stunts and get attention is almost irresistible for people who feel passionately, but clearly the american public, if you look at rasmussen's polling from last week, among likely voters, the american public is not on the side of those who cry out to abolish i.c.e. they actually want to see including crucially the independent voters want to see enforcement of our laws. they agree more closely with the position of the republicans and president trump. so i don't think this is going to be benefit the democrats at all. neil: the hard left is -- [inaudible] -- you think it could boomerang? >> yeah, the democrats, they have a power vacuum in terms of the messaging on the democratic side of the aisle right now. stepping in to fill that void

one way we can accomplish this on the president's agenda is by providing more certainty to the american public. based on my years of experience, the epa needs to provide more certainty to the american public, a lack of certainty and clarity from epa hinders environmental protection and creates paralysis in the marketplace. we will focus and provide certainty in three areas, one certainty to the states and local governments, to the epa programs, and three the most important one to me personally and the one i think i will spend the most amount of my time on his certainty and risk communication. if we can improve these three areas, we will make a tremendous progress improving environmental protections and enhancing economic growth. >> number one, we need to provide certainty to the states. when congress established epa's authority, it intended states to be partners in our efforts to protect the environment a public health. clean water act -- the process -- epa's recent improvable of idaho's program is a great example of epa working cooperatively with the states to provide certainty with respect t

one way we can accomplish this in the president's agenda is by providing more certainty to the american public. based on my years of experience, the epa needs to provide more certainty to the american public, a lack of certainty and clarity from epa hinders environmental protections and creates paralysis in the marketplace. we will focus on providing certainty in three areas. one, certainty to the states and local governments. two, certainty in epa's programs, such as permitting and enforcement actions with, and three, the most important one to me personally and the one i intend to spend the most amount of my time is certainty in risk communication. if we can improve these three areas, we will make tremendous progress improving environmental protections and enhancing of economic growth. number one, we need to provide certainty to the states. when congress established the epa's authority, it intended states to be partners in our effort to protect the environment and public health. for example, the clean water act lays out the process by which states can take charge of their own pollution discha

so what i'm asking is just that the white house tell the american public what was said, and if they won't do it, then the translator who was the only other american official in the room, that they come before congress and explain what happened. and look, i wish that the events in the last 36 hours did not happen. i wish the president echoed ronald reagan and challenged vladimir putin on what is doing. and he didn't do it. we need to know what the president agreed to. >> it is very mubaraky. many times interpreters, including attorney-client privileges, they could claim executive privilege here. >> the legal aspects of this are challenging, no doubt. the details of the summit never should have, but he had a specific agenda after he got in that room because they put out what they said he agreed to. now we're taking him at his word and every politician that speaks, every person that speaks, would versus wouldn't is a pretty big deal. the rest of that nice conference, there is no doubt about what he thought. he walked back the walk back in the next sentence. this is a horrible thing to say, t

i think that decision to name or disclose is very much in line what we are describing with the american public u.s. companies in the private sector and customers of u.s. government we are always taught to think about who the customer is in the policymaker but increasingly we have to think more broadly u.s. government does not have the monopoly on intelligence with cybersecurity there is a very robust and looking at new ways to partner with them from classified intelligence sources to create a holistic picture and so to create a dialogue between government and private sector as well as with the american public to notify sar the victim of the type or intrusion or a campaign that will help all of us be better able to play defense against these efforts so what about russia hacking related to the election. >> i appreciated your comparison but to be much but to be much because we have a bit of a different mission that personnel number is in the dozens so that means% of those people come to us from other agencies department of energy et cetera. so that is what positions us to demonstrate that intelli

you mentioned that the american public doesn't embrace veterans the way they ought to. i have one friend that served in afghanistan and some of the times i feel like the american public doesn't know how we stand up at ballgames or whatever and clap. what is a way that the average citizen can do a better job of embracing or thanking veterans? >> we are getting better at it, let's put it that way. people come up and thank you all the time for your service to. being in the shield wall is what it's all about. the best way to have the american public gets more involved in god is a positive story about that. i agree with the president that the press is their own worst enemy in our own worst enemy. it's really slanted, let's put it that way but we are becoming a lot more open since people don't like the donald being in the office but he's done a lot to change the country so far. i just can't believe the country has gotten where it is because when i grew up he went off to the war if you were called in if you were drafted, you went. if you your daddy and your uncle both served, y

