tv William Barr One Damn Thing After Another CSPAN October 18, 2022 7:03pm-8:01pm EDT
you are invited to participate in this documentary competition. and one of the upcoming midterm elections feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask this year's competitors what is your top priority and why. make a five-six minute video that shows the importance of your issue. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentaries. amongst $1000 in cash prizes is a $5000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 2023. visit our website for mpetition, tips, resources and a step-by-step guide. >> weakens on c-span2. every saturday american history tv documents america story and on sunday, book tv brings you
the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including charter communication. >> investing billions. building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering technology in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications along with these television company support c-span2 is a public service. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the richard nixon library and museum. i am christopher nixon cox a board member at the foundation and as my middle name applies
the grandson of richard nixon and patricia nixon. [applause]n i want to say the proud grandson of richard nixon. thank you so much for being here tonight for what i know will be a fascinating discussion. we are delighted to have you all here again in person not in front of a zoom camera but in person. over theve, we've had the honor. not once, but and not in one presidential administration, but to presidential administration separated by 25 years. it is pretty unique. that is a pretty unique
distinction in american history and it has a great detail about his patriotism and commitment to public service. perhaps his two tours under very different presidents were the inspiration of his book one damn thing after another. [laughter] our guest of honor tonight has had a very distinguished career both in the public and private sectors. he began in the administration of president reagan as the domestic policy staff from 1982 until 1983. your return to government and george h.w. bush the legal of counsel next is deputy general and next is the attorney general of the united states from 1991 until 1993. he returnedse to the private
sector where from 1994 until 2017 he enjoyed great success and earned enormous respect is one of the preeminent legal minds and i'm sure he did not have to deal with as many damn things and the private sector. then in 2018 when he was undoubtably enjoying the fruits of a successful career, he answered our country's call once again when president trump nominated him in the senate confirmed him as he 85th attorney general of the united states. his book one damn thing after another debuted as number one on the new york times best seller list and to date has remained there for the last five weeks. i note tonight we will keep it on the list for a sixth week because this will make great summer reading so get a book for all of your friends here tonight
if you need any more reason to go out and get this book, one reviewer wrote this is an incredible story of the life of a great public servant. so many lessons of how it works in public service operates at its finest. this is a courageous book to write and t i could not put it down. each of you reads this book, you will come to exact same conclusion. we are also very fortunate tonight to have joining us professor harlow the executive president, chief advancement officer and parker as kennedy at chapman university. yes. a round of applause for that. professor partlow earned his jd from yale law school after which he served as a clerk for the
u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit and then in private practice. to the good fortune of students and now at chapman, professor partlow left private practice for academia. voted professor of the year at each school he has enriched the studies and lines of countless future attorneys. the professor has also served on the boards of several nonprofits go, as well as on the number of state and local taskforces. in addition, key consults with several professional sports leagues and teams which makes him my new best friend and i hope he enjoys his introduction so he can take me to visit some of those professional sports teams. the nixon foundation has established a great partnership with chapman university which is led by jim byron the president of the nixon foundation and a proud president of chapman.
[applause] among the many benefits of that partnership is having the professor here withh us this evening to discuss attorney general ours book with him. i notett tonight's conversation will be lively, informative and fascinating. so, please join me in welcoming the 77th and 85th attorney general of the united states william p barth and professor. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you.
it is an honor to be with you here tonight. i amre honored to be at the library and i appreciate everyone coming out this morning. welcome to the land of $7 gas. [laughter] let's jump in at your second attorney general. you had a great life and retirement. the balance in being able to do consulting. what called you back into public service? >> i thought we were at a thcritical juncture in our history. i felt the election was absolutely essential to win. i was worried for the republicans. i was worried progressives were pretty close to pushing the
country over the cliff which would be hard to recover. idi did not -- i was never not supporting him initially, but i was happy to support him once he won the nomination. i think his policies were excellent policies which were just what the country needed. but i felt that the democrats werele trying to hobble his administration with this russia gate thing which i was skeptical about. it did not add up completely to me. i was worried we were headed towards a constitutional crisis. the department of justice and the fbi were in turmoil. had lost a lot of credibility with the american people. those were two institutions that i loved and i think are very important in our system. originally i started pushing
in front of me to get, the white house interested in other. candidates. thek president wanted to talk to me and i did not want to talk to him unless i was willing to accept the job. we had a discussion in the family andeo people agreed that people agreed if this is something i i was asked to do, i should do it. i felt like we were headed towards very dangerous waters as aa country. my friend bob gates who i had immense respect for who had been the secretary of defense and then head of cia, he said, look, you are serving the country and we are facing a lot of challenges. people serve in these jobs and people know what they are doing.
