U. S. Maybe moral sport, but thats a real threat, domestic threat to regime, to regime in moscow, to regime in belarus. Again, kazakhs are in a different group. So its the its a possible, potential adversary. One reason for that politics, and another one is to preclude successful, mostly orthodox country the become democratic. So democracy and ukraine, sometimes for good reasons but sometimes not for good reason at all, is portrayed just as the case. And thats the message that is sent to the domestic audience. Over here. [inaudible] yes. Thank you. William. I was going to ask a question about gorbachevs legacy, but the gentleman before already did. Now i want to talk about putins legacy. Beginning of the next decade, where do you see his policies, where do you see him . And especially recently an economic coup with china in terms of gas and oil and, i guess, commodities going both ways. Thank you. Okay. Well, you ask me to predict future [laughter] and i was so many times wrong predicting future. [laughter] that i decided that its a blessing that i am being paid as a historian and not as a [laughter] as a fortune teller because i would be broke. But what i can say is the way how i understand putin looks at himself and how he sees his legacy. And this is, as far as i understand, the first time in the russian soviet history that leader is interested in history and reads books the First Time Since josef stalin. Kruschev was not an avid reader or brezhnev for that matter, but gorbachev read all different kind of books. So this is the person who is now in his third term who is, as far as he knows, is assured of another ten years. And one of the legacies that he wants to leave in russia and in the world is not only stabilizing russia and precluding it from the complete collapse something that hes credited with doing in the first years of his, during the first term as the president but also he looks at himself as a basically someone who will bring russia back more or less to the level of the soviet power in the world. Not recreation of soviet union, but recreation of the russian power in the postsoviet space, and in that way bringing back russia as a major maybe not second superpower, but certainly major player in the world with europe, United States and china. So thats, thats the way how i see and how i read his goal, and he reads books on russian history, on russian emperors, you know, he reads books on international history. So he looks at his legacy as savior of russia and bringing russia back to the summit of world powers. Thank you. John richardson. Weve talked a lot about moscow and kiev and minsk, and its the old part. Could you just address a little bit do they have any plan or any concept of what to do with the vast territory out of the pacific other than supplying gas to china . [laughter] well, ill go back to my lack of ability to predict things. I started this presentation by talking about teaching course on the ussr in crisis in canada, and when the course came to an end and the soviet union was falling apart, we played game with students, and they said, okay, now you are a soviet citizen, and you can move to any part of the union that you want, but soon there will be 15 different countries, and where do you think youd want to toly with the chances for Economic Prosperity would be the best and things like that. At that time everyone was talking about pacific rim. That was a big thing, and quite a few students decided that [inaudible] would be the best place to go, to move to, to have business and things like that. So that was not my prediction [laughter] that was prediction of one of my students. So it didnt work out that way. The for a number of reasons, militarization of the area is one of them, certainly, moscow control is another one. So its a big issue. What we see now, there are other [inaudible] that are going up and down trying to resettle people to the far east. So inviting russian emigres from brazil. Or there was again, i dont know how correct they are or not, but there were some attempts now after crimea is taken over also to talk about that. I dont think that crimeans, many create me januaries would like to move to the far east. But certainly there is an understanding that potentially there is a problem and potentially because just sheer numbers of chinese population and russian population on the border there. And, again, economic challenges are enormous. But thats the only thing that i can say about the far east. Thank you. [inaudible] don simmons. Thanks to the government, ukraine has a very large hard Currency International debt, and its also in a position where it can be strangled by russia either through the price of gas or through declining to allow ukrainian exports into their country. My question is what do you think are the prospects of ukraine developing a successful, selfsustaining National Economy . Well, ukraine was bankrupted by the previous government of president yanukovych, so the estimates are different, but apparently between 5 10 billion were taken out of ukrainian economy by that government alone. So ukraine is today in deep crisis. So one thing that is clear that ukraine on its own will not be able to overcome that crisis. Mr. Yanukovychs choice was to take 15 billion loan from russia, and the current government certainly relies on support and Financial Support and derives wealth from the European Union and the United States. And thats where the hope lies, that actually they would be able to to turn around economy. I like western money much more