tv Senator Chuck Schumer Addresses American Jewish Committee CSPAN July 4, 2017 1:11pm-2:32pm EDT
on c-span. at 7:00 p.m. eastern, join american history tv for a live tour of the american revolution in philadelphia. the museums president michael quinn and collection and exhibitions vice president mr. peterson will introduce artifacts and exhibits including george washington's more tent and aps of the old northbridge from the battle of concord. your stories about the american revolution a you can participate -- and you can participate. museum of the american revolution at thursday starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >>,, discussion on president trump's foreign-policy foreign policy in the first amendment, we heard remarks from senior director michael to rent and former undersecretary state
wendy sherman and this is part of an event held by the jewish committee a it is just over one hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome executive council member bobby layson. [applause] , we would all agree has been defined by polarizing and oftentimes painful disagreements in at the board room, at the seder table and beyond and the is no exception. ajc is not new to this reality. featuredr where passionate debates about today's most pressing issues and global
affairs and overtime this segment, the great debate has become a fixture in our programming. of us will recall last year, democratic congressman steve israel faced off against republican strategist over which political party best represented american jewish interest. the year before, we witnessed a rather fiery exchange between presidential election. through -- 2012 presidential election. our goal has been to foster
respectful but spirited conversation between two permanent thinkers who hold very opposite opinions and that holds true today. in just a minute will welcome to debaters today's 2 were close friends of ajc. on the one hand, bassett or wendy sherman, the former undersecretary of state -- on the other hand -- we will welcome wendy sherman, the former undersecretary state. the other hand, michael durand. with ajc's serving as our most able moderator, ambassador sherman and mr. durand will try to answer the question, the america first approach, is it advancing or compromising u.s. interests abroad? ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seatbelts and before we
began, i'm like to turn your attention to the presentation on the screen for a brief video introduction. thank you. >> my for policy will always put the interests of the american people and american security above all else. it has to be first. >> candidate trump promised policy that would put america first. president trump has people asking is america first more about style, or more substance? trump: i am looking at two-state and one state and i like the one that both parties like. >> president trump and signaled possibly a new approach following strains between the obama administration and israel. what will a man for u.s. policy on the israeli-palestinian conflict.
>> one of the worst deals i've ever seen is the iran deal. >> despite blasting the deal, president trump shows no sign as of yet avoiding the obama administration's agreement. will this change? >> we have been very clear to ad regime regime -- ass for others a red line. >> president obama jew a red line with sick -- drew a red line about chemical attacks but it was president trump, not president obama who committed an airstrike. resetama initiative to relations with russia faltered as vladimir putin challenged his neighbors and expanded moscow's influence and it would be wonderful if a nato and our
country could get along with russia right now we are not getting along with russia full's job >> will president trump's attempts fair any better? as in the debate contains all what a america first means, one as the debatein continues on what america first --ns, what inc. is certain on whatebate continues america first means, one things continue, the debate. >> please welcome our debaters and moderator, michael durband, jasonsherman and isaacson. [applause]
>> good afternoon. in the 4.5 months since its inauguration in which he promised it is going to be on the america first, america first, president trump has put forth policies that seek to reposition the united states on the world stage. america onto his predecessors have been taken advantage of and he is taken a series of steps to defend in u.s. sovereignty or reverse the unfair treatment he believes our country has suffered. thepresident has drawn america from one major deal. and he publicly scolded our closest allies for only the america.- owing
against this disruptive record, there have been multiple size of reassurances that american foreign-policy was not so different after all. nato is no that longer obsolete and he is stuck with the iran nuclear deal principally negotiated by wendy america first foreign policy and further to step back from the daily tidal wave of russia data news and other distractions and tell us whether the
administration is pursuing a course correction and traditional u.s. foreign-policy or pursuing what might be a disengagement from world affairs? before returning to our debaters, a quick word about ground rules. ambassador sherman and mr. durand will each have five minutes to speak and three minutes to respond to each other and while they are speaking it while i am following up with a you totions, i will ask write in your own questions on the cards on your chairs and pass them or if you're watching this debate online tweet your question. after i poses many questions as time allows i will ask our debaters for remarks and that begin. ambassador sherman? >> i am very honored to be here at the ajc global forum at the annual great debate on this
question. the new york times lead editorial said yesterday, i believe president trump is leaving america and retreat from the world. a dangerous position that ceases controls of our feature to others and undermines the economic and physical security, and undermines american values. it is important to set america first in its historic context. and especially important for all of us who are jews. as many of you know, america first was the organizational name of the movement in the 1930's led by charles lindbergh among others to keep america out of world war ii. lindbergh was profoundly anti-semitic, pro-german, an isolationist, and a nationalist. lindbergh was a hebrew of the skies and hebrew -- a he hero of lindbergh was a
these guys and was someone -- of these sky and was someone who wanted to keep out of america those who did not look like him, people who were not real americans. president trump adopted this moniker. it should concern all of us as jews and americans. the isolationism, fear of people not like us or the loss of human rights are too that for comfort. the president understood that there were people hurting in america. families who lost jobs through trade felt unanchored and unseen. his answer was america first when the answer lies elsewhere. we are at full employment, even if some are underemployed, and trying to take care of the kids in college on incomes that stagnated in the wake of the recession. the answer for these families is better job retraining, trade adjustment assistance, a higher minimum wage, a college loan system that works and the embrace of a new and future economy. historically, we as a people
know better than anyone that closing one eyes to history is a problem. the trump administration has for the most part tried to disconnect from critical alliances, core american values and life-saving objectives. most recently, the president withdrew from the paris climate agreement, a nonbinding commitment by 200 countries to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to save the planet. withdrawing from the agreement will not bring back coal jobs, but it will make it harder to compete in technologies. hopefully, leadership by governors, mayors, and major employers will save us from our selves and ensure that are grandchildren have a future. at the start of his presidency, president trump withdrew from the transpacific partnership, leaving allies and others to consider if they should turn to china. he hectored our european partners and left them to fend off russian aggression. following the stop in saudi arabia that contained no tough
messages. he visited israel but left unclear his way forward. the president has offered a budget that reduces the state department by 31% while substantially increasing the defense department. i want a strong military, the credible threat of force is a critical element of diplomacy. as secretary mattis has said if , the diplomacy is gutted, he will have to buy more bullets. further secretary tillerson , along with the white house has not built many of the state department positions leaving us leaderless on many, many fronts. purpose most concerning is the recent wall street journal op-ed, director of the national economic council. they said the world is not a global community but a public arena where there's competition.