>> one of the most interesting things that the team wrote, your book may be the fairest assessment of president trump that he has read. can you talk a little bit about your relationship with him and your assessment of him as a president. >> i was never under any illusions of trumps persona. how difficult it was. i had never met with him before. i had worked there for many years. most of my business friends knew him very well and they told me he was a very difficult person. and advised me not to go into his administration. [laughter] it was under no illusion about
that. i was in there to serve his administration as attorney general and try to help his administration succeed. on a personal level, we hit it off very well. we grew up around the same time. i thought that we had an easy ecrapport. i talked very directly and vice versa i can assure you. i also felt that his policies were generally sound and many of his policies were good. fi think what people view as soe of his downsides and which occasionally were some of his downsides served him well at times. i think it took someone as aggressive and as direct as he was to surmount the media and
get his message out. also to tangle and be organized left wing attacks against him and step up against him. also to push his policies through the bureaucracy and resistance in washington. these were things that helped him win the election at the time and helped him get down like taking control of the border. we did eventually succeed. but he also, his style could be very excessive and elder may alienate it many of his key voters. maybe he should dial it aback a little bit, especially in 2020 as we went into the election year. there was some friction that came toin a head which i explaid in the book.
>> you are talking about public service. what drew you to a career? >> my mother. [laughter] in high school -- what is your career goal. to be a director of cia. this was during the vietnam war. it was not that obvious of a choice. i went to columbia and i studied chinese. i got my masters degree in government and chinese studies because i figured everybody else was studying russia. the other long-term rifle was china which i felt over the long-term would be the more serious challenge which is why when into chinese studies. as we all know, president nixon
went to china and all of a sudden china was the craze and the cia was knocking on my door. i worked part-time therefore two summers before i joined up. my mother said being a child of the depression, you need a profession. you need a career. you need something to fall back on. go to law school. my father said do what you like to dealnt because that's what yu do best. i went to law school and later on under jimmy carter, appointing someone that i did not think was a good direct your, i left. but having gone to a series of remarkable coincidences, they elevated me to the legislative office to help with these
investigations of the cia. and that way i met the direct your, george h.w. bush that would come to head the cia. i established my relationship with bush. i was 26 years old at the time. that relationship was obviously pivotal in my life. he made me attorney general. >> he served in that role for a year, if i recall. >> head of cia for a year. six committees and one commission. this was for alleged excesses during the cold war. more successful assassinations and things like that. had to defend the agency while everyone was trying to tear it apart. he did such a great job in that one year and he won the respect of the agency professionals.
who are the old-time cold war years in those days. they named the cia campus and building after him. george h.w. bush intelligence sector. j that is a kind of impact that you can have. you have become active attorney general. getting convinced to run for senate with the unfortunate death of the senator. it was supposed to be the dog days in washington. you had to deal with a very major issue early on. tell the audience about that story. that was a really compelling part of the book for me. >> bush put me in as the head of office of legal counsel.
i call it -- we give the constitutional advice. i only had that job for a year. it was a fantastic job. making me number two which is the chief operating officer. then dick thornburg had to go and run for the senate. the president said, look. we will make the decision about who will be the permanent general after clarence thomas i gets confirmed but you just go forward as acting attorney general until that happens. 120 cubans who were the hardest course sociopaths that had come over when fidel castro opened up his prisons and let a lot of criminals come over here, these were people that had been over here for a long time and
committed serious w crimes. we were getting ready to shipld them back to cuba. fidel castro had agreed to take them. probably with some good reasons that they would die if they went back to cuba. we had him in a federal prison and tookk over the present seizd 11 hostages. i was confronted. the prison unit is like a fortress you could not see. solid concrete in big nettle gates and so forth. make a long story short, i realized we could never give in to their demands. they would rather be in a federal prison then go back to cuba. i knew we could not given and eventually we would have to do a hostage rescue. i activated the hostage rescue
team and t they started immediately training and planning for operation. i work closely with the top guys in the di on this. after ninery days we had not fed them or anything. it is a very interesting story. once john candy died, there was no one left. [laughter] >> while i here on twitter john goodman. [laughter] i gave the order to conduct the hostage rescue. implemented at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. it was all very dramatic. some last-minute curveballs whether we could get in there and find the hostages in time. they had started playing russian roulette by putting their names in a bag.
