ie nixon administration and i worked for reagan and there were the classes between the two of us. at the beginning of the administration, one of the things i did as the deputy national security adviser is take the review of the american foreign policy in the next couple of weeks. where are we now so one of the things that was clear is the russians had been cheating for years on the class of weaponry and it was also pretty clear the chinese were developing them and they were not part of any deal so our advice is let's get to where we need to get to. if we cheat, every reporter will say we are cheating. but nobody calls them on it so i think it was the right thing to do. but what i learned with reagan and trump if you have to have chips to play in the game and where is your leverage if you don't have the class of weapons. if they were able to say let's cancel this we have a lot of leverage and the threat of the defense missile system. trump has gone to the right place. >> moving on to north korea, we have a sort of cycle that you've explained beautifully in your book of committal and

>> i worked in the nixon administration where we had agreements with the soviet union. n we - - so where are we now? at the beginning of the trump administration, one of american policy. what was the obama administration and where are we now? one of the things that was pretty clear was that the russians had been cheating for years. on this class of weaponry called intermediate weapons. it was also clear that the chinese were developing them. my advice was let us get to where we need to get to. i think it was the right thing to do. we did learn with reagan and what i belonged with trump is you have to have chips to play in the game. you've got to have leverage and where is your leverage if you don't have that class of weapons? reagan was able to go to the soviet union and say let's cancel this and that. we had a lot of leverage. economic leverage, technological leverage and the threat of a defense missile system. that they knew they could build and i thought we might be able to. i think trump has gone to the right place. doesn't mean you never have these agreements but yo

going to decide some issues that arose in the nixon administration.ual. lindsey, president trump is a one-trick pony. we've seen this before. what he does is he attacks the people and institutions that are potentially going to say something bad for him or damaging to him. so when the supreme court decides some of these cases against donald trump, and inevitably they will, because donald trump has been losing in court over and over and over again, what he will say is, look, american people, i told you that justices should have recused themselves, justice sotomayor, justis ginsburg. therefore he is trying to bake into the cake the concern that maybe opinions handed down against him by the supreme court are not legitimate. it's what he does. he attacks institutions, whether it's the fbi, the doj, the mueller report which he attacked relentlessly, so when the mueller report was issued and highly critical of him, he said look, it was a witch huchbt, can't be credited. of course he did have considerable help from his water boy bill barr in also trashing the

i worked in the nixon administration. it's to take a review of the american foreign policy.one of the things that is clear is russians have been cheating for years on the class of weaponry. my advice is to get to where we need to get to. i think it was the right thing to do. what i learned is you have to have some chips to play in the game. where is your leverage if you don't have that class of weapons. reagan was able to go to the soviet union and said let's cancel the send back. they had the threat of the defense missile system they knew they couldn't build and we thought we might be able to. and i thought that he had gone to the right place which doesn't mean you never have these but you have demanded negotiate them >> host: we have had a cycle and you describe this beautifully held accountable and noncommittal promises at least since the '90s were building nuclear weapons programs. what are your views on if this is a solvable problem and we have to live with the idea that they will have nuclear weapons? >> host: the priorities, so do you, what did you do differently? rep

.: must start from the beginning i worked in the nixon administration we had the first control agreementsith the soviet union. they were for reagan when we had when we took it into the nuclear weapons between the two of us to where we now treated the beginning of the trumpet ministration one of the things i did is the national security advisor was to take a review of the american foreign policy the first couple of weeks. the obama administration, where are we now. what is the status report. so one of the things, with the russians had been cheating for years. on this class of weaponry called intermediary weapons is also pretty clear that the chinese were developing them and they were a part. so my advice was let's get to where we need to get to and if we teach, everybody are reportable say we are cheating. but the russians jeep, nobody calls them on it. it was the right thing to do. in the same way with reagan. and what i liked with trump, you have to have some chips in the game. you have to have leverage. where is your leverage we don't even have that weapons. reagan was able to go to the