as the new york times said, this is not hardheaded realism. it's a vision of a world with cutthroat competition, zero-sum outcomes, deeply at odds with the most cooperative, rules-based divisions that have motivated america and its allies since world war ii. the petition will not allow nations to work together to defeat terrorism, deal with climate change, stop pandemics, reduce poverty creating middle classes worldwide that embrace our values. we believe in the concept of america should as well. the american jewish committee was founded in 1906 to prevent the infringement of civil and religious rights of jews and to alleviate the consequences of persecution. rights,eveloped, human
equality for -- as as ajc develop, if fought against immigration restrictions of the 1920's, equality for all americans in the 1950's, a boycott of israel in the 70's, and in the 1990's, began a diplomatic engagement and support to the nato intervention and coal for so -- in kosovo. in a 21st century, opened a transatlantic institute in brussels. helped raise money for the items of the south asian tsunami and hurricane katrina, and advocated for energy independence and green policies. i could go on about all that ajc done to engage in the world. clearly ajc leaves that the -- beliefs that the united states and its people are a force for global people. ajc has never been an america first organization nor should our country b. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> you have an extra 30 seconds.
>> tanks. you forks to all of comment and the ajc for inviting me. i completely agree with ambassador sherman, great to be here. positionhtly different and i think that the starting point for understanding, the historical for understanding america first is not charles lindbergh. as a former educator, i can guarantee you that nobody under the age of 65 in the country remembers charles lindbergh and america first. i think a better place historically to start would be march of i know that the phrase 2016. predated that, but but that was when bernie sanders defeated hillary clinton and the democratic primary. for those of you have read the you knowttered"
sanders' three blindsided hillary clinton. she walked around after the event saying that she was utterly mystified by the behavior of the voters, and did not understand why she wasn't connecting with them. the book tells you in the enlightening first chapter that the campaign had a great difficulty at the beginning coming up with a explanation for hillary clinton's desire to be president, to explain why she wanted the presidency. that is after almost a decade of running for president. the book is enlightening about hillary clinton, and she is the subject, but really it is a much deeper message than just hillary clinton or her campaign. it is really a story about the complete disconnect between the washington elite and the voting public. i would include in that ambassador sherman and myself.
the last election was a wake-up call for all of us. we have our foreign-policy elite is not fashioning a message and policies that resonate with the priorities of the american people. that is what america first means, number a foreign-policy one. the resonates with the voters and demonstrates the policies , our elite are trying to advance their interests on the global stage. the second point is that it is a resounding rejection of the philosophy of the obama administration. absolute failed philosophy. it was heir to a point of view after the end of the cold war that, for lack of a better term i will call, the end of history viewpoint, advanced by francis according to this view, our
elite decided that things like alliance, credible use of force, military deterrence and so on were outmoded, often counterproductive, and damaging to the united states. if you doubt me, just go back and read the u.n. generalissimo speeches that president obama -- the un's general assembly speeches that president obama gave year after year. we are no longer in an age when one country can dominate another, and so forth. this is a philosophy that led the administration to reach out to enemies and distance itself
from friends. we saw that in the iran deal. president obama's attitude for the middle east is that it was an arena populated by friends and potential friends. he went to a great extent to win over the potential friends like iran, at the expense of israel. to do this, he had to deceive the israelis and the american public in a number of areas. if i had come to you in this forum in 2013, and told you that the consequence of president obama's policies would be the rise of the russian-iranian alliance across the middle east, the development of an iranian territorial corridor, the displacement of 10 million people in syria, the injection into europe of millions of refugees, or over one million refugees. if i told you that iran would emerge from the deal with the right to enrich and reprocess uranium, and within 10 years, it would have an unfettered program which the international community would look upon like that of any other country, that it would be an international law on par with belgium, you would
have laughed, rolled your eyes and said, this is a dysfunctional fantasy. but it is a reality that was a direct result of the philosophy of president obama, which president trump has rejected. [applause] you have to do it louder, and wasn't as strong as the other one. [laughter] if you notice in his trip to the middle east, he was embraced by our allies, by israel, by saudi arabia, with something like euphoria. the israelis are doing cartwheels in the air and that is what america first means. mr. isaacson: perfect time. amb. sherman: impressive, very impressive. [applause] mr. isaacson: wendy, you have the right of rebuttal. amb. sherman: a couple of points.