it took less than a minute to reach the hostages. they were all rescued. so that was an interesting thing the fist to her that was it. did not have much to do with law wbooks or anything like that. how i met all the hostages and their families. it was the most meaningful thing that i did. their lives were at stake. shortly thereafter, the president decided he would appoint me as attorney general. >> when you entered the oval office to have that conversation with him, you said, mr. president, i do not bring you much politically, can you tell the audience what he said back to you? >> after a cabinet meeting i was waived in and the chief of staff
at that time said, look, he wants to go with you. you do not get him anything politically. other people at that time being considered you all know, obviously. two governors, or former governors. he said we will pick your deput, and hope that is not a promise. he saidof you better tell him about that. when he offered me the job, i am very a excited. have you as my attorney general. he said i assume that is not a problem and i said, actually, it is a m problem. he said whoa. [laughter] the department of justice, if there is any daylight between the attorney general and the deputy, you will have turmoil in the department. they just cripple at a political
level of leadership that way. and he was looking at me and i said, let me put it this way, is stir president. i will not put mine in anyone's pocket. [laughter] this look of recognition came over his face. [laughter] oh. okay. have someone in mind? i saidyo yes. talk to some other people. if you still want to go with your guy, that is fine, too. that was that. [applause] >> he also said to you the best politics thatdi doj is no politics. in reading your book, can you reflect on that as being a shared value between you and president bush. >> the attorney general performs a number of different functions.
one is providing legal advice. you are acting as a political official that is politically sympathetic to the industry should hear you try to give advice that will be in accord with law, but also from the standpoint of tryingtr to help e administration get to where it wants to go within the wall. the other is a policy advisor in executing programs like fighting drugs or crime and so forth. that is a political position. the president wants to do something for politicalot reasos in the prime arena, fine, there is nothing wrong with the attorney general actingg that way. the thing that is really sacrosanct in the department of justice is the enforcement of critical law and trying to make sure they are not different standards for different people depending on what party they are written or anything else. the same has to apply to
everyone. i like most of you, believed we had moved away from that. in practice we do have to standards of justice. but that is what the president meant when he said the best, when i said, i know i don't get you anything political, mr. president,t, he said the bet politics in the justice department is no politics. that is what he meant by that and i agree with that. i tried my best to apply one standard fore everybody and not allow politics to be played. if i did not have the evidence sufficient to indict someone,e whether it be james comey or anybody else, the president would -- by the way, if biden went around right now saying this person should be indicted, which p he has, president trump,
people object to that. trump was saying i want the justice department to indict comey and so forth. that created a problem. but thet fact is, if i did not have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, i was not going t to indict someone simply because the president wanted them indicted. we cannot go down that road. i kept saying i can't do to her tat, mr. president. i know they have behaved unfairly.sw i know they have apply different standards, but the answer to that cannot be using it as a political weapon. sometimes i paid a price for that. so when i saw, i felt prosecutors were going to seek a penalty on roger stone, by the way, i don't like roger stone, i think he is a jerk and i thought
he violated the law and i think he should go to prison, myself, but heee did not deserve to go o prison for two-three times longer than other people go for that very same crime and that in what they were trying to deal. that came on my desk and want to came on my desk i was going to make the decision, i was not going to dodge it, i did what i thought was right. i did it because it is one standard of justice for everybody and the president friends are not treated differently. the presidents enemies are not treated differently. [applause] it seems that when you started each of your stents as attorney general, something big was going on. the russia investigation, can you talk a little bit about what typern of hornet nest that was o
navigate as attorney general? >> i knew i was getting into a very highly charged situation. the left and their media allies which is essentially the same media had invested a lot, invested in the russia gait narrative and they were trying to bring down president trump and they thought bob mueller was going to be st. george killing the dragon. and so i realized that this was going to be a can of worms. .... .... been battered had been fighting both republicans and democrats on the hill. everyone was attacking the department. and so i knew it was going i knew it was going to be some fancy footwork here if you will.
