prosecutors,ial ken starr he was like the boogie man. i spent more time in the white requestsponding to than doing anything else. document trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. , i get to do my job. >> now a debate about the situation in the middle east in the policies of the bush, obama and the trump administration's.

prosecutors,ial ken starr he was like the boogie man. i spent more time in the white requestsponding to than doing anything else. document trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. , i get to do my job. >> now a debate about the situation in the middle east in the policies of the bush, obama and the trump administration's. we will hear from former obama administration officials and former navy intelligence nats. this is from pasadena california. hello everybody, i'm terry mccarthy. of the 72 events we do every year a substantial portion is about the malaise -- middle east. tonight islook at how we got here and where we can go forward. this is as we are seeing is a

>> i know bob mueller and i was on the judiciary committee when ken starr was testifying, and i don't think starr is bob mueller, number one. number two, i think we have a real question here about how rosenstein -- he's in a very peculiar position. he wrote the memo that just field the firi -- just field t justified the firing of comey, but i think he thought the president would say, no, i fired him because he was investigating the russian matter. i think he is in a peculiar position and conflict as well. if they came to him and said, fire comey he would probably end up being resign or fired himself. that would -- that probably could only happen if we changed the attorney general. i think it would be an american catastrophe, a failure of the system seen not just nationally, around the world, and people like senator lindsay graham have put down their marker, that ain't going to happen. there will be hell to pay if that happens. >> the most loaded words in the business, we will see. john flannery, mathew whitaker,

you see ken starr. he's a definition of that. odd from him. look, i think this comes down to what you believe the definition of directly is. in rod rosenstein's order setting up the deputy attorney general, setting up bob mueller as special counsel says, give him free rein to pursue anything directly related to russia's meddling in the election. republicans define that narrowly. that just means the 2016 election? but as pam is reporting and pointing out, you know, there could potentially be a long tail here going back a decade. potenti potentially. maybe more. in terms of relationships built between that trump world and russia. so -- it's a hard thing. again, i think ken starr, frankly, is a flawed messenger to deliver the fishing expedition line, but one thing i would note, dana bash, our colleague, interviewed susan collins and lisa murkowski this week and asked about bob mueller and what was a red line and what wasn't. susan collins said, look. bob mueller should have the prerogative to follow the leads as he sees them. there's no an appeti

. >> what does all this have to do with whitewater and what is ken starr doing in this business?sue clinton until they caught him doing something and the something was monica lewinsky. >> a couple weeks ago a woman named linda tripp walked into ken starr's office and says, i have these tapes. i have about ten phone calls of a young woman named monica lewinsky and in it she talks about having had a sexual relationship with the president. >> monica lewinsky bares her soul about her love for bill clinton to her friend, linda tripp. linda tripp gives those tapes to paula jones' lawyers and kenneth starr's office. ken starr knows that the president has to give a deposition in the jones case. >> part of the danger for the president lies in what he said under oath to lawyers for paula jones. mr. clinton denied in his deposition having a sexual relationship with monica lewinsky. >> did the president agree with lewinsky to denye -- deny their affair under oath? >> if the president, in fact, encouraged this woman to lie under oath or ask someone else to encourage her, that's a crime. >> it

. >> what does all this have to do with whitewater and what is ken starr doing in this business?e clinton until they caught him doing something and the something was monica lewinsky. >> a couple weeks ago a woman named linda tripp walked into ken starr's office and says, i have these tapes. i have about ten phone calls of a young woman named monica lewinsky and in it she talks about having had a sexual relationship with the president. >> monica lewinsky bares her soul about her love for bill clinton to her friend, linda tripp. linda tripp gives those tapes to paula jones' lawyers and kenneth starr's office. ken starr knows that the president has to give a deposition in the jones case. >> part of the danger for the president lies in what he said under oath to lawyers for paula jones. mr. clinton denied in his deposition having a sexual relationship with monica lewinsky. >> did the president agree with lewinsky to deny their affair under oath? >> if the president, in fact, encouraged this woman to lie under oath or ask someone else to encourage her, that's a crime. >> it's a differ