perhaps you have to be over 65, which i certainly am, to remember lindbergh, but i think that we all teach every generation never again. [applause] to ensure never again, it means not closing one's eyes to the world, but rather understanding the world as it is. the world got more complicated after the end of the cold war. everyone had lined up with one side or the other. it is true, there are many powers and rising powers. though the united states represents the only superpower in the world at the moment. that is not the senate russia and china are not trying to superpowers.
putin is trying to reconstruct the soviet union. all of this is true. iran does engage in maligned activities in the regionj, but imagine how much worse it would be if iran had a nuclear weapon and could project power into the region and deter our and our allies' actions. as a factual matter, reprocessing is not allowed in the iran deal. iran is only allowed extremely limited enrichment, under very strict monitoring. to get this issue out of the way, which we cannot do entirely, i want to be clear that what president obama understood, painfully, was that iran knew how to do what it knew how to do. it had mastered the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
we could bomb away the facilities, and the president, in fact, commissioned a weapon to do just that, to be able to penetrate the underground facility. we told the iranians, the military threat was quite a critical threat of any negotiation. we also understood that if we bombed those facilities, iran would re-create them in two or three years and do so underground. we could continue to try essentially run but those were beginning to fray. our partner stuck with us -- partners stuck with us. they cut back their oil from iran because we were involved in syria's diplomacy. those sanctions would not have held up. without those negotiations, under strict limits, was the way to go. to ensure that iran never obtained a nuclear weapon.
israel was part of what we did every step of the way. i consulted with them on a constant basis. their technical experts will tell you that at least for the next decade, israel is safer as a result of the deal than not having the deal. at the end of the day, -- i never doubt for one moment that the leaders of the country do what they believe is in their best interest even when i might agree. -- when i might not agree. moderator: thank you ambassador. michael: the united states is a very powerful country. very powerful and influential.
these sanctions on iran were not going to fray or disapear. they had grown from 2005 from the time i went in the white house. we put that in under the bush administration, it grew under the obama administration. we could have collapsed there he economy had we chosen to do that. the president chose an extremely deep and irreversible concessions. permanent and irreversible concessions on the part of the united states for temporary and reversible concessions on the part of the iranians. who have cheated on every deal they never made. -- they ever made. it did not stop them from getting a bomb. it put their program on a glide path to a bomb and it started a nuclear race in the region
because the other actors in the region, including the israelis, are not going to wait 10 years to find out about this. at the heart of this deal with this philosophy that the democrats in particular came out of it. if you swept it to the side, it would go away. that we could turn the iranians into, if not allies, partners in the region. make no mistake, part of this deal was the deal of the region. resident obama believed if we got the nuclear deal out of the way temporarily, he could come up with an accommodation with a -- with iran over the region. -- iraq, syria, and elsewhere in iran would moderate. it is in a much weaker position than a would of been a had we never removed the sanctions to begin with.
the united states is a very powerful country and that means that everybody has to go along with what we do. we're like the ceo would need region standing next to a secretary saying, how might -- how am i doing in my job. the secretary is always going to say, you are doing great sir. the secretary will never say, you are doing horribly. but that is how everyone in the middle east felt and that is why president trump got the euphoric acceptance that he got. make no mistake, there was severe deception of of the american people and our allies at every step of the negotiation. we were told we're going to get one thing, and the end we got something else. to this day, we do not know the exact details of that deal. that is a failed philosophy and it is the rejection of it that
donald trump represents and it is a great corrective to our foreign policy in the middle east. moderator: thank you. i am confident we could spend ping-ponging about iran. -- the next hour ping-ponging about iran. he talked about ajc believing in and standing by israel. i'd like to ask both of you, how do these believes of the core beliefs align with the president's worldview, and are they consistent with the idea of america first. wendy: i would say first of all he does not believe his philosophy of america first. clearly he did not bring everyone together because now
egypt, bahrain, the united arab emirates have cast a shadow and cut off relations. we have a long way to go to keep the gulf countries together. i have not heard the president talk about democracy at all and he is getting our diplomacy and -- gutting our diplomacy and our ability to bring those values around the world. as i said in my opening statement, when you have a national security adviser and head of the council say we only have competing interests out there -- this is not about pluralism. this is not about solving the problems across our borders that require a community of countries coming together.
