to these, specifically the three administrations before mr. obama's, had dealt with the president's daily brief. i had good oral histories of the cia. what struck me about those oral histories is the senior official that testified on the point like the pdb's, but they like to the briefers better. they were an introduction, and entree to conversation. ,they could ask questions, get more information. a reminder that when we focus on the pdb's as documents, it is about process, not points. it is about the process over time. indeed, the cia has a wonderful study of intelligence success. though in fashion to typical to our community, it is classified. it talks about the various intelligence analyses. what it makes clear is that the successes resulted not from a sparkling single analysis from a -- but from a process over time where intelligence analysts could better understand what policy people needed, and policy people could calibrate and direct to some extent with the intelligent analysts work on. it is a process that i think raises two questions

that is the center of the world administration. ou're bringing in people who think like you, are going to take your direction. there is a functioning bureaucracy there as well of career servants that keep the train running on time. the department and agency, they can. >> guest: some of this because there are positions that will not change. there are career positions that will not change even at the highest levels at the departments and agencies. >> you have touched on a fundamental difference between a same party transition and an opposite party transition. with regard to political appointees, in a same party transition, the incoming president will pay less of a political price for allowing a certain number of the political appointees from the previous administration to hold onto office until a replacement comes forward. it's also a fact that even during opposite party transition, a president elect can make a decision to retain a senior cabinet official from the other party. bob gates is an excellent example of that i'm probably pre

we want to focus on the nixon and ford administration. i was struck, i had the opportunity to look for the center of intelligence and how subsequent administrations to these, specifically the three administrations before mr. obama's, had dealt with the president's daily brief. i had good oral histories of the cia. what struck me about those oral histories is the senior official that testified on the point like bd's, but they like to the briefers better. they were an entree to conversation. they could ask russians, it more information. a reminder that when we focus on d'bs as documents, it is about process, not points. it is about the process over time. wonderfule cia has a study of intelligence success. and though in fashion to typical community, it is classified, because it talked about the various intelligence analyses. what it makes clear was the successes resulted not from a sparkling single analysis from a process over time where intelligence analysts could better understand what policy people needed, and policy people could calibrate

what was the record of the bush administration. and more than less committed to abollishing the treaty. and also given the security environment that existed at this point committed to reductions in nuclear force levels but not at all committed to the idea that this needed to be negotiated and agreed between the united states and russia so first thing the administration did was in december of 2001 it aggregated or provided notice of a aggregation for the preceding decade every single issue of the magazine arms control today had run an editorial about how the treaty was the cornerstone of strategic stability that without the abm treaty the entire architecture of arms control as we know it would collapse but the inevitable result would be a new arms race between the united states and russia so in december 2001 this theory was put to a test. bush provided notice of termination and five months later he signed an arms control treaty with moscow providing for reductions, i think the force level under the nuclear force level under the exist

in the second term, clinton administration, the bush administration and in the obama administration, arms control issues related questions like missile defense had become problem issues that had contributed to a more difficult relationship. >> thank you both very much. before i go to questions, i wonder if we could just say -- both of you would like to say of what happens if we now decide that the russians have violated inf treaty, what are the implications of that? >> well, we have pointed a finger at the russians -- >> right. >> we determined that russia's -- is testing missile and therefore these tests are illegal. i'm not aware that we made a finding that they are deployed those kinds, although one would suspect that they're testing, they're certainly holding out that option of deployment. the -- you know, during my time during the bush administration i had conversations with russians where it was very clear, they are unhappy with this treaty and in fairness to russians, they have some legitimate complaints. this is a treaty that forbids missiles of a certain range but the only c

this is also a demonstration that what the administration, the bush administration did the same thing called targeted sanctions simply don't work. let's say bank septa was a financier for the ballistic missile program finance our ballistic missile program anymore? no, they used other vehicles. so in the past three years, before the deal was implemented, was bank septa involved in ballistic missile transactions? maybe not, because they were yoursing another vehicle. so to say that you have been fooled by the iranian's ability to conceal their financial techniques and you are going to now allow this bank legitimacy to get back into the international market, you might as well not have any sanctions at all as to have these targeted sanctions. >> there was conversation on capitol hill yesterday i would like you to listen to with me. it went on for a little bit. it was about syria. and what the administration was going to do and what it has referred to as plan b for dealing with the collapse of the cease-fire over there. and going forward. let's listen. >> >> i would like to understand what