than russian money not only because its dollar ruble, but because western money comes with Strings Attached and with control. And after dealing in postsoviet space for 20 years, actually, the landon institutions now have much more expertise and know how to handle this money and how to control it to see what the results are. But thats, basically first of all, shock to the Ukrainian Society as a result of lost territories and this war, something that should mobilize, mobilize support for economic reform. And second is the support of the western community. If these two things, one of them doesnt work, ukraine is really will be year from now even in more difficult situation, position than it is today. Well, thank you very much for providing us a window [applause] thanks for the questions. Thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] heres a look at some books that are being published this week. Professors dorothy call and its trade its trade henry in feminism unfinished. Look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and on booktv. Org. Next on booktv, former federal prosecutor Andrew Mccarthy discusses his book, faithless execution building the political case for obamas impeachment. He spoke at the Eagle Forum Collegians Leadership Summit in washington d. C. This is about half an hour. We have a very exciting afternoon, and were going to lead off with a wonderful author named andrew c. Mccarthy who has written faithless execution building the political case for obamas impeachment. He is a bestselling author and a senior fellow at National Review institute and a contributing editor at National Review. Hes also a writer for the new create tier on. Mccarthy was a chief assistant u. S. Attorney in new york and best known for prosecuting terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He served as supervisor to u. S. Attorneys command post near ground zero after the 9 11 attacks. His previous works include willful blindness, the grand jihad how islam and the left sabotaged america, and spring fever the illusion of islamic democracy. Please welcome Andrew Mccarthy. [applause] well, thank you so much for having me here today. Im a great admirer of mrs. Schlafly, and its always great to be down at the heritage foundation, because a lot of times when i go around to talk particularly about National Security as you might imagine its usually a college setting. So this is more like a home game for me. [laughter] so its great, its great to be here. As you might imagine, ive gotten some flak over the book, and in particular over the subtitle of the book. The book is called faithless execution, and the subtitle is building the political case for obamas impeachment. So, naturally, the word everybody focuses on is impeachment, and thats an explosive term in washington. In fact, i have a vignette that i describe in the book which involves a congressional hearing that happened here in washington probably about six months ago where you had this crazy juxtaposition of Progressive Law professors who were called as witnesses, and the hearing was about president ial lawlessness. And theyre throwing the word impeachment around across the room. One of the, one of the law professors called the Obama Presidency the uber presidency, said it was the most significant constitutional crisis of his life type. Lifetime. Said verge they a that eventually that obama was the president nixon always wanted to be. So you have that was the tenor of what you were getting from the witnesses. And you had republican and conservative representatives, members of congress who were running the hearing seemingly diving under entire desks every time the word impeachment was mentioned. In fact, one congressman who i think is a particularly terrific congressman on most things said to one of the witnesses who said, you know, look, you cant be afraid to say the word impeachment. Impeachment is one of the remedies to rein in president ial lawlessness that the framers put into the constitution. If youre going to have a conversation about president ial lawlessness, you have to talk about impeachment. The congressman replied, you know, a word that we dont say up here. Thats a thought that we dont even want to have up here. So i think its actually some progress that weve had in the last six months where weve gone from the word was an up mention able unmentionable to now that its actually out in almost polite conversation. I wouldnt say that weve yet gotten to the point where anybody is seriously considering impeaching the president , but i do think impeachment is again entering the space where it ought to have been all along which is as a real remedy that the framers quite intentionally put into the constitution in anticipation of the problem that they were most deeply worried about. And that is the power of a runaway presidency, the power the problem or the potential danger of a lawless presidency. The framers having lived under the articles of confederation and having tried to do National Security by committee realized that that was one of the big flaws of the article. And one of the things they wanted to do in the constitution was create an executive branch that was actually capable of protecting the country and executing the law on the domestic front. But they also recognized that any presidency that was that powerful, so powerful that it could summon up all the awesome power that the government can muster in order to defeat threats to the United States and, remember, at the time of the founding unlike today, they didnt