and where the rule of law is concerned, i feel like i am buffeted on a moment-by-moment basis about what in fact the president believes about law. when it comes to his non-travel ban van, since everyone in the white house says it is not a travel ban and the president continues to tweet endlessly about his travel ban and says that in fact the courts have to hurry up and get this done and why is it not done and castigates his own justice department -- which i assume he approved for cutting down the ban to less of a ban that is still probably going to be seen as a ban. i think in part he is trying to get out in front of the supreme court, which although the supreme court often supports the president of the united states and defers to that authority given the checks and balances in our system, clearly the president has concern is this
time that may not happen. [applause] wendy: agreed. we have seen the president d -- deride judges and say because they are from one background or another they cannot be fair. we have seen him say the decisions that may have been made to put laws in place and frameworks in place and make sure that civil society is civil is no longer good and will be reviewed. i come from baltimore. baltimore has serious problems. they have a plan to move forward and now the justice department is on them they cannot. the rule of law, pluralism, democracy -- it is not part of donald trump's "america first." >> global leadership and standing beside israel?
wendy: i probably did not speak to that because it is so apparent to me that the president believe that the united states should only lead inside its own country. what just happened in london is terrifying, appalling for everyone as the former acting head of cia and deputy of the cia has said -- load wolf attacks is something we will probably all live with for a -- for some time to come. but the president of the united states's response that was not to embrace what is going on in the leadership of great britain and work together, it was rather to attack the mayor of london. not once, but three times now. to the point where the prime minister of great britain has derided that kind of attack. this is a moment when the kind
of work that ajc has done and has been a groundbreaker in doing so to try to say that muslims, jews, christians, buddhists, we all have to find a way to live together. to ensure that each of our rights are preserved. it is completely the night by the president and quite frankly, his anti-muslim rhetoric really is likely to increase the anti-semitism that senator schumer spoke about earlier in this country. because there is always a reaction and when there is a reaction it usually comes on the jews. moderator: thank you. mike, thank you. i agree with the president and i
do not want terrorists here in the united states. i don't want london here in the united states. mike: we heard rhetoric similar to investors shermans and we heard after every attack in the -- ambassador shermans and we heard after every attack in the united states and abroad, we heard from president obama that everyone should live together and become more resilient. in his interview with jeffrey goldberg and on the obama doctrine, he discussed how impressed he was with the israelis that they had learned to live with terrorism. we have to live with terrorism like it is the weather. meanwhile, president obama is in paris signing the completely meaningless climate accord which is unenforceable, -- [booing] mike: unenforceable and nonbinding except the calls for the united states and some of the other leading economies of the world to transfer $100 billion a year to the third world.
so, we are paying the chinese on a dubious claim that this is actually going to change the weather. so, terrorism we have to live with like weather but we are actually going to change the weather. what is the practical outcome of this philosophy? the practical outcome of this philosophy is that france is becoming a country without jews. we hear "never again" rhetoric from the obama administration but we see that daily the french jews are living. some are going to london, some are come to the united states. i was just in israel which is growing faster than many parts
of the country takes to the influx of french jews. we can stand here and we can say that we want everyone to live together and those are the values we will uphold that on the ground, in the middle east and in europe, there are people who are tearing out a lethal -- carrying out a lethal campaign to undo us and undo our values. now, you may not agree with the approach of donald trump and that is fine. that is fine. you, you have to come up with a practical answer to this practical problem and standing on podiums like this and extolling values and complementing ourselves for saying "never again" is not going to work. we can see that. we have eight years of this. you can see that very clearly. it is time to move past rhetoric and develop practical policies to defeat the enemy. to kill the enemy. there is an enemy out there and he wants to kill us. we should kill him first. [applause]
moderator: mike, speak to the issue of u.s. global leadership and how the "america first" concepts square with us and global leadership. mike: the critique of "america first," that it is saying withdrawal from global leadership is patently false. this is a fiction created in the aftermath of the shocking defeat of the democrats. the media and the democrats have now combined together to depict donald trump's "america first" as chaotic -- [booing] moderator: please, people. mike: the strike on syria for its use of chemical weapons did more for american deterrence and american leadership in one short 65-hour period than anything obama did it eight years.