and you had extremely close coordination between the bush administration and the obama administration. but taken apart from that, you also had, as again, max alluded to, the 2008 financial crisis. and i think it's fair to say without a transition and working together between secretary paulson, tim geithner, who had been head of the new york fed, and chairman bernanke, we could have faced and would have faced. not could have, i think it's almost certain we would have faced much more, much more dire circumstances which were difficult enough. second key point, technology has changed. don't have to tell any of you that. the way you conduct your business ah fairs and write your stories and so forth, that's changed. so we need to take advantage of that. and that can help streamline the process, as clay has talked about. and thirdly, you now have federal funding that indeed itself validates and formalizes the transition process. the next key point, you've got to get a government in place to move forward. any president has to do that. the appointments process, and no one understands it better

especially, i would especially welcome questions, actually, about the ford and carter administrations, because there's been a lot of focus on my work on the johnson administration and kind of rethinking the war on poverty, and rightfully so, but ford and carter are also really kind of important in setting up the -- or laying the groundwork for the kind of crime control and prison infrastructure that ronald reagan stepped into when he took office. all right. epilogue. recking with the war on crime. -- reckoning with the war on crime. late 20th century united states followed a historical pattern. in the shadow of emancipation, national policymakers stopped at the extends of formal equality and instead new criminal laws and penal systems emerged in the form of convict leasing. the systematic criminalization and incarceration of newly-freed people and their descendants shaped local and state law enforcement practices from the beginnings of reconstruction in 1865 until the start of the war on crime in 1965. after the dismantling of jim crow as militarized police forces and a criminal justi

the administration and the republican majority has opposed any realistic approach to education. this administration and this country last year had the lowest rate of economic growth of jobs of any major industrialized country in the world in 1959. we have to find 25,000 new jobs a week for the next 10 years. governor rockefeller said five to 10. many say 4.5%. the average growth have been 2.5%. moderator: mr. mcgee has the next question for senator kennedy. >> a moment ago, you mentioned tax loopholes. senator lyndon johnson is from texas which many political leaders feel is in doubt. are hopingin texas that the rates will not be cut. it refers to inequitable allowance being conspicuous loopholes. do you consider the 27.5% allowance in equitable's and allow it to be cut? mr. kennedy: there are 104 commodities that have some kind of allowance, including oil. i believe all of those should be gone over in detail to make sure no one is getting a tax break, to make sure no one is getting away from paying the taxes they ought to pay which includes oil and all kinds of minerals. everyth

the w. bush administration. conversely, george w. bush 8 years later would bequeath barrack obama two wars and the greatest recession since the 30s and yet he did maybe the most spectacular job of transitioning between two different party presidents of any president to date. so and the obama people have been very complimentary of that. even if they would have maybe preferred the other way around. peace and prosperity and crappy transition plan. >> in a clinton white house it would be interesting to see if the ball balm people are being picked over the bill clinton people or if the clinton people are picked over the obama people or if there's a view let's start fresh. that's one thing to look at. >> very good point. >> and a trump white house are the people and this is addressing the first panel but are the people coming in wanting to blow up some of the agencies that trump has expressed dislike for saying that we don't need them. so that's another thing to look for. >> let's talk a little bit about the other transition that might occu

third job, the substantive beginning of the administration. ou going to -- you have made hundreds of promises, and in the nature of things, the bandwidth of a white house is narrow, the bandwidth of a congress is narrow. what are the two or three legislative items that you'll focus on in the first six months? you must make that decision early. and then you must organize the issue teams and the political teams during the transition to begin to exercise -- to execute those top priorities. and that is a very interesting political story during a transition because especially if you've made promises on many, many fronts, you haven't focused your campaign on just a handful of key issues but have made -- but have in effect entered into transactions with a number of different groups who make up your base, lots of people will be disappointed. who? how are you going to handle that? that's both an agenda issue and a political question. of course it's not all legislative. and during the transition a separate team will be beavering away on executive orders

