or partner with those institutions. for those of you interested in academic careers, how easy would it be to do research on those institutions or not. and so, as you kind of see in the kind of slightly populated graphs on the screen, all of the four organizations, but for the w.h.o., have open information policiesment you know, what those mean in practice varies, but the global fund and gavi are often cited as real leaders in being transparent and open and acceptable by the national transparency index, by publish what you fund and kind of the watchdog organizations and yet, the world bank, which has been probably of all of the institutions that we engage with, the most scrutinized for being the hardest to actually scrutinize, has made significant strides in the last six years in being more transparent about what it funds, where it funds, its contracting and of who it partners with and who it doesn't. the who provides very little visibilities into what it chooses to fund at a granular level and how it makes decisions and

one, sort of what does the institution do. that is the first question that helps illuminate the differences between the older and newer global health entities. the older institutions tend to have rather broad and ambitious mandates. the attainment at the who the highest attainment. because it is called the world health organization, we tend to think it should be able to kind of do all things for all people to ensure that we each have the chance to live the healthiest lives possible. the world bank to eliminate and improve life. those sound difference than the founders of the global fund and gavi established. the global funds attracts and disburses additional resources to fight aids, tb and malara. gavi to increase vaines in poor countries. the second difference is who is enfranchised in these institutions. who gets to help curate their agendas and the strategies they employ to achieve those agendas and how they hold themselves accountable and who they partner with or don't. i know these may look silly but when i go to the next

in the middle from the socioeconomic, you have the institutional settings and responsive institutions, governments where citizens have 35, 40% of trust where this place works relatively well. do you feel a stakeholder -- japan, sweden, canada, germany, would also fit the bill. strong parties, latin america is crucial, this is what manages to distant which countries which for -- relatively similar in terms of per capita, years of industrialization, living in urban areas and you contrast cantina with y and chile, the three have similar history, the earliest industrialized others, life expectancy, educational attainment, stuff growing earlier and faster than other places and two of these cases you have strongly grounded, strongly rooted party systems, systems where in fact the party advocates are socializing people from school on words, primary school, not elementary but high school and university are crucial socializing agents, they would channel people in a variety, and you sadly start after the 1912 electoral reform that enfranchised males with style of that undermines parties that pr

we are asking about faith in political institutions.he presidency, congress and the supreme court. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202)-748-8002 . it was yesterday, because some of our guests have mentioned, talking about the president's tweets from over the weekend concerning an event at their trump tower. congress being called on to investigate this as it continues its investigation into matters with russia. here is sara sanders from yesterday. >> there have been quite a few reports. earlier in the program, it was mentioned that it was all conservative media. the new york times, and bbc have also talked about it and reported on the potential of this having had happened. the bigger thing is, let's find out. let's have an investigation. if they are going to investigate russia ties, with include this as part of it. >> was the principal source the breitbart report, which links to the new york times, the new york times does not say anything definitive. trump does. he says i just found out ob

and the more traditional multilateral institutions. it's known as the public-private partnerships and the funds. what does the institution do is the first question that helps to eliminate some of the key differences between the older and newer. we have rather broad and ambitious mandates. they have all people with the highest possible public health and i think sometimes one of the kind of challenges in the world is that because it is the world health organization we tend to think that it should be able to do all things for all people. they sound very different than the problems in the scenario where the mission that the founders established. the funds attract and disperse additional resources to fight and increase access. i think the difference very much is evident on the page itself. the second big difference comes into the franchise of the institution, who gets to help cure rate the agenda and strategies that they employ to achieve those agendas and how they hold themselves accountable and who they partner with or don't. i know these

in the middle obviously you need the institutional settings. and hear the response of institutions of governments were citizens have 35 or 40% just in this place works relatively well. do you feel is a stakeholder more often than not i do. japan, sweden germany, i think would also fit the bill. strong systems very important. this is what managers do to distinguish countries there relatively similar in terms of per capita and years of -- but for example you contrast argentina with hawaii and chile, the three have a similar history there, the earliest industrialized servers were life expectancy and educational attainment starts growing. faster than other places. two of the cases you have very strongly granted strongly rooted systems where in fact the party advocates are socializing people from school onwards. but high school and university are crucial socializing agents in these places and they will channel people into a variety of options from the heart economists to more modern communist to social christian democrats to far right nationalists.