and in doing so, it showed up a number of the lies that the obama administration told us about syria. they told us we could not strike syria because of the anti-aircraft defense of they had. they told us for months and months and months after assad had used sarin gas that they could not determine whether he had used sarin gas. note the trump administration make that determination within 64 hours, right? so these were excuses. president obama also told us, and repeated it and susan rice told us that the gas deal that he came up with, the poison gas deal he came up with with the russians actually rid syria of sarin gas. it did not and we knew it. we knew it but the administration continue to say
that it did. that is not global leadership. that is global deception in order to protect this failed philosophy that i described before. [applause] moderator: before i go on, i want to remind people of you want to provide a question we can pose to the debaters rated down any card and it will be passed along. if you're watching us online, tweet your question to @ajcglobal. and i will ask you to be respectful of our debaters. well i have allowed cheering and clapping, but we will not allow booing. maybe we should just refrain from any. and you can clap for me. mike, you wrote an op-ed for the new york times last month as president trump was on his way to saudi arabia and israel that had one particularly memorable line "the choices in the middle
east are between very bad and much worse your coat i like that worse."bad and much i like that very much, grim as it is. clearly you work relying to obama's allies in the region when you wrote "it is false that our support for our longtime friends is a cause of instability and that by distancing themselves while reaching out to our enemies we make the world a safer place." i would like to ask ambassador sherman to respond to the administration that the business as you serve, wendy, might be feeling this and to you mike i would like to ask if some of those you serve might the. wendy: i think it is important for any leader of our country to be open to reaching out to anyone that can serve our
interests. not through back channels before they become an elected or appointed official. [applause] wendy: because that is dangerous for our country. but i do believe that dialogue, being very clear about what we are trying to achieve, it is important. i understand that many in the gulf and israel felt that president obama did not engage with them in a way that moved the ball forward. i understand that. and, on some policy issues i did not agree with the president. i wish he had taken a strike against syria early on. many people in the administration did. but i understood why he did not. he was concerned about a
slippery slope because we had already spent so many years in iraq and afghanistan. but he did try to engage. secretary kerry, secretary clinton, both of whom i worked very closely with, spent hours and hours and hours and hours trying to see whether the united states could play the traditional role of facilitating a piece between the palestinians and israel. again, at the end of the obama administration, it probably would not have done the un security council resolution but i was no longer the administration and, again, i think it was out of a sense of frustration and wanting, in my view, probably not appropriately -- to set the table for the next administration. what concerns me now about president trump is not that he went to saudi arabia and met with leaders. i think that was a very good thing to do. i think even an arms deal with saudi arabia is something worth
considering if quite frankly, it is falling -- it is following through with plans obama made. but what is the strategy? a strike in syria is a good thing and i have thought the president for that strike. but what comes next? what is the strategy? it is not clear to me there is a strategy in israel. quite frankly, if president obama had said what president trump did settlements, you all would've been protesting outside of the white house. i see no protests by the community against president trump's comments about settlements. nothing. zero. zip. so i believe there is a double and standard. i believe it is an unfortunate double standard. i believe that president trump believes in action.
we see that every morning. he believes in action. but action, a strike, a mother of all bombs in afghanistan -- although they may be worthwhile signals are not a policy. and then my favorite of all time as mr. gorka saying to an interviewer, to ignore the president tweets because that is not policy. this is the president of the united states speaking. the methodology may be different. it may not be an executive order. it may not be an interview with an anchor. but it is the president of the united states. we should not listen to his word scratch mark we should not consider this policy? when he says "travel ban" we should ignore it? when he says he thinks he may have london is pathetic, we -- the mayor of london is pathetic, we should not take that to heart? this is not a way to lead the greatest country in the world.
in my view, yes, we can make america even greater. but we do not have to make america great again. it already is. moderator: thank you ambassador. mike, the same question. you said a few moments ago that the previous president reached out to our enemies and distance ourselves from our friends. are we distancing ourselves from our friends now in europe? michael had no. we are engaged in a recalibration in europe that is a continuation of a negotiation that has been going on for a very long time. the bush administration repeatedly raised consistent and energetic that they had failed to commit the 2% of their gdp for defense. the obama administration also repeated it consistently and energetically with the europeans. i would urge you to go back and read the interview in the
atlantic monthly where president obama talks about an anti-free rider campaign discussing our european allies. that interview contains derogatory quotes from obama about david cameron, sarkozy, but every european basic -- every european leader basically except for angela merkel. what i was in the defense department in 2007-2008 and personally witnessed when secretary of defense gates spoke to a high level delegation of europeans and lectured them very quietly but aggressively and said, the american public is starting to notice you're not paying for your defense and this is politically an indefensible position for an american president. we are being nice and talking to like this but the reckoning is coming. the reckoning is here now.
the failure of the europeans to meet their 2% obligation is simply indefensible. what i prefer that president trump raise this issue in a slightly more diplomatic way? of course i would. absolutely. it you cannot defend the position that the europeans are taking on this. and that's what it is, it is a negotiation in terms of this "america first" commitment as a president. the present when to pennsylvania, went to michigan, went to florida, and he said "i hear what you're are telling me, that you do not have jobs and that you do not want to see america jobs going abroad and that you do not want to see the united states investing in a disproportionate amount of broad and others have to step up." the saudi's have done that. look at the money. the obama administration gave many tens of billions to iran, right? there is a different kind of loss of the here and it is going to achieve different kinds of results. the europeans need us.
we need the europeans. i don't want is it just that for a second that we don't. we need them badly, they are democratic allies. our frontier with the middle east. the frontier against islamic radicalism and so on. we need them and we need to support them. but, they need us more than we need them and that is the essence of international politics. international politics is indeed what national security adviser mcmaster and jerry kohn said in their op-ed. it is a competition. and it is an arena in which we have enemies and we have allies. the trump administration has got that one absolutely correct and it is a great direction to the obama administration. moderator: thank you, mike. wendy: the question is, do you have objectives? policies? a way forward? a strategy? you know, to go to nato to unveil a memorial to 9/11 at
nato and to have had it in your speech as we are told by reporters, a recommitment to article five and then pull it at the last minute when in fact the only time article five, which is an attack on one is an attack on all -- the only time article five has ever been an, ever, by nato was for america after 9/11. so that nato troops went to and still are in afghanistan for us. so, yes i want everyone to get to 2%. everybody pays their dues to nato. the 2% is a deepening of defense capabilities. yes, i want everyone to go to to present. you are quite right, michael. everyone has to press to make everyone has to press to make and will will that happen.
