The president , and of course bob corker. What does this mean, if anything, today in washington . Mike charlie, its the Republican Party and were seeing more clearly on the National Stage the split that weve been seeing in the house, that we look at so carefully during health care. Now we are seeing the trump and bannon part of the party, and this more traditional part of the party where so many senators are now saying publicly what others are saying privately, behind the scenes. Charlie, here is the twist, and here is why a lot of the coverage this week has been very misleading. The twist is that all those senators and republicans around the country that think privately the criticisms that mccain and corker and flake and bush and others are saying publicly, they are going to keep it private. Trump is strong in their state and their districts. Donald trump is now more commanding of the party than he has been at any time. There is not going to be any sort of Tipping Point when these folks start to speak out against him. At the moment, trump very strong with the Republican Partys, house and senate. Al if anything, mike understated the case. This is Donald Trumps party. Jeff flake gave a remarkable senate floor speech. I think you have to go back to Margaret Chase smith in 1950 with the declaration of conscience against joe mccarthy to find Something Like it. He talked about how trump has debased political dialogue, political integrity. It had almost no public affect, because trump does dominate this party in washington, but particularly out there in the country. Jeff flake and john mccain speak out. Then you look at someone used to think of as an independent as lindsey graham. Hes become a trump poodle. This is Donald Trumps party. So he gets his tax cuts and tax reform . Al they get a tax cut. They wont get tax reform. Thats what they desperately need. This is where republicans and trump are on the same page. They desperately need a success. This has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. I think they will get a tax cut but almost no tax reform. I would guess it is not going to be popular. You dont pass big things on a strictly partisan basis and have it succeed. Mike i think mr. Hunt is right about the diminished ambition of what they might pass. But even that may be hard. Correct me if im wrong about this but i think it will be , harder than people think, the way one person expressed it to me is that its health care is one part of the economy, tax reform is everything. How do you pull off these specific cuts . This is one of the downstream worries for trump, about antagonizing these republican senators, that we agree that he is strong now, but if youve only got 52 republican senators, so you can only lose a couple, senator mccain, senator bob corker of tennessee already reluctant to vote for tax cuts that just add to the deficit. Now they have even more coverage of that, the president this week saying that bob corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, could not win an election for dog catcher. You lose a couple of them, and even modest tax cuts start to look shaky in the senate. Then over in the house, where you still have the math problem that you had during health care, you have the divided republican conference, if it starts to look shady or uncertain on the senate side, they will take a tough they will say, am i going to take a tough vote to eliminate some tax breaks for interest me . T are important to that could mean that even tax cuts could go down. Charlie also on capitol hill next week, some of the giants of Silicon Valley are coming to testify. Mike, we been hearing about the idea that these companies are so powerful, and they are so ingrained into who we are today, that they need some supervision, some monitoring and perhaps regulation, maybe even breaking up. Does that idea have legs . Mike it does, and its getting increasing legs because it appeals to both republicans and democrats for different reasons. This could be a remarkable scene tuesday and wednesday on capitol hill, something we havent seen in years. Its been years since they testified, facebook, google, and twitter, testifying before the Senate Judiciary committee and the next day before the senate and house intelligence committees, looking into what happened in the 2016 election, whats being done preemptively ahead of 2020, and the subtext of that, as you say is, what whats being done preemptively else is going to be done to rein in these companies . Democrats very concerned about the concentration of wealth and power, wondering if those companies should be broken up or regulated more. And as we have talked about on the right, among republicans, so much suspicion of these platforms. A little ironically, perhaps, since whatever effect the russian ads had on the social platform, they seem to if anything have helped donald trump. But republicans look at these companies as political actors, advocates for the other side, people who want open borders, more Progressive Social policies, so republicans also would love to take big tech down a notch. Al as always, mike said tell me if im wrong. Ive been trying for 20 years and have never been able to. I think maybe the bottom line will not occur. There is a left and right coalition that both are angry at big tech. I think that will break down when it comes to what you can do about it. For all the concerns and anxiety, this is an enormously powerful group. Remember their fight against the hollywood studios, who they clobbered four or five years ago. My guess is there will be a lot of sound and thunder, but in the end, not a whole lot will happen. Charlie theres this issue of Sexual Harassment happening a lot in lots of conversation, lots of women coming forward. We are seeing a lot of