talked about earlier is now clearly in the an inoperative date they have used to say during the nixon administration speaking of the economy the u.s. central bank the federal reserve said today that you know in a report that the pandemic could cause the loss of 47000000 u.s. jobs and 32 percent unemployment that is would be at an overwhelming number of people were much worse then during the great recession earlier in this century no trouble said that when the pandemic eps and disappears the u.s. economy will be back bigger than ever we had the greatest economy in the world with the greatest economy in the history of our country and i had to go from doing a great job for 3 years to shutting it down but you know what we're going to build it up and we're going to build it up rapidly and i think in the end will be stronger for it we learned a lot the governor of florida says that he doesn't want a cruise ship with coronavirus patients on board to dock that 4 people have died and dozens a sick aboard the cruise line up it's heading towards florida after passing through the panama canal and just showing n

there were reform elements in black power, and the nixon administration and subsequent administrations tried to take the movement hostage and really point the movement and absorb it in very specific direction. when we think about black power as reform, it is richard nixon advocating black power is black capitalism. even though nixon advocates it, refuses to provide even black entrepreneurs the full and unfettered access and backing of the federal government to become these proto-capitalists. when we think about black power, the radicalism of black power is in trying to fundamentally alter the way in which democratic institutions in the u.s. work. sometimes, people who are even militant and black radicals don't realize the radicalism of that. someone like martin luther king, jr. micromax, by the end of his life does. for a long time, he's pushing back against king and voting. the only way you will transform this democracy is to utterly transform the institutions in the democracy. if these institutions are producing unequal outcomes, if you radically transform those institutions, you can

you tell a story of the nixon administration's involvement in that race. you tell me that story? ms. kennedy: well, i think that some money changed hands -- susan: from his opponent. ms. kennedy: from his opponent. and so, that was pretty much the gist of it. susan: you tell a story of cash payments going to the brewer campaign, and there was also an irs investigation started against your father. ms. kennedy: against my uncle, uncle gerald. so, i think maybe things were worked out in the end. and the irs investigation was dropped. susan: and your father decided not to run as an independent, but instead run as a democrat? so are you suggesting there might have been a deal there? ms. kennedy: i think so, yes. i think so, yes. susan: and by 1972 when he went on the campaign trail, were you campaigning with him at that point? ms. kennedy: no, i was not. susan: what was his style like in 1972? ms. kennedy: well, he had a new wife, and we loved her, camelia. she had him all stylish and everything. he was very serious about that 1972 race. and he was very popular

sears served in the nixon administration and managed ronald reagan's two presidential campaigns.sears was 79. years old still to come, the secretary general of the united nations on this global crisis. what doctors are seeing on the front lines f in tht against covid-19. the pandemic abroad. willns amerituck overseas get home? plus david brooks and ruthma us on this american life. >> this is the pbs "newshour" from weta studios and fromhe walter cronkite school of journalism arizona state university. >> the pandemic has hit at a time of confrontation between the world greatowers and armed conflicts in many countries. how does one coordinate global sfons an invibbles enemy. arwers, i spoke with someone grappling with this and much more. he's antonio gutierrez, the secretary general of the united nations. mr. secretary general, thank you very much for joining us. you told the leaders of the world o the richest nations th every country on earth is in a fight against this coronavirus but not winning it. why? is it a fight that can be won? >> well, this is a fight that can be won. and

during the nixon administration, one of the top aides -- >> he did sometime. >> yes. wrote this wonderful book called born-again. >> after he got out of prison. >> even bob woodward who was pretty cynical about all of this acknowledged this. he said in his pre-conversion days that even evangelicals were the easiest to manipulate. they bring their men and all of a sudden nixon could do no wrong i would suggest the power or the sense of power in washington, d.c. is a greater seduction than sex. it is more powerful, it is more subtle, it is unseen. if you are having an affair with someone, you can see them, right? i am not asking for an answer. it is rhetorical. thank you. it really is seductive. the former secretary of state, the powers are very, very subtle and seductive. it is not really power at all. if it were, with things not have changed by now? all the things of presidential candidates are talking about, education and employment, which is great, one at that have changed by now? spent all this money. had all this time to fix it. democrat presidents with democratic