has been untold is that there are many people going on the radio, making these arguments to the american public for and against intervention. steve: how many americans had radios in those days? prof. byrnes: the numbers i have seen are at least 75% of the national population and over 90% of urban areas. more in the north than the south, but generally speaking, the vast majority of people had a radio or access to a radio from someone they knew in the family, a neighbor. it was incredibly widespread by world war ii. by 1940, most people get their news from radio, more than 50% got their news from radio at that point. steve: were they relatively inexpensive? prof. byrnes: i don't know the exact cost of a radio, when you are talking about the fact that this is still during the great depression, they do not pull out of the depression until 1940 or 1941. the fact that that many people had them despite the economic hard times meant they had to be an affordable item that was beyond a luxury and more a commonplace household item. steve: you are from new jersey. if you were alive on december 7, 1941 list

that is disastrous for the american public. they're thinking about overturning roe v. wade. it's not just that. the other pol sthas could inevitably land before this court. >> you do see -- they talk about the fact in many ways you're seeing adrift of a government, a house, senate and court that are far to the right of the average american, the american public. the american public is for immigration. the court could swing wildly against it. the american public supports religious pluralism. the court could swing widely against it. on voting rights, we used to think of it as broadly supported. even john roberts has been against the idea of the sort of -- [ inaudible ] affirmative action, on and on and on, you could see a court very, very far to the right of the american people and democrats, i'm not sure that the democratic base is alarmed enough about it to vote on that basis. republicans vote on the court. what is it the democrats are doing wrong that they don't vote based on the court? >> not like we were talking about earlier

i think the decision to public the name and disclose is very much in line with what i was just describing and what the dni was advocating in terms of thinking about the american public, u.s. companies, the private sector and customers of the u.s. government. as an intelligence analyst we are always taught to think number one about who our customers and often that's the senior policymaker and usually another agency within the federal government that increasingly we have to be thinking more broadly. u.s. government does not have the monopoly on intelligence whenly it comes to cyber securi. there's a very robust cyber security industry in the private sector and we need to look at new ways of partnering with them , ceding their information into what we see from classified intelligence sources so we can create a holistic picture of the threats that we seek. i think the more we can create a dialogue and mechanisms for sharing information between the government and the private sector and in the other direction as well as the american public and whether they are a victim of the cyber intrusion or maligned influence campaign i think that will help all of us be better

the american people or with trump on this even if 80% were horrified provisions of the pictures of the children a few weeks ago. 55% of the american public the other issue is going to be the economy. the jobs report tomorrow and democrats will have a lot to stand on there because unemployment through 20%. wages watching that. the economy could be something the democrats will have a struggle with the november. >> faq talking about how democrats will improve the economy and ensure that there are jobs for folks out there across this country, i think they'll do well. every day there's an issue we have to talk about. as you said, the economy is going to be a big piece of that. if we keep driving how many do have higher wages for folks and make sure people are getting jobs equivalent with what they're doing. it's an important message. >> top issue for republican issues in november, what is that? >> peace and prosperity. they said the economy would be in all improvement of roads conflicts throughout the world because of trump. a huge disconnect between what the mainstream media says and what has actually happened. the american people are wise t

i think that's a point that we need to do a better job at making to the american public. similarly, the obama administration had set up something called the entrepreneurial parole, which would have bee allowed entrepreneurs to, to united states with a temporary parole. that was stopped by the trump administration. as these policies take effect, american voters will come to see the results. that will be the fact instead of the fiction. there was a question about waivers. i'm not exactly sure what you meant. i think what you were saying this should we eliminate waivers? >> [inaudible] waivers are supposed to overcome the bars to asylum so they would get more of a chance to get it. what i'm thinking is the future of this whole administration would be to eliminate them. it's not saying i want them eliminated -- the other way around actually. do you think it's a possibility the way the things are going? sandra: the waiver that the lady is talking about is people are subject to this 10 year bar. for example, if you have a qualifying relative in the united states that would suffe