, as you know mueller is ial describe in the book, mueller came in he talked to me. he was certainly not the same old bob mueller i had worked with before. i've been friends with. not to my surprise had no j collusion. but he tried to punt on the issue of obstruction. throughout these facts and verbiage for 200 pages of stuff that comes to no conclusion. i had asked him he told me what he was going to do could someone make a decision based on your report? and he said yes. someone could make the decision whether it was a prosecutable offense. drew gave me the reports one
attends the meeting has always claimed think anyone can read the english language that is crazy. i told mueller look, here's the problem. if you give me the report that i can't make public very quickly and there is a delay the country's going to be at risk. everyone is going to think the president is about to be prosecuted that will hurt our national security you give me that report you have to already indicate in the report what has to be redacted under the law.gu some things legally has to be redacted. i am not going to know what they are. you are going to have to tell us. he said he understood. but when he gave us the report he did not indicate any of thato stuff. i knew we were talking about two or three week delay. in thathe situation about the oy responsible l thing to do was to tell the public the bottom line.
there were news reports that friday going into the weekend the president was about to be indicted and his family. i'm going to tell the public the bottom line which is there is no finding of collusion. he punted he did not reach a decision on obstruction. did not exonerate the present he said that in his letter. i explained the decision i made which was no obstruction. the media was so deflated by this, so upset they claim i misrepresented the content of the report. a report a news coming out in two weeks, anyway. it's a story there for. >> following on the heels of that ukraine's president zelensky has been in the news a lott lately. but back then he is at the center of a storm that would
ultimately be adi trigger point for proceedings. as attorney general how did you try to steer d.o.j. through a time when you learned about the call between president zelensky and president trump. and then the eventual release of the transcript slate which was also the trigger point for these proceedings. how did you try to navigate that? >> the day mueller testified in june of 2019 i realized his testimony was not going to be what the president's opponents wanted. and so when he testified fors al intensive purposes the whole scam was over. in the very next day the president had his call with zelensky. we thought the night after
mueller testified we were pouring our scotches at the end of the day, we thought we had gotten past russia gate and now we can focus on the successful program of administration and then boom. i did not find out about it immediately. but over the coming weeks we heard about this call. i looked at the transcript. i was angry with the president because the president lumped me in with rudy giuliani. the present is typical, imprecise in talking. i want you to cooperate with the durum investigation. work with bill barr on that. i want you to investigate by then, that has to look out.
you should talk and the attorney general about that. we were not investigating biden at that point. and we did not investigate him while i was attorney general. but i was angry because it lumped me in together with rudy giuliani. i'm free booting assignment he was up too. but what i was focused on was the evidence of crime. they came they were soliciting political contributions. they were trying to bend w the law, that is what politics are about prosecutors trying to bend the law to prosecute their political opponents. didn't think there was. then congress moved sharply to impeach him and overtook
anything the department would be doing. it's really interesting, my read of the situation was they were so upset that i made the decision that there was no obstruction that was the end of it. they did not want me too act on the ukrainian thing. they wanted to move impeachment first so the same thing would not happen tol ukraine. the department is not a party in that. that back and watch the show. without the present is reallyfen jeopardy bring her r might have gone differently but the transcript would have been released earlier it wouldn't have mattered? >> i don't think it would've mattered. parks in the book you say you think the civil rights issue of our time use issues about covid
road in some cases d.o.j. could you talk about your thoughts onho religious libertis and some of that during covid shutdown? >> during covid a lot of the governors, mayors and other people but they had this power for long periods of time to do that were clearly treating religious activities a second class activity. a lot of commercial activity other comparable religious activity free of restrictions free of restrictions was a veryi draconian restrictions on said no what has to be this, it cannot be worse. you cannot treat religion worse than you are treating othern people. but the civil liberty of our time is because it goes back to the speech i gave at notre dame
which got a lot of attention. which is to say the framers -- the foundation of our system ofa government and our political philosophy is religion. b not in the sense we establish religion we compel people to be religious, people have freedom of conscience. but the framers believe our society and of limited role for government because people would be able to control themselves they would be virtuous people who were generally religious people. and therefore that an moral compass. they did not need external coercive power that was over leaning. it could be curtailed or limited. that was their philosophy. but we have seen generally in the united states pacific is an crumbling of that foundation
left fewer and fewer people have that self-discipline and self-government. the ability to govern themselves. that is by the way what they mean by self-government. not how to count votesni it's governing your selves. and io have this whole chapter that discusses this and its relationship to education. there used to be a consensus in this country that education oshould read require some sort f formation and so forth. the 60s they started stripping away all religious belief in the schools. starting in the obama administration there try to secularize public education not by subtraction of religion but by edition of secular philosophy like critical race theory and other things that explain their alternative system of support
and set of values. where does the government get off teaching people and instructed a doctor knitting people and ideology telling them what to believe. especially if it is subversive of traditional beliefs of the family is trying to raise her children with. so i think that raises serious constitutional issues. [applause] insecure number one issue as attorney general folk under president bush and president trump with violent crime. talk about why you're so passionate about about making that a top priority is to administration us. ask people right now so the og people are upset by crime. they should be more upset by crime.