administration. we talk about schools three times as many classrooms built in the past administration than under the truman administration. let's talk about civil rights. more progress in the past eight years than in the whole eighty years before. he talks about the progress in the field of slum clearance and the like. we find four times as many projects undertaken and completed in this administration than in the previous one. anybody that says america has been standing still for the last 7.5 years hasn't been traveling in america. he's been in some other country. let's get that straight right away. now the second point we have to understand is this, however. america has not been standing still. but america cannot stand pat. we can't stand pat for the reason that we're in a race, as i've indicated. we can't stand pat because it is essential with the conflict that we have around the world that we not just hold our own, that we not keep just freedom for ourselves. it is essential that we extend freedom, extend it to all the world. and this means more than what we've been doing. it means keeping america

as part of your strategy for managing the north korean nuclear threat is the administration working on plans to deescalate a military crisis so it does not sfirl out of control and result in a nuclear war. do you foresee potential arrangements for crisis communications with the north korean regime to diffuse and deescalate such a situation that could lead to an accidental nuclear war? >> the short answer, senator markey, is, yes, we are concerned lest there be an nuclear cycle on the korean peninsula. we have in place very serious counter-escalation plans in the u.s./rok alliance. the commander of the combined forces, general vince brooks, one of america's best soldiers, is, as his predecessors have been, working with the r.o.k. military and national leadership on a day-in, and day-out basis. they are very tightly stitched together. yes, the alliance has very specific plans to deal with a variety of contingencies with a view to, in the first instance, deescalating and defusing. this has been a big part of our joint defense strategy. now, nair is a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric in the w

in the clinton administration and the george wh bush administration worked hard to make sure russia was the only nuclear state. and that involved ukraine being willing to transfer their nuclear weapons to russia. anyway, i give great kudos to the clinton administration. they managed to do it both ukraine and russia were ambivalent and reluctant for different reasons and they signed the agreement in 1994. of course four. of course i was tied to the infamous budapest memorandum which gave ukraine assurances that if it relinquished its nuclear weapons its territorial integrity could be guarantee and it had security insurances which it course included the russian federation. in 1996 the senate ratified the start to agreement. then there were problems with moscow so this was now in the 1990s of the difficulties of implementing the agreements because of the deteriorating political relationship. particularly in the later part of the 90s the russian military was not happy about giving up on the multiple warhead and having icbms. then you have the beginnings of the disagreements with russia abou

that would have to be the number one failure of this administration. i would not visit -- put myself in that position as a leader of this country. will borrowllow, i a leaf from my principles, what is the single most question -- single question you would most like to ask your wine -- opponent on foreign policy? ms. ferraro: i think i have a concern as a vice residential candidate in his it is an -- and as a citizen that we are not doing anything to stop the arms race. if we keep talking about military and or you're ready -- inferiority that we do not have, our joint chiefs of staff has said they could never exchange our military power for there's -- theirs. vice president bush, four years ago president reagan and his to that a military buildup bring the soviets to negotiate seriously. since then we've spent almost $1 trillion on defense but the soviets are still building their military forces as rapidly as we are and there are no negotiations. with the original premise or strategy wrong? vice pres. bush: no, i think it was correct in his correct. when m

in the truman administration. what about the prices you pay? we find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the truman administration as they did in the eisenhower administration. what's the net result of this? this means that the average family income went up 15% in the eisenhower years as against 2% in the truman years. now, this is not standing still. but, good as this record is, may i emphasize it isn't enough. a record is never something to stand on. it's something to build on. and in building on this record, i believe that we have the secret for progress, we know the way to progress. and i think, first of all, our own record proves that we know the way. senator kennedy has suggested that he believes he knows the way. i respect the sincerity which he makes that suggestion. but on the other hand, when we look at the various programs that he offers, they do not seem to be new. they seem to be simply retreads of the programs of the truman administration which preceded it. and i would suggest that d

the cyber attack to russia? shouldn't we be doing it incognito? i mean, this administration has a tendency to always go to the media and tell the world what we are going to do. i mean, we did not do it when we to the wrong -- iran dismantle their nuclear capabilities. i just think we should be doing this under the table and then later ron, if they want to pat themselves on the back, they can tell the press and the american public. is goinghan gonzales to be joining us in about 10 minutes to talk about the house and senate races and how the trump and clinton candidacies are impacting the down ballot races. a cover story focusing on hillary clinton, "her way: the reckoning." val is joining us from minneapolis. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to see the proof. that thethe proof cyber attacks are russian? this build up with iraq and afghanistan, why do we always have to be in a perpetual state of war? certainly, people can sit down and talk and resolve things. i would like to see where the proof is. i think the media should ask all of these people, where