today's action shines a spotlight on the accomplishments of our institutions. continue to work with our students, so we continue and look forward to working with everyone here and with the administration to fulfill the promise of this executive order and we're very appreciative for this day. thank you. >> thank you. >> his pen was given to my esteemed colleague, dr. baskerville. this is the pen signed to do many of us never thought would happen. ceo of the thurgood marshall fund. >> united negro college fund. >> johnny taylor from the thurgood college fund and dr. baskerville, president of nafeo, collectively so pleased. it's a historic moment. 47 public historic black colleges and university. 38 member institutions, 37 president. i'm giving him more, 37 presidents at ucnf and excited about what this respepresents a the next step is the budget. so this was a good beginning but we should be clear to make good on the money and clear and words matter. >> ucnf has worked with every administration from franklin roosevelt to donald trump. we are pleased that the pres

in terms of institutions, we have to recognize that just because institutions produce a legitimate government, does not mean that the system is going to survive. i think that is a mistake americans often make. regime the time there is change, it is by someone legally brought to power. we have to be in a position to defend ourselves. that is exactly what the founders said. madison stressed that our institutions will not always bring people who support them into power, and that is why the constitution is set up the way it is. host: timothy snyder, professor at yale university. you highlight two things looking at language and words. chapter nine, be kind to our language. chapter 17, listen for dangerous words. what were you hoping to a college by those chapters? the first thing is that if our system is going to survive, it depends upon the notion of individual, upon the idea that you and i think of ourselves as being different people. it depends on our ability to express ourselves in our own words. by the kind of language, i mean something like let's not just say the things we heard on televisio

tyler jacks the director the institute for integrative cancer research at the massachusetts institute of technology, certainly one of the most premier prestigious universities that we have in this country and the immeasurable work and we are thrilled that dr. jacks is here as well. % to committee rule witnesses are to be sworn before they testify so if you'll please authorize and raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm that he will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. they let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we normally ask that you keep your verbal comments to five minutes but we will give you great latitude if you are on a roll to keep going. but your entire written record will -- written statement will be made part of the record an affair any attachments or something want to share afterwards there will be part of the record. mrs. carr we will start with you and by the way you have to straighten out microphone and pull it up close and make sure that the talk button is on. you are recog

but there is no brain tumor institute. mrs. -- when you talk about dipg, the folks that come together to fund that offer, that's what we do as a collaborative. we make sure that every proposal that comes through -- because we're so few of us and there is so little money there. mrs. carr: the duplication of that, that's something we don't want. mr. grothman: it concerns me you don't know. like i said i would think you would show up here and maybe one of you, maybe there was somebody else, somebody would say we're doing cancer research in these 80 institutions. these are the specialties of the 80 institutions and have it here. dr. jacks: it's important for you to know whom you are speaking with. we represent particular institutions. mr. grothman: i understand. dr. jacks: if you were to ask the director of the national cancer institute he would have an answer for you. and sometimes it's difficult to know in the sense --for example at m.i.t. last year we announced a new initiative on pediatric brain cancers. my colleagues prob

these early institutions were located in various places around washington, d.c. and the modern library, where i worked today, opened on the campus of the nih in 1962. has grown over the past 100 80 years to be the largest bio-medical library, home to nearly 30 million items and a variety of formats. traditional analog formats and a variety of digital resources that deliver these collections and data every day to millions of people not only around the nation butter of the world. historians, scientists, historians, the general public. within the library's history of medicine which i direct, it houses one of the world's largest history collections related to human health and disease. it spans centuries from the 11th to the 21st including a wide range of formats. books, images, fine arts, fmr, , and digital material. it is collecting, preserving, interpreting this collection for the general public and our mission relates to general policymaking and waste distinctive to our institution. internally, anna edwards, the history of medicine division operates fundamentally

