today. they try to use evidence that they had never presented in the case and their closing argument. that is a very desperate attempt by att prosecuting team line of them a prosecuting team that now that their case has collapsed. there closing did not mention one piece of law. they did talk about the constitution once. they do not talk about the first amendment and its application. they did not talk about due process and how it applies to this proceeding. for my p client. [inaudible]. the basic rule of any court is that when you close the case out, you close in the fact that were admitted into the trial. that is a basic fundamental principle of due process and fairness. and that w

in fact they created a new legal theory, the raskin doctrine. the raskin doctrine is based on nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard or what you have seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention you will see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of house managers case. elected officials, we reviewed this in depth yesterday, under supreme court precedent would and bond, and when the way bond did not burn his draft card comment he still has it was part of his defense. but in bond and award, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech. the highest protections. and i remind you why, because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion. because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that shouldn

the other thing is a comment on the go attractive doctrine, which i perceived in a way the comment, thatbelieve that already in 1985, that gore rich if spoke about non intervention with the warsaw pact leaders. and i don't agree with that, if that is your point because my position is different. according to that date it was a summer of 1988, when the soviets actually gave up the idea of intervention. and then the question because question then, about the fbi. what was the role of the fbi? in the summit meeting, between garbage of and reagan. where they had the documents there for a long time now, and we see how corporate have was actually backing rain at all possible occasions to give up on the idea of the fbi and reagan said no. >> thank you appreciate it, >> next question, i have a brief question please. >> i have read a book, so i want to ask you a little bit more about the relations between reagan strategy and reagan's doctrine. and and the us economic situation, in the 19 eighties, for the reagan administration to carry out--. >> thank you and finally we go to the last question. ple

the legacy of harry truman can be seen truman doctrine, the medicare act and this nato succession. as people exit the museum, then , they go through a space that deals with truman's funeral and where from there they access our courtyard where truman had his office for years and also the grave sites where harry and bess truman are buried. >> that's great, clay. that object that you described is wonderful. it encapsulates both aspects of his domestic and international legacy. you have it in one object people encounter at the end. >> right. >> i want to thank you for joining me in this conversation about the process of developing new exhibits, and i'm looking forward to seeing your new permanent exhibition when it opens. so thanks again for joining me in this conversation. >>> created by america's cable television company. today was brought by these television companies who provide american history tv to viewers as a service. >>> weeknights this month, featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span3. congress passed the occupational saf

for example, truman doctrine and the marshall plan. and other acts and efforts that were taking place. so that's the use of audio visual, that's not a traditional of theater per se, but is to create the impression of hope for visitors that, you know, even though the war is over, the challenges all around the globe are enormous. and, you know, what is it that truman can do to deal with those. the other thing we use our theories for, for example, we've got a theater relating to truman's decision to recognize his real in 1948, but what we try to emphasize their and other places in the exhibit as that presidents have to make very difficult decisions. and some of them are not cut and dry. some of them are decisions that, you know, he just has to buckle down and decide what he's going to do. so we use in a v presentation in that theater to illustrate the conflict within the truman administration about whether or not truman should formally recognize. >> i can hardly wait to see these new exhibit. it's interesting, the use of immersive environ

the monroe doctrine may be the best example. no sooner elected president and congress is pushing, especially henry clay to get the united states to recognize the new south american latin american republics. monroe takes his time for he waits until the moment is just right where he believes the country is strong enough on its own and has developed enough of a good relationship with great britain and thereby british navy to make that announcement. >> or the good examples of his judgment that comes through the book is his choice of life partner in elizabeth, his wife. he was clear she was very essential to both his personal life but his political life. can you give us a sense of who elizabeth was of the role she played both the national and the international stage? >> of my god sure i would be happy to that's a great question. monroe marries up. he meets her in new york while the american government -- in fact they'd written about monroe the song what about about the cartwright sisters of the skyler sisters. she is among a true of

and before there was section 230 there was something called the fairness doctrine. which gave leftists in washington the power to silence views they didn't like. we got rid of the fairness doctrine and rush limbaugh started by going on a am station, start evidence with one and the voice of liberty spread like prairie fire. let me tell you right now in los angeles there is some skater kid who is 19, who is told it is hip and chic and cool to be a leftist socialist man. wait a second, these guys don't want me to speak, think, have fun, do what i want to do. the message of liberty is profoundly subversive. the left believes in rigid conformity. we believe in diversity, free speech. you can say whatever you want no matter how dumb it is. by the way, in washington, d.c. we test that proposition. religious liberty, you can worship however you like on your knees before almighty god, or you can worship the almighty dollar. or you can worship i don't know, pink martians. that's the beauty of freedom. the second amendment. oh, the left hates the second amendment because they

dollars from any american went to perform an abortion any place in the world and we promoted that doctrinenywhere and always. don't forget that president trump appointed a lot of judges that understand the words of life and liberty and words that have real meaning. [applause] i worked with the mexican government, my counterpart to secure our borders. i worked to protect your right for firearms. it makes sure each of us has the right to defend ourselves precisely as our founders intended. liberals pretend to care about the poor, then they side with the union bosses against the workers. they pretend to care about kids while kids in democrat led cities aren't in front of computers, they're struggling to figure out how to stay safe from drug lords. that's not good leadership. that's not taking care of the people you are charged with protecting. we need to get everyone of our children back in school. [applause] i was a soldier about 25 years ago and about 100 pounds ago. [laughter] when i hear democrats say they want a strong america, i know they are working to undermine it. mark my word, they

