voteybody thinks you can -- that is being naive. this is a step in a different direction to move us back to where the patient and the doctor milligan to have the real intimate conversation -- that dr. really get to have a real intimate conversation. it allows competition within the marketplace. we have some new things top drop-down costs. people with existing conditions should's be charged more -- should possibly be charged more? guest: if you look at the plan and this has been said in every makeng, we are going to sure that people with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage that is affordable and fair. we as a nation have crossed the threshold and said, it is unacceptable to not cover pre-existing conditions. point -- to that host: does affordable and fair mean equal? more to covers somebody with a pre-existing condition. i think we as americans have said, we are willing to do our part to help offset the cost. that is what the american health care act does. it pulls all of us together to say those of us who are the most ab

you can't say kushner was naive, but flynn had been around the track.urely he had to know how extreme this was. >> he would know that it was extreme but again, michael, i don't think we have a prima facie ia case, even if this took place, that anything here would have been illegal. he would have known it is outside the norm, but general flynn had a reputation at the tactical and operational level that made him quite successful of breaking china. this may be another example of mike being willing to color outside the lines for what he viewed to be a higher purpose. >> it is memorial day weekend. thank you for your service, general hayden. we appreciate it. >> thanks, michael. >> what are your thoughts? tweet me or go to my facebook. i'll read some responses through the program. hit me with one, what have we got. doesn't matter. naivete is not a defense for breaking the law or committing trees on or espionage. right. i am trying to discern if it is evidence of collusion or inexperience. whatever it was, i am not excusing it. >>> up ahead, it was the body s

>> it's unusual and it may be as graham noted naive, or it could be something more sinister.why the reporting being done is so frimportant. >> if it were only jared kushner, but you had a former director of the intelligence agency, general michael flynn who was involved in those meetings as well, a man with an enormous experience of experience suggests something else. once again congratulations on the new book. thanks so much for joining us, liz. thanks to you as well. coming up, will congressional committees investigating russian meddling now take a closer look at jared kushner and his security clearance? also, congressman ted deutch is standing by. he'll weigh in on all of this when we come back. ♪ ♪ for 10 years my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape. so i sleep deeply and wake up ready to perform. now through june 11th, save $600 when you buy select tempur-pedic adjustable mattress sets. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com. with my moderate to severe crohn's disease,... ...i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay...

so at the very least it seems naive and reckless to think you're not going to be used by the russians here. i think that's kind of the broad overview. this is where the special counsel of the investigation is plunging ahead. >> david sanger, whatalisyn, it the content of the conversation was. there's nothing illegal about back channel. i agree with david completely, it's very fraught if you're doing back channels during a transition. there have been back channels done before. nixon engaged in some, kennedy engaged in some during transition times, but they are really a lot easier to go do once you're in office. so why would he need the banker? well, if the explanation that the white house would prefer, that this was set up by the russians, setting up a way for putin to be able to talk, maybe that will turn out to be bad judgment but not illegal. the difficulty is that the bank the banker represents would have a huge amount to benefit from the lifting of the u.s. sanctions and international sanctions against russia because of the ukraine military activity and seizing crimea. there was t

this isn't naive. this is a man who came from a billion dollar industry. he knows what the meaning of going into another corporation's headquarters and then using their secure communications would mean and how that would look certainly to the united states. there is a lot more than why here, which is always the question we in the intelligence community ask. another question that really needs to be answered right now and has been unanswered satisfactorily, what did he intend to transmit through russian's system to communicate with vladimir putin? daily presidential briefing? nuclear codes? i don't know. everyone in intelligence has to assume that's what he was going to do. there is no reason that any of this hoof happened and the fbi needs to dig into this right now. >> the former cia director i don't know brennan gave testimony that i think is going to wind up according to the history books when this bizarre period is recounted. i want to play a little bit of that. this is the testimony before the house intelligence committee about russia's brazen interfer