>> we're getting better at it, let's put it that way, the american public is. you know, people come up and thank you all the time for your service and that. you know, i've got to say when i see veterans today, i buy 'em lunch, or i buy 'em a beer, try and show 'em that people out here think of them as what they are, heroes, for being on the line. being in the shield wall. that's what it's all about. best way to have the american public get more involved in it i think is the positive stories about veterans. finish i agree with the president that the press at times is their own worst enemy and our worst enemy. they really -- it's slanted. let's put it that way. but we're getting better at it. i think that a lot more -- we're becoming more open since -- i know people probably don't like the donald being in office, but he's done a lot to change this country so far back to, you know, i just can't believe that our cup has gotten -- our country has gotten the way it is. because when i grew up, this was davy crockett and, you know, you went off of to war if you were cal

the american people with potential tidbits of information, he should come clean, he should disclose this information, and i will assert that if he does that, that the truth will set him free and the american public will look differently upon him if he does the right thing. wolf, this is serious does business, i mean this isn't some game, the stakes are very, very high as everyone knows. the american public deserves this information, and they deserve it now. >> bottom line, what's going to be the impact, assuming the tapes are not released, that michael cohen doesn't release the tapes, his lawyers tell him don't do it. what's going to be the impact in the short-term and the long-term? >> again, i think the amount of evidence and information that the fbi and the attorneys for the southern district of new york have at their disposal is significant. and i think all of this is going to ultimately harm the president, i'm going to stand by what i have said in the past, i don't think he's going to serve out his term. i think this is going to be the achilles heel if you will. and if this information is not disclosed in full, we're going to continue to push as hard as we possibly can and we're going to co

there's not strong pushback from the american public. sz -- it is an incredible problem in a trust based system. >> i think it's brave of you to say that. it's incredibly depressing to hear you say that. the reality of that is incredibly depressing. >> it is what it is. >> one of your republican colleagues said this morning that while he is not okay with this quote it is simply not an item that is a surprise to us. if it were a democrat or president obama or hillary clinton would there be more outrage by republicans voice in i assume the answer would be yes. i think to his point he is probably accurate in a political sense. it has been baked into the cake of what's acceptable or blast okay -- what's okay. it's in a trust based political system the idea that you constitutionalize lying is a real problem. it does seem to me, and we have heard this that it seems like one tactic is ignore what the president is tweeting. ignore what he comes out with and focus on what the policies are. that's a safer place to react to because that's what is re

he included lyingido your or liing to the american public or misleading the american public. the concern that some around presidens trump have i that a lot of these same grounds could be applied to president tru in the russia case. and i think that the fear amongst some is thatf he is the nominee and sits through a senate confirmatio hearing, democrats will seize on this to turn the hearing into a referendum on what are the standards for impeachment and could thend sds you laid out 20 years ago apply to the president who nominated you? i don't think it derails his candidacy by any means, but it is a red flag to some people. rober kavanaugh's experience in george w. bush's.ld she pick someone with that bush link? republicans?ter to >> it matters to mostic repus. they don't like that very close alliance with the bush family. but on the other hand, president trump, we know likes to judge by his gut. now, 90% of theork on this was done for him by the heritage foundation by the heritage foundation who put together this st that he had since the campaign of conservative folks that c

what donald trump did yesterday is betrayed women and men of the cia and the fbi and the american publici use the term that this is nothing short of treasonous. former intelligence chiefs, political opponents and even several senior members of his own republican party lined up to criticise the president. and question his claim that it president. and question his claim thatitis president. and question his claim that it is better to forget the past when there are real present day concerns about russian activities. understand that desire and the need to mend relations, that is understandable, but russia is a manaus that does not share our values. should president trump be rebuked? that was a question he didn't answer. germany is a captive of russia. republicans were embarrassed by the contrast of the combative trump who angrily challenged old allies that the nato summit compared to the president who appeared all too cosy with president putin. with a shower of heavy criticism president trump has taken cover under the simple claim he misspoke but voters in virginia seemed more than a little u

and so it is that never-ending effort to hypnotize the american public. i don't think the public is easily hypnotized when they see something with their own eyes and hear something with their own ears as they did in helsinki when he sat next to vladimir putin. this is typically the president says, you can't believe this even though it is my own words. >> that's exactly right. it is his own reality show donald trump is pushing. the point is, do focus -- if you're going to highlight something, do focus on that. it was cut and i said a lot of positive things. john is right. there is no relevance because what he said before is the key, but he is opening up that conspiracy theory possibility that something odd, something nefarious is here that's being targeted against me even if there's no evidence for it. that's why it's in there to talk to his supporters to believe whatever he said. >> john's right is what i heard there. >> you hear that a lot. >> play it on a loop. >> thank you very much. >>> the $500 million question. who won mega millions? we're live at th

