that argument seemed to prevail in the john edwards case. but there's an element at issue here we don't know because the reporting doesn't go quite that far. >> what makes the trump case stronger against trump is the money in the john edwards case came from an elderly supporter who just wanted to help john edwards. this is american media, the national enquirer. why would they spend this money other than to help donald trump get elected president? why are they so worried about trump's marriage? they have an interest in improving relationships with the guy who's about to get elected president of the united states -- >> or other personal friendly reasons or because they wanted to have an advantage, something to hold over the president of the united states for a future business dealing. >>iec correct. so i think it's a stronger case than the john edwards case, but i don't want to give any impression it's a slam dunk. >> people are focused on was the president compromised by russia, by vladimir putin. if american media has a file with all these s

they show that john kerry won by only aboutcentage points. 34% for john edwards. finished well back in third place. - i am no longer actively pursuing the presidency. we will however continue to build a new organization using our enormous grassroots network to continue the effort to transform the democratic party and to change our country. - no one i ever worked for had more courage than howard dean, no one. - why do you think that is? why do you think he was unafraid? - i think he truly believed that we were right that he was right. when we started out, i remember when our first polls came back. 80% of the american people were for the war, 80%. i've been around for 30-something years, and it's very rare that you see somebody gng out there and going toe-to-toe on the 20 side of an 80-20 issue. - if there was a moment for defeating george w. bush, that was the one, because so much had gone wrong. - major combat operations in iraq have ended. in the battle of iraq, the united states and her allies have prevailed. [cheers and applause] - but americans were still afra

similar to the way the government tried to go after the 2008 democratic presidential candidate john edwardsnded with an acquittal. had edwards been found guilty, he was looking upwards to half a million dollars in fines and potentially up to 15 years of prison time. the journal is reporting tonight that the president, who in the past said he didn't know anything about these payments, said this. >> you have to ask michael keohane he was my attorney. you'll have to ask about him. >> martha: that was back in april. saying he's directly involved in the arraignments paid to porn actress stormy daniels and -- authored this new report. michael, thank you for being here. if the president lied and said, you know, i had nothing to do with it, and he did, is that illegal? >> well, it's not illegal for the president to lie to reporters. in fact, the president can't be prosecuted under justice department opinions while he's a sitting president. so there doesn't appear to be that legal jeopardy for him. what we reported today is that contrary to his denials of the white house and his aide that he activel

far. >> just what makes i think the trump case stronger against trump is that the money and the john edwards case came from an elderly supporter who wanted to help edwards. this is a business. why would they spend this money other than to help donald trump get elected president? why are they so worried about donald trumps marriage. this is -- they have an interest in preserving relationship with the guys about to get elected president of the united states. >> for personal friendly reasons or because they want to have an advantage. something to hold over the president of the united states for future business dealing? >> correct. it's a stronger case than the edwards case. but i don't want to give the impression it's a slam dunk. >> people focussed on the president compromised by russia and vladimir putin. if american media has a file with all the stories that they have owned the rights to, they never published. as a favor to trump. who is now the president of the united states. that is a lot of stuff to have hanging over the president of the united states. in a private corporation. that could

remember back when john edwards ran for president and he had a mistress and there was the issue of the hung jury and they weren't buying the idea of campaign finance violations then because there was an ulterior motive for keeping her silent. here the president has a wife, businesses. he's going to tell you that's the reason he did it and that's not a campaign violation. he asked, what can you do for my campaign. not what can you do to help me, to make melania happy, happy wife, happy life or my business great. the resulting actions he took would make me nervous, and i would have a direct connection to a campaign finance violation, among many other things as kim was talking about. >> and pecker, of the "national enquirer," met with trump over this payment to mcdougle, former playmate of the year and said he spoke to an election law specialist and decided it wasn't a violation for him to offer her money for whatever it was, columns that never ran. as a way to keep her quiet about her alleged affair. >> yeah. so, i mean, the question is whether it's being offered for purposes of actually