fighting crime, protecting citizensof from violent predatos is the number one's duty of government. [applause] it is the reason we established government. we are getting to the point in emany jurisdictions people be just as safe ife they protected themselves, if they were their own police and security service. that is an outrage. now, we have been here before we apparently have to learn this lesson every 40 years. but here is what is happening with violent crime. in the 60s and 70s fleet tripled, almost quadrupled at a time we were releasing people from prison. reagans comes in and flattens the trajectory.
so it is still going up. it peaks at the time i become attorney general the first time in 1991. in the crime -- with the level of the crime was twice as high as it is today or it wasn't until the last couple of years. we all know what it is, a cop supposed other job pretty well. as the rest of the system is a revolving door. it's not a mystery. most predatory of violence is committed by a very small group as an 1% of the population probably. but theyri are repeat of violent offenders for their career criminals they start committing crime when they are young they keep on committing crime for they havee long rap sheet still beat violent for long time to come. they commit hundreds of crimes in their out on the street a year.
you have to get these violent predators into prison to serve long sentences that is the only thing that happened. the federal government had not done much on violent crime, street crime. but in 1991 we started leaning forward you think our gun laws, are gang laws and or drug laws setting up joint task forces in going after the shooters, violent criminals and putting them away. the das 1 love this. if they could get 18 months we could fit for years on some guy built using a gun and crime. we push the states to stop the release of prisoners and stop the revolving door. for 22 consecutive years starting in 1992 route 22 years
crime rate went down. guess what, the present rate went up. doubled the prison population in the united states at 1.5 million. the client was cut in half. murderous went down from 24000 a year to 14000 a year. beneficiaries are mostly african americans under obama 2014 the war against cops, ferguson crime started going up again. so after 22 years of going down started going up under obama. under trumpet went down again until the second half of the covid year 2020. bottom line is, it's not like we don't know the answer to violent
crime. we have heard all of these arguments about we have to give these guys more chances, more chances, more chances. only way it's overworked of reducing crime and checking society as if the violent were pete offenders off the streets. it's a question of will. for that is done, crime goes down. [applause] box we all get a chance to read the book there's so much policy in the general barr really worked on from mexican drug cartels do a big tactic to china for its really worth the read. we will not beec able to cover l of that tonight there's 2020 stuff i like to jump into. it is springio of 2020 the election was looking really good for president trump in your eyes at one point then it starts to
look not as good. like you do with president bush who saw the tide started to turn you tried to give advice. but it seemed for a relationship a little bit. you tell what you saw what you tried to help the president with reelection and advice?ug >> termite standpoint i was worried the president was going to lose the election. i thought he was going to lose the election because he inanely aided about 10% roughly of educated suburban voters who typically voted republican. republican leading independence. they were completely repelled by trump. mostly women but not exclusively women. i saw this in my own state of virginia for the republican party essentially collapsed for a party who could win in virginia to oness that was
hopelessly behind by the defection of suburban republicans under trumpet. this is true in a lot of key states. he was advised by his campaign advisors as other advisors we have got to stop the t pettines. you got to stop punching down getting into these fights you let someone insult you or something. stop this stuff. in his mantra was his base liked it people wanted him to be a, fighter. but want you to be a fighter and you are a fighter. there is a time and place. sometimes you got to pick your fights. i went into suggest it was time
to pull back a little bit. address this problem in the suburbs. heat listen and he listened to everyone else who told him and all secretary cabinet members agreed with this. i think most of you probably saw the same thing. and he just would not listen. i think it is because -- it's funny and 2016 when he made the off-color remark of elite bush shortly before the election, he was really shaken and people thought he might pull out in the election was over. he was scared enough to actually listen to advisors. and he mended his ways for the last few weeks and he pulled out now a victory. in 2020 he thought he had a mystical relationship with his base and he knew better than everybody else so he was not
listening. and i think that is why he lost the election. but later after the election results the whole question of fraud is the elephant in the room people sort of melt together a lot of different things they are things that changes to election lawha and practices and skew the playing field but they're not necessarily against the law. to pass the law or some rule that helps one side not the other a lot of stuff is like that. stuff the republican party has to fight through to make sure it's a level playing field going forward. the other kinds of violations were not fraud they were rules designed to prevent fraud were not observed like not requiring
an application for an absentee ballot in the state that required one. or allowing people to harvest the ballots in the state that prohibits it. the point is that does not allow for the negating of the votes. gupta commit and show the votes cast under that situation were not valid votes. then there's fraud were votes are stolen, false votes are put in. votes are taken out there is evidence put forward of any degree that affected the outcome of the election. in all the stories circulating in all of the excessive remarks made by the president more people voted in philadelphia is false turned absolute lower than the average turnout.