movie lines your galvanize the mobilizepublic, and -- your neighbors and galvanize the american public just as we did when they tried again to ram through health care. the risks our health care system is just as great now as it was then. to the patients who came to my town halls in connecticut and spoke so powerfully about their fear of losing health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, your time has come. . to the women who rely on affordable, accessible contraceptive coverage, to plan their families and pursue their careers, and the men who know that protecting reproductive freedom is a shared responsibility, your time has come. the bell tolls for you. we do not live in ordinary times. we need extra dinner efforts to make sure the united states -- we need extraordinary efforts to mature the united states upholds our shared values. -- we need to make sure that supreme court upholds our shared values. thank you. -- the timing is so close to november. what does the timing do for those going into the midterm elections? >> it works for us. and i think it works for us because thi

to do that the american public would never have supported it and there for what we talk today about today is the greatest success in american foreign policy would probably happen one of its greatest debacles. a great ask the statesmanship like the marshall plan, i would argue, are grounded in realism and not just idealism. this is probably a lesson we need to relearn. thank you very much. [applause] >> so very pleased to take your questions. c-span issue so i know it's going to be very important to speak into the microphones. -- c-span is here. who would like to go first? yes. >> i wanted to ask you about this issue of whether or not it was wise to incorporate the eastern and central european countries into nato. the backlash to that really didn't materialize until in a significant way into putin came to power. there wasn't, that i know of, a backlash to that in the former soviet union. obviously not in the countries that wanted to be admitted. so wanted to ask you about that a little bit. and then the other question is, what about the agency the independent countries themselves? they wan

there is not strong pushback from the american public. in essence we've institutionalized at the presidential level continuous lies one after another. and i think as alan dershowitz just alluded to, this is an incredible problem in a trust-based system, which is ultimately a democracy. >> it's -- a, i think it's brave of you to say that it's incredibly depressing, also, just to hear you say that. the reality of that is just incredibly depressing. >> it is what it is. >> one of your republican colleagues on the senate side, mike round said this morning while he is not okay with this quote, it's simply not an item that is a surprise to us. i guess if this were a democrat, if this were a president obama or president hillary clinton, would there be more outrage by republicans voiced? i assume the answer would be yes? >> you answered the question before you skit on that one. that's the way it works up here. and if it's a democratic thing and republicans are outraged and vice versa. but i think to his point, i think he is probably accurate in a

seems to suggest that the american public sght the president's o handlf russia more than they approvet's divided on party lines. line so many things inoday's ameran politicalculture. republicans are mkee aplioovlyet democrats must more likely toan disapproves d independence at least on do yo an issue thatt people will care aboute mid terms the presidentss and ot exists within political bubbles, dc bubble >> i think i matters to some extent because it's an example of president trump as a leader the numbe of, i guess, comparisons made to president trump and how he behaved when he was side by side witn. presiden puti i do think there'sn opportunity there, if you're a democratic strategisto use vi from that cference clips, attacking president trump on foreign policy. cveompared to things like immigration, healthcare, education a, of co the is always the mostn'mp ikn iorowtaw distance those issues >> the in virgaliang, k about what was ab antout tio ath and he omeipat that comesut a fewfa virginia a democraticeaning state l infhe . eenidest is a n if factors, just t hillary reelection win

>> the american public. prof. faulker: those guys, ok. i have to convince the political masters we are making progress, but in these limited wars we now have a big responsibility to convince the folks back home that we are making progress and we are doing more damage and achieving a political end state, and hurting the other guys. i want you think about this. this is a model i thought of about how to look at war and some of these questions. on one end you have come a peace treaty on the missouri. on the other end, lost. on one hand, you are losing on , the other, you are wedding. and probably, perhaps, most the time you are in the middle. you are in stalemate. what does stalemate mean? what does it mean? >> negotiated peace at that point. you have to know your political enemies, the end state, and the projected best case outcomes. that way you can negotiate at the table and use military action to get there. prof. faulker: what does that have to do with stalemate? you are right, or is that have to do with stalemate? >> you will not lose mil