another part of the goes back, and this got back to both the bush administration also the clinton administrations putin has this huge chip on his shoulder, the sense of grievance that the united states, the west, mistreated russia. he cites nato enlargement. is version of nato enlargement is nato enlargement was organized by the united states, britain and germany to contain russia, to bring military force up to russia's borders. i think it was very different. it was designed to respond to appeals by central european countries who basically said we want to be full members of europe. likewise, a look at the way he talks about the arms revolution is to the orange revolution, these are not manifestations of populations that same point, our election was stolen, or we're unhappy with bad governance. the way putin described it, these are western plots, american plots again designed for regime change and the ultimate target is regime change in moscow. he talked about so much better think he believes it. i think it really is very different but from his perspective he has a sense of grievance. he has the

the reagan bush administration is so different from the carter mondale administration that the american people are going to have the clearest choice. it's a question of going back to the failed ideas of the past where we came in twenty one and after sending those rates interest inflation. despair. no leadership. blaming the american people for failed leadership. or another option. , keep this recovery going to lead benefits. absolutely everybody piece at -- absolutely everybody. peace at home. peace of prosperity. opportunity. i'd like to hear a talk on those things but i think the yellow light is flashing and so we'll leave it there. >> nothing on the world series. >> i think the vice president's comment about the carter mondale administration is an indication of just and. it really to the size of this administration -- a strange look backwards not forwards into the future. and i say that i'm also tickled by their comments on human rights. the soviet union in one nine -- in allowed fifty one thousand 1979 people to immigrate because in the large measure this administration's policies o

in the truman administration, 600 million people went behind the iron curtain, including the satellite countries of eastern europe and communist china. in this administration, we've stopped them at quemoy and matsu, we've stopped them in indochina, we've stopped them in lebanon, we've stopped them in other parts of the world. i would also like to point out that as far as senator kennedy's comments are concerned, i think he has a perfect right and a responsibility to criticize this administration whenever he thinks we're wrong. but he has a responsibility to be accurate and not to misstate the case. i don't think he should say that our prestige is at an all-time low. i think this is very harmful at a time mr. khrushchev is here -- harmful because it's wrong. i don't think it was helpful when he suggested -- and i'm glad he's corrected this to an extent -- that 17 million people go to bed hungry every night in the united states. now this just wasn't true. now, there are people who go to bed hungry in the united states -- far less, incidentally, than used to go to bed hungry when we came

told the clinton administration that it would not remotely comply with what the clinton administration wanted it to do. and after the policy was announced, the administration got messages of unhappiness from the american business community, which was worried about being denied access to a supremely important market. abandonedinistration the policy of linkage and the of transpiration and reversed course 180 degrees, having come into office, asserting denying trade with the united states was the way to make it a more liberal, free, and open political system, the administration turned around and announced that the way to promote western political values in china was to have more trade with the chinese. russia, the american efforts to foster democracy and free markets initially met with some success. firstas because the post-communist leader of russia, boris yeltsin, was committed to democracy and free market economics, and welcomed american help in installing them. have a kind ofes rough and ready market economy, although with a great deal of government control, a lot of monopolies, and r

but the administration will do, we don't know. the indicated they won't do everything in the public. maybe they have done something to retaliate. katty: ou have a proportional response? what does that mean? someone's e-mails in russia? they could do that. i find it hard to imagine we would do that exactly. we think in the u.s. government in terms of lateral things they can do. it may not be a cyber move. it may he something else to show . sanctions have been hinted at. i believe we should love the more sanctions on pressure or strengthen our sanctions because of what they are doing in syria. we need to have a cyber response, as well. katty: what do you think in terms of the election president putin is trying to achieve? >> he wants to weaken the united states, undoubtedly. he sees the united states and nato as a threat. he wants a week europe. our military and political relationship with europe makes europe and us stronger. to divide usything and the europeans economically, militarily, politically. he would like a united states lea