it is important to make sure we are not aligning constitutional doctrines. i think the defenders of the president want to get into these constitutional doctrine questions to try to defend him because so many of us all with our own eyes what happened on that day. -- song with our own eyes what happened on that day -- saw with our own eyes what happened on that day. john has been saying the president's words were not incitement but people can make their own decisions. the american people are struggling too much during this pandemic to look up the precedent for the textual arguments for holding an impeachment. i think it is important to be clear and plain about the constitutional framework. caller: -- guest: can i wreath respond? -- can i briefly respond? host: go ahead. guest: i want to agree with statements she said, if the president said he wants the army to seize the capital -- it's a private citizen said that it would be protected by the first amendment. if a president said that, it could be an impeachable offense. he did not say any of those things. i am

we have to figure out as a nation, what's a doctrine in what will we do about it?here evidence that the data, or these tools have been used, and have you built new ones? kevin: there is no evidence from our partners, as well as in their government, we have seen no evidence that the fireeye red team tools have been used by another third-party. we have not seen that at all. that's good news. by the way, we created over 500 rules and shared them with the entire world to detect the red team tools. we did a good job there. we will have to re-create some of those tools in the future. but one of the nice things about fireeye, when you respond to over 1000 breaches per year, we are seeing the red teams from other nations. what we really do is just repurpose that r&d they are showing us. the are still breaking in the countries and organizations around the globe and we are responding to intrusions from china, russia, from north korea, from a lot of different nations. we repurpose those. we kind of look at them and say, if they just did it that way, they may have evaded addit

the raskin doctrine.in doctrine is nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard or what you have seen from the house managers if you plug pay close attention you'll see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the week is that the house managers case. elected officials when they repeat this in depth yesterday enters supreme court precedence and by the way of aunt didn't earn his draft card. actually he still had it but in bond and would, it was clear to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections and i remind you why. becauseou you all need to be fre to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that shouldn't be squelched by any political party on either side of the ais

that they could get away with that and not pay a heavy price because you look at chinese nuclear doctrine, almost all of it starts with trying to disable our ability to deploy forces and respond to a crisis and it almost always includes cyber attacks around critical infrastructure of our military facilities. if you take down the electrical grid around a major military base, you are going to cut electricity off on hospitals. americans are going to die. you have a lethal cyberattack. an american president is going to be in a difficult situation. i agree with the comparison between cyber and nuclear, but i think we want to be careful about allowing other powers to think that cyber is a clean, nonlethal way of behaving or attacking the united states, because when you actually look at china's doctrine, they could cross a line of lethality without intending to and find themselves in an ethical situation. pranay: for the reason you cited earlier, the focus in the united states on identifying these threats, and the approach we lay out in the report, we need to find ways to bolster our conventiona

her previous books include "the shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism."e back to democracy now! talk about the republican leadership of texas blaming its catastrophe on what hasn't even happened yet, and that is the green new deal. naomi, i think we are having trouble right now hearing you. we are going to go to a break and then we will come back to you. we're just having trouble making the connection to you. naomi klein, senior correspondent at "the intercept" writing an op-ed in "the new york times." back in a moment. ♪♪ [music break] amy: "texas sun" kruangbin and leon bridges. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the quarantine report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. we turn now to naomi klein on the castro feet -- it has to be that is taken place in texas. about 70 deaths it is believed, able suffering major devastation. 30,000 homes still have no power. there are still 8 million texans under orders to boil water. naomi wrote a piece in " the new york times," "why texas republicans fear the green new deal." >> it has been a symphony of voice

i thought it's time to focus on our people, that's the doctrine that president trump advanced. >> seanknow it's biden's blunders, a week in review. a little bit funny, he loses his place, i got my card... i feel like he's reading "my name is joe, my wife's name is jill, i live at 600 pennsylvania avenue because he was looking for a number that we've lost 500,000 fellow americans to covid and he just had a visual the day before. he was having a hard time remembering that number. that's not a hard number to remember. it was slow and it was confusing and he loses his place... it's kind of getting disturbing and i watched all this foreign policy being conducted by kamala harris and i begin to wonder why. why isn't there a state of the union address scheduled? >> good question. it's not hard. hasn't been from the beginning. in this particular case day after day, time after time we have examples. remember the executive boards? the cards with the one line lit and written on and he was reading line by line by finding them, who wrote them, what did he really know about them? of course the far l

as james wilson above all else ignoring the constitution would adopt the new raskin common sense doctrine we heard yesterday eroding hundreds of years of 1st amendment protections we are here under the constitution it is illogical what the house managers say the constitution does apply to this constitutional impeachment process it's double talk nonsense illogical. if the house managers had their way they would ignore all of the constitution. does that include the 6th amendment the right to counsel they would have mr trump sitting here with our lawyers and who would be dax it could be anyone what are you or one of you. you must reject this invitation to ignore the 1st amendment it is anti american and would set dangerous precedent forever. the laws developed over the years to clearly established elected officials have the right to engage in protected speech mr trump is not just a guy on the street or a guy at a bar or a fire chief or a police officer there are a few of them and they're all analogies given by the house managers these sideways analogies are wrong mr trump was an elected offi

i know you've already outlined some aspects of what's being described as the emerging biden doctrine.t are the biggest differences from your perspective between the trump and biden doctrines when it comes to foreign policy? >> wolf, first, it's great to see you. thanks for having me. when the president is looking at this, two basic conclusions. first, the world doesn't organize itself. if we're not in there and present every single day, doing the organizing and shape the norms that govern the way countries communicate with each other, someone will do it in our place or worse, no one does it and then you have chaos. part one is showing up, being engaged. part two is this. none of the big problems we face and actually will affect the lives of the american people every single day, whether it's climate, the pandemic, the spread of bad weapons, not a single one can be addressed by any one country acting alone even as one powerful as the united states. there's a premium on cooperation and so a premium on diplomacy. how do we get that composition from other countries? it starts with diplomac