talk about what it means and where its going. Is this touching washington . Where is it in the Nations Capital . Mike charlie, what we are seeing is that industry by industry, this is becoming a [no audio] in look at the industries it has touched since then, and i thinkdia, next is government. You were right to bring in washington. One of the fascinating, leadingedge stories of this week, Associated Press correspondents and a couple of statehouses asked around. Just a few statehouses involved came up with hundreds of people saying that when it comes to lobbying, legislation, that some of these issues that arose in hollywood also are issues in state capitals. There youre going to see investigations, accusations. This is going to be if not the story of the year, one of the stories of the year, because every industry has a list, every industry has targets. There are a lot of men who are rightly worried they are next. Al i agree. The California State Legislature already has taken action, and i think congress will be the next target. Charlie lets turn to the president. Notwithstanding what we said about senators and the former former president s that have spoken about the president , hes getting ready to go to china. What are the difficulties that he faces right now in this fall season as he tries to get some legislative victory on the board, and hes got steve bannon out attacking the republican establishment . Where is he in terms of his own presidency . Al he starts off with historically low popularity, and as we said earlier, he has great strength in the Republican Party, which means he has none among democrats and is really weak among independents. Thats not a good political position. It might help with your own party caucus, but i dont think he engenders a lot of fear among democrats around the country. Theres a whole question about whether he can govern. I think that was implicit in some of the stuff that george w. Bush said. General kelly was going to bring order to the white house, and general kelly just has had a visible week in a miserable week in which i think he might never recover from. I think for all the successes we alluded to earlier, and i would add the opioid speech, which was a rare moment of looking president ial, i still think this is a very troubled presidency. Mike charlie, you mentioned the china trip, and i know that has been on your mind for a while. This fascinating asia swing, the choreography of a president ial trip abroad always so vital, but this will be one of the most fascinating president ial trips we have ever covered, because he could be going to japan where he will see the emperor. Hes going to be going to south korea, where so Many American citizens are worried about what might be happening on the other side of the border, and hes going to china, where president xi has never looked stronger, his name written into the constitution. President trump will probably ask him for tips on how to get that done. [laughter] all this is designed to bring pressure on north korea, and thats why this is so delicate and fascinating, reporting this week. Do you take the president to the Demilitarized Zone . Such a frequent stop for president s, reporting as if they had decided not to do that. Concerns about both the look and also the physical danger that might be involved. Charlie north korea will clearly be one of the topics there. We heard from the director of the cia this week an alarming assessment of where the north koreans were. We have an interesting piece coming up on 60 minutes this weekend on this next subject. Al, north korea, where are we . Al theres certainly more talk about a possible military solution now. Thats not to say it is going to happen, but it is a serious situation and nothing is going , to be accomplished without the chinese. Not onlyg right now, in china imagine donald trump in the american constitution, somehow it doesnt quite come altogether but around much of the world, theres a feeling that the chinese leader is a more formidable and enduring figure than the american leader. Nothing good can happen in north korea without the chinese. Charlie mike allen, al hunt, thank you so much. Turning to further elaboration of events in china, Chinas Communist Party held its congress this week, its 19th congress. President xi was enshrined in the party charter. President xi emerges as chinas most powerful leader in decades. As David Ignatius writes in fridays Washington Post, maybe the last two appeared less powerful than you are. We are now talking to David Ignatius. Set up for me how xi became who he is and how that might be a threat to his power. David this weeks Party Congress was a coordination of xi as Supreme Leader of the kind that china is not seen since mao tse tung. Five years ago when he became chair of the communist party he , began consolidating power in a way that was not immediately clear, but we can now see was from the beginning a decisive attempt to put his personal imprint on china and really change the nature of what is then a collective, shared, fairly cautious leadership after mao. The way he did it was to seek to purify a communist party that had become corrupt. He was correct in seeing that as china grew rich, the bribes that were being paid to Party Officials and generals in the army were beginning to weaken china, to eat at the core of the system and make people doubt the partys fitness to rule. As i noted in my column this morning, in the last five years, under xis leadership, 1. 5 million members of the communist party have been disciplined. 270,000 have been prosecuted. 11 of the Central Committee has been prosecuted for corruption or other crimes. The same thing has happened with the military. 13,000 officers have been sacked. 