this is why the bush administration started early. part of the center for presidential transition. we are part of the partnership for public service and committed to making government more effective and also nonpartisan and nonprofit. again working with the team since the spring in april we actually convened all five senior campaign officials at the time. candidates still in office, we pulled them off site to talk about governing the country. that's the first time in history we have seen it this early. as an american, super proud to see a safe environment where these teams can talk about governing this entity, the u.s. federal government. we've been working with the teams. both teams are committed to effective transition which is very exciting. they understand the importance of governing this country. >> thank you, david. very well done. that helped to frame things perfectly. i will talk to the transitioner and i want to pick up on something that sandy mentioned. you never know who your sources are going to be for information. i think

states through the refugee administration program. that's going to begin on sat saturday. the tragic is that we have millions of displaced persons in the world today. persons that are short of food and water. persons in daernged by conflicts without various region in the world. most of us do not dispute the victims. this is a disaster and things have gotten worse it seems and could be even worse in the future. i think that it's important for the government leader and good intentions are not enough and they can lead to disaster consequences and put stresses on the human beings and cost them their life in the united states. we must consider our limits and must not endanger our homeland and use the resources unwisely. we have to be aif he can tifr in what we do to try to improve the situation. unfortunately the administration has presented the american people with a falsed economy. according to the administration we permanently settle hundreds of thousands of refugees in the united states or nothing can be done. so they press forward to g

we want to focus on the nixon and ford administration. i was struck, i had the opportunity to look for the center of intelligence and how subsequent administrations to these, specifically the three administrations before mr. obama's, had dealt with the president's daily brief. i had good oral histories of the cia. what struck me about those oral histories is the senior official that testified on the point like the pdb's, but they like to the briefers better. they were an entree to conversation. they could ask questions, they could get more information. a reminder that when we focus on the pd'bs as documents, it is about process, not points. it is about the process over time. indeed, the cia has a wonderful study of intelligence success. and though in fashion to typical community, it is classified, because it talked about the various intelligence analyses. what it makes clear was the successes resulted not from a sparkling single analysis from a process over time where intelligence analysts could better understand what policy people needed,

thanks. >> james. >> you mentioned the obama administration's role not hiring lobbyists. was that circumvented in any way? you mentioned that loophole chris brought up. there are also waivers that the president can grant. there have been a few dozen of those. it wasn't really widespread but there's certainly examples of that. >> how do they define the lobby -- >> registered lobbyist. >> so if you were registered and they wanted to bring you in, you could get a waiver, which is something that becomes public, of course. >> the waivers are public. there were some, i think, that pretty clearly there weren't as many lobbyists going into the obama administration as had gone into other administrations. there were exceptions made. they did bring in some. >> okay. let's go back there and then over there. so you first. >> could you give us a sense of where lobbying and influence laws are particularly strong and where they are weak and the ramifications of those two environments. are they strong, for example, at the s.e.c. and weak elsewhere? what comes to mind. >> well, in general,

was he not being briefed during the nixon administration? >> no, he was not. initially the vice president was not receiving the pdb during the nixon administration. he was later added to the distribution list. ford was not receiving it at that time when he became -- when he was appointed vice president and only when he went to the agency and got this tour from bill colby that he found out about it and began to be briefed. it is entirely up to the president who he chooses to go on the distribution list. the initial pickle went to three people, john f. kennedy, george bundy, and dci john mccall -- john mccone and that was it. it was entirely up to the president to expand the distribution list. it has sometimes been as many as two dozen. sometimes it has been very tightly held. >> [inaudible] >> nelson rockefeller when he became vice president under gerald ford received the pdb. the process was interesting to find time for the briefings. they decided to agree on a drive in briefing in which the briefer would sit in the back of a limo with the national intelligence

and the administration's response to a mere warning from the secretary of defense? is that the best the united states can do? despite this committee's numerous requests for a cyber deterrence framework, the administration has failed to present any meaningful strategy. instead, it is evidently distracted itself with debates over the dual hat. instead of shaping the limits of acceptable behavior in cyberspace, the administration instead has allowed russia and china to write the playbook. as a result, this administration has left the united states vulnerable. i look forward to hearing more about the cyber operations against isil and the challenges, opportunities and constraints you are facing on the cyber front, senator reed. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will join you in welcoming the secretary and admiral rogers back to the committee. thank you for your service. this is a third committee hearing focused on the encryption issue and its impact on national security. the rapid growth of sophisticated and encrypted applications and extremely secure physica