she said i felt maybe i was naive when he promised me he wouldn't do it and he did it.e saying to her, andrea, you're not naive because i believed him too. i tell you. what there are members of congress who will look you in the eye and who will not lie to you about something that serious. and if this guy won't stand up and explai it you and the people he represents, my neighbors in the hudson valley, well, i'm going to do it. i think every republican who voted for this thing ought to have to stand in front of their voters and explain it. and if it takes a democrat to go in and do it for them for a while, i'll explain what is in this bill. and if he doesn't like it, he should stand up and explain it himself. i think we ought to get on offense on this. and maybe a democrat ought to go into every district where a republican who supported trumpcare won't hold a town hall meeting and do it for them. sit in that chair and say i'll stand here and answer your questions until your own congressman starts doing his job. >> did his constituents really start calling your office tryi

it either means that jared kushner was incredibly naive and dangerously so, or something else is going but when you look at this reporting coupled with the fact that there were 18 contacts between the trump administration and the russians that have gone unreported and that jared kushner in filling out his form for the security clearance did not tell the truth and did not include these meetings at all in december, taken in that context i think there's real reason to worry. there's something very serious happening here. and if jared kushner either is that naive that he thought he could make a special arrangement to secretly communicate with the russians in their embassy or by using a russian facility, it really raises a very serious question about his judgment. i think at the very least his security clearance should be suspended if this report is true, because he's either too naive and creating real danger or something else is going on. but this is why an independent investigation by the two intelligence committees in the house and the senate, why the special counsel, robert mueller, nee

. >> how much can be sold on naive or nefarious. my grandmother used to say you can't be a little bit crooked. >> you can't. >> you know, you're crooked. >> you're crooked. >> you know, naive or nefarious, that's going to be the brand for gop republicans that don't stand up to this. >> well -- >> if they're already informed, which i suspect that many of them are, that sit on these intelligence committees. >> well, that's the thing. that's the key. if you're on the intelligence committee you kind of can be a little bit removed because you can say, a, this is happening, it's classified, we aren't going to come out with our findings until they're made officials and what not. a little distance. other lawmakers if constituents at home are feeling you can't be a little bit crooked and starting to turn on trump that's when you'll see republican lawmakers turning on trump as well and turning up the heat as scott said, back to that boil which could, you know, result in judiciary hearings and impeachment resolutions. >> scott, i want to get y

problem with the linkage rule you could demonstrate that it is a hardship i am not so closed minded or naÏveto think that a one-size-fits-all approach applies to. >> you touched on this in one of your statements and i wondered if you could expand on it on the emphasis that seems to be pursuing. >> one of the things that is concerning and i thought about this on the way back down if you remember schoolhouse rock we were talking about this a couple of days ago what i mean by that is we look at one side of the coin and not the other when it comes to the policy, but i'm hearing reaction that you take. it was 20, 30 or 40-years-old when adopted. it's the economic impact we have been talking about over the last several months. it is obvious to me and seemingly we are not looking at a billion-dollar merger. we have the capacity to look at that but we are not looking at that. it's just overturned a decade old past its prime and said it makes no technological sense. it would need the public to believe what it is and there seems to be this posture that everything the industry presents is the right one

even if billingsley thought they were naive and justomeone who didn't know what he was talking about,is former director of defense intelligence agency, the first american intelligence officer to ever visit military headquarters of military intelligence. on the other side you have the obama administration. they knew what was going on with michael flynn way back in july and august you had the director of intelligence, remember, with his reports he was hair on fire going around to the gang of eight to talk about russian contacts with russian intelligence officers. and then into december we had that story of michael flynn may have had contact or inadvertent contact with a russian intelligence officer, cambridge intelligence group in england. all of these things put together spell out to me that michael flynn, for the people who really knew on the obama team was dirty. dirty enough. that's an intelligence term. that means he has contacts or links he may or may not know about to a foreign intelligence agency. they were so concerned that they did not want him to have access to an imminent ac