50 generals have been replaced. During the last five years of xis reign, youve had basically a complete turnover of the leadership in china. The new people are his people. What that means is he now owns china. He is responsible for every bit of its economic, foreign and security policy. They are all his people. There is nowhere else to turn. Once upon a time it was collective blame and credit were shared. Not anymore. The point of my column this morning was, that is a little bit dangerous. When you own responsibility for a country as big as china, if things go wrong, you have to take the blame. There is nowhere else to share it. I have been hearing from the china watchers that i respect the most, murmuring that even as xi has consolidated power, the chance that he could have a misstep down the road may actually have increased. Charlie what happened to his close friend and ally who was on the Standing Committee, but was no longer on the Standing Committee . Some thought if he had continued on the Standing Committee it , would give xi an opportunity to say were no longer honoring our 65yearold rule. David theres a lot of speculation about the chief enforcer of xi jinpings anticorruption campaign, it was thought his tenure in the senior position might have been extended as a kind of a forerunner of a similar extension for xi when he finishes his second term as general secretary. Typically there has been a 10 year term limit and is thought maybe he would be the forerunner to break that mold. It didnt happen. There are all kinds of rumors, and i note for your viewers that this is speculation, but there are rumors that there may be issues involving his family. The most likely theory is that xi wanted to save this mold breaking for himself and didnt want to use that unusual tool to o early for his ally, but down the road five years, say perhaps its time for me to continue as leader rather than turn over to someone else. The important point is there is nobody else in the wings. Its the first time in a decade in decades there has not been a next Generation Leader preselected. So well head to the end of this 10 year period without any obvious successor in place. Charlie most of the people in the Standing Committee are over 60 themselves. People, e older they are older people, xis contemporaries. It was thought thered be some younger people in their 50s to be in line as leaders there is , speculation that xi doesnt doesntulation that xi want competition, the younger guy jockeying for the position. But hes going to have a group of contemporaries, essentially unchallenged rule. Chinese politics is very factionalized. His faction dominates both the politburo itself and the Standing Committee, which is the key ruling body, four of the seven members. He is really in the drivers seat in every way possible. Charlie now that he has consolidated all this power and stands alone, will china be different . Will it be more aggressive . Does it have ambitions for greater influence around the world . David i think that maybe the most important corollary of the Party Congress weve just seen. China under xi is being more explicit and direct about its ambitions not to be a Regional Power in the south china sea, but to be a global power. Xi talked a lot in his lengthy speech about the strategy known as one belt, one road, which is essentially a chinese idea for consolidating trade all the way to europe through central asia. It is a very ambitious scheme, and its about china projecting economic and ultimately military power. Xi also in his report to the party sketched a process of growth for china not simply through his tenure, but all the way to 2050. In that sense he has ambitions that go beyond his personal ambition to be a maolike leader. He has a vision of china, calls it the china dream. I think americans need to understand that china sees American Power weakening. Preparing its own instruments, financial, military, and otherwise to fill , the space that in chinas eyes, americas giving up. Charlie you see the rise of chinese Technological Companies that are in some cases bigger than the companies they were paralleling. S speech made note of the specific areas he wants to dominate. Internet communications technology, artificial intelligence. Go down the list. One thing he did not talk about specifically but they talk about often in other venues is quantum computing. It is a subject i read a new novel about. The scope of chinas ambition i think is central now. Americans need to see it clearly. The period in which the chinese , wait was hide and bide for america, hang out in the shadows as it were, that period is over. There is coming to china a man from the west, from washington dc. What is the significance of this, and what might come out of it . David i think President Trumps visit to asia and particularly china, which begins is the most november 3, important trip of his presidency to date. The chinese understand that trump is reaching out to embrace xi, the trump who through last years president ial campaign at tacked china. He said china is raping us on trade. All that rhetoric is gone. He now speaks of xi as my very good friend, a very good person. He likened him to a king, and he did not do that critically, but almost enthusiastically. He may have ambitions of his own, but i think he sees xi is a kindred spirit. They are both kind of big guys physically, tall and burly. They both have a direct, emphatic style of leadership. Xi is sometimes known as big daddy xi. Xi da da. I think trump would love to be seen in a similar way. I think the chinese will go all out to make the visit as friendly and successful as possible. They will have big welcoming ceremonies. The chinese can put on a spectacular show. I think there will be efforts to make the relationship appear personal and warm and