if that weren't enough, to win a conviction, john edward would be exceeded already. [laughter] for what he was doing. the book really does cover everything. i thank you are going to enjoy, maybe not as much of survival but -- thank you, number one. for every day. [applause] i think i know where it is. it's on the other table. thank you. make to see you. nice to see you. hello. did you find it? i think i know where it is. hello. you have a great book. >> you remember me. i was in the party. we used to be neighbors and kennedy cornell. [crowd boos] i loved that. i told george this is the one book both his wife and he will agree on. >> i told him he -- i guess she wasn't able to come. >> i think i invited her but then i noticed, this is running out. i think i have another one. i noticed i hadn't open e-mail on my desktop. i've been busy. let's see. i got another one. i hope this one works. thank you. i brought some. you control that one away. it's not going to get better. thank you. >> make it to my son, rj. >> that penn works. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, thank

the john edwards book will do that so he did that when building. what is going on you really are. getting off on the rich and i did. i even know if you don't know. who is going to look one of the. great loses oh oh. yeah and then. you get the i need you guys. i. think. i. am i. know a whole. lot of. summons . lisa and we would call social media and so we changed and the meaning of music to go down on top of when the child who died are you for sure but do you honestly. think that. you know it's i mean you need to have heard mostly you so easily it was revised. through no want it. so i would put it on for two or three days of its which would have a full hour for topper's if tired koku much more into this mission answer quickly. trim the bill and the bill. should little bill you corner on this and he. was outside john it's nice what's i see wrong tell your uncle bill what's available for more on this formula or so on these are that's what you're up. you know you did it with. me you can do you think and so i wrote down under an adonis wanted to know the policy on earth and i was on th

a lot of people will point to the john edwards case.ted for this exact type of violation. he wasn't convicted. frrts the jury couldn't make a decision and i think they weren't nearly as clear as the facts in this case. so it's going to take somebody with the courage to move forward on this and i don't know how that's going to han in the department of jurss. >> have you heard of anybody who spla the so called courage on this? >> there are conern ises this is another drip in the larger bucket of waterer with trump. i think before it could have been just michael cohen. it could have stopped with michael cohen. and says how can you help my campaign? and that's the problem. when he's asking for help and how someone can help his campaign shs that can easily be linked. >> but cohen does have his own credibility issues shs right? >> ablotly. obviously this is part off a plea deal to get him out of more prison time boss if the trump organization and tried to reimburse cohen, there are going to be tax recordeds, other people who may not have the

trump people will say you have to look back to the john edwards case because when he ran for president, he had a mistress, he's pregnant, his political supporters gave him money to buy a house and pay for all of her expenses and edwards was ultimately acquitted on one count and hung jury on the other and justice decided not to retry the cause because the jury and i think a lot of prosecutors thought when you have a dual purpose expenditure, i.e., to get the mistress to be quiet because -- >> why couldn't donald trump say i didn't want melania to find out? >> that's what he's going to say. and he's going to say i didn't want customers of the trump organization to find out. on the other hand, the stormy daniels payoff is right in the midst of a controversial part of the campaign. >> what's your reaction to the fact the president could be involved in hush money like this? how significant is this? >> i think paul callan just nailed it. you have a cam bapaign contribun that's not disclosed and in excess of the $2,700 limit. the defense of the president will be should it come to that, i was

edwards together. when we looked at the tape, we noticed that night that john and elizabeth edwards were not holding handswhen they were walking in a parade. we do not know what that meant. we noticed it and a month later, turned out that he had been having an affair, and she had known about that during that time period. things begin to make sense through body language and through some of the reactions of the candidates, and the book gives a lot of examples of behind-the-scenes and what these candidates are really like. fred thompson, another example. he was an actor who got in the recent 2000 late. he had been in movies, "the hunt for red october." with him about policy was excruciating. you mentioned his movie career, he lit up and spent time about -- talking about "l.a. law." these are the nuances when you sit asa face with these individuals want to lead the free world. i think this book, it is fun and some regard because it shows the human side of candidates and campaigning. also the more serious side of television advertising, the influence of media, it is growing creasing the conservative, not liber