>> it just feels naive. it doesn't feel like 2017 to me. >> stephen: what do you mean "naive?" how so? >> well, you know, look. ♪ slow down, you move too fast you got to make the morning last ♪ just kickin' down the cobblestones ♪ looking for fun and feelin' groovy >> stephen: it's great. >> i don't like it. ♪ ba, da, da, da, da, da, da feelin' groovy let me try something. you might like this better. ♪ hello, lamppost nice to see you ♪ we might get bombed by north korea ♪ we're gettin close to to world war iii ♪ so run for the shelters feelin' groovy ♪ ba, da, da, da, da, da, da feelin' groovy >> hey, jon. ♪ the artic's melting seas are boiling ♪ these aren't the first pants that i'm soiling ♪ we won't survive the century, we're all doomed, i'm feeling groovy ♪ fili filin grief. feelin groovy. ♪ kellyanne conway makes no sense ♪ and even if trump goes we're stuck with mike pence ♪ plus he might win the big one in 2020 ♪ never the less all is groovy! ♪ ♪ ba, da, da, da, da, da, da ♪ ba, da, da, da, da, da, da feelin' groovy feelin' groovy ♪ ba, da, da, da, da, da, da feelin' gro

>> of course, we cannot be so naive to think that one success will disinformation operation can totallyhange the balance of power but they believe that these operations have cumulative effect. >> one way of looking at the impact of these activities, they have gone on for many years, since the 1950's. you are speaking of 30 or so years. think of a drop of water falling on a stone. five minutes, 10 minutes, one day, nothing happens. five years, 10 years, 15 years, you have worn a hole in the stone. >> it is hard for journalists to admit to this is going on. they have to admit they have been ripping off their readers. it is very hard to do. it is important to educate people about these techniques and i would say particularly people involved in international relations and international communications. to make them aware of the basic elementary techniques of disinformation and active measures so they develop particular devices so it makes it more difficult for the soviets to misuse these people because in many cases the messengers of do not know that they are being used. >> [speaking french]

it goes along the line where i found americans to be naive when it comes to the world. we think everybody should like us and we sort of like everybody. there's a lot of naiveness amongst the general population i didn't expect this to extend to the highest level in government. >> federal government believe another campaign contact, former government adviser, carter paige was used to infiltrate? does that sound like an mo set up close to the campaign trying to infiltrate the election? >> i think you're going one accept further than i'm willing to follow you. they certainly were trying to get as close as possible to this fellow, he operated in moscow as a businessman and had dealings with one of their largest corporations in russia, and he catered to them in some respect. there's no doubt that the folks in the f s b or gru or whichever secret service was working him, were trying to get as close to him as possible. and were most likely trying to figure out can we use him. and this is always an interesting question because you don't necessarily always use somebody who you're

government role and to try to depend on the russians to do this for you does seem add a minimum naive. it seems reminiscent of folks in past errors like having a transistor short wave radio to keep in touch with people in another country. >> shepard: okay. if these things did happen and the white house is denying them, what does that mean in the main? is that a crime? >> no, i don't think on it's back it's a crime. you can see why the intelligence agencies and the people that do this countser intelligence work for a living would be immediately alarmed by this kind of behavior on the part of anybody whose activities they're looking into. if you have concerns that somebody might be up to something improper and you find out they're trying to set up a secure communications channel, whether it be online or through an embassy or radio or other means, that's a huge warning flag. there may be an innocent or semi innocent or naive explanation about this but you'd want to turn to the person doing it. >> shepard: remember how they found out about it in the first place. yeah a leak but how? here'

the president talked with during the campaign, that is never been in the cards and only some a very naÏvewould say that. we need to see the transcripts of what the president in that meeting with the russians. by the way, there is no press in that meeting like there is here today. except for a soviet era style which was the only press in the room. not only did he tell the ambassador in the foreign minister, he told the russian media as well. and not all of you. i think it is clear that we need a special prosecutor. i am with dick on this, as with my friends on i asked my friends on the other side of the aisle to see this for what it is. to call for a special prosecutor. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to be asking rod rosenstein when he appears this thursday whether he will commit to a special prosecutor. i voted against him, is the only democrat and member of the judiciary committee to vote against him, because he would not commit them. if he fails to do so, i will move ahead with legislation modeled on the law that existed between 1978 and 1999, that we give the power to a three-judge