ken starr fished. robert mueller doesn't.et's not put the two together. >> in fairness, though, to ken starr, he possibly learned his lesson, phil, in that, yes, he engaged in a fishing expedition himself, but now he says be careful, don't do that. >> you want me to let him off the hook, no. what he should have said there is i made a mistake. what robert mueller is doing is the core of any investigation. that is following the money. it is not fishing. >> let me talk about that for a moment because some have suggested his critics, robert mueller, that he's going too far. president has suggested there is a red line. susan, that you can't go and start looking at all of his financial dealings over the years. we went back and we looked at the instructions that robert mueller received from the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein when he was appointed back in may. and it said that he should investigate any links and/or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president donald tr

we saw what happened with ken starr and whitewater, it basically led to monica lewinsky.oing to be a lot of taxpayer money, right? >> it absolutely will. i don't think bob mueller is this just so -- >> that's not what she's saying. >> coinciding of the timing here -- >> he's being rewarded for bad behavior, that's how i see it. >> right, but there's a grand jury being impaneled to investigate russian interference into the trump administration and the trump campaign. we're not talking about james comey's book deal -- >> well, i am. [laughter] >> yes, it's going to be a lot of taxpayer money, he's picking up work looking into financial crimes that may have been committed in new york. yeah, it's a broad mandate, it's going to take a lot of time and money and, hopefully, there will be some sort of conclusion. >> the way i see it, comey should be investigated. mueller's not going to investigate him because they're best buds. elizabeth: he admitted -- sorry, forgive me -- comey admitted he leaked, right? -- i'm sorry, hang on. admitted to leaking in order to get -- >> classifie

had a special prosecutor -- i don't know if you remember a guy named ken starr. he was like a bogeyman back then. i spent more time in that white house responding to foia requests the doing anything else. and going those through a three document trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. now, i actually get to do my job. >> watch our interview with omarosa manigault on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span o.org. >> now a discussion on the future of american political parties. townhall political editor guy benson and other commentators participating. this was part of a world affairs conference hosted by the university of colorado. this is about an hour and 10 minutes.

i'll speak with ken starr in a moment.e said on "new day" on friday. >> to the extent you're moving beyond collusion with russian operatives or the russian government itself and into that which doesn't seem to have a direct tie to russia, then these questions are, in fact, raised. it is certainly a serious matter when a special counsel is accused, and i was accused of that -- of exceeding his or her authority. that's a serious matter because we do not want investigators and prosecutors out on a fishing expediti expedition. >> ken starr joins me now. some people who saw that were surprised or thought it was hypocritical that the ideas of a fishing expedition they say you started out investigating whitewater and ended up investigating clinton-lewinsky. >> there are checks and balances under the old statute under which i was appointed. the most controversial phase of the verks lewinski phase, was authorized by the attorney general. >> janet reno. >> who was janet reno. >> when you found evidence about the president's comments

then we had a special prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was like the bogeyman back then. i spend more time in that white house responding to foia requests than doing anything else. i remember those and going to every document trying to find that thing that can star wanted that week -- that ken starr wanted that week. coming in now, i get to do my job. the whiteerview with house office public liaison friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: zack colman, e&e news white house reporter, talking about that climate change report that came out. why was this report done in the first place, zack colman? thet: this is part of national climate assessment that is congressionally mandated and has to be done every four years. george h.w. bush side of the bill into law. it happens regularly. the report we are talking about today is part of that national climate assessment. host: who is involved? guest: there are 13 federal agencies involved here, naked scientists and the agencies, and they also have -- and they get scient

dislaws in whitewater and ken starr did go back, get additional authority once this investigation continued. that is the key piece here. i think it we should watch for bob mueller, if he's really going down paths of unrelated financial transactions, then he has to go back to rod and get that additional authorization. >> so, craig, also in your article and in "the republic" you wrote after a -- quoting now, "review of the public record revealed a clear and disturbing pattern. trump owes much of his business success and by extension his presidency to a flow of highly suspicious money from russia over the past three decades. at least 13 people with known or alleged links to russian mobsters or oligarchs, run, owned and lived in or run out of trump properties. is it your belief when investigators say they're following the money, those two are threads they'll look into? this was information that you quote in your article based on court records. so not accusations you're making? >> right. absolutely. one thing a lot of people don't get is that the russian mafia is in many ways an adjunct of the r