the john edwards theme from 2004.wo americas and there were two americas on display in the contested senate races in the house and the egeography told the story. that i think is the biggest thing and the biggest thing about the outcome is a lot of democrats won't wake up feeling great because democrats being democrats like the invest a lot of hope and emotion into their marquee candidates. we saw be it t oo o'rourke lose and possibly stacey abrams and they're going to wake up not feeling great and not happy that donald trump has been reward would a bigger majority. but you got to keep reminding them that winning control of the house is a really big deal. it's not just investigating donald trump, it's investigating every cabinet member. the big message to republicans is lawyer up and they're going to be dealing with stuff over the course of the next two years and they have the power to stop donald trump's agenda and prosfried the first time since the president's been president an effective check on his ability to pass

look at the john edwards case, maybe he has a legitimate reason for paying off the women that wasn't related to the campaign. it seems very clear these payments were made to help his campaign. as you pointed out, that's the reason he met with pecker in 2015 in the first place what can you do to help my campaign? my colleague rebecca asked him at the white house recently, did you know about these payments? president trump says, nobody cares. that's his reaction. >> tony schwartz, my final question is you know donald trump may be someone that doesn't know a lot about a lot. definitely digs in when it approaches him. how will it affect him in a system he doesn't fully understand? >> i think not withstanding the gesture he made to nancy pelosi, who we can sense he has considerable fear about, i think he's going to be angry, aggressive and unrelenting. >> hmm. tony schwartz, saltial by holiday, thank you. >>> -- shelby holiday, thank you. >>> steve kornacki is here. the blue got bluer, how the democrats can win even more seats and we're rolling out the tape that will show lindsey graham o

. >> if we go back to john edwards, what happened there, how good is the parallel? what does this article tell you about the way this investigation may be turning? >> i think we have to remember that the president of the united states right now is an unindict unindicted coconspirator. news comes out that you have many, many people who are constantly, constantly, at least in this administration and with trump getting into trouble. and i'm not sure how we get a handle on all of this. >> this cloud has been over the white house for a long time now. we're talking about investigations in new york, we're talking about the new york attorney general, as well, squarely out of robert mueller's camp as this is new scrutiny on that investigation and what's going to happen to it. >> we know that this sort of ongoing story about the hush money payments and michael cohen and the affairs has bothered the president. it's also bothered the first lady. it's worth pointing out that the journal story landed or was published about the time that the president and the first ladier were on

by abiding just so you can get >> it was john edwards before that.this is a bernie sanders lined a tying china. let's agree on something. >> so hard to really change americans to stop going to wal-mart and start getting cheap goods on amazon. i think we become too accustomed to 99 cents for 10 chicken nuggets on one of the menus i see. david: please don't take away my chicken mcnuggets. please don't do that. then your declaring war. >> despite what's happening right now work in the best interest of america and making sure everything's not been stolen from you if people do matter what down the line christmas comes around, when the walter question quality continues to emerge from the people are going to go for the auction. confidence among u.s. homebuilders is plummeting. is this a canary in the coal mine for the economy otherwise in 2006. the panel weighs in macs. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual d

edwards together. when we looked at the tape we noticed that night that john or elizabeth edwards were not holding hands walking in the parade. we didn't know exactly what that meant but i remembered we noticed this and of course a month later it turned out he been having an affair and she had known about that during that time period so things begin to make sense through body language and some of the reactions of the candidates and the book gives a lot of examples of behind-the-scenes and what these candidates arelike . west thompson, another example, an actor who got into the presidential race in 2008. he had been in movies,hunt for red october is an example. and talking to him about policy was almost excruciating because he wasn't well prepared . but as soon as you mentioned his movie career, he lit up and spent a lot of time talking about the hunt for red october and la law. so these are the nuances use it face-to-face withthese individuals want to leave the free world . ithink this book , it's fun in some regard because it shows the human side of candidates and campaigning, but also the more serious