the administration is not doing everything they can. we know that there are too many people who don't get treatment in the united states. we just released data that show only 11% of people with the substance abuse disorder are getting care and treatment from this disorder, 11%. we know that those other people are over represented in all the areas that we talked about. and so while we can do more, the president has been adamant about making sure that people who need treatment are able to get it. you know, i can't agree more with the secretary. i just find it inconceivable that in the height of this epidemic that congress -- not only did they not fund the bill that they passed but have really not stepped forward in a meaningful way to make sure that people in all parts of the country have adequate access to treatment. >> mr. secretary, when you look at rural america and you look at the opioid abuse going on right now, opioids are not the only drugs that are being abused -- sorry. as you look at rural america and look at all of the abuse of

for the politician and administration, it is matter of efficiency and speed and getting the president's new agenda enacted. these are some numbers from center for presidential transition. a new administration that is likely to get its point confirmed fastest in the first year of its administration it has only 73 days to do so. if it want to get them in place by the start of the administration and 4,000 appointees to get through the process. and so that's what we had talked about today. three experts, david eagles, director of sent he for presidential transition at partnership for public service. he will tell what you pivotal role they are playing in the transition this year for both, for both potential administrations. anita mcbride, executive and residence for center of presidential studies at school of public affairs at american university. and veteran of incoming and outgoing transitions with reagan, george h.w. bush and george w. bush administration and senior fellow for the governor studies programs at bookings institution and veteran of bill clinton transition process. so this fir

in the truman administration, 600 million people went behind the iron curtain, including the satellite countries of eastern europe and communist china. in this administration we've stopped them at quemoy and matsu,; we've stopped them in indochina, we've stopped them in lebanon, we've stopped them in other parts of the world. i would also like to point out that as far as senator kennedy's comments are concerned, i think he has a perfect right and a responsibility to criticize this administration whenever he thinks we're wrong. but he has a responsibility to be accurate, and not to misstate the case. i don't think he should say that our prestige is at an all-time low. i think this is very harmful at a time mr. khrushchev is here harmful because it's wrong. i don't think it was helpful when he suggested and i'm glad he's corrected this to an extent that 17 million people go to bed hungry every night in the united states. now this just wasn't true. now, there are people who go to bed hungry in the united states far less, incidentally, than used to go to bed hungry when we came into power

under the prior administration with all their problems, the average rate was 10.6%. if you take a look at number of people living in poverty as a result of this administration, six million people. 500,000 people knocked off disability rolls. you know, it's, you can walk around saying things are great and that is with we're going to be hearing. we've hearing that on commercials past couple months. they expect the american people to believe that i will become a one-woman truth squad and we start tonight. >> mr. white. >> congresswoman ferraro, like to ask you about civil rights. you have in the past been a supporter of tuition tax credits for private parochial schools and also of constitutional amendment to ban busing. both measures opposed not only by your running mate you by about every educational and civil rights organization in the country. now that you're mr. mondale's running mate have you changed your position on either of those? >> with reference to the busing vote that i cast in 1979, both fritz mondale and i agree on the same goal, that is non-discrimination.

we in the bill clinton administration did the obama administration a great service, not sufficiently recognized. our effort offered them a model demonstrating exactly what not to do if you wanted to pass health reform. and they used that example very well. tailoring the affordable care act not to disrupt most people who have coverage while extending coverage to those left out. to me, and i do get my minute to tell you what i think, the results are amazing. 20 million people newly ininsured -- insured, receiving good care, with per capita costs rise manager slowly than at any time in history, despite what you're reading about marketplace premiums that will come up tonight. but no question, the job of getting everyone affordable, meaningful health insurance is not done. that spike in premiums, only marketplace premiums, reflect lower enrollment than we'd like to see, insurers are unhappy, consumers who are not subsidized face premiums that are unaffordable and benefits are shrinking as out of pocket payments rise not only in marketplace plans but in employer-sponsored insurance as well.