american occupation foundation and senior curator for the armed forces institute of pathology. he earned his master's degree and phd from emory university . all the way on the end is eric boyle. lecturer attly a the nurse of maryland in the public health science program. chief archivist for the national museum of health and medicine at an essence been chief historian for the department of energy. , "quackt book medicine," was a list in 2013. -- published in 2013. so you see why i am honored and to be among such esteemed panelists. for our conversation today, the five of us talked about a few broad themes. i will introduce those to frame the conversation. we would like to talk about the relationship between government historians and policymaking in practice, the intentional contributions to policymaking, and the relationship between history as practiced within government agencies and the day-to-day work of governance. i'm going to ask each of the panelists to talk for five to seven minutes about what they do. time permanent, i will tell you what we do at the federal judicial cen

to protect the institutions that made it possible for these institutions to be sustained.we are respected around the world. as i said many times, and have been criticized for saying, not only for the example of our power, but the power of our example here he is how the rest of the world compares. that is the place from which we get the gravity of our legitimacy. that is how we have survived, that is how we forge consensus, check abuse of power. we take so much for granted. as recent experience has made clear, we cannot forget the success of this nation is not a guarantee. nothing is a guarantee about democracy or self-government, even after 240-something years. there is no guarantee we will remain the greatest economic machine and power in the world. there is no guarantee about any of that. there is no guarantee we will remain the greatest. every generation has to earn it. we have been so used the patriots like bob dole offering and giving his life, nearly, for the nation, that we think it is automatic. that it will keep happening. i promise you, there is nothing guarantee

foundation and senior curator for the armed forces institute of pathology. he earned his degrees from every university. university -- and worry emory unive next, chief archivistrstity. from 2012-2016 and chief historian for the department of energy where he is also the primary archivist and federal preservation officer. his first book was published in 2013 and his current work includes a book project tentatively titled "in the belly of the beast: history of alternative medicine at the nih." so, you see why am honored and delighted to be among such as deemed panelists. for our conversation today, the five of us talked about a few broad themes. i will introduce those to frame the conversation. we would like to talk about the relationship between government historians and policymaking in fact is, the intentional contributions to policymaking, and the relationship between history as practiced within government agencies and the day-to-day workouts governance. i am going to take this back to the panelist to talk for 5-7 minutes about what they do. i will go last a

, law enforcement institutions, of the u.s. government. caller: from new hampshire, republican line. : from new hampshire, republican line. caller: obama wiretapped all the political leaders across the thingsand he was doing far below the level of what he should have did. i have no confidence with what obama did, and i do believe that he did wiretap trump. guest: look, i was not a supporter. president obama, i written -- i wrote editorials criticizing him on policy issues, and i voted against him twice. but obama did not wiretap leaders across the world. the u.s. government wiretapped leaders across the world. that is something the bush administration did, as well. i do not know that president obama changed that much. but if you try to do things like wiretaps for bad reasons, he cannot do that at he has to order people to do that. so are we willing to believe that people in the fbi and cia, layers down, were complicit in this kind of conspiracy? thethe white house fool fbi? that is where this is really a crisis. you think about

, law enforcement institutions, of the u.s. government. caller: from new hampshire, republican line. : from new hampshire, republican line. caller: obama wiretapped all the political leaders across the thingsand he was doing far below the level of what he should have did. i have no confidence with what obama did, and i do believe that he did wiretap trump. guest: look, i was not a supporter. president obama, i written -- i wrote editorials criticizing him on policy issues, and i voted against him twice. but obama did not wiretap leaders across the world. the u.s. government wiretapped leaders across the world. that is something the bush administration did, as well. i do not know that president obama changed that much. but if you try to do things like wiretaps for bad reasons, he cannot do that at he has to order people to do that. so are we willing to believe that people in the fbi and cia, layers down, were complicit in this kind of conspiracy? thethe white house fool fbi? that is where this is really a crisis. you think about