and, you know, prosecutions havp been brought on the exact same theory before, brought against john edwards in his campaign. and this is the exact same thing, except i think there's even a much more dramatic and vivid paper trail here of what actually took place. >> right. final question, if, in fact, the president did this, let's stipulate that he did, is it a high crime and misdemeanor in the context of the constitution? >> well, again, i think you've got to look in the context of ve everything that was taking place in the campaign. but i would think that deliberate violations of federal campaign finance laws that have been in place for decades that were well understood could constitute a high crime and misdemeanor, assault on democracy.s d thdeunco >> congressman jamie raskin on the house judiciary committee. joining me now, eastern district of new york, and matt miller, former spokesperson for the ll department of justice. let me start with you about sdny here. you've worked there. >> yes. >> i don't want to read too much into this story coming out now. but it does strike me that matt w

remember john edwards argued in the end.'t trying to cover up my affair for campaign finance reasons. i jut wanted to hide it from my wife. that's an argument that would resonate with a lot of lay people at least. >> what could the punishment be? seems "post" reporting is right. what's the punishment for such a violation? >> there can be criminal charges, fines. depends on the severity, and it then raises a question prosecuting a sitting president, leads us to a return to some of the mueller questions about can you indict a president? who's a sitting president, justice department general and -- so that all said, to your point, this is a southern district of new york investigation. it's separate from mueller. mueller farmed it out. no matter what happens now, the turmoil in the justice department, that will keep going forward and see where it leads. >> dig into that later in the show more. >>> president trump in france today commemorating or supposed to be, the 100-year anniversary of the end of world war i, criticizing his h

that was the issue in the john edwards case.to concealed the issue of his mistress from his wife. this new reporting tends to suggest both that trump did this with an effort to violate campaign finance law and he knew that the folks at american media, that david pecker and his corporate allies were corned about corporate finance issues. if that sort of knowledge existed in the president's mind and prosecutors can prove it, then we look at criminal liability here. this is very significant. >> very significant indeed. joyce vance, frank, gwenda blair, thank you for joining us. >>> breaking news out of california as wildfires are raging out of california in the northern and southern parts of the state. the campfire in northern california is the most destructive in the state's history and has claimed 23 lives. the woolsey fire has claimed two more lives. fire officials fear that high winds will hinder firefighters efforts to contain the blazes. o. every insurance company tells you they can save you money. save up to 10% when you bun

necessarily have criminal -- the hush money payments, is sort of bolstered by what happened with john edwards ago when he was making some hush money payments to a mistress. they went to a jury. the jury acquitted him. there was a hung jury on some other charges. the argument he was making, it wasn't done for campaign finance purposes. it was done so his family would not be embarrassed, so he would not be embarrassed before his family. what do you make of that argument, presumably the president could make that same argument? >> well, he could make a number of arguments, wolf. but i don't think that that argument passes the smell test in this case. because according to the "wall street journal" report, michael cohen and donald trump had communications, along with others, for the specific intent of covering up this payment so it could not be traced back to donald trump. that is not legal. that is illegal under campaign finance law. and it's a very serious matter. if the "wall street journal" report is to be believed, and i don't have any reason to believe that it's not accurate in this regard, t

and asked a question, what can you do for my campaign, which is different from what was said in john edwardse. he was trying to hide a mistress from his pregnant wife. that question puts him in the line of extreme legal exposure and shows he may have violated criminal law. >> what is your analysis? >> i hesitate to disagree with laura so i'm going to line up with her. i think there's an additional perspective, and that's not whether the president violated law, that's whether the federal or state government wants to bring charges. i mean in contrast to the overall question, we have here, whether there was cooperation with the russians, this is pretty low-level legal violation. i think the interesting question if you think that the government is going to bring charges against the president is forget about the acting attorney general, i think in the past 24 hours there's been too much focus on him. there's rod rosenstein who will weigh in on this. there will be questions to any attorney general in the nominee in the senate, what do you think about these charges. there will be what a grand jury

when we looked at the tape we noticed that night that john and elizabeth edwards were not holding hand that's were washing in a parade. didn't know what that meant but i remember that we noticed it, and of course a month later turned out that he had been have having an affair and she had known about that during that time period. so, things began to make sense through body language, and through some of the reaction of the candidates and the book certainly gives a lot of examples of behind the scenes and what thy candidates are really like. fred thompson, an actor, who got into the presidential race in 2008, very late. he had been in movies, hunt for red october, as an example. and talking to him about policy was almost cruciate because he wasn't very well prepared in his run for president but as soon as you mentioned his movie career, he lit up and he spent a lot of time talking about the hunts for red october and l.a. law, so theser are the nuances when yao sit face to face with people who want to lead the world. think the book is fun in some regard because its shows the human side of