involve the families in some way. I think the issue we should focus on because they will be a lot of confetti tossed in the air is whether the chinese are actually willing to deliver more on north korea and trade in particular. President trump has made a big bet that china will help you koreaally squeezing north will help them get more from , north korea in terms of actual negotiation about their weapons their weapons than any president has gotten before. He also hopes that the very unbalanced trade relationship u. S. Has had with china for decades will change, that chinese will recognize a more balanced Playing Field in trade. Thats the way both sides are setting the table. I think both sides have such strong interest in this visit being successful that headlines will probably be positive, but the chinese will have to move some especially on north korea. ,charlie David Ignatius, thank you so much. We will be right back. Stay with us. Charlie roger altman is here. Hes the founder and senior chairman of the Investment Banking firm evercore. He has an oped in todays Washington Post in which he writes, the election of donald trump was the greatest president ial upset in modern u. S. History. Now with his presidency reeling amid a special counsel probe and absence of legislative achievement and dismal approval ratings, Many Americans already seem to view his victory as the equivalent of a 100 year flood, in other words, the type of surprise that todays voters wont see again except they will. Im pleased to have roger altman back at this table. Why will they . Roger they will because the underlying cause of such voter anger that reflects itself and trumps election his economic. There are some basic facts that frame that. Wage trends,t Household Income trends, the Financial Condition of american households and income mobility, you see stagnation. Wages have not risen in this country essentially for 40 years, 0. 2 as of the end of last year. Real median Household Income has not risen in 20 years. The Federal Reserve does a survey every three years of what they call the wellbeing of the american household. Last year what they found was quite stunning, 46 of american households could not meet a 400 emergency expense without borrowing or selling something. Charlie you suggest that signals a new era of extreme voter discontent. Yes. the American Dream you are essentially suggesting is over, because the dream was that each generation would do better than its predecessor. Roger the data shows today, and there is some very profound Research Done that shows for those who were born in 1980 and , the 1980 cohort, who are roughly 35 years old and in their prime working years, only about half of that cohort is going to live better than its parents. If you were to measure the 1990 group, which is 2527 years old, and they havent done that yet, but you would likely find that less than half is going to live better than its parents because this trend has been going down steadily for 40 years. Charlie and why is the trend going down steadily . Roger most economists would cite three or four factors. Globalization, technology, the decline of unions, and stagnant results on education in this country. College completion rates, for example. And these trends, unfortunately, are verynow, deepseated and very longterm, and they are not likely to abate. Therefore there is nothing to suggest that this vast income stagnation is going to change, and therefore, the anger that we saw in 2016 i think is the beginning of a period of election volatility driven by that voter anger, and we will see continued surprises, and trump is just the first. Charlie yet you say its possible to imagine a bold policy agenda that might move wages up. Items on the republican wish list like business tax reforms, steps to increase College Interest rates, expansion of the earned income tax credit, and better protection against abuses and Work Schedules and all that. You are saying its possible to imagine, but are you saying you can imagine it, but it wont happen because of the political gridlock . Roger in a perfect world, if and we dont live in that of course, there are five or six great big steps the country could take which, at least over the next few years, seven or eight years, could well move wages up, and i cite a few of them there. Lets just take the example of the giant federal infrastructure initiative. Im talking about one trillion 2 trillion over 1020 years. Thats something we should have done 10 or 15 years ago. We are nowhere near doing it. Infrastructure is not on the agenda right now and washington for reasons that are strange, but it is a perfect example. Charlie its on the agenda, but it is after so many other things. Roger both sides agree we ought to have an infrastructure initiative, but they cannot agree on it, so its not going anywhere. Democrats typically view this as grants to mayors and governors , and thats not perfect either, historically. Its a type of thing thats a perfect example of what we could do in a different political environment, but we are not doing. And so, you just cannot say to yourself with a straight face that were going to take any of the steps that could possibly have a mediumterm upward impact on wages. We are not going to do them. Charlie you say there also continues to be a debate on whether income pressures that have kept wages as they have, come from cultural factors such as rebellion against the establishment, or Something Else . Roger you know there is a big debate right now as to what really caused the election result of 2016. On one side you have sociologists who think it is primarily cultural factors and anger toward the establishment, as people see the establishment, and economists, many of which think its the economic factors i talked