during the nixon administration charles olson was one of the top aides, he did some time in watergatebut i wrote this wonderful book called born-again. even bob woodward who was pretty cynical about all of this acknowledged that colton was a changed man he said in his pre-conversion days that evangelicals were the easiest to manipulate, they bring him in, they have a picture of president nixon and all of a sudden nixon could do no wrong . that's the seduction. i would suggest that power or the sense of power in washington dc is a greater seduction than sex. it's more powerful, it is more subtle. it's unseen, if you're having an affair with somebody you can see them but the whole power thing, well know. i'm not asking for an answer. it's rhetorical, thank you. what's it really is seductive kissinger talked about this some years ago, the former secretary of state . our is a very subtle and seductive thing and it's not really power at all, if it were with things not have changed by now and all of the things that the presidential candidates, especially the democrats are talking about. edu

political analyst and david gergen, whose bipartisan west wing experience goes back, well, to the nixon administration. maggie, just two days ago, i think people were kind of saying, oh, well, the president's tone was more appropriate. he seemed to be taking this seriously, which he had been nothing but really dismissive for the long -- for the longest time about it. saying, you know, well, it will probably go away in april. it's going to miraculously disappear. there are 15 cases. they're all feeling better. it'll pretty much end after that. it's not going to cost a lot of money. all of which have proven false, of course. and there were plenty of people who knew, at the time, that that would not be the case. he is now front and center on this. i'm wondering what we make of that exchange where, you know, a simple question as well, okay, you talked to companies to get them to produce more. what companies have you talked to? yesterday or two days ago, they gave a whole long list of companies they had spoken with. and now, the president's saying, oh, yeah, a lot. is there any evidence of this? >> no, and

elizabeth: that was the executive privilege case and the nixon administration.le question before the court was is there a constitutional foundation for the executive, or the president's, assertion of privilege over presidential papers and communications? this was going back to marbury or the new deal era. the court's consequential role in saying what the law is, and then mediating this structural separation of powers game where it is like who gets to do what in our government? what was significant in the case, the court said we are going to uphold the privilege. because the privilege, whether you like how it is being exercised in this instance or not, exists to protect the role of the executive branch. there is a deliberative process. we want our elected representatives to have debate and deliberation in government. there is a presidential prerogative as an executive to make certain decisions and not have the second guests or monday morning quarterback. -- quarterbacked. the court saw that and said this privilege has a constitutional underpinning so we will upho

one of the most respected political leaders serving in the clinton, nixon and obama administration and defense and cia director during the capture of bin laden. joining us now from the panetta institute in monterey is secretary leon panetta. thank you for your time. it is several years since we've connected and nice to see you. how are you feeling? you look great secretary panetta. >> we're doing very well. we're all having to begin the process of shutting down. but we are really working together to try to deal with this terrible threat that faces all of us. >> and i can't think of a better person to have over the years dealing with the cia director, secretary of defense, chief of staff for president clinton, your perspective and of history and politics. just off the top now, what are we doing right before we get into any criticism, what are we doing right, right now as a state and as a country? >> well, i think what we're doing right is to recognize how serious a threat the coronavirus represents not only to the lives of our people but a threat to our economy and to our country. i thi

he served in high profile roles in the nixon, clinton, and obama administrations.ur own raj mathai asked panetta to put the covid-19 crisis into historical perspective, asking him first what the country is doing right. >> what we're doing right is to recognize how serious a threat the coronavirus represents not only to the lives of our people but a threat to our economy and to our country. i think there is now a universal recognition of how big a threat this is, and i think that there certainly are efforts, particularly at t

know have in place, a fuller administrative state, and the fruit for the first time, in the nixon administration, there is a sense that that should be fought over between the executive branch and the legislative branch. and so it from the seventies forward you now have a situation where the administrate state largely in place largely centralized in washington, and lo and behold the partisanship, it's actually when you have an executive trying to exert their control over it. the other party in congress not liking, that trying to fight back, you've got partisanship. in certain instances that is what is happening today. we fought a similar battle in the eighties. there are these back and forth, underscore the point that a lot of politics today actually turns on by virtue of how it's been created. we have created the situation where it is in the interest of the executive to fight over the control of the thing you guys have created. you guys need to pull that back. in some way to get that institutional violence and check. it has been partisan iced and to some extent and that is unfortunate, but it is