the question is, do you begin your relationship by heckling your friends? is that the best way to move forward? the strongest economic relationship we have is the transatlantic relationship. so how this, in fact, helps the president's agenda to ensure jobs, that is our market. canada is our market. mexico is our market, for that matter. it is the on me. [applause] mike: i am going to make a prediction. and, remember that in 2013 i did predict that there would be very dire consequences from not taking action against syria. i did not perceive the dystopian results that we got, but i was correct in my prediction and am going to make another one here. i'm going to predict that nato is going to pony up their 2% and they are going to pony up because president trump took this aggressive division. again, as i said, it is not the way would've liked to have seen it this discussion did not start
in 2017. the discussion started well over a decade ago. and, the europeans have been playing us. quite simply. we don't like to say to our allies but they have been coming up with increases that will result in arrival at the 2% in 2024 when nobody who is currently serving in the government will be around to hold them to it. just like we keep trying the same donkey from the north koreans with their nuclear program and as we're going to keep wind the donkey from the iranians, we keep buying the same donkey from our allies. our allies from whom we support and work closely with. but there is a limit to how much we should take from them on this. as for strategy, donald trump is
a strategist. you cannot -- i hear you -- i hear you. moderator: please. [crowd murmuring] mike: but listen, if i had told you in april of last year he would win the election i would've gotten a bigger laugh. he said in the election, here's how it went. in the menu, michigan, florida. i will bring new voters in and capitalize on the people who are voting for bernie sanders and pull them into the republican party. that's what he said he would do and everybody laughed and he did it. after he did it, the media and the democratic party -- don't laugh, you laughed already before. the media and the democratic party, in order to explain why they got it so wrong, and set of saying -- you know what, may be is a strategist and i missed that, instead they came up with a cockamamie conspiracy theory about how the russians handed him the election. wendy: are you saying the russians did not interfere with our election? michael: handed him the election. handed him the election. let me finish my point and then
i will answer yours. he has a strategy in the middle east, it is very clear. the strategy in the middle east begins with the point that the administration is a threat. all the officials in the trump administration believe the rise of the iranians in the middle east is a threat to the united states. and to its ally, israel. the obama administration did not see it that way. the germans -- president obama -- and he says this clearly and his interviews with david rudnick and with goldberg, was operating under the notion he could bring about an equilibrium in the middle east between our allies and the iranians which means a moderation of the iranians, which has not
happened. wendy: i sat in all of those meetings. the president of the united states, president obama, believed that what he was doing was ensuring that iran never had a nuclear weapon. that it could never project that power into the region. you may not agree with the deal. i get that. but he always understood that their support for hezbollah and hamas, we had to do everything we could do to stop that. michael and what steps did he take to deter the russians and iranians in syria? michael: what steps did he take to deter the russians and iranians in syria? wendy: the russians came into this very late in the day. >> break. break, please. [laughter] wanted that. i shouldn't complain.
[applause] we are moving towards closing remarks. since i've heard russia mentioned once or twice, let me ask both of you -- to describe how a warmer attitude towards vladimir putin -- this is a question for the audience. 's russialadimir putin i advances american national interest. michael it is clear that one of : the ideas that president trump has is finding an accommodation with putin particularly in the middle east, in syria. it's not one that i have and to agree with, but it is one that's very common among our policy
elite, the democratic and republican side. where he differs considerably and significantly in terms of his strategy from the obama administration is that he believes he needs to push back against the iranians across the board that was the meaning of the trip to saudi arabia. because the russians and iranians are in an alliance, pushing back against the iranians is back against the russians. i think the idea is to create tension and split the russians office possible from the iranians in this area. that also involves reinvigorating our deterrent -- our military deterrence, which was completely neglected by president obama. president obama has a pathological allergy to military deterrence, any ovals almost never engaged in it. already with a strike against syria for the chemical weapons, that's the reinvigoration. there is an outrage to russia but it's for sure, happening in a completely different context from the obama administration.
wendy: i obviously have a different point of view. [laughter] i had i guess, privilege, i don't know what, opportunity, to be with secretary kerry and meet with vladimir putin for about four hours. he can be utterly charming, as i think he was to megyn kelly for the last three days. but he is kgb through and through. he's very smart. he's very strategic. he knows exactly what he is doing. he plays his hand very well. no one should expect that inflatable putin will do anything other than what will keep him as king for the foreseeable future.
presidential election in 2018. maybe he will get 96 and that of 98% of the vote. i don't think we would call it a free and fair election. yes, there are times where one can work with russia, now is not the time. russia is pushing against our european allies partners command friends. against the baltics, and europe -- in europe, he is indeed trying to gin things up in syria. yes, his alliance with iran in syria is a bad thing, yes we should do everything we can to push around back from that malicious and unbelievably horrific action. but russia is not a good actor on the world stage today. they are disturbing, quite frankly, that there were 4000 people at the st. petersburg forum of the last few days treat him as if he's a normal player on the world stage.