the 70% range it's high. but it was the same statewide. so i looked at the votes later. to me it was sort of obvious which is what people had been telling him. in states like arizona there were 75000 republicans and people who did not vote for him. they voted in republican. wisconsin was at least 60000 in the same. he ran weaker in those three states that the republican ticket. the state candidates tickets did well he was the weak link on the ticket. you cannot win that close a race if you are running weaker in the battleground state. that is why he lost the
election. cracks are pretty critical of political leaders from both parties who you describe as "more attach self-serving narratives and the factual truth. you juxtapose that to the political system the role the d.o.j. plays in our federal government of upholding thele truth. can you reflect on that with these triple troubleds times 11 we work as a government to uphold the truth or is it so sour that seems impossible? >> right now the politics are pretty intense, sour, the justice department is probably the agency that's the most battered. because we have to save the evidence is in what the truth is. weou live in an age where that's
not considered being part of the team. i do think, the hope and very worried about the country. i think this is probably the biggest crisis we have gone through other than civil war. and i think there are a lot of different aspects to it would take us all night to discuss the different factors at work. but when people get discouraged, i always say look the first step on the road back is a decisive victory that we can translate into lasting changes in addressing some of these things that are off-track like education or the fact we have moved away from the principle of federalism. we have to startd addressing te basics. but we need a decisive electoral
victory. and i think we are going through today as we went through the 60s and 70s. where the democratic party took a sharp turn to the left. i think they are wackier now than they were even then. they areyy essentially -- they cannot be liberal they are not within liberal tradition their totalitarian in their approach. they've taken a sharp turn to the left, divided their own party they tore down president nixon who had 149 states and then they come up with this empty vessel to see what theyed wanted to see in him. he was overwhelmed by the problems and he was a one term failure. does that remind you of
somebody? [laughter] so what i say to people who i agree with it grieves me that many people who are maga supporters are p mad because i think the present lost the election. but i say to the maga supporters that isth what i want too. i want to restore america. but that will take more than one victory punches tobacco publicly all the time. that would take reagan was a reaction against the democratic success to 146 the first time, 49 the second time. vice president george h.w. bush. the democrats had to go to the middle of the democratic leadership conference in clinton.
again having the reform and passed to tough crime bills. the debate in the policies for over 20 years were dominant by republicans and liberal was a dirty word in those days. that is the kind of victory we need. and i personally i'm not hostile to trump. i think 78 is a lame duck president so to settle scores is not the guy to deliver that kind of victory. that is just the hard brass tacks.rk does that mean everything is sold by that? no it's going to take hard work. and it's going to take an administration that has talented segments. he was this way, reagan was this
way who can strategically figure out what we have to do to deal the educational crisis in our t country. the other factors at work that are leading to this poisonous atmosphere. that will be the first up on the road back. that's the essential step. until that happens i don't see anything preventing this or reducing the trench warfare. kirk's final question is a quick one. if a book signing right after this. so you and john are the only two people to be attorney general for two different terms, would you go for a third? [laughter] 's books first i would like to say i'm the only one to do it in two different centuries. [laughter]
[applause] books thank you, thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your time tonight. the attorney general will be available to sign your books in her front y lobby. we will see it up there had to your right at the end of the hall with thank you for coming tonight god bless goodbye. [applause] ♪ middle and high school students it is your time to shine. you're invited to participate this year c-span student camp documentary competition. in the upcoming midterm election picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask your competitors what is your top priority? and why. five -- six minute video shows the importance of your issues proposing and supporting perspectives. do not be afraid of risks with your documentary. be bold amongst the $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5000 grand prize.
videos must be submitted by generate 20, 2023. visit our website at student camp.org for competition res, resources and step-by-step guide. next weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast every saturday american history tv documents america's story. on sunday @booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding comes from these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a committee center? no it is way more than that. comcast is part and with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled list so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast long these television companies support cspan2 as a public service
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on