the administration very methodically set no its most important. it's our priority that we fully staff the embassies in baghdad. there was a lot of discussion that became very public as i mentioned in the chapter and yet the evidence suggests they went willingly, wholeheartedly, energetically and enthusiastically to accomplish some impressive things even without the knowledge of arabic or an in-depth knowledge of the region but given the tools they have been given improvising giving out trying to relate to people. and it's one of the success stories and i understand it is hard to talk about and use the word success in iraq in the same sentence because things are still so very much up in the air. but the cables suggest a trajectory of officers who answered the call, were loyal, did as the administration asked, served in accomplished impressive things. >> guest: you mentioned the assistant secretary of state for educational cultural affairs at the time and then you also mentioned the ambassador who came on the scene in iraq and how he really got thing

responded differently from the bush and administration? >> i think it matters -- the bush an administration. >> i think it matters who is the attorney general. trump may have a view on transparency. christie mightl have a worse thview. it matters who the appointee is. i do not think there has been a the cases arehow handled by the department of justice. there is a way that things could be improved. those casesnd how are handled and how the cases are litigated where maybe you should not take three rounds to tell the plaintiff that yes, there are some documents responsive to your request. that would help and reflect a bigger, better commitment to transparency. we have not seen barely any difference. >> we litigate quite a bit of foia work. theirn terms of playbook, there aggressiveness and it takes getting in front of to right judge, oftentimes, make all the difference. -- yourabout [inaudible] washis was a case that brought by a conservative, the competitive enterprise institute. they should because they were thempting to get e-mails of dire

that's how we started in the bush administration. ed, angela, things kind of went downhill specially toward the second term and i think there are a whole bunch of issues to work there. paul did a very interesting paper on where did things go wrong. i was actually aconon-- astonished. >> yeah. [laughter] >> how many people know what the memorandum is? >> it was an effort to resolve agreements. the russianss were deeply bittered by the way the bush administration handled that. supporting the georgian government. these are the traditional answers but much more complex than that because -- i think it became difficult to maybe taken that momentum and had a lot to do with president putin and his effort to return russia to something like the role that it had played in the past. maybe i will stop there. >> okay. >> and you talk. >> thank you. steve, you want to take up the story? >> sure. we'll save memorandum for the q&a. if i think you look at how the arms control has played in the obama administration and in the last eight years, i guess t

we want to focus on the nixon and ford administration. i was struck, i had the opportunity before i took this job to look for the center of intelligence and how subsequent administrations to these, specifically the three administrations before mr. obama's, had dealt with the president's daily brief. i had good oral histories of the cia. what struck me about those oral histories is the senior official that testified on the point like the pdb's, but they like to the briefers better. they were an introduction, and entree to conversation. ,they could ask questions, get more information. a reminder that when we focus on the pdb's as documents, it is about process, not points. it is about the process over

the failed policies of the administration at home and abroad, she is essentially running on a promise for a third obama term. it seems like in the last seven and a half years there is no aspect of our lives too small for washington, d.c. to want to become involved. there's nthere is no provision e for them to ignore and as this approach is let's remind each other of one more important point that while the next president will serve a four-year term, the president will likely define the course of destiny for the united states and we better think long and hard about that. [applause] elect to worr fleury clinton anu better get used to unaccountable power to take unconstitutional actions. you heard last night wer was jut waiting from the bench. elect to donald trump and evil have strict constructionist who will uphold the constitution from the highest court in the land with great justice appointed to the court and all of our federal courts. they will uphold the constitution and interpret and not legislate from the bench. what's he say to all of you for the sake of the room of law and for t

but i hope the next administration and if i have anything to do with it, the next administration will make one last great effort to provide for control of nuclear testing, control of nuclear weapons, if possible, control of outer space, free from weapons, and also to begin again the subject of general disarmament levels. these must be done. if we cannot succeed, then we must strengthen ourselves. but i would make the effort because i think the fate not only of our own civilization, but i think the fate of world and the future of the human race is involved in preventing a nuclear war. mr. shadel: mr. vice president, your comment? mr. nixon: yes. i am going to make a major speech on this whole subject next week before the next debate, and i will have an opportunity then to answer any other questions that may arise with regard to my position on it. there isn't any question but that we must move forward in every possible way to reduce the danger of war; to move toward controlled disarmament; to control tests; but also let's have in mind this: when senator kennedy suggests that we haven't