but i am not naive. this can change very, very quickly. the native american rights fund and the national congress of american indians are actually cautiously supportive of judge neil gorsuch's nomination to the supreme court. whatever his faults, ignorance of indian treaty rights is not one of them. but at a time when indian treaty rights teeter on the edge, i'm conscious that what i discuss, what i discover, and what i say means far less than those i say it to, and that is worrisome. thank you. [applause] mr. chauncey: i'm going to stay seated. i have been involved in more than 30 cases at this point, and i second richard's comment about feeling like i have as much unpublished work as i do published, probably more at this point. but most importantly, five gay rights cases have reached the supreme court. colorado,in 1993, 2003, texas that established that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to sexual intimacy and overturned the remaining sodomy laws. and free marriage cases decided by the court in 2013 and 2015. before going any fu

in terms of the ethical issues, i am not naive. i am aware that litigators come to me because i have a record of publication that suggests i think x, y, and z about the historical record. i don't think we are selling to the highest bidder depending on which side might want to hire us . although there is always a delicate negotiation with litigators who would typically like us to make -- they have often asked if i could make an argument about x or y, i think it is not sustained by historical evidence. i have said that to them. if i said no a second time, they accepted that. their primary interest -- particularly for experts that will test fight in a series of cases is protecting our credibility as experts. i have been very clear about what i think is a reasonable historical argument and what is not, and have drawn a line. at the same time, i agree with richard white. the pressure much more from opposing counsel, particularly in depositions, cross-examination, and the trial itself, they will try to use anything you have ever written

le pen for her measure, calling macron an elitist, former investment banker, who is naive, arrogant andut of his depth. it went on from there. whether it is enough, whether there is big winner tonight is the question. i don't think so. by all accounts it was considered a draw. no knockout punch, that is good news for macron who hold as 20-point lead in the latest polls about 60-40%.ng, charles, many people we have spoken to in the brief time we've been here, who have been interviewed, say they don't like either candidate. don't like either of them. charles: right. >> there is about 20%, close to 20% of people who are still undecided. as we saw with breck sits and saw with donald trump, you -- "brexit." we saw what happened with donald trump. don't believe the polls. sunday we'll get the final numbers. if le pen wins, you can be darn sure that berlin and brussels will be shaking in their boots. charles: ashley webster, thank you very much. want to bring in the panel. herb london is back with us along with katie freits. ashley made the point of indifference between both candidates. there

she came here a naive girl from ,allas and steadman and glenda i and all of those who love to you,e grateful wellesley, for the women in process you gave us back. you could feel the change about a year and a half after being your because she went from daddy, this is hard to daddy -- [laughter] i won't be able to go on the trip because i have to study, daddy. that woman thing. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, the band was created as a public service by america for television companies and is brought to you today by your cable and satellite provider. >> tomorrow on c-span, a look at the politics and security in the asia-pacific region and tensions at 10 korean peninsula a.m. eastern here on c-span. later in the day, a symposium exploring school integration the board ofnd education. the landmark decision that found state laws establishing separate schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. live coverage from the thurgood marshall college fund tomorrow on c-span. >> it resulted in a naval victory for the u.s. over japan just six months after the attack on pearl har

anybody that thinks that it is not is naive to what is going on. >> the challenge in the war you are describing is trying to track down all the people on the radar we hear about people on the radar, well, i heard a discussion yesterday from a forme fbi official who used to run counter terrorism african- americans programs. he said several thousand people could be on the radar. out of those a few hundred could rise to the top that could be significant. then you have to dedicate a lot of resources to do 24-7 surveillance on these people. which eats up a lot of valley valuable time. the bottom line is it is impossible. no country has resources to follow everybody who could be a threat. right? >> i'm not sure it is impossible. it is difficult. your point is well taken. the problem is when they identify somebody else involved and they think he might be involved in something else. something in the future, you have to dedicate 24/7 surveillance. that takes an incredible amount of manpower. you cannot do it with everybody. you cannot do it with 50 people in one area. it is impossible. that a