isprotect the institutions possible for these institutions to be sustained. saying,n criticized for not merely for the example of our power, but for the power of our example. satisfy the rest of the world repairs. that is the place from which we get our legitimacy. ladies and gentlemen, that is how we have always survived. that is how we force consensus and check abuse of power. we take some a true granted. ladies and gentlemen, as recent experiences have made clear, we cannot forget the great success of this nation is not guaranteed. there is nothing guaranteed about democracy, nothing guaranteed about self-government, even after 200 and 40 years. -- even after 240 years. abouts nothing guaranteed being the greatest power in the world. there are no guarantees that we will remain the greatest. the fact of the matter is, every generation has to earn it. and we had been so used to offeringlike bob dole and getting his life nearly for this nation. it is automatic. it is just going to keep happening. i promise you, there is nothing guaranteed. you know, just like

so many of the institutions have been willing to take part.ions agreed to disclose a number of allegations. we heard more than 4,000 allegations just within the catholic church. there have been some people, particularly victims, who were angered that maybe one individual institution, a school, perhaps, hadn't been looked at in more detail. but what we heard today was that it was simply impossible to look at every institution involved in minute detail. rather they felt there was more to be gained by taking a universal approach. the two themes they found common across them are the failure to report mandatory reporting, so that if abuse had occurred, that there is not always a duty of care on someone to give that information to the police or the authorities. and also the failure to compensate abuse victims, survivors of abuse, who spent decades anguishing, many suffering physical and mental health problems, finally now some move towards giving them financial restitution, and compensation will, we understand, come from the final report. the britis

a very primitive kind of think mother they did have institutions. and they brought them along and they set up shot. -- shop. and it has to affect the kind of country it was. it is hard to characterize on-the-fly. maybe somebody has a better answer. miller and as of his works on lincoln compared lincoln's preparation for the preparation. --'s it is considered that buchanan was one of the best prepared presidents we had, a legislator and a diplomat, yet he is considered a failed president. where as lincoln was considered to be utterly unprepared for the presidency, yet by most people with the noticeable -- notable exception of -- who thought lincoln in terms of personality, was one of the best prepared presidents. so would you, can either of you, -- any of you comment on those comparisons? >> i will take a shot at buchanan. [laughter] >> very good. >> few people seem to have greater credentials for the presidency than james buchanan, an opinion he shared. inhad long experience government and he had the advantage before running for president in 1856, o

they were really important medical institutions and subsidiary care to the actual confederate institutions. a lot of women felt a patriotic need to volunteer their time at institutions, she is not going to be seeing even major wound but she had a difficult time with it, she had bad dreams when she came home at night, wasn't something she didn't like seeing wounded men blues not an easy thing to see and she was guilt stricken by the fact that this is difficult for her. she felt it was her patriotic duty to donate her time and she struggled with it. some women had a negative reaction to medical care. a woman like louisa record jumped into it and doing just about anything and didn't flinch, they had very different reactions and really struggled, their nursing because they are broken or it. they want their side to win. at the confederacy increasingly does worse and worse toward the end of the war, it is emotionally difficult for them. they are not only dealing with the fact that they have sick and wounded men and not only dealing with the fact that their resources are declining, the confederat

he's also the director of strategic research for the institute of justice where he worked for the staff and attorneys to define, implement and manage the social science research related to the institute mission. he's an experienced researcher and has presented and published on a variety of topics ranging from education policy for the presidential elections so catch him later to talk about that. his work has appeared in academic journals including the economic development quarterly and economic affairs, before him the urban law journal, international journal of ethics, education and urban society, urban studies, regulation and government governance and magazines including regulations. the results of the research has been quoted in newspapers such as "the new york times," "washington post" and "the wall street journal." the research for the institute of justice include the reports such as the unintended reform and licensed to work, private choice and public programs, how the private institutions secure social services, defining cartels will be insiders cut out competition. the eminent dom