how do we raise awareness across the american public? these are one of the cases, it is different from traditional cyber security. because these elections for instance, we are aiming for resilience in the system. we can take a lick and keep going. this information is completely different. the objective is anti- fragility. this means, resilience where you want to keep moving through it. with this anti-fragility you want to come back stronger, will you learn from the experience or engagement. we learned in 2015, we closed out the avenue of influence. this is where we are aiming for. we did a good bit of training analysis on how we see russian actors engage through information campaigns. also information and looking for a opportunity to close the avenues of intervention. >> are you talking about just dhs? >> no sir, it is cross government agencies. in my information with the ppd, working with the intelligence director and civil rights and civil rights -- ask officers. we have established a task force. -- forces. this works in coordination wi

the part of this administration, american people demand answers. i am tired of the u.s. congress, and senate acting as inter lock teres between the american public and the government this has to end. what is going b be gained by having strzok and page mouth a bunch of untruths to u.s. congress. >> look, lou, you are speaking to the choir. i think what strzok's testimony will show, i've not seen a witness as arrogant as he is. we did the deposition. lou: that is saying something. >> yeah, you will see, american people will look at him, he will not be a good went, he will trip all over his guy. lou: we -- can't look at him it is closed-door. >> not for strzok. this is why i and some of my colleagues have been pushing for a second special counsel for te dog and pony show? to what end. we need a special counsel so strzok can be hill accountable, and comey, and mccabe, we don't see it because attorney general and justice department have not been willing to hold these people to same people -- same standard they held rest of the people to. >> are an parent, a jag officer, andy mccarthy, former federal prosecutor said yesterday, that congress needs to p

in terms of the impact on the american public, the american public had turned against the war by the autumn of 1967, and that's why lbj brought william westmoreland back on this public relations campaign. this is where he utters those words about the war being almost over, that you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, that sort of thing. and it was to address this -- the american public opinion that had basically lost confidence in lbj and really was just wanted the war to be over and the united states to get out. and what you see after tet is that opinion goes back to that, that the public relations campaign lifted the poll numbers for a little while, and then tet brought them back to where they were back in, say, october, november. so, it didn't alter american opinion as much as it just returned it to where it had been the year before, and that is people were just saying, there's no end in sight and we want to get out. does that answer your question? >> can i add more to answer it even more? >> yes, you have my permission. >> so, right. walter cronkite, we've got to mention h

i believe that the american public is far more centrist than that and that the american public deserves better than that. mr. evans: i thank my colleague from alabama and i really appreciate her comments. in closing, mr. speaker, i would like to submit for the record the honorable johnson from the great state of texas has some comments she'd like to admit for the record. again, mr. speaker, the condition gregsal black caucus work both my colleagues along today, show how we need to be very conscious of this decision the senate is about to make. this is extremely important in talking about the future in america and we need to understand that we must operate under the constitution and the rule of law. again, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, i present a privileged report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: conference report to accompany h.r. 5515 to authorize appropriations for the f

the hearings, ask the questions, and ultimately we'll have to declassify the information so the american publicnows what the counter-intelligence resources were used for. judge jeanine: why do you think the president is not declassifying? >> i don't know. the fisa is frustrating to me. i think pieces of the fisa on carter page, we have had an ongoing feud about this for many many months. i think the fisa is 100% fraudulent. you have james comey and others defending the fisa which is unbelievable to me. so the president just ought to solve this once and for all. declassify. but most of of that fisa, the pertinent parts of it could be declassified. he could help answer for all of us who was telling the truth. were they justified to get a fisa warrant on carter page or not? i don't think they were. and i think the american people have the right to know and the president should declassify. judge jeanine: i suspect he's waiting for you guys to use all of your powers. but it would put an end to this ongoing investigation. i want to thank you for all your efforts on behalf of getting out the truth and

they have committed to study together what is going on with our political system, how the american public is changing, and what leaders in washington need to understand about the public. today's program focuses on .rends in authoritarianism a subject the voter steady group has focused on quite a bit for the last few months. some of what we have found has been quite disturbing. found onet survey, we in four americans said a political system in which a strong leader wouldn't have to bother with congress or election would be a good thing. more concerning, we found those kinds of authoritarian views are increasingly polarized within our political system, a trend that could be very dangerous for the future. the good news is when given a direct choice, the vast majority of americans jews democracy. people believe in the rule of law, they believe in checks and balances, they believe congress and the courts should be at check on executive branch authority. this kind of support should give us some hope, but we can't be complacent. leaders of both parties need to stand up to the rule of law, they n