ago looked at the use of intelligence gathering and concluded that in every administration basically from wilson through nixon -- who was the president immediately before the church committee did its investigation and issued its report -- u.s. intelligence-gathering agencies had abused its -- abused their authority for partisan political purposes, basically to engage in political espionage. we know that this is dangerous. we know that this is bad. we also know that this is just the beginning and not the end of the opportunities for abuse. consider this -- given the breadth, the wide scope on the authority provided under fisa, and given the fact that the foreign intelligence surveillance court is able to operate in secrecy and for the most part without any type of appellate review, any type of judicial review -- these are provisions that are in fact vulnerable, susceptible to abuse. so it's not just the president of the united states who has reason to be concerned about this. if the president of the united states has a reason to be concerned about it -- as he does, as reminded just in the last few hours issuin

administration will testify so that seems like a norm that has been lost. >> that is a great question and is really relevant to right now the president nixon, despite his moral failings, did believe in the rule of law. to an extent, obviously he was willing to ignore the subpoena and sam not giving them to you, but he did allow us to have witnesses, they all lied and went to jail for perjury but he let them testify and he gave us documents, we had white house calendars which sounds like not a big deal, but that's how we were able to identify which conversations to subpoena. we had specific information and you will see in the book, there is a sort of complicated discussion of whether or not the haldeman conversation which is deleted on the 18 minutes was within our subpoena. and it was clearly in our subpoena because we had meeting records and we corrected our subpoena which ridley said 10:30 12 we corrected it to 1025 to 1245 which clearly included the haldeman conversation. and so having that kind of detailed record makes a difference. and by totally stonewalling, as a trump administration is, no witnesses. let me just say it's not just in terms of criminal

administration with turning point usa founder charlie kirk. his new book the maga doctrine on the conservative agenda. here's a portion of the talk from the nixonsidential library. >> i have been blown away by the succession of the presidency and it's important to recount those but i'm anxious because i don't want to see go back to the management of the endless war overseas, silly immigration policies and bowing down to china. i think president trump has positively recalibrated the republican party's and i think it's important to learn from it so that our generation continues the success of the trump administration for the better and so i wrote this book partly for that reason but most importantly as i was watching cable news and i guess i'm coming across the left-wing prognosticators independence telling me what president trump believed and i said to myself you hate us. why is no one articulating the doctrine of the presidency you don't stumble accidentally to the largest tax cut energy independence. the embassies move in jerusalem, we are out of the paris climate accord, finally we've been able to put the enemies act to produce our own shale

administration. he got a lot of bad press from that. keep in mind,- >> the historical context. republicans have been relentlessly holding the white house with just a couple exceptions, since the days of richard nixon. it was republicans that really created the concept of the modern chief of staff. jimmy carter in 1976 had famously pushed back on the idea of the need for a chief of staff, and wanted to try to run things a little bit differently. ultimately, that did not work out so well for him. he used more of a routine chief of staff model. bill clinton is the first democrat elected president other than jimmy carter, all the way back to lbj. the chief of staff model that eisenhower had used so well. really mastered it. it was not quite in the dna of the democratic party when they took the white house in 1992. a sequence of embarrassments, some driven by disorganization, eventually prompted prompted clinton to change his mind and start to embrace the strong form chief of staff model and that his what has endured all the way foroday for both parties republicans and democrats, though it is under pressure again with donald trump. >> before we get to some of the political defeats of his first two year

administration. but she wanted the interiors, the carpeting, the walls to reflect more what the room looked like in lincoln's time. so again here you can see this is later during nixon, clinton and then bush. one of the things we had to do is do the research in the background on this bed canopy. you can actually see from the images it disappears because at some point it was lost. we just don't know what happened to it. here it is in the late 1890s. you can see it there at the top. so what we had to do is use photographs and do more research to try to create a reproduction as similar as possible. but there's the lincoln bedroom. so just a quick recap, the white house whitewash had been used beforehand and become the customed color that is why people often referred to it as the white house. andrew jackson forever planted the fame magnolia tree. only later -- roosevelt never banned christmas trees, that wasn't a real thing. people had been calling the white house the white house well before roosevelt ordered a new official stationary and lincoln never slept in the bed named after him. but probably the biggest one, dolly madison did not save a painting for herself but s