. >> ken starr said something this morning. he said you don't want prosecutors going on a fishing expedition. a lot of democrats laughed at that and cited irony because ken starr started investigating a land deal and then whitewater and then to monica lewinsky. but can't it get out of hand? >> no, i don't think so. i know and we all know he's looking at the possibility of collusion and aobstruction of justice. but when you're doing those kind of investigation, it is going to take you into some other areas and those areas could be very problematic, they could be criminal. so if that happens, then he has a responsibility to follow up on it. it's not a fishing expedition. >> but want that the argument that people made in defense of ken starr? they say you start on unthing, y -- one thing, you couldn't get him on whitewater, you couldn't get him on something else? they say past business practices. >> the fact of the matter is if the congress of the united states feels that given all this information that something is wrong, that th

we had a special prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was the bogeyman back then.[laughter] i spent more time in that white house responding to requests than doing anything else. i remember going through every document trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. now i get to do my job and help change the course of this country's direction. so many americans throughout the campaign told us that we were the right direction and i am so proud to be able to put this country back on track. host: when did you decide you are going to support donald trump? initially, you had tweeted that hillary clinton was going to run in omarosa: there is no secret i 2016. was a democrat. diehard democrat. i was an african-american female, from a working-class neighborhood. my family was involved with labor. that is what you do, you are part of the democratic party. but, as i continue to kind of go through my life and accomplished so many different things, and realized that some of the promises that the democrats were making, especially to my committee, as ashley to youngst

we had a special prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was like the bogeyman. this. request for i spent more time in that white house responding to file requests than doing anything else. i remember going through every document trying to find that thing can starr wanted that week. -- ken starr wanted that week. now i actually get to do my job. with omarur interview is a medical on greg joining us this morning from san francisco, similar writer from -- senior writer from wired magazine tom , simonite, to talk about artificial intelligence in the workplace. tom simonite, what is artificial intelligence? guest: hi. happy to be here. that is a good question, one we are hearing a lot lately. it covers a lot of things. so, in the broader sense artificial , intelligence is area of science and engineering that is all about making computers able to do the kind of things human -- humans can do, such as look around the world and make sense of it. solve problems within themselves, pick up new skills and use the experience they had in the past to solve new problems in the future.

then we had a special prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was like the bogeyman back then. i spend more time in that white house responding to foia requests than doing anything else. i remember those and going to every document trying to find that thing that can star wanted that week -- that ken starr wanted that week. coming in now, i get to do my job. the whiteerview with house office public liaison friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org.

obviously a lot of democrats accused ken starr of the same things.remember this, but as you remember, and michael, you don't, and neither do i, it was whitewater and ended up being about lewinsky. >> the irony of that just drips. the fact is that ken starr, as the independent counsel back then, vigorously defended his right to go where the facts took him. if he found irregularities or improprieties or illegalities, he went there. the thought this is a fishing expedition is ridiculous. >> the president has been talking about finances for a very long time. i'm sure we heard it mentioned before this would be part of the scope. he's not limited at looking at someone's bank accounts or transactions they may have had. there is an argument right now about the head of a bank that does business with the president and jared kushner during that time period. they did argue it was about syria, but that's the guy that controls the russian money that goes overseas. it seems like it would be an obvious question where it might be malpractice not to ask those question