finally, the very fact, michael, that you would leave any space to believe that russia didn't to -- to effect our election michael i didn't say that. :wendy: well do you believe that , russia tried to interfere with our election? michael i believe that they -- : they hacked podesta's emails in a fishing expedition. he hated in his password. wendy: and you think they did nothing else? i hear the hissing, i don't know -- i don't believe as hillary clinton said last week, that american insiders helped the russians in an information campaign. wendy: i'm going to go -- michael against, against her. : the implication is that the trump campaign gave putin advice about how to shape his message so as to win the election. wendy: michael, i'm going to go
with 17 intelligence agencies who are neither democrats nor republicans. michael: go to go with john brennan, a democrat, who in recent testimony so there's no evidence of collusion. [applause] wendy i didn't speak to : collusion. i didn't say who they were china trying to affect though i have my own views about that, but the 17 intelligence agency said without a doubt, russia interfered with our election, and it appeared from their analysis, that they did so, at least towards the end, to advantage donald trump. i have no idea -- wait a minute, i have no idea whether there was collusion, that is why robert mueller is doing the work he has doing, that's why i hope the senate intelligence and house intelligence committee does their job. [applause] we need to know what happened. we need to know what happened,
not because it's going to give us a different president of the united states, we have who we have. the other side got 3 million more of the popular vote, but that set aside, it is important that we find out what, that's why robert mueller's investigation is not enough. we need the senate and house. we can never have a foreign power interfere in our election again. [applause] michael: great, great. >> mike, a few seconds, then closing remarks. then we will take it outside. [laughter] michael i have to make two : points. in two points. one, i do know what putin was doing, and i will share with you now so we don't need all these investigations. putin had no ability to predict the outcome of our elections, that was better than any of our best observers. putin didn't have a crystal ball to help them understand -- and
-- anything better than nate silver, who told us that hillary clinton was going to win. so to the extent that he engaged in an information operation against us in a believe he did but the impact of that has been greatly exaggerated and again -- read "shattered" to find out how hillary clinton was running her campaign, what he was trying to do was, tarnish president hillary clinton and turn -- tarnish our institutions, and to spread dissension among us, so that she would be a weakened president. that was the goal of the information operation. secondly, i hope we'll find out everything. one of the things i hope we find out about this the obama surveillance of the trump campaign.
i won't go into great detail, just direct your attention to one thing, january 12, 2017, david ignatius' opinion piece in the washington post, in which he says that a senior obama official told him about the contents of the conversations between michael flynn and kiss -- kinsley act, and he also suggests that the official -- that it, that it's, that it demonstrated collusion, he suggests that it demonstrates collusion between the trump administration and the russians, there's the evidence for you right there. that's the dna at the crime that's top-secret secret surveillance information, taken out of foreign policy channels, moved into political channels, spread into our press, in support of the collusion lie, that's a misuse of surveillance -- it's a misuse of surveillance
information, and is a crime. it's the only crime that we know of so far has been committed within this framework of russia and trump. i surely hope all these investigations will also look into that leak is a say was a crime and abuse of power. >> thank you, mike. now recalling the title of this session, which is america first -- advancing or compromising u.s. interests abroad. it's hard to imagine that we are leaving. [laughter] wendy: is it tomorrow yet? [laughter] wendy thank you all for your : attention and enthusiastic engagement in this debate. i guess what i want to say, it's important to have these debates. it is important for ajc to continue the work that does, not
just here in the amended dates, but around the world. ajc is above all else an international organization, ajc is understood -- to stop anti-semitism, to support israel, to make sure that we never have another holocaust ever again, that we need to engage in the world and not isolate ourselves. the last time america did that, you all know the results. i'm blessed to have two little grandsons, and if i could, i would spend every single day with them. and sure some of you feel the same way about your grandkids. and i'm glad to give them back to their parents. [laughter] but, i worry for them. in the world in which we are living we are creating a moat , around us.
we're pulling up the drawbridge to the rest of the world. my daughter is an immigration asylum attorney, helps run the boston university clinic. people who feel they will be deported stop talking to the police, to law enforcement, to any official for fear of their families, and their lives. that kind of fear, that kind of isolationism in the world, never in history has it read anything -- bread anything a good. never. [applause] we teach our children, i hope, and i know ajc does, to
understand the world. that doesn't mean we don't stand up for our interests, of course we do. but, even when kids are in a playground, even when they are competing at soccer, at the end of the game, we ask them to walk down the line and shake hands, because it is a community that is playing that game, not just two opposing sides competing. now, i understand that president trump was a very successful developer. right after the election, as i was going through dulles airport, i picked up the art of the deal, and i read it. but negotiating to build the building is not the same as being president. the building doesn't get built, people go somewhere else and you build another building. if you don't work for peace in
the world, you have war, death, and distraction. i'm all for disruption, but i'm not for destruction. >> thank you wendy. michael a british political analyst at policy exchange named david goodhart has developed some concepts from -- that i think are useful for understanding the world today. he talks about anywhere people and somewhere people. developed this idea to talk about the brexit vote in britain but it applies all across the west. anywhere people are highly educated, mobile. they are flexible. they are not rooted in any particular place. they are software engineers, media professionals, working in new york, los angeles, london,
paris. they lose their job in new york, they can move to los angeles. they lose in los angeles vice a versa. the value the globalist ideology and agenda of our foreign policy elite. they are our foreign-policy elite. anywhere people have been running the country -- britain, and america. that's been for the last two decades. somewhere people are rooted in a particular place, pittsburgh, anywhere in one of those red states from new york to california. they are less educated, less mobile, and they are concerned about their communities. the somewhere people won the vote in the last election, they will continue to win the folks.