you see john lewis with hillary clinton and senator john edwards, and congressman jc watts speaking and senator clinton and senator rick santorum. they will -- they were joking that they would never see this group assembled in favor of anything. they were all in favor of this museum. president bush is not at this press conference. he was a strong supporter of this. he dispatched vice president cheney, who was the president of the senate, to meet with the republic senators and tell them that president bush wants this to happen. and, to get behind it. i congratulated congressman john lewis at the end of that press conference, and i thought that this was a wrap. this is going to sail through. we have the support of the leadership, the president, we will have this museum in a few months. [laughter] silly me. happens.september 11 i guess like that 1929 that was hit with the great depression, we were hit with this tragedy of these september 11 attacks. congress and the president were with issues of war , national security, intelligence, creating a new department of homeland security, and all

lewis there with then senator hillary rodham clinton and then senator sam brownbeck and senator john edwards and then congressman jc watts speaking and you see senator clinton and senator rick santorum and they were joking that you'll never see this group assembled all in favor of anything, but they were all in favor of this museum. and president bush is not at this press conference, but he, behind the scenes, was a strong supporter of this, and he even dispatched vice president cheney, who, of course, as vice president was the president of the senate, to meet with the republican senators and tell them that president bush wants this to happen. and to get behind it. so, i congratulated congressman john lewis at the end of that press conference, and i thought, this is a wrap. this is going to sail right through. we've got the support of all of the leadership, both sides of the aisle, the president. we'll have this museum in a few months. silly me. and then september 11th happened. so, i guess just like that 1929 commission that was hit with the great depression, we were hit with this tragedy o

edwards: you know, john, i'm an optimist. i'm a reagan optimist. i worked at the memorial for 20 years. [applause] mr. edwards: thank you very much. they said for 20 years it cannot be done. i said it can be done and it will be done. with the bipartisan approach, i am happy to remind you scoop jackson and jackson-vanik made a tremendous difference. joe lieberman was a somebody who spoke out very much. and believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, the number two democrat in the house of representatives is an anti-communist and did except -- accept our truman-reagan medal of freedom and spoke at our founding the next year after the communism memorial. i think there are bright spots there. i don't disagree with you that there are flaws. but there are many, many things to applaud. ms. anders: i just wanted to say everybody was so busy patting each other on the back over the victory of the cold war that nobody actually saw the next hurdle coming. that was poland was treated -- somebody was overreacting, we were talking about russia and we were talking abo

one of the first candidates i covered was john edwards. i could contrast that feeling. he was really having to work hard to interact with people, and he really did not like it. it was uncomfortable for him and he did not like having to shake people's hands and look them in the eye. it is interesting to see what makes them tick. >> you can join me one final time in thanking our panel for coming out today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, we talk about the agenda for house democrats when they take over in january, and potential democratic challengers to president trump in 2020. joining us for that is nadine from the center of american progress. and the national review writer discusses the future of the republican party and his new book, melting pot or civil war? live on c-span sunday morn

one of the first candidates i covered was john edwards. i could contrast that feeling. he was really having to work hard to interact with people, and he really did not like it. it was uncomfortable for him and he did not like having to shake people's hands and look them in the eye. it is interesting to see what makes them tick. >> you can join me one final time in thanking our panel for coming out today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its captio >> democrats meet wednesday for a closed-door vote for speaker of the house and other leadership positions. nancy pelosi is expected to win the vote which requires a simple majority in the contest. c-span will have live coverage of the event. she was asked if she had enough votes to become the next speaker. what do you think about the freshman numbers? what can you offer them? back a primary challenge? >> i have always -- i always have. it did not matter to me. i just said win. >> 17