. >> robert, i'm sure you know who ken starr is.im. >> of course. >> the independent counsel who led the investigation against president bill clinton. i want you to listen to what he said and then we'll discuss. >> i do think that it is certainly a serious matter when a special counsel is accused -- and i was accused of that -- of exceeding his or her authority. that's a serious matter because we do not want investigators and prosecutors out on a fishing expedition. >> it raised a lot of eyebrows because whitewater, it started as an investigation into a land deal and ended up with monica lewinsky and the blue dress and dna and all of that. >> right. >> how did that happen? >> well, it happened because in each instance, theoretically, each one of those individual matters could have resulted in the appointment of a separate independent counsel. rather than do that, the decision was made in conjunction with ken starr's office and the then attorney general janet reno to seek an expansion of ken starr's jurisdiction in each of those inst

just as did ken starr. he received an extension initiated by the traffic. >> in a speech on thursday the president of the russia story a total fabrication and said here is what justice department people should be investigating. >> what the prosecutors should be looking at our hillary clinton's 33,000 deleted emails. >> dv that is an order from the president? >> chris, the president has put very responsible people in charge in the department of justice. sessions, rachel brandt, christopher wray and others that will be joining us soon. i can assure you that we will do the right thing and follow the rule of law. but the president can order the justice department to do things and he says what it appears a prosecutor should be doing is looking at hillary clinton, do you view that as an order? >> no chris, i view with the president is publicly something is it publicly. if he wants to give orders to us in the department he does it privately. and then if we have any feedback we provide it to him. >> and can you tel

we had us national prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was like the boogie man back then. i spent more time in that one requestssponding to than doing anything else. remember going through every document, trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. now, i actually get to do my job every >> watch our interview with omarosa manigault. tonight on c-span, c-span radio, .nd www.c-span.org as president trump continued his working vacation in bedminster, new jersey today, he responded to her reporter's question about north korea. by militaryou mean solutions related to north korea? president trump: we are looking at that very carefully and i hope they're going to fully understand the gravity of what i said. and what i said is what i mean. hopefully they will understand the meaning of what i said, the meaning of those words. those words are very easy to understand. we don't want to talk about that channels. we want to talk about a country that has misbehaved for many, many years, decades, actually, through numerous administrations and they didn't want to take on the

we had a special prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was like the bogeyman. this. request for i spent more time in that white house responding to file requests than doing anything else. i remember going through every document trying to find that thing can starr wanted that week. -- ken starr wanted that week. now i actually get to do my job. with omarur interview is a medical on

cheryl: roberts in the ken starr bill clinton investigation.ilding for a bipartisan push to protect special counsel robert mueller from potentially being fired by president trump. announcing plans to sue the trump administration over funding for sanctuary cities. the lawsuit comes less than two weeks after attorney general jeff sessions is the department would withhold federal funds if they don't cooperate with federal immigration agents. mayor emmanuel accusing the government of trying to blackmail his city. >> the trump justice department is asking for us to actually turn ourselves inside out and in my way -- and maybe you put a conflict to fundamental fundamental self-interest principles commit being a welcoming city can mean policing. cheryl: this is expected to be fired today. chicago received $2 million in public safety grant/cheered, which has been used to by police vehicles. cheryl: electronics manufacturing strap.com planning a research and development facility in michigan. chinese media is reporting that would make components for vehi

i think there is some middle ground between where we are now and where we were back in the ken starrra. >> and what would the middle ground be? >> for one, we could get rid of the secret veto. under existing regulations, robert mueller needs to inform the attorney general or now the attorney general recused deputy attorney general, three days in advance of any major investigative or prosecutorial step. the deputy general has the opportunity to veto mueller. he doesn't need to tell congress until the very end of mueller's investigation. which may not be until the end of 2020 or 2021 that he exercised his veto authority. at a minimum he should have to inform congress when he stops mueller in his tracks. mo moreover, we can give mueller a stable budget without recreating all of the problems of the ken starr investigation and allow him to proceed year to year without reauthorization prt attorney general. >> it may be that bills introduced in the senate have done their job in protecting mueller ba tuz is such a clear expression of the senate's will at this point. the legislative pros expe