and then you have a story yesterday that is, you know, at best, you can say kushner was naive but the idea that the russians would open up their own apparatus, intelligence apparatus to a 30 something son-in-law of a president-elect, it so defies sort of any good explain swrags, that the best explanation for kushner at this stage is he's incredibly naive. >> i want to point out the report from reuters this morning as well so we tuned numbers. they are reporting 18 undisclosed calls or emails seven months prior to the election, six of those calls with kislyak, the fbi examining whether rurngs suggested to kushner or to others that relaxing economic sanctions would allow russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to the president. so clarify that, does this suggest the fbi has knowledge or evidence that this happened, that russia suggested these things, or this is just something they suspect? >> it's probably that -- i mean the way the fbi would look at this, what's the theory of the case. this is what the challenge for all of us, i'm very careful with you, i don't say collusi

"the washington post" story had an interesting line in it, victor, this could have been the most naive stumble into a situation. why this is so dangerous for jared is that no matter what they want to discuss, policy or otherwise, the idea that you would even suggest using a russian so-called secure line which is not secure for the russians, it means the russians would know what you're talking about and not your own team, so talk about the height of nie he havity. what judgment is this of someone that has in his portfolio all of the items you just mentioned. the functionality of jared kushner is now i think in question because the prudent course of events is to leave it to your lawyer, not say much of anything, he is not much of a talkative public figure anyway, but this is the president's top adviser has a big cloud hanging over him in the worst potential scandal of the administration. >> the russians would disclose how they have secret communications to the president's senior adviser, and that the fbi would not see kushner or whomever the designee was to have the conversations may exp

she came here a naive girl from dallas. those who love her are grateful to you for the women and process that you gave us back. we are grateful for that. the change a year and a half after she went from being here. she went from, daddy, this is hard. two, daddy

she came here a naive girl from dallas. those who love her are grateful to you for the women and process that you gave us back. we are grateful for that. the change a year and a half after she went from being here. she went from, daddy, this is hard. i won't be able to go on th >> we mark the 100th anniversary of j.f.k.'s birth. >> joining from us boston is the executive director of the john f. kennedy library foundation. good monday morning. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: want to begin with this piece in "the washington post," america's forever young president earns00

. >> so do you think kushner was naive. >> i will say that it is very troubling.concerning that the close relationship that both kushner and flynn has had with the russians. >> i just want to be precise, and obviously we don't want to you release any classified information, but i'm sort of intrigued. are you suggesting there is information you have right now about all of this that you can't necessarily share? >> i'm not at liberty comment, sir. >> even comment on that? >> no, sir. >> all right. i will assume the answer is yes. let me move on. now that robert mueller has taken control of this overall investigation, you know, he was appointed special council, former fbi director, some of your colleagues complained that congressional investigations will be stifled in the process because of his supposed criminal investigation. do you share that concern? >> both investigations will take place independently. robert mueller has a great reputation having served under both president bush and president obama. he is very respected within the bureau. and the congressional inv

this isn't naive. this is a man who came from a billion dollar industry. he knows what the meaning of going into another corporation's headquarters and then using their secure communications would mean and how that would look certainly to the united states. there is a lot more than why here, which is always the question we in the intelligence community ask. another question that really needs to be answered right now and has been unanswered satisfactorily, what did he intend to transmit through russian's system to communicate with vladimir putin? daily presidential briefing? nuclear codes? i don't know. everyone in intelligence has to assume that's what he was going to do. there is no reason that any of this hoof happened and the fbi needs to dig into this right now. >> the former cia director i don't know brennan gave testimony that i think is going to wind up according to the history books when this bizarre period is recounted. i want to play a little bit of that. this is the testimony before the house intelligence committee about russia's brazen interfer