assume the United States was forever. They very much recognized that they could be conquered, that this was a brand new country, and it was anything but clear how things would go. So they understood that to create that kind of a powerful office, you also had to create a Great Potential danger which is if those powers fell into the wrong hands, into hands that were either corrupt or incompetent, that that could have the effect of destroying the republic. And as a result, they decided that it was indispensable in madisons words to have an impeachment remedy in the constitution, something that would give congress a real meaningful check on the possibility that the executive branch would fall into the wrong hands. Wasnt the only check. In fact ors there in fact, te were three in the constitution. The first, of course, is the ballot box. And there were some of the framers who thought that the fact that you could have elections coupled with the fact that because the president runs an executive branch any misdeeds that really get committed, subordinates have to be to involved in that. So if you took the possibility that you could always prosecute the subordinates coupled with the possibility that the voters could vote the president out if he did anything as egregious enough to warrant it, they thought that maybe an impeachment remedy wasnt necessary. That turned out to be a minority position among the framers because, as people like madison pushed back and said, a president who is apt to be corrupt would be most apt to be corrupt in getting himself reelected. So that it wouldnt be sufficient just to rely on the ballot box. So theres two other remedies. One is impeachment which ill get to a little bit more in a second, and the second one is the power of the purse. And that was the power really that the framers thought congress would most often rely on to check president ial lawlessness, the idea that you put congress in charge of not only all expenditures of the public money, but obviously, all expenditures of the,tive branch. Executive branch. So that if the president exceeded his authority, the congress could either cut off the money that he was using to the agencies that exceeded his authority, or if more was needed to pun bish the president in the sense of bringing him back into line, you could slash the budget much more dramatically. But the idea would be the president had to to look to the congress, to the means to carry out his agenda, and if he overstepped his bounds, the congress would be able to crack down on that by its power of the purse. And then finally, impeachment would be the ultimate remedy, the ultimate ability to remove somebody who was illsuited for the position. And when they were discussing this and debating it, the two things that they were concerned about were, number one, that there would be a very clear Legal Standard for what was required to impeach. And secondly, that it would be hard to do. Because they didnt want impeachment to be done frivolously, they didnt want it to be an exercise in part son or ideological hackery. They wanted to make sure that if a president was to be removed, there would be a consensus of the American People who would want the president out of power. So in order to take on those two missions, clear Legal Standard and make it hard to do, they did two things. First, as far as the standard is concerned, they adopted a british term of art of the time; high crimes and demeanors. Misdemeanors. Now, high crimes and misdemeanors, people hear crimes and misdemeanors, they think of the sort of conventional offenses of a penal code like used to deal with when i was a federal prosecutor. But the term really has very little to do with that. High crimes and misdemeanors can be violations of the penal law, but the term means a lot more than that. As hamilton put it, what high crimes and misdemeanors refers to is the misconduct of public men. And the idea that they meant to convey was grave breaches of the public trust that is reposed in high officials, particularly high executive Branch Officials and none higher than the president. Much more than a penal code, the concept is actually more redolent of terms or concepts that we find in the military code of justice. Concepts like dereliction of duty, violation of an ohs oath. The thing they were mainly concerned about was the president s obligation to uphold rather than undermine the governing framework of the United States, the governing framework of the constitution. The president is the only official in our government who is required by constitution to take an oath to uphold it, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. So they thought that was a fairly paramount thing in terms of what the president s responsibilities were. So the idea was a breach of those responsibilities, a breach of that public trust would qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor. You dont have to be indictable to be impeachable. A president who is derelict in his duties as commander in chief has committed a high crime and misdemeanor. A president who misleads Congress Even if its not in an tithe bl way indictable way has committed a high crime and misdemeanor. Ca president who defrauds the people of the United States commits a high crime and misdemeanor. To so that was what the concept was. Now, as you can tell thinking about the concept, it takes in an awful lot of potential misconduct by a president. So they wanted to make sure that you parsed the stuff that was really Senate Significant in the way of