. >> ken starr said something.e said you don't want prosecutors going on a fishing expedition and then a lot of democrats laughed at that. he went to a land deal called whitewater and then on monica lewinsky. isn't it true what he is saying in some respects, that it could get out the hand if a prosecutor starts looking and ends up looking at something they didn't go after? >> we all know that he is looking at the possibility of collusion and obstruction of justice. when you're doing those kinds of investigations, it is going to take you into some other areas and those areas could be very problematic. they could be criminal. and so if that happens, then he has a responsibility to follow up on it. it is not a fishing expedition. >> wasn't that the argument they people made in defense of ken starr. you started on one thing and now we're here from monica lewinsky because you couldn't get them on whitewater and on vince foster. if they end up with something and say past business practices. >> the fact is, if given all t

that's what ken starr said when he was on "new day" friday. jaw dropping when he said no one wants to see the prosecutor going on a fishing expedition. he made a point of when he looked to advance the scope, he went to janet reno who green lit him. rosenstein has been in a very unique spot. because the a.g. recused himself to the president ooes great frustration, this whole process moves forward. what we know is mueller now is actively working with the grand jury. the president, probably all his instincts are to fire him. what's most significant is people in the administration are saying don't. people in the senate and congress are saying we need a backstop put forward to not allow the president to do this because it would kick off a constitutional crisis in the form of obstruction of justice. let's not let the 17-day working vacation distract us from this is the big game going on in the administration, whatever economic numbers are being touted. >> karoun, the president said the red line for him is family finances, to him this is outside the

mueller has been called ken starr times a thousand, reports indicate mueller is following the, quote,ected to the

general janet reno to seek an expansion of ken starr's jurisdiction in each of those instances.e bits and pieces were, you know, obviously unrelated to one another. >> mueller have that much leeway? >> he has the authority -- look, you have to understand there's basic three levels of authority. he has the mandate which is russia collusion investigation. >> right. >> he has anything that ail rises directly from that, and finally, in connection with the investigation he has the false statements and perjury. >> okay. now if it's outside of the direct mandate and something is uncovered during the course of the grand jury investigation, he has the authority to go back to rod rosenstein, the expansion of jurisdiction which is what mr. rosenstein was talking about over the weekend and what obviously judge star was talking about as well. investigations in some sense are fishing for the facts and evidence whether or not a crime committed. >> it sounds good, but it really -- >> it's kind of a misnomer because in some sense, one way to look at it is that a grand jury by virtue of it's char

opens up the possibility of prosecuting him by indictment as one of the opinions supported when ken starr an independent counsel. so i think there are lot of dangers -- >> go ahead. >> if you were the judge and this was a trial i would immediately object to assuming facts not in evidence to what john's saying. >> these facts are in evidence. before i make a ruling, which facts are we discussing? >> i feel like i'm in court. >> the single dollar. >> the talk about money laundering and why would have a prosecutor in new york step down from an investigation involving vast sums of money that crossed from russia into the united states and them talking about what their exchange is and to believe that the sankszs are not about money, which is exactly what putin was upset about some of the sanctions because his money was off shore and it was effecting him personally. and as for trump, there are questions bouts what were his holdings in russia that were bragged about by erick years ago. so to say you don't talk about money in this case is to avoid the obvious something given what motivates the peo

talk about ken starr.investigate a land deal in arkansas and went on to travelgate, paula jones and sending impeachment on monica lewinsky. democrats saying what's going on here? that's legitimate. what he came across. we're seeing a reverse now. >> and one of the reasons special counsel doesn't exist because of that back in the day. and sneak this in. announcing a new, what he says, tripling of the justice department investigators looking into leaks of classified information. >> i strongly agree with the president and condemn in the strongest terms the staggering number of leaks. i have for would-be leakers, a warning. don't do it. he didn't name specific cases. essentially a calling card. saying if you know about this, bring on the information. a significant as sessions reacting to pressure from the president? >> it is, because -- as we all know that sessions has been under a lot of pressure from the president, but i'll tell you. republican and democrat, didn't matter when when those transcripts leaked y