to protect the institutions that made it possible for these institutions to be sustained. we are respected around the world. as i said many times, and have been criticized for saying, not only for the example of our power, but the power of our example here he is how the rest of the world compares. that is the place from which we get the grab and that of our gravity of ourhe legitimacy. that is w we have surved ths h wfoe nssu chk asef we weaksoucfogrte renexriceasad eae nn fgeth suesofhinaons t arte noinis graeebo moacr lfovnmt, enft 2 setngea. ilis n graee reinhereesecom mainanpor tor the nguane ouan ofha the nguane il reinherees evyenatn s en . he eno edhe trtsikboolffin angingisif nrl f wthk it aumac. att llee hpeng i omeouthe nhi guaned ju le erquti bor us, ergeraonefe haha wha tea i weo't tt war teinea oer art weavtotobeg ind anr he sgeacotr aianfos op t thgsha utes. w'retrge wn a o era ri, ormilela,hi, aystig, anenr,healomwi a ea neimgrtsrrinod e era. ' a iitoghe evyo ds eifa sre weanrg autha tt arisitak sseo guabtha e 'ndenem, he me yo wree e da lieangelehagoen i hh

when we lift these institutions up, we derive strength from it.it is the basis upon we can make the compromise. when we tear them down we do it at our own peril. i must say these beliefs are so basic and fundamental that i think average americans fully get it and understand it. when we lose confidence in this nation of laws and not man and that courts make a difference and they are the ultimate arbiter things begin to crack. ladies and gentlemen, i am somewhat saddened that this is the first time i have made this speech to such a distinguished audience. i stand in this room and building and i cannot help say there is another institution. the fourth estate and free press that if we undermine we do it at our own parrel -- peril. let me say something -- [applause] >> i have taken my fair share of hits from the press being covered by the very best and some of the worst. some of you press guys are lousy just like some senators are lousy, doctors are lousy, lawyers are lousy. but it doesn't matter. we should never challenge the basic truth that an indep

it's a privilege for me to be here in the city which he is very close to this institution. and it's that time of year by itself, it's such a great honor to be invited and giving the stock. it's also a challenge when you have to speak about a subject that you know that in the room is so much knowledge . people around here, it's such a challenge but i will share some of my portions. so i'm very honored to be with this distinguished group, many of whom i have added pleasure of workingwith in the past. i look forward to learning from you , learn more about the us policy in yemen and there's plenty to learn about. in the yemeni staff we have in the room, many of them. we are collecting to help yemen find a solution to the current conflict. and come to an orderly and peaceful solution. among the other, the member of the united nations conflict for that assault in kuwait. >> this process lasted for over three months during which time we was had significant progress towards compromise. >> the passage in kuwait as security on politicalmeasures , form the corporate agreements, from t

institute of technology. we're thrilled, dr. jacks, you're here in joining us as well. pursuant to committee rules, witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so if you'll please all rise and raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear and affirm that you'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we normally ask that you keep your verbal comments to five minutes, but we'll give you great latitude. if you're on a roll, keep going. but your entire written record -- written statement will be part of the record. if there's any attachments or something else you want to share afterwards that too will be in the record. mrs. carr, we'll start with you. you're now recognized. by the way, you have to straighten that microphone, pull it up close and personal, and make sure the talk button is on. mrs. carr, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman chaffetz and ranking member cummings and members of the

the most serious issue we have now is the basic trust in our institutions of government. host: from arkansas, this is charles on a republican line. caller: good morning. who is going to take the possibility when we are attacked by someone? comey, the newspapers, and loretta lynch lie. is the ninth circuit court going to take responsibility? is comey? is the aclu going to sue our president? for they going to say we are sorry? people are going to become dead over this. there has never been any proof the trump group actually committed any crimes by , if they didssia or not. it who is going to say "i am sorry that we held back all this , these items that have to be done to protect this country." >> there is no proof that they committed any crimes or that his senior advisers did and i have never said they did and i don't think most response will people say they did. there are things that should be investigated and they are being investigated by congressional committees. they are chaired by republicans so it won't be fair investigations but there are things they should look int