misconduct from the things that were frivolous or at least not of great moment. So the second condition that they attached was this notion that in order to ore move the president from that in order to remove the president from power, a president can be impeached on a simple vote of, a simple majority vote of the house of representatives. But to remove the president from power requires a twothirds vote of the senate. And that was quite intentionally done to make certain that if you actually ever did remove a president from power, it would be because there was a broad consensus in the public that it was appropriate to remove the president. It wouldnt be enough that one faction or one Political Party wanted him out, it would have to be something that was egregious enough to make the public convinced that we could no longer abide having the power of the presidency in this particular individual, whoever it was at the time. So that was the twopart test. And what my book is about mainly is trying to explain what that test is, how it came to be and why its important, why we all have a stake in it. The second half of the book actually attempts to plead articles of impeachment in the way a prosecutor pleads an indictment. It kind of reads almost i try to make it a little bit more interesting than that, but the second half of it reads a little bit like an indictment that i might have written back when i was a prosecutor the first half of the book, though, i think at least attempts to set up how to think about the second half. And the most important aspect of it is to try to explain why we all have a stake in president ial lawlessness, why this should not be a conservative versus liberal issue or a democrat versus republic issue. We dont want to live in a republic where every time one party is in power, the other party is trying to figure out how to impeach the guy. And each though weve had only weve only had three episodes of impeachment in the history of the country, two formal impeachments that were both unsuccessful, and president nixon who resigned to stave off what would seem to be certain impeachment, you wouldnt really know that from living in our modern, very politicized era where, you know, between what happened in the clinton administration, what was sometimes, i think, hysterically discussed during the Bush Administration and what were now talking about and seeing with the obama administration, impeachment is even if the word is verboten at times it seems to be in the air. We dont want to have that kind of a society. And the reason i think its important for people to understand that they all have a stake in it is as i lay out in the book, president obama has systematically attacked the governing framework of the country beginning with not executing the laws faithfully. And the problem with that is the precedents that hes setting now with lawlessness will be available to every future president regardless of party, regardless of ideological bent. If we want to remain a people that considers itself governed under the rule of law rather than subjects of president ial whim, everybody has a stake in cracking down on president ial lawlessness and in trying to give our president the inducement to the abide by his oath and execute the laws faithfully. So why dont can i leave it at that. Yeah. Lets take some questions. Lincolns ready right at the front here. Or stand up. Lincoln carver from st. Louis, missouri. I had a whole lot of friends, i guess you could say, on the far, far right as soon as obama was elected and started signing all these executive orders started talking about impeachment and how we have to do away with this guy. The main thing i always found was the feasibility problem. Like how feasible is it that we could actually successfully go through a process that, as you said, has never been brought fully to fruition in the United States with president obama . So i was wondering if you could just speak to the feasibility. Is it a fight thats worth fighting at this point . Well, theres a couple of different considerations in there. First of all, as you say, its never been brought fully to fruition. But lets talk about the time that it almost was and wasnt. Richard nixon in november of 1972 was reelected with the second largest electoral landslide in the history of american president ial politics. It greatly dwarfed president obamas margin of victory in 2012 by millions of votes and by a percentage win in the electoral college. Twenty months later, he was gone. And that was because he could not survive politically once the country was rivetted to the issue of lawlessness on the part of the executive branch. Now, very different role of the media, obviously, in 1972 than today. The media was really nixons day after day prosecutor, and with respect to obama, they obviously have a very different relationship, one thats more protective than prosecutive. But my point is that political conditions can change, and political conditions have changed. I mean, look at whats happened to the president s popularity polls in just the last few months. So politics is dynamic, public mood is dynamic. Could you ever impeach this president , like is it a realistic possibility that even if the republicans were to take control of the senate in november that this president could be impeached . I doubt it. I mean, if the republicans win, theyre going to win by, with a margin of one or two votes in terms of seats in terms of a majority. You would still need 15, 17 democrats to vote to remove the president. Which means