edward: as i recall, it was shocking the idea john gilbert, the great heartthrob depicts a soldier coming back. this was filmed in 1926 and he's lost a leg. anjuli: absolutely. yes. edward: which they don't do here. steve: now, she seems much more welcoming. anjuli: now, he's a war hero so he gets a hug. but yeah, so this film originally filmed in 1919 and released that same year. it was rereleased in 1926 which i think is significant because you have many more of the larger world war i epics released in the mid-20's, mid- to late 20's, including wings and the big parade. and so i think this film would have -- it is very patriotic, it is overall very positive whereas the other films tend to show the darker side of war and the impact so i think it would have stood in contrast to the other films being released at the time. but i'm sure the timing of its release, the rerelease probably helped in terms of getting more people out to the theater to see it, wanting to see the real heroes in action. edward: what do you think was the best american war movie of the silent era? anjuli: oh, gosh that

to be on your own ♪ dion: ♪ anybody here seen my old friend john can you tell me where he's gone? ♪ jonathan edwardsred capital of this spiritual revolution. felix: and in the summer of 1967, there was a mass migration from all over the country to see and feel this new social phenomenon. heather: it became known as the summer of love. scott mckenzie: ♪ if you're going to san francico ♪ stawberry alarm clock: ♪ incense and peppermints meaningless nouns turn on, tune in, turn your eyes around ♪ the easybeats: ♪ gonna have fun in the city be with my girl, she's so pretty ♪ music explosion: ♪ now if you are feeling low and the fish won't bite you need a little bit of soul to put you right ♪ felix: we were all trying to turn on and tune into this new world and the new ways. heather: and there was a perfect word to describe the experience. felix: yeah, psychedelic. ray: a psychedelic revolution was happening in all the major cities and into the minor small towns. iron butterfly: ♪ in-a-gadda-da-vida don't you know that i am loving you ♪ tommy james & the shondells: ♪ crimson and clover over and over ♪ the

edwards. we know this from john locke. this is how this works with traditional christianity. he has read everything and is using it to show why even in an enlightened age, christianity is the most compelling theological system. it is brilliant. what he gets known for is this one sermon. not saying it is a bad sermon. edwards is not the most famous preacher of the time. he is more famous today. the most famous preacher at the time is george whitfield. it is spelled, it would look like whitefield, but i am told on good authority that it was pronounced whitfield. he is by far the most famous preacher of the 1740's. it is even more than that. he is the most famous person in britain and america in his time. the only competitor that he has is king george. maybe more people know king george's name, but a lot more people have seen whitfield in person and read his stuff, his journals and sermon. we think that probably by the 1970, aboutareer in three quarters of everybody who lived in america had heard him he is a bigger celebrity in his we have in ourdy culture today. , we live in a

political declaration, the second document, huw edwards spent a minute at the top of the programme taking the audience through the main headlines from that document. johnnaar in his first report, which was based around westminster, but he did a piece to camera way he underlined those key points and also give a brief assessment of where they stand politically and then again, after that piece, we had a reporter taking is through the documents from brussels, looking at is from a three eu perspective. what people felt about the coverage of, the bbc seems far more obsessed with the personality prospects and gave that far too much attention. what ever else you did. i would disagree, of course: we understand that is tension between reporting what people might regard as the punch and judy politics of westminster and explaining what are in these documents which is about the future of the uk and how it runs itself. at the same time, they were high—profile resignations, the brexit secretary, the person who has been negotiating this stuff resigned. that is a serious political story. they will ever cabinet resignations and the resignations and we have two reports t

john jackson. the choir will now sing ‘the spirit of the lord' by edward elgar. warrior. they have done their own research and have been playing and composing music. # when the spirit of the lord moves in my heart # i will love asjesus loves they sing the spirit of the lord the choir sings the spirit of the lord is not this the fast that i have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the lord shall be thy reward. then shalt thou call, and the lord shall answer, thou shalt cry, and he shall say, here i am. if thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; and if thou d