ken starr is the textbook photo if you look up fishing expeditions as related to independent counsel. so, it is odd to hear. and he admitted that, that he was accused of that, but it is odd to hear him warn against fishing expeditions when as you noted earlier, brooke, his investigation started with a land deal and ended up with an intern in the oval office. >> pam brown, how would your sources or, you know, folks tied to the investigation respond to that? >> reporter: well, i mean, you know, i think from the viewpoint of those involved in the probe, they think that everything they're doing is relevant, and look, if they get a lead or unearth facts that could be a crime, you know, they're not going to turn a blind eye to it. so, in that regard, i think those involved in the special counsel probe feel like they are doing exactly what they were appointed to do, and they have been given wide latitude but certainly i think it is sort of ironic that kenneth starr was sort of warning against this notion of a fishing expedition, given the point david made. >> i think irony is precisely the w

i remember those foyas, going through to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. so coming in now, i actually get to do my job. >> watch our interview with o r omarrosa manigault, this weekend on cspan, on cspan radio and cspan.org. >>> next we continue our focus on the supreme court, with an emphasis on our landmark cases decisions on judicial powers. we start with v. sawyer, the 1952 case limited the power of the president to seize property. >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united

and then put in ken starr, a man who had never prosecuted a case in his life. and we still were silent. carver wanted to attack him. we told him not to. we didn't start attacking starr until it became obvious he was obsessed with clinton's sex life. if mueller starts digging into trump's sex life, too creepy to think about, i'll be the first to attack robert mueller. >> going back to how a grand jury works, there is i talked to jeff toobin in the last hour who said they probably already have and would want to have a certain amount of documents, documentation before they actually interview people, before they haul people in front of the grand jury because they don't want to -- it's not like in front of the senate where they're just kind of asking random questions. they want evidence that they can specifically tailor their questions. >> yes, but they also want the substantiate what they already have. they can call people in as witnesses. they can call people in as targets. you don't know which one you're going to be. >> they don't tell you? >> they don't tell you

and then put in ken starr, a man who had never prosecuted a case in his life. and we still were silent. carver wanted to attack him. we told him not to. if mueller starts digging into trump's sex life, too creepy to think about, i'll be the first to attack robert mueller. >> going back to how a grand jury works, there is documentation before they actually interview, before they haul people in front of the grand jury because they don't want to -- it's not like in front of the senate where they are asking random questions. they want evidence that they can specifically tayl specifically tailor -- >> they can call people in as witnesses or targets. you don't know which one you're going to be. >> they don't tell you? >> they don't tell you but you have an idea. if they're calling in the brother-in-law, you know that's a target. but here's the issue at hand. if once they get into that room and they start to testify, there's going to be a thread and if you go back to vince foster and the suicide, there was a thread that they were investigating in the clinton years, th

and then we had a special prosecutor, i don't know if you remember, a guy named ken starr. he was like the bogeyman back then. it was like, a flyover class for this. i spent more time in that white house responding to foya requests and doing i go else. >> boy, i remember those going every day, every document trying to find a thing that ken starr wanted that week. so, you know, coming in now, i actually get to do my job. >> more to our interview, c-span radio and c-span.org. now we take you to atlanta for day two of the netroots nation annual conference where progressive have gathered to discuss policy. we'll hear how the democratic party tr