there would have to be Massive Public pressure. People would have to be so angry at something or everything about the Obama Presidency that they would light a fire under democrats that could induce them to vote to remove the president. I think thats unlikely. But i dont think thats the point. I think people get way ahead of themselves if they say that we have to go from pretty much doing nothing which is what the opposition has done for most of last five and a half years, to the lets go impeach the president under circumstances where theres not a political will for it right now. Because think about what would happen. Youd be motivated to the crack down on president ial lawlessness, but you get the house to impeach him just because lets say the republicans have the margin to do it, so they vote articles of impeachment. The trial immediately goes into the senate where obama wins, probably decisively, and then the media spins it as an endorsement of the way that hes governed for the last five and a half, six years. So you would have started out trying to crack down on the lawlessness and ended up encouraging it. So i think theres a big step to get from here to there, and the big step is create a climate where its in the president s interest to be lawful and to awe bide by his oath abide by his oath. And theres a lot of ways to do that, including not only cutting the money, but also you can always impeach subordinate officials. You know, you dont have to start with the president. You could start with, say, the irs. So i think theres a lot to be done. But the point is to cultivate a climate of lawfulness, not necessarily to impeach the president. Okay. I think there were some other questions. Oh, back there. Hi. My name is pfeiffer middletop, im from georgia. Thank you very much for being here today. I was just wondering if you would share your thoughts on if and how president ial signing statements can be reconciled with the president s responsibility, requirement, however you may phrase it to faithfully execute the laws of the country. The president , its a great question. The president has no obligation to execute a law that he has a good faith belief is unconstitutional. The framers were very worried about president ial access. If you read the federalist papers or, for example, they were also very afraid of the propensity of congress to to try to usurp to itself the powers of the other branches. So one of the things it was also concerned about were enactments by congress to tried to take away president ial power as it was laid out in the constitution. So this is a cop instant battle constant battle that goes on between the two political branches, and one response to it is president ial signing statements. I actually think theyre an unfortunate development in the sense that its not so much the rob is that the problem is that a president takes a position that a law Congress Enacts is unconstitutional because, lets face it, its not that unusual. The reason signing statements have become so common place is because legislation is so big now, you know . Ip the sed of getting what instead of getting what we ought to get which is you have a problem, you write a reasonable bill that everybody can know what the law is, and it gets teed up to be signed or not signed by the president , then i think its tear to say either veto it or sign it, but dont tell us about it. You know, do one or the other. The problem is nowadays some of these bills are in the thousands of pages, and they delegate so much authority to the executive branch that they result in tens of thousands of pages of regulations. Theres a lot in the bills that we need, and theres a lot in the bills thats very suspect. So i think t natural for a its natural for a president to say, look, im signing this because we need x, y and z, but if it ever comes to pass that this part of it is an issue, i think thats unconstitutional, and im not going to be bound by it. None of us should be crazy about it, but its more of a reaction to something thats even worse which is these ridiculously long laws. All right. Another question. Oh. Everything. Well, no, you havent answered anything everything. [laughter] whats his worse crime . Worst crime . Well, im of two minds with that. One is as an old prosecutor, i like to have a slam dunk in the indictment, you know . One thats very difficult to have a defense to. Prosecutors always think that if the jury gets used to saying guilty, theyll say it a lot, you know, so you always want to have one count in there thats pretty bulletproof. And to me, that count would be the failure to execute the laws faithfully. I think even the president s most ardent admirers would have to concede that he does not follow federal law. In fact, their main defense is that hes refining federal law. They never say hes executing it faithfully which is what his obligation is. And i lay out in the book numerous instances where the president has failed to follow the law, even his own obamacare law which is his signature legislative accomplishment. When i left new jersey this morning, i think he had amended it 36 times unilaterally. I havent checked since i got here. [laughter] you never know if he, with the president , what he could have done in the meantime. But i think that one is pretty strong. The one that offends me the most and i think ought to be offensive to the country is the benghazi massacre. I dont want, i dont consider that as a, as just something that happened on september 11th of 2012. In the book i take benghazi back to the