. >> host: i wanted you to reflect on the relationship that extraordina extraordinary. there are so many photos from the last few years of the cold war that are familiar. you can see in the photographs. there was a chemistry between the two men. what was it? how do you explain it? how much was forged in the weekend? >> guest: i think it wasn't entirely -- there wasn't a great deal of friendship between the two. there was a mutual admiration and need for each other because reagan went through the contra episode when people thought was ridiculous. gorbachev was going through a problem in the soviet union and any time they turned to demostic affairs it was a nightmare. the only thing going on in the international stage was each other. they understood and respected each other. gorbachev was in london and some british, typical snotty, says everyone knows reagan is a light weight, typical academic, typical british and snotty reparks. gorbachev interrupts him and says that is wrong. you don't know what you are talking about. and i thought something to bud. there was a swerespe

it shows the extraordina ordina narcotic ten -- determination of my dad.our years were packed with incredible events that could have gone a completely different direction. he has courage to act on his convictions. >> the world has said this aggression would not stand and it will not stand. >> there is a top inner strength that came out when he was president when the world was focused on operation desert storm. the public impression is that my dad is this nice guy and nice guys can't be tough. that's probably the biggest fallacy, you can be tough and be kind. in fact, being tough in a bravado sense isn't toughness. you don't want a president focused on themselves but you want them to act on principle and he did. >> as president, i can report to the nation aggression is defeated, the war is over. [ applause ] >> it's something that he'll get sick when her hears it. the fact that my dad has literally thousands of friends, thousands of friends. he has people that to be undyingly loyal to him. that's a great legacy, if you think about it. not many people have e

reading justice roberts today, extraordina extraordinary, unanimous opinion.ifferent thing to search a man's pockets and use against him what they contain from ransacking his house from everything which may incriminate him. that's no longer true. a cell phone search exposes far more today. it also contains private information never found in a home. pete, walk us through what he and the court are saying there. >> well, that's an interesting passage you cite because when this case was argued, there was some head skrachg by the justices, which raised concerns that maybe they were not fully hip to what

reading justice roberts today, extraordina extraordinary, unanimous opinion. he says in 1926, it's a totally different thing to search a man's pockets and use against him what they contain from ransacking his house from everything which may incriminate him. that's no longer true. a cell phone search exposes far more today. it also contains private information never found in a home. pete, walk us through what he and the court are saying there. >> well, that's an interesting passage you cite because when this case was argued, there was some head skrachg by the justices, which raised concerns that maybe they were not fully hip to what cell phones do. but any notion of that is completely gone by reading this opinion. for over 100 years, the courts have said that the police, when they arrest someone, can search that person. they can look in their pockets, billfolds, briefcases, open their wallets. today the supreme court said while that was true, cell phones are totally different. the police have to get a search warrant to search someone's cell phone when they make