about. My in view, as i say in the piece, is the two are interrelated. I think its one issue, not two, but i think at the very bottom of it all is the vast stagnation. Charlie you were an advisor to secretary of state clinton. Did she believe in this . Did she appreciate this . Did she understand this . Roger she did understand it, and didnt need any help from me to do that. Most people think about these issues understand this problem. Charlie but it speaks to the economic discontent, the problem s people are having, it speaks to all those things, yet they listen to another candidate rather than her. Roger there are so many factors that explain her failure to win, but i think you had a very angry electorate, for the reasons we are talking about here, and he. Charlie and he was able to tap into it more than she was. Roger because he was talking about blowing everything up and changing everything. For reasons of this unhappiness and stagnation, that appeals to people. Charlie look at the economy today. We just had a recent report, 3 , we have stock markets going through the ceiling. Whats going on with the economy . Roger there is a widespread view right now in the Investment Community that we are seeing what they call synchronized Global Growth. We are seeing an acceleration of Global Growth. China doing better, europe finally beginning to come to life, and some improvement in the u. S. Growth rate. We saw that today. 3 is a good quarter. And thats the main factor driving markets to these breathtaking levels, and i think there is reasonable data to suggest that Global Growth is doing better. The imf has changed its forecast and so forth. I happen to think the stock market is at scary levels, but that is a whole different issue. The data i talk about in this piece the stagnation i talk about in the piece incorporates the latest data. Yes, the economy is doing a little better over the last couple of years. Average Hourly Earnings have picked up. Charlie unemployment is down. Roger 4. 2 . Thats all reflected. Charlie all those economic factors, whether market factors, gdp factors, employment factors, signaling the economy is sort of coming out of if anybody said roger if anybody said we are going to be able to grow at 3 plus for the next quite a few years, we would see wages and incomes improve. Charlie growth of the economy is crucial . Roger yes, but our demographics, for example, the declining size of our workforce. As the population ages and a large percentage of, for example, working age males are not in the workforce, for all sorts of reasons, and the Opioid Epidemic is one of them. Charlie technology roger and so forth. But the Demographic Center say we dont have the capacity today to grow on a steady, year after year basis at 3 . We have about a 2 longterm growth potential, just based on the size of our population. Birth rate charlie are you saying any politician who says we can achieve gdp growth of 3 4 roger if you could wave a wand and take the steps we talked about here, you could probably get the gdp growth up in five years, six years, Something Like that. Do we have the capacity to grow at 3 for the next 10 of them 15 years . We dont. We dont. We would have to have a very different immigration policy and see our population as a whole start to grow, instead of be stagnant. You cannot grow growth is a function of basically productivity, or capital and labor, to put it that way. The workforce in this country is not particularly growing. So you cannot grow at 3 4 in for the long term if your workforce is not growing. Japan is seeing this problem to a very deep degree because its population is actually declining. Charlie japan has an older demographic than us. Roger right. Its good to see the economy show a 3 growth rate, dont get me wrong, that is great. There has been a little blip in wages in the last two years, but the longterm trends are not changing. Not in my view. I wish they were. Charlie there is nothing we can do. We just talked about the economic results that are in. Do you expect to see, if we dont do any of the things recommended here, to slip even further behind in terms of wage , in terms of Economic Growth . Roger you have had the show. S on this there is an enormous debate about the longterm demand for work, and whether technology is going to undermine the longterm. I happen to be a bit pessimistic on that. That technology has created as many jobs as it has destroyed historically, but think the accelerating pace of technology, which is astonishing, suggests to me that its going to undermine the demand for work. So i think over the next 1020 years, we are going to see this continued stagnation and very unhappy voters and that will produce election surprises. Over the very longterm, it looks very tough to me. It looks different. Charlie steve bannon said we will either have economic nationalism from the right or from the left. Roger one outcome that would not surprise me would be to see either in 2020 or 2024, the exact opposite of trump. Charlie that would be from the left. Roger exactly. We have i dont know if we have a tradition, we have a dynamic in the modern era where voters tend to want to opposite of what they just had. So obama following george w bush, jfk following eisenhower and so forth. Charlie reagan following carter. Roger the exact opposite of trump would be someone like sanders or elizabeth warren, someone like that. It would not surprise me at all if thats what we get next in this era of surprises. The country is so polarized, and of course the politics reflect that. If you had a massive wave for where both houses of Congress Went the other way, in this case democrat, and democrats would pass lots of legislation, yes, but i dont see that happening. I dont see the pendulum swinging up from