to the shock and horror of the american public, president trump stood on stage with vladimir putin and told the world that he believes putin when putin insists russia did not try to interfere in the american election and trump's favor in 2016. presidente fact that trump wants us to believe these things, there are still some truths left in the world. not everything is political spam. not everything in the world today is up for debate. russia did attack our elections in 2016. they plan on attacking our elections in 2018. in 2016, they did so with the explicit purpose of trying to elect donald trump. all 100 senators agree on this. every u.s. intelligence agency agrees on this. every law enforcement agency in the country agrees on this. everyone in donald trump's national security cabinet agrees on this. now, we actually have specific names of specific russian individuals who carried out these attacks. they've been indicted by donald trump's department of justice. there's simply no question, no debate over whether the russian government engaged in a massive, willful, illegal campaign to p

so he's just either again in denial or lying to the american public, which i think is more likely. and so i don't think he's going to confront putin on it. and i thnk he's really thumbing his nose at mueller and the american public by having this meeting and i've said this before, i don't think just because trump does something out in the open we can assume that that means it doesn't have a nefarious aspect to it. he says things in tweets and on television and in public that you know, i think certainly could contribute to a case for an obstruction of justice. i think having this meeting, he very well could be continuing to talk about if there's proof that he talked before with putin and talked with people in russia about campaign interference, this could be a continuation of that. i don't think we should assume just because he's doing it under the guise of foreign policy, that it does not have something more nefarious going on with it. >> it seems perilous to have the meeting in light of what you just said. why do it? why do you think he is wanting to have this when this is circling

and the american public. anyone who reads there intelligence briefing knows. that is why putin is planning to attack the u.s. 2020 election already. that is why the men and women of this country unanimously and without any regard to party, unanimously understand that this against the united states in 2016. that is why dan coats antennas to the press went today, not six months ago, today, and reaffirmed "our assessment of meddling in the 2016 election and ongoing pervasive efforts to undermine atop theracy" remained u.s. intelligence agency. this is selling down to and discord in america. we should not sugarcoat this. vladimir putin has propped up by a band of oligarchs every bit as fake as he is. his fake democracy will not give fair and equal elections. an eyer putin keeps regret on the press. these are not matters of dispute on one hand and the other. the russian people know who vladimir putin is. the leaders of political and opposition in that country who tried to get there to be a free and fair election. you can ask the human rights activists and internatio

the one of the american public of the particularly want republican members of congress to give the presidenth of a roadway to negotiate the way that he said he was going to negotiate during the campaign [inaudible conversations] our guest will be joining us and go to ask questions about knowing the president and russia but also the topic of the terrorist, -- if you want to tweet us your thoughts you can do so. you can also post on her facebook page@facebook.com/c-span. there was an article in ceq talking about policy what comes to the administration of russia. a highlight something singular the president personal attitude towards food is one thing. they say these include the new class of nuclear weapons, national security strategy vesicles of russia and china, and continued buildup of u.s. and nato forces in eastern europe and new weapon since ukraine's government and that's because a lot in the battle with progression and surgeons. what you think thathe those actions versus when you the rhetoric about the president trip to russia? >> guest: the sanctions would put on russia last year our co

and the korean war. 1971,ed between 1951 and the big picture was a report for the army and the american public. ♪ narrator: the united states army presents "the big picture," an by thel report produced armed forces for the american people. here is sergeant stewart queen, coming to you today from canada. ♪ years,or more than 100 canada and the united states have shared and undefended border. the canadian army and the american army have long been partners in the defense of two free nations. europe and in korea, canadian and american soldiers have fought side-by-side, shoulder by shoulder, in keeping with a proud heritage. "the big picture" salutes the canadian army and brings you a report on its distinguished past, and its dynamic president. with me here at the citadel fortress of quebec are two canadian soldiers, sergeant mcmanus and accompany major. sergeant major, you are with the canadian guards. >> yes, sergeant. member of the canadian guards. the regiment was formed in 1953 and became canada's first national regiment. its motto means from sea to sea. host: what are your assignments? with [