edward lawrence, thanks. let's go to john tamney at real clear politics. we talk about what the president is saying but to have an ally in the national association of realtors saying enough's enough with what you're doing with rates, you will cause a recession if you're not careful, what do you make of that? >> i think you have to consider the person saying it. housing is not a driver of economic growth. housing is consumption, when you buy a house it doesn't make you more productive, it doesn't open up foreign markets for you, doesn't cure cancer or lead to software innovations. it's just something you buy. this notion that you can stimulate the economy by making it easier to access a house is laughable. whether or not that has anything to do with the economy more broadly, that's another discussion. connell: that is another discussion. let's have that or try to. so if you look at the pressure, i will use the word pressure, that the federal reserve is under from donald trump, the president of the united states, what do you think the impact of that is? is i

comparing him to a journalist, speaking to john berman, saying because journalists curate information. any started talking -- by talking about helping edwardnowden in hong kong, sending another person's from wikileaks to help snowden leave hong kong. 'slk about julian assange history and hayden saying these are the reasons you should be arrested even outside of whatever the mueller inquiry iss about. questionse those two separately. we have the fact that we can assist snowden asylum and the fact that wikileaks published ca materials. wikileleaks has done what other media organizations can and should develop time, which is receiving classified information and publishing it in the public interest. that information was verified and shown to be in the public interest and wikileaks has done no different than any other media organization of publishing that material. with respect to assisting edward snowden. he is been granted asylum. the disclosures made by snowden have been demonstrated to be in the public interest. we're seeing decisions on americans constitutional rights to privacy, showing the conduct of the american government was unconstit

edward lawrence has the latest. >> the direct thrient president. the first lady melania trump calling for national security advisor john bolton's top deputy. ' reports say ricardel threatened melania's staff unless she and another staffer was added to the trip. she could be seen near the president at the celebration at the white house. it's the position of the office of the first lady that ricardel no longer deserves the honor of serving in this white house. this comes as the president is making changes in his cabinet. former attorney general jeff session us is already out. there is talk that kirstjen nielsen could also be on her way out. trish: like i say, don't' mess with me large yeah and her staff. she didn't appreciate the squabbles this lady generated for her staff. >> you want to keep the principle and the principle spouse happy. in the 1980s, some people got on the wrong side of nancy reagan. including donald reagan. and because of that he was out. this was not the first time a first lady has had a top fern removed from the white house. >> i have a different take in terms of what happened. i know people love saying the white house is in disa

edwards mentioned several preconditions ideas matter. i fully agree more than anything else and in case of ronald reagan, john paul ii, margaret thatcher,t was the case. they were not just pragmatists. they were not just doing government business, they were optimists and they had strong views and strong ideas so i fully agree that ideas matter, but, what does it mean if we look at the world around us, if you look at our politicians, most in western europe, eastern europe, are there any ideas among these politicians? i don't see anyone with strong views, strong ideas, and if they are ideas than they are ideas which are totally unacceptable. i am absolutely convinced that ideas matter more than anything in this respect i am an idealist definitely but i am afraid there are no great ideas among the current politicians. that is my pessimism and therefore i don't see some hopeful tomorrow or day after tomorrow, who will do it? who will be that realistic? >> let me say i want to come back and break that down into several areas. >> let my put my american hat on for a minute. i am a polish politician but the i am a u.s. citizen. perhaps -- i thi

about this sort of thing you definitely have to read edwards and he matches enlightenment and thought with traditional christianity and we know this from john locke, but this is how it works with traditional christianity. he's read everything. he's using it to show, and even in traditional christianity still is the most compelling, theological system. it's absolutely brilliant, but what he gets known for is this one sermon. not saying he's a bad sermon, but there's a lot more to edwards. okay? edwards is not the most famous preacher at the time. he's more famous today. the most famous preacher at the time for sure is george whitfield. and i know the way it's spelled it looks like it would be whitefield, but on good authority, i am told it was pronounced whitfield. he is, by far, the most famous preacher of the 1740s and it's even more than that, he is the most famous person in britain in america in his time. the only competitor that he has is king george and maybe more people know king george's name, but a lot more people have seen whitefield in person and have read whitefield's stuff, his journals and his sermons. we think by the end of hi