how has the obama administration responded? ave they responded differently than the obama administration when it comes to foia administration? you spend your day in the trenches in court. >> i don't think so. it does matter who not just who the president is but who the president appoints to be their attorney general, so for example, you know, a president trump might have a view on transparency. an attorney general christie might have a different view or a worse view and it's possible that he might specially if it's not a priority for the president might decide to have their own way about doing things. so it matters to who the appointees are. i don't think there's been a real shift how cases are handled by the department of justice, for example. i think that is one way that things could be improved. i think that often times you get in litigation and how those cases are handled or how those cases are litigated where maybe you shouldn't take three rounds to tell the plaintiff that, yes, in fact, there are actually documents respons

another part of it goes back to the bush administration and the clinton administration. has a huge chip on his shoulder, sense of grievance that the united states of the west mistreated russia and he states nato enlargement that was organized by the united states, britain and germany to contain russia to bring military force to russia's borders. i think it looked very different. it was designed to appeal to central european countries who said we want to be full members of europe. likewise, look at the way he talks about the evolution and ukraine, these are manifestations of populations that say our election was stolen or were unhappy with bad governance. these are designed for regime change in moscow. he talks about it so much that at some point i think he actually believes it. he has a sense of grievance, a sense that he's defending it against an encroaching west and that may explain things why his less interested in arms control. >> use the term unilateral with the bush administration. when that term is thrown out it's usually criticism. [inaudible] it was unilateral, i

they are taking a look at the administration and fixing the administration. not complaining about it. not threatening the administration about privatizing and providing additional services for the veterans. that is not going to happen. it also shows the privatizing passed responsibilities the federal government and the taxpayers even more. collects a rebuttal? qwest a 32nd rebuttal. recordve supported a trending for the v.a. the veterans administration budget has more than doubled in the time i have been in congress. it is my funding issue. despite the additional dollars, billions of dollars, the v.a. is not a system that is focused on the veterans. this something is self scheduling which they will not do. i had a veteran yesterday in my office but because of paperwork could not get in to see the v.a. and was having heart issues. these are heartbreaking stories. we should not be afraid of having a conversation of how we can deliver care. it is not privatizing the v.a. but we can protect them. it is allowing options for veterans that are desperately needed rig

basically they made a hard to work in the obama administration if you had been a registered lobbyist. looking for the future, what hillary clinton or donald trump would do is kind of a big question because the president has a lot of sway over what the policy is. it's been reported that hillary clinton transition team has a ban on lobbyists working in the transition team so we could maybe's foresee a similar policy to obama, but it's really not clear whether obama's policies will carry over. at the end of bill clinton's administration, he actually rescinded the restrictions he had and i think it was after the election, the 2000 election, but basically that's something that obama potentially could do because of course over the last year i'm sure people who work in the white house have been looking for jobs in the private sector and that process would be easier for them if there weren't such limited restrictions on them. that's kind of the landscape of the rules. i want to talk about what we do with regard to the revolving door and show you a little bit of what's on our website. there is

it is something the administration takes seriously. e are important lessons we have learned since the case of mr. snowden. this risk is always going to be aere as long as there is desire to share information across the government. and we know there is a risk of not sharing that information. this is one of the principal insights that there is too much stove piping. that there are particular pieces of information that could of been used to keep the american people safe. sharing of this information is critical. individuals entrusted with this information need to keep the commitment they made to the american people to protect it. saying that by these are the kinds of risks that our government has faced for a very long time. todaye talking earlier about an entirely different case. but a situation 15 years ago where there was an individual that was arrested by officials because he was accused of .tealing sensitive information the case of mr. snowden and this individual is unique. obviously, the snowden case got extra attention because, frankl

the w. bush administration. conversely george w. sh pages later would bequeathed brought obama to worse and the greatest recession since the '30s. and yet he did maybe the most spectacular job of transitioning between two different party presidents of any president to date. the obama people have been very complementary of that, even if they made would've preferred the other way around, keys and prosperity. >> in a clinton white house, it would be really interesting to see if the obama people are being picked over, the bill clinton people are at the go clinton people are being picked over the obama people. that's one thing to look out. >> a very good point. >> a trump white house to a lot of people, other people coming in wanting to look at some of these agencies come as breast is like forcing we don't need them? that's another thing to look for. >> let's talk about the a transition that might occur. that does affect the white house as well and that is a possibility that the senate could go back into democratic hands. what are some th