the changes we are seeing would have happened in the clinton administration, and even more in a sanders administration. what we witnessed in the last election was a taken -- a tectonic shift. we as people who are committed , to america and engagement in the world need to be doing the hard, intellectual work, and of thinking how to remain engaged, and yet meet the needs of the somewhere people. thank you. [applause] >> that concludes this great debate. think you very much. thank you, ambassador sherman. thank you, mike durham. we will see you next year in jerusalem. wendy thank you. :[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> president trump is leaving washington for a series of meetings with world leaders in poland and germany. he will begin his trip in warsaw
for what's being called the includesummit, which lose from central europe, baltic states, and the balkans. the president will give her marks and he would leaders of poland and croatia. after that, president trump travel to hamburg for the g 20 summit, where he's expected to have his first face-to-face meeting with russian president vladimir putin. other leaders attending the summit include german chancellor merkel, chinese president she -- and japanese president abbé. meijer in the july 4 recess on prime time on c-span, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, tonight, a debate on technology and privacy and whether tech companies should be required to disclose customer data. >> some suggest we ought to build a backdoor in order to allow law enforcement access to data. the problem with that is you cannot build a backdoor that works only for the u.s.
government, good guys, or other people with good motives. if you build it for them, the encryption will be weakened for everyone. eastern,day dated p.m. arizona supreme court justice. >> the most enduring decision is will point toho the judiciary. >> thursday, hillary clinton about limited politics. >> women are often the first to spot conflict on the horizon. coming their way. insight andir information is ignored, it often leads to consequences that might have been averted. eastern, at 8:00 p.m. harvard university sociologist and author. >> average citizens do not fully forcesand the complex
that have increased their economic woes, economic insecurities create conditions that are breeding grounds, breeding grounds for racial and ethnic tensions. >> this we at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this holiday weekend in american history tv on c-span3, tonight at 8 p.m., pulitzer prize winning historian david about how theks founders, particularly john adams, valued education, the in slavery, and persevered in the face of hardship, and how these ideals shaped american society. >> he grew up on a farm where they had no money. his mother was illiterate, his father, we know, good signed his name and maybe good read, because there was a bible in the house and that was the only book. hard every day,
from childhood on. scholarshiphe got a to this little college in cambridge: harvard, and as he said, discovered books and read forever, he became the john adams who helped change the world. >> for the complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. >> we are standing in the heart of the national archives, for those who never been in this room before, was on display in the case is behind you and how is this room set up? thehis is the rotunda of national archives, the home of the charters of freedom, the constitution, all rights, and the declaration of independence. the originals. >> white and so dark in this room? >> light is the enemy of paper documents, and part of documents. these are the most precious documents of the american
government, and we are serious about protecting them, so we keep the light as restricted as possible. you can still see them, but historic intentionally. >> these are originals for the declaration of independence. how many originals are there? original means original. it is the only copy of the original that was signed in philadelphia. >> same for the other documents. what other preservation is happening in this room that we may not see? >> we're serious about the temperature, humidity, and light. those of the main enemies of documents. ensuringious about that especially the charters, which are on parchment and animal skin are housed in a way have the opportunity longrvive forever >> how
-- how often do you come to this room? >> every day. get a sense of how people experiencing the charters. it is a moving experience. we have school groups, we have grandparents bringing their grandchildren in, explaining what the documents are. a moving, it's experience and i think for me, the most moving experience -- we do two national -- naturalization ceremonies each year in the presence of these documents, those of the most moving, when new citizens are sworn in in front of the charters. >> also in the presence of two very large murals. what is this depicting? >> is the communal congress, and description of what it may have looked like at that point. two regal for what was probably going on that day.
>> and this one? >> the parallel for the same ceremony. >> there's a banner that streaming across this room is not usually here. >> there's a temporary gallery which has an exhibit right now on amending america, which tells the story of how the constitution was amended in the banner list all of the 11,000 attempts over time to amend the constitution. those are all suggestions that the american people had for making this a more perfect union. 27 made it. >> where did you get those amendments proposed amendments from? >> they come from the american public. about,the exhibit is all how the process works. u.s. a citizen can suggest an amendment in the cells in the process of how it works and you
has to approve it and these are records. all of these all of these petitions came to congress in the national archives. >> a lot of people know this from the movie "national treasure." >> one of my favorites. >> do you like that movie? >> i love that movie. >> white is that? >> because of the free public-relations aspects. we still get questions -- can you see the back of the declaration? when they are told they can't, the next question is, is there a map on the back? >> had the overlooked on the back? >> yes. there is no map. >> what is your favorite memory from this room?
>> i was sworn in>> in this room by justice breyer. that is a pretty special memory for me. >> army special operations officer gary lynn foot broke his back in helicopter crash in iraq in 2008 and has been paralyzed since that time. he is the first veteran to use full-body technology called nexus culloden -- called an axis skeleton he talked to an audience about surviving the crash and using the technology to help injured veterans. this is about an hour. melissa: good evening. i'm the chief marketing officer for the reagan foundation institute. thank you for being with us this evening. if you haven't attended an event before, you know that we start each program by reciting the