edwards mentioned, his several preconditions, one of them is ideas matter. i fully agree more than anything else. in the case of ronald reagan, and john paul ii, margaret thatcher, they were not just doing government jobs as daily business, they were ideologues and optimists. they had strong views and strong ideas. i fully agrees that -- i fully agree that ideas matter. if you look at the world around mostd our politicians, here in western europe, in eastern europe, are there any ideals among contemporary politicians? with a strongyone views, strong ideas. if they are -- if there are ideas, they are totally unacceptable. post-nationalism, post so i am absolutely convinced that ideas matter, more than anything else. , i am anespect idealist. i am afraid that there are no great ideas among current politicians. that is my pessimism and therefore i do not see some hopeful tomorrow's or days after tomorrow. want to comen: i back to break that down in several areas. s: let me put my american had on, i am a polish politician but the american -- but a u.s. citizen. that the u.s. government has to make sure that europe is safe. unsafe europe i

political declaration, the second document, huw edwards spent a minute at the top of the programme taking the audience through the main headlines from that document. john where they stand politically and then again, after that piece, we had a reporter taking is through the documents from brussels, looking at is from a three eu perspective. what people felt about the coverage of, the bbc seems far more obsessed with the personality prospects and gave that far too much attention. what ever else you did. i would disagree, of course: we understand that is tension between reporting what people might regard as the punch and judy politics of westminster and explaining what are in these documents which is about the future of the uk and how it runs itself. at the same time, they were high—profile resignations, the brexit secretary, the person who has been negotiating this stuff resigned. that is a serious political story. they will ever cabinet resignations and the resignations and we have two reports that. there was also a move by some of the conservative brexiteer group to announce they were sending in letters of no confidence in the prime minister and there

edward, thank you. connell: to the market panel, fox business network deirdre bolton at the speech. in the room where it happened this afternoon. john layfield, ceo of the layfield report. a fox news contributor. joined by todd horowitz, host of the bubba trading show. deirdre, we can start with you, in the room at the economic club of new york was, what was the buzz after jay powell spoke? >> well he is pretty much stuck to the script as we heard, chairman powell really talking about the stability of the financial system. those were prepared remarks. he took a few questions from the audience but they were pretty bland and he answered in greenspanees. like he spoke but didn't give too much away. the funniest comment off-the-cuff between the prepared speech and q&a talking about his own health exams, saying the report i give for the u.s. economy is a lot like what happens to me as baby boomer going to the doctor. a couple things to monitor. overall health is pretty good. as far as the comment that stood out for the market was him saying interest rates are close to neutral, right? huge change. from what we heard two months ago in octo

john lonski from moody's, where he is managing director and chief economist. gary, i have no doubt that larry kudlow's comments turned the market around today but i thought edward lawrence in his report used the correct sound bites. you wonder what the reaction should be heading into the g20? what i mean by that kudlow said, yeah, we could have a deal but only if we solve critical issues, forced transfer of technology, tariff issues. what are the odds of a deal including solving of those issues coming out of argentina this weekend? >> i don't give it good odds. that is almost the good news. there is very low expectations out there. when you hear from kudlow a deal may happen, don't blink because an hour later somebody else comes out and says a deal may not happen. i'm waiting for something to go on. i am hoping both parties know that if they come out of there with nothing, that will affect markets and it will affect the psyche of markets as well as economies. so you have to be very careful and hopefully, just move the needle. that is all i'm interested in at this point. maybe just move it a little bit forward. we'll take what we can get. connell: if nothing com

john butler, thank you. we look to the g20 now with alan ruskin of deutsche bank and edward alden of the council on foreign relationsly important failure to adjust which continues to need rereading. chapter helping the losers trade adjustment assistance. i think there are losers this morning in ohio and losers in ontario, losers in michigan. how do we help them? in this question, it's not a trade story, the technology story. gm trying to move onto the next generation of vehicles and become more efficient. there's a lot of experience in europe in particular on retraining programs that work. and we had that experience in the united states. they work but would never done it seriously. 1/5 ord on average about 16 of what typical european country does an much less compared to countries like denmark and germany. we just don't take retraining seriously in the country. unionized workers are little better off, the unions sometimes have programs that help them make the transition but there is a geographic problem which is these factories are all in the heartland of the united states and that's not where the jobs are being cre