we had a special prosecutor, a guy named ken starr. he was the bogeyman back then. i've spent more time in that white house responding to requests than doing anything else. i remember going through every document trying to find that things can starr wanted -- starr wanted. now i get to do my job and help thise the course of country's direction. so many americans told us we were heading in the right direction and i am proud to put this country back on track. decide youdid you are going to support donald trump? initially you said hillary clinton was going to run in 2016. omarosa: there is no secret i was a democrat. diehard dem. a working-class neighborhood. my family was involved with labor. that is what you two. you are part of the democratic party. as i continued to go through my somebodyaccomplish things, some of the promises the democrats were making to my community, look at youngstown. party kepts the making to that community, the more they made promises, the more you see the country, the deteriorate.e city they make more promises and then he plant was shut down

the rules for mueller are different than those for ken starr.y allows him to test witnesses and evidence in this secret setting, putting people under oath and putting them under the threat of essentially violating federal law if they mislead. another key part of a grand jury investigation is typically people go in there alone. so you're speaking before the grand jury, to mueller or his investigators without the accompaniment of your own lawyer. >> what we know right now, this is reporting from "the wall street journal" that we have not yet confirmed, but this is the idea that the grand jury has been impaneled. what does it allow him to do that he couldn't? right now, mueller can subpoena people but there's no act as you said to test witnesses. >> it allows him to bring those witnesses before a criminal proceeding. we're not going to play hypotheticals here, but the vast majority of people can be brought before a grand jury. in the case of history with bill clinton, they ultimately voluntarily agreed to provide the president's testimony. i'm not

and then we -- we had a special prosecutor, i don't know if you remember a guy named ken starr. he was like the boogie man back then. it was like a fly over quest for this. i spent more time in that white house responding to foia requests than doing anything else. boy, i remember those foias and going through every document, trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. and so, you know, coming in now, i actually get to do my job. >> watching our interview with omarosa manigault, white house office of public liaison friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >>> next on c-span3, we continue our focus on the supreme court with an episode from our landmark cases series on presidential powers and the jewish justices of the supreme court. we start with youngstown sheet and tube v sawyer. the 1952 case limited the power of the president to seize property when the court ruled 6-3 that president truman lacked the authority to seize steel plants in order to avert a labor strike in the midst of the korean war. >> all persons having business before th

i remember those foyas, going through to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. so coming in now, i actually get to do my job. >> watch our interview with o r omarrosa manigault, this weekend on cspan, on cspan radio and cspan.org. >>> next we continue our focus on the supreme court, with an emphasis on our landmark cases decisions on judicial powers. we start with v. sawyer, the 1952 case limited the power of the president to

back when ken starr under the independent counsel statute was pursuing president clinton at that time. about whether there's a judicial remedy for presidential wrongdoing through regular courts like an indictment. would that be something this grand jury would or would not do? >> the question would be whether the prosecutors thought they could bring that type of evidence before the grand jury. it does seem that special counsel has brought on some people who have expertise. people who used to boring in the office of legal counsel who might be in a position to analyze that issue for him. and help him determine whether or not those are appropriate matters to bring before the grand jury. i do think that, if the reporting is correct, that the grand jury is here in washington, d.c. i do think the location is relevant. the grand jury is supposed to be impaneled in a location where the offense likely took place. so that does speak to, what are the particular issues or offense that's took place here in washington that would justify bringing the grand jury together here. it wouldn't just be a ma

ken starr went on for four years. neil: iran contra for seven? how long do you think this goes on?ear unless mueller is replaced with somebody who is fair and impartial. even the appearance of impropriety makes americans lose confidence in our to system of justice. neil: what if the president tried to fire either working through somebody he appoints or whatever, that would be craze -- crazy, right? >> it would be destructive for the president to do that. look -- neil: far past that point. >> there is something that the president could do, you know? he could put somebody else in charge as acting attorney general over in this particular -- like rachel brand number three. neil: right. >> because rod rosenstein is also compromised. he too is a witness -- neil: and rod rosenstein brought him in. >> yeah. neil: okay. >> if you put in a rachel brand, for example, to oversee the mueller investigation, she could rein him in. neil: okay. all right, gregg, thank you very, very much. in the meantime, we've had a billionaire become president, now another one who apparently is seriously consider