this is why we don't have a lot of faith in political institutions. pick up a newspaper, go read a book, go get a magazine that is trustworthy. that's all i have to say. host: you are talking about sources of information were people compile their opinions and various thinkings. -- where people compile their opinions and various thinkings. where you go, yourself? caller: -- where do you go, yourself? caller: i go to c-span. i used to really be against bush and conspiracy theories were prevalent along the internet and it was easy to fall into that whole. it gives you explanations as to why you feel like you are left out. i've read the economist. read time magazine. don't go down that -- don't go down that rabbit hole. host: trust in media was a topic op-ed in thebishop washington post. he took a charting of media. the high point was in the mid-80's, 51%, 46% for television news before 2000. those go down to 21%.

related to the institute's mission. he's an experienced researcher, he has presented and published on a variety of topics ranging from education policy to the dynamics of presidential elections. so catch him later to talk about that. his work has appeared in academic journals including the economic development quarterly, economic affairs, the fordham law journal, urban studies, regulation and government -- governance and magazines including regulation -- [inaudible] i'm not from around here. and the american school board journal. moreover, his -- the results of his research have been quoted in newspapers such as the new york times, the washington post and "the wall street journal." his research from institute for justice includes reports such as disclosure costs, the unintended consequences of campaign finance reform, hines to work -- license to work and public programs, how private institutions secure social institutions for georgian withs, how industry insiders cut out competition. and victimizing the vulnerable, the

n.i.h., the national institutes of health, biblical power to cure. investments that could compete with any investment you could name, this budget cuts $6 billion from the national institutes of health. 1/5 of the budget of the national institutes of health. when in fact we should be increasing that budget. pell grants, $4 billion cut from pell grants. more than $9 billion cut from education. remember this. nothing brings more money to the treasury than investment in education. so when the republicans say we need to reduce the deficit because -- so therefore weust ut education, that is a stupid economy because, again, nothing brings more money to the treasury to reduce the deficit than the education of the american people. early childhood, k through 12, higher education, post grad, lifetime learning of our workers. it cuts 31%, that would be 3,200 jobs from e.p.a. protections for the air or children breathe, water they drink. the atmosphere in which we want them to thrive. the state department is cut by 29%. our diplomacy, the power of diplomacy, so i

institutional shareholders as well. it is not shareholders like you and i.is institutional investors who hold large contingents of shares, like blackrock for example. i do think they are becoming more involved. it is not justifiable anymore to give these huge compensation packages. to davosu have been ten times. you are talking about, there aren't many women in it at all. what is their reaction to you when they see you in a crowd? sandra: well, now they kind of know me but i think it initially -- i don't know. maybe i have a little bit of a -- a on my shoulder, little bit of a chip on my shoulder but i feel that initially i have to be fighting a little harder to be taken seriously. brian: how do you see that in a group? sandra: it is subtle, it is in tone of voice. being ignored, you know, stuff like that. brian: have you been accused by any of them of having a chip on your shoulder. sandra: no, but i think that maybe i do. i think many women do. i have a whole chapter dedicated to why there is so few women in finance. brian: do women have any chance of doin

/mexico financial institution. and we think that that bank could take on that role of creating that database, and providing that kind of intelligence and planning function. and it could also start to rescue border infrastructure from the clutches of the annual appropriations process and highway trust fund. and enable also private sector funding to flow alongside public sector funding to finance border infrastructure. so the model of the north american development bank exists. it's a perfectly reasonable way to do these things. you know, for a relatively modest amount of money up front, 2, $300 million from each government of the three, if you brought canada in, you would trigger something like 8 or $9 billion in investment and border infrastructure, which, interestingly, is just about comparable to some of the estimates for how much kind of deferred maintenance and investment in border infrastructure is there. and when you look at things like -- i alluded a moment ago to the project at detroit windsor, things like