this country myself. Charlie roger altman. Stay with us, we will talk about the kennedy assassination. Stay with us. Is this a phone . Or a little internet machine . It makes you wonder shouldnt we get our phones and internet from the same company . Thats why Xfinity Mobile comes with your internet. You get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. So all you pay for is data. See how much you can save. Choose by the gig or unlimited. Xfinity mobile. A new kind of network designed to save you money. Call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile. Com. Charlie on thursday night, the Trump Administration released thousands of government files regarding the assassination of president john f. Kennedy that took place on november 22, 1963. The documents were made public in accordance with the 1992 law that allow their release after 25 years. Bowed to trump advisors in withholding certain documents over National Security concerns. Joining me is dr. Larry sabato of the university of virginia. His team of researchers is currently reviewing these 80 files. Please to have him back on this program. Welcome. Let me begin with this. What are historians looking for here . I know youre continuing to look at these documents. What might they find . Larry there are little gems, little nuggets throughout. I think gradually, these nuggets will fillin pieces of the puzzle we have never quite fully understood. What are we looking for . We are looking to see if anything contradicts the basic conclusion reached by most people who really examined the assassination, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter, probably the lone shooter, that is my view, in dealy plaza. We want to know more about him. We want to know what his motive was. We are still unsure about the motive, unfortunately thanks to jack ruby, who i consider one of the real villains of the kennedy assassination. Had he not shot oswald, its almost certain the police would have gotten from him his motives rather quickly, by hook or crook. Charlie and what to we know is there anything new to know about why jack ruby did it . Larry not in these documents we have seen so far, and i want to stress, we have not come close to finishing the work just on these, and the ones that trump held back may well include more information about ruby and oswald and everybody else. That is the good stuff. What weve got right now basically doesnt change the timeline of the assassination, doesnt change the basics, but it does add some very interesting little qualities to it that we were not fully a mill prior to this. Charlie like . Larry i will give you an example. One document had been released in part before this and this particular document shows that a telephone call was made to a reporter at a cambridge newspaper in the united kingdom. The call came in at 12 05 p. M. Dallas time, in other words 25 minutes before president kennedy was assassinated. The anonymous caller said, youd better call the u. S. Embassy. There is going to be big news coming out of the United States. Either thats the greatest coincidence in world history, or it suggests that somebody knew something from some source about what was going to happen in dallas. What is new about it is, we didnt know that British Intelligence had checked that out and checked the reporter out. To the extent they were able to do so, they validated it. They were never able to find the person. In those days it was impossible, particularly if you are calling from a phone booth. So we will never know who that anonymous person was, but it certainly was odd. Charlie what else, that is a fascinating tidbit. Larry oh, there are so many other things. Cuban intelligence person in 1967 who is chatting with another cuban in an interview, and they were discussing the kennedy assassination. One of the cubans said to the other, you know, Lee Harvey Oswald must have been a pretty good shot. And the second cuban said he was, he was very good, i knew him. Was it true . Was it true . Maybe they were bragging. If it were true, how did he get to know the Harvey Oswald . Embassy inhe cuban mexico city where Lee Harvey Oswald went before the assassination and spent six days . We knew about a few hours that he went to the soviet and the cuban embassy. What happened . And also, J Edgar Hoover suggested to the Warren Commission that his sources had told him that fidel castro said, has oswald was leaving the cuban embassy, im going to kill john f kennedy. Im going to prove my fealty to the revolution. Im going to kill john f kennedy. Charlie im sorry, i missed that. Who said that . Larry J Edgar Hoover. No, oswald said that. Charlie oswald said im going to kill him and prove my fealty to the revolution . Larry yes, that is essentially what J Edgar Hoover said to the Warren Commission. Why didnt the Warren Commission followup . First of all, they did not have direct access to fidel castro. Second, they downplayed the mexico city incident, for obvious reasons. President johnson, J Edgar Hoover, and others, in various ways, formal and informal, communicated to chief Justice Warren and others on the Warren Commission that the last thing they wanted was for anything to come out of this commission that could trigger a nuclear war between the United States and the soviet union. Johnson feared that the american people, if they thought the soviets or the cubans had anything to do with this, would demand retaliation, and that it would inevitably lead to nuclear war. Charlie there comes out of this also someone named el mexicano. Who is that . Larry yes. No one is entirely sure. This is a very odd instant. We are investigating it. I think i am going to take a pass on that one for the time being. Charlie because you dont know enough yet, or because it is so