going through every document trying to find the thing that ken starr wanted that week. coming in now i actually get to do my job. .. >> first, growing up muslim in america, in his book, how to be a muslim, and american story. no one known one. [inaudible] >> we are going to start. i'm the community relations manager at the nyu bookstore. this is part of our event series, an ongoing series that we have been having here for the past seven years. featuring nyu alumni, like tonight with -- as well as nyu faculty and the general community as well. it is a pleasure to be hosting tonight. welcome to nyu. it is a pleasure to have you here. we are going to hear from the author then have time for questions and answers and a book signing. want to start the evening by giving a brief introduction. the author has been very active since graduating from nyu. i don't know if i will cover everything. but i will leave it up to him to fill the gaps. our author is currently a senior fellow and director of global studies. his commentator and broadcaster who wishes he could be a writer. i thi

if you may recall, the special prosecutor in the clinton administration ken starr started with a realnvestigation and wound up with the president's infid dells with an intern in the white house. that was pretty far afield. mueller may wind up looking at all kinds of things that come up in the course of the investigation, but it's important to remember that some of these financial ties with russia may be exactly pertinent to the question, because the russians try to buy influence with prominent people. they would try to cut deals, so in that sense you would have to look at trump's finances. >>> i want to ask the question this way. i know you recently told "business insider" you believe the meeting was some sort of a ink todayle by russia, which was meant to lure the trump campaign into colluding. if that turns out to be true, does that change the legal implications for the trump camp? >> so not necessarily. the dangle on the russian side doesn't necessarily mean that the trump peet were witting of what they were trying to do or just colluded. it's the first step. you have to see what c

. >> it can be very sticky and particularly concerning for this white house if mueller does what ken starr did and expands the investigation beyond just russia. the last thing that these guys really want to have happen is for people to be going, investigators to be looking into the financial dealings. >> they are apparently looking. they're looking at money transfers, any kind of business between the trump gang, carter page and manafort and the rest of they will. they're looking at all the meetings and all the russians they're dealing with. they're probably looking into the past. >> that's where it gets on more dangerous ground. this has really gotten under trump's skin. he's the one who keeps bringing this up order and over and over again. it is just something that he is not letting go. he senses some danger there. >> we talked about how, it is not the just the fbi director choom met with the president and felt the president was trying to obstruct justice. at least he was intimating that. he shared his phone qualls the top deputies. there's a lot of information there. and now i'm looking

. >> ken starr said something. a lot of democrats laughed at that. he went to a land deal called whitewater and then on monica lewinsky. isn't it true what he is saying in some almosts, that it can get out of hand if a prosecutor starts looking and ends up looking at something they didn't go after? >> we all know that he is looking at the possibility of collusion and obstruction of justice. when you're doing those kinds of investigations, it is going to take you into some other areas and those areas could be very problematic. they could be criminal. and so if that happens, then he has a responsibility to follow up on it. it is not a fishing expedition. >> wasn't that the argument they made? you started on one thing and now we're here from monica lewinsky because you couldn't get them on whitewater and on vince foster. if they end up with something and say past business practices. >> the fact is, if given all this information that something is wrong, that the president of the united states is out of bounds, he's committed certain crimes, they can make

with ken starr, and all of a sudden there's a monica lewinski shows up, which has nothing to do with what they were investigating in the first place, but if you take exactly what they have, there is a lot of ground to cover. >> my question is the time line. something you have spoken about before, the way that sort of threshold, evidentiary threshold, which is quite different, and the latter could take a lot more time in terms of working through something you you could bring before court. >> you're right. and saying this in testimony before congress, he said, i'm not in the evidence business. i'm in the intelligence business. which is absolutely correct. >> you can read that a lot of different ways, by the way. >> people are arguing today, there's no evidence. intelligence is data points of information which may be come from a myriad of despaired points. until they are in the hands of someone like my associate here, nick, is not evidence. >> right. >> it is within the constellation of information. and once it's in justice department's hands and they work it up as part of a case, then