the separation of powers, as you know, failed it has failed miserably in the court of public opinion. two thirds of the american public strongly opposes this particular policy. so if they're arguing that he's winning on immigration, one key finding is that not only in terms of approval rating overall have the numbers dropped. but specifically handling the immigration, it is obviously the least popular. i don't know where they're getting the notion that he's winning. the data doesn't support that. >> i saw this piece in the "new york times" making a similar argument. it says that we found mr. trump did only slightly better than his republican predecessors among anti-immigration white voters. mrs. clinton far outpaced john kerry in 2004. do you think what's napping immigration is polarizing but also radicalizing for a more open view? >> i hope so. looking at children in cages and seeing what this administration has been willing to do now to go against undocumented folks, to prove their point that they don't want immigrants in this country, what they are willing to do, if that doesn't show the american people how

and the war in vietnam, through things like agent orange, public-policy ledger it -- public-policy, is there any sense that you all have about the incorporation of vietnamese dead into american public consciousness? >> you mean the cost of the war there? that u.s. could pay reparations for, something like that. >> one of the things that i think people complemented most recent documentary series on the vietnam war for was that it actually included vietnamese. right? for so long, american memory of the war, an explanation of why the u.s. lost for example were attributed solely to american -- the vietnamese were sort of kind of had a walk on role in their own war. so, no, we haven't gotten to that point yet. >> my answer was absolutely not. we talk about agent orange and the gentleman the back talked about the impact on american troops, there is literally millions of acres of land that is on tenable in vietnam. that is never talked about. people suffer from agent orange there. then we are the 21st century. that's never talked about so the answer to your question is absolutely not. >> like a war crime that was never really addressed. >> so maybe we have just a few minutes left f

just of this hacking, but the russians have managed to create an entire mindset with 40% of the american public the commander in chief that all of these institutions are not viable, that they are enemies of the state, and that they themselves are part of the problem. that's where we get into trouble. that's where this has been a brilliant intelligence operation on the part of the russians, changing the perception and hacking the mindset of the american public. the president is going to have to snap out of this stupor or we are going to suffer greatly. >> right. and, michael, yesterday lester, who's also at the summit where you are, interviewed christopher wray, the director of the fbi, and sort of pressed this point with him, whether it was about christopher wray or others in the fbi, how do you withstand the constant attack. let's listen to this exchange. >> have you ever hit a point on that issue of sources an methods or anywhere elsewhere you've said this is a line? >> as i said, i'm a low key, understated guy, but that should not be mistaken for what my spine is made out of. >> so, michael,

that has untold is that there are many people going on the radio, making these arguments to the american public for and against intervention. steve: how many americans had radios in those days? 11f. byrnes: the numbers are -- at least 75% of the population. generally speaking, the vast majority of people had a radio or access to a radio. it was incredibly widespread by world war ii. by 1940, most people get their news from radio, more than 50% at that point. steve: with a relatively inexpensive? prof. byrnes: when you talking about the fact that this is still during the great , they do not allow of the depression until 1940 or 1941. the fact that that many people had them during tough times made it an affordable item that was beyond of and more a commonplace item. steve: what will you have heard that day and the day that followed? that isrnes: interesting. you would have heard, initially, news flash sunday -- on sunday. over the course of the day, people would be breaking in with additional details. by monday morning, you knew that the country was at fool -- at war. what i think you would have

all of them should be released for the benefit of the american public. the problem for the president is he's got multiple problems relating to the relationship of michael cohen but a very big problem is that michael cohen will go down as one of the world's great evidence hoarders. over the years. >> reporter: another surprising development involving cohen, avenatti said he ran into the former personal attorney monday night and had a productive and lengthy conversation. it's the latest sign cohen may be willing to turn against the president, who once complained the fbi raid on the former lawyer was an attack. >> attack on the country in a true sense. it's an attack on what we all stand for. so when i saw this and when i heard it, i heard it like you did. i said, that is really now a whole new level of unfairness. >> reporter: the latest twist in the saga comes as the white house is still leaning up after the president's disastrous summit with vladimir putin. now the president wants a second rendezvous at the white house, a prospect officials are clearing o