tantalizing, you want to have more before you say anything . Larry both. We want to find out what we can find out. Charlie, you have seen intelligent files before. You have raw information here, you have a lot of gossip and rumor and innuendo, and people writing down anything that anybody who called in said, and of course, a lot of it is just junk. It wasnt true. It wasnt true then, and they may not have even taken time to debunk it. Charlie one theory is that both the cia and fbi wanted to cover up their own, for lack of a better word, incompetence. Larry charlie, they dropped the ball on Lee Harvey Oswald. Think about this guy. He was one of the few american defectors to the soviet union. I mean, who wanted to go to the soviet union back then . He defected. He was a very strange person before that. He had been arguing marxism in his Marine Barracks and gotten into fights about it. Then he comes back after having defected with money provided by the state department and almost immediately is campaigning on behalf of fidel castro in new orleans. Then the story gets more complicated, but essentially, he stood out like a sore thumb. He was a misfit. He was a sociopath. Both the cia and the fbi knew it. They were tracking him in various ways. The shocker in this is, not only did the fbi and the cia not communicate regularly with one another, and that is putting it mildly, neither one of them ever told the secret service about Lee Harvey Oswald. This assassination could definitely have been prevented. Charlie that noncommunication pervaded the government all the way up through 9 11. Larry it sure did, and it was supposedly fixed after that. I will bet you that there are still problems we dont know about, because it is human nature. Agencies want to reserve information to themselves. Knowledge is power, and they have the power as long as they have the information. Which is another reason they are arguing so strenuously to keep many of these documents hidden,. Charlie but at the same time, our you suggesting, or do you know, that those documents that have been redacted, that they are withholding for now, are some of the things that really contain the questions that most everybody wants to know more about . In other words, what theyre hiding or keeping for themselves under National Security reasons is the very thing that most people, analysts and researchers, know contains possible further understanding of what happened . Larry that would be my guest. There has to be some reason why they think it is so sensitive. It cannot just be that there is the name of some source and they are suggesting that the ones who are living and there cant be many would be endangered, potentially. And now they are adding their families, too. Well, people have families for generations in decades and centuries. Is that going to be the permanent excuse for keeping this private . There has got to be something in there that embarrasses them or gives us a new theme, a new line and theysassination are not interested in letting everybody know what that is. Charlie did hoover ever talk about this to any degree . Larry only privately. He like to talk to the president about it, some of the people in the justice department, and the senior people there, and of course senior people in his own operation. He had strong opinions about lots of things. He was furious at the Dallas Police department. The fbi called and asked what they needed, that it was essential to protect oswald. The Dallas Police department said, oh, we dont need any help, everything is fine, nothing will happen. And we know what happened. Hoover went through the roof and called it inexcusable and realized immediately what it meant. It meant no end to conspiracy theories, no end ever. We will be talking about this 200 years from now. Not you and i, but others. Charlie Robert Kennedys son told me in dallas, and only one time, that his father never believed the Warren Commission, or something close to that. That doesnt say he had a theory as to what had happened, but he said he was troubled by the Warren Commissions report. Can you tell me more about that . Larry thats exactly true, and ive had a chance to talk to a couple of the kennedys over the years, and they all report the same thing. That it seemed impossible to Bobby Kennedy and also to Jackie Kennedy that this was the product of one mans imagination, and that he managed to carry it off. Although strange things happen. It is possible if you look at human history, some of the least people can take care of some of those with the most to offer. But the kennedys thought at various times that it was castro seeking revenge, or it was the anticastro cubans seeking revenge because of the bay of pigs, or that the soviet union might have been involved, or the mafia, the fact that the kennedys had pursued jimmy hoffa , other members of the mafia, who knows . But all the evidence we have, and every piece of investigation that has been done by a neutral party, not trying to prove a particular theory, suggest that oswald at least was the lone shooter. If others were involved, thats another subject entirely. It is possible that there were people behind oswald. Charlie larry, thank you so much. A pleasure to have you on the broadcast. Larry thank you charlie. Charlie thank you for joining us. See you next time. You are watching bloomberg technology. The white house says most of the alleged activities for which and a former business associate were indicted have nothing to do with President Trump and everything to do with hillary clinton. The white house pointed fingers at the research from that produce the dossier. Paul manaforts attorney addressed reporters a short time ago about todays indictment. I think you all saw today that President Donald Trump was correct. There is no