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 14, the nays are 223. the -- 184, the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted. the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189, the nays are 228. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 115-29 by the gentleman from florida, mr. soto, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 115-29 offered by mr. soto of florida. the chair: the resorted vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

you know, there are times in which attacks on an institution actually strike an institution. i am very proud of the journalism that has been developed over the course of the last two to three months. the congress has been doing its job. the president has been doing his job. the judiciary has been doing its job. the press has been doing its job as well. and to the extent that the press is descrij atlantaly watching those boundaries and calling out those instances in which it thinks there is potential deception or misinformation we ought to be standing up and cheering and remembering that is why the first amendment is there. the press's job is to hold government accountable and government's job is to stay out of the press's way. >> cohen: judge, the blurring of the lines between what is true and what is false, does that bother you? do you think that is happening in american society generally? there are a lot of people are just unable to in the cacophony to distinguish the two? >> i will, i am reminded of what a great mentor of mine once said, daniel patrick moynihan. i mean, he

that creates doubt in our democratic institutions. that undermines the outcome of the election and those people that are ultimately victors in the elections, whether they are true representatives for our democratic institutions. that's really where the danger is for the american people is the erosion of trust between voters and those democratic institutions that represent them. >> how do we know what they're doing? how are we able to say this is something coming from russia, this is something that's not? how are we parsing all of that out from what you have seen? >> they're not hiding it. if you watch the two primary russian state sponsored news outlets, they tell you exactly what their are, who they support, who they don't like. they are also articles that are published based on data dumps, whether leaks, a hacking operation last summer o the wikilea wikileaks, they use that disfor partial truth or completely false stories that try and influence a certain part of the. you can watch it or you can look it up for yourself on the interne

what institution has protected that most diligently? it is the judiciary.the press is doing its job, it is a close second. robert: when you think about the grand experiment that is the constitution, what is it that the framers envisioned? they envision the interaction of diverse institutions, congress, the executive, the courts. they envisioned the interaction of diverse elements acting on those institutions, and there was a sense that although each institution would act according to its own interests and incentives, together, they would create a deliberative system without -- with outcomes that would be in the public interest. that is the model that we aspire to. i think that we shouldn't lose sight of what it is the founders had in mind. that's why civics education is so important, because if we need to change things or tweak things, having that sense of what is that constitutional document, what is that framework is all the more important. roger: it's very moving, i think, seeing the ingeniousness and foresight of the founders pitted against such a conte

t hard work to e institutions that reflect those values.h hard work to build the institutions that reflect the institutions that reflect those values. >> that's a good fundraising pitch. >> i like it just fine. >> we heard last night who is a member of the party. he said what his party -- sits 11 seats stands for the peace process but they are in the colation because of social economic class reasons. in fact, there are about a majority of the colation of 66 but minority are against a palestinian state. about 40, 45 members are against it. 70 or 75 are for it. so people talk all the time about a democratic, the right of the israeli people to choose their own leaders. woor we're in a situation where both israel and america are united by the fact that they are both led by people who lost the election. practically speaking, what do we do?y people who lost the electi. practically speaking, what do we do? is there a strategy to get us from a to b? why does the majority not win? >> well, i want to pick up on some things that nancy said and talk about what could be a social or political strategy t

[applause] >> today, she serves as the honorary founding chair of our institute for -- institute for women, peace and security. under theute extraordinary leadership of has convenedvere leaders, scholars and practitioners in dialogue. it has helped to forge and strengthen georgetown's collaboration with organizations engaged in this work. it has provided a framework for our students to gain the understanding and experience to develop this compassionate -- as andassionate global leaders has undertaken research to enhance the broader dialogue. of this institute has a resonance with our identity as a catholic and jesuit institution, deepening our commitment to social justice and advancing our efforts to prepare young women and men to address the local and global challenges that threaten peace, security and equality. it is an honor to come together today to present the hillary rodham clinton awards for advancing women in peace and security. in past years, we presented this u.n. special envoy woman chiefe first negotiator of a successful peace process, the foreign minister of the united k