war that the president started under false pretenses and without congressional authorization against the gadhafi regime which at the time was being held out as a key counterterrorism ally of the United States precisely, by the way, because the regime was giving Us Intelligence on the jihadists in places like benghazi and derno. I say under false preespecially thes because without congressional authorization, the president purported to be operating under the a u. N. Mandate, but that only called for the protection of civilians. He used it as a pretext to make war on the regime. He followed that up, and this is really astounding and frightening, with months of not providing Adequate Security for people who were mysteriously, u. S. Officials who were mysteriously assigned to benghazi which is one of most dangerous places on the planet for americans. It was one of the leading launch points for jihadists who went to iraq to the make war on our troops there. Every other country and certainly the brits had the good sense to reduce or pull their people out of benghazi if they were foolish enough to have them there in the first place. We not only left ours there, we continued to provide them with inAdequate Security and then reduced the security even after the very im sorrylation that was attack im sorrylation that was attacked on september 11th, 2012 was actually bombed in the late spring before, you know, a few months back. That leads you almost inevitably to september 11th where to this day we though that the president found out within the first few minutes of the attack that it was a terrorist attack and that americans were under siege. To this day, we dont have an accounting of where he was that night, what he did that night. We pretty much know he wasnt in the situation room which is where a president is supposed to be when hes directing operations against an enemy that has americans under siege. But we do know that no meaningful action was taken under circumstances where there was a terrorist attack against americans. And we also know that they started to get their story straight about what they were going to say about it at 10 00 at night. Thats the first indication we get from the government that theyre going to start blaming the video for what happened. At 10 00 when they were getting their story together, the two navy seals were still alive and fighting for their lives. And yet no action was taken to try to respond and rescue. That is followed by this are preposterous story about how the video, the antimuslim video caused the attack. And the cherry on top of that fraud, as it were, is that they trump up a prosecution which is held out to an awed yengs as additional proof as evidence that the United States refers to sharia blasphemy standards. So if you take the whole benghazi transaction from beginning to end, you get all the fraud, all the lawlessness, all the abuse of power and process that the obama administrations become notorious for. And i think its that episode by itself tells you what kind of administration we have. Thank you very much, kevin mccarthy. [applause] thank you. [inaudible] heres a look at some of the best selling nonfiction books according to the wall street journal. At the top of the list is Dinesh Dsouzas book, america. Scholastic titles mind craft physical in second and third. Fourth on the list is strengths finder 2. 0 by tom rath, and fifth is Sarah Youngs Jesus calling. Ben carson is next with his take on several issues facing the country in one nation. You can watch him discuss his book with chuck todd of nbc news on after words. Check our web site for specific air times. The first family detail is seventh looking at the lives of u. S. President s through information provided by their secret service agents. Eighth is in the kingdom of ice a look at the 1879 u. S. Naval expedition to the north pole. Ninth is former or secretary of state Hillary Clinton with her memoir, hard choices. And wrapping up is edward kleins blood feud, an examination of the personal and political relationships between the clintons and obamas. Thats a look at this months list of nonfiction bestsellers according to the wall street journal. A guest on book notes in 2002, talking about his memoir, buddhist child, my fight to save vietnam. He was a pilot and air force commander who left vietnam after numerous coups left the country in jeopardy. This is about one hour. Book. You wrote this book. In guest i wrote this book thal in 1976 and i just came overe to here and some friend introduced me to someone in the Publishing Industry and they said for me to write my story and i had to dosi it very fast, you know. Now, at and i had no idea about publishing it. Which and you can use some of this as just met well. Themwo so i just had met with them andy after that they wrote the book. T so i can say that. [inaudible] and after seven years my friendn were both american and vietnamese and they said that its time that we told be an onside. Tnam, cspan you are how old when you were president of South Vietnam and what years . Guest july of 1965. In what year, how many years were you Prime Minister . Guest until the election of . 1967. Cspan how old were you when he became Prime Minister. Guest i was 44 years old, t . 44. 5. Cspan how old does that make you today amax. [laughter] cspan how old were you in that picture two. Rember t guest maybe 37. And someone was doing a fly to visit some country. La cspan i said how did you do it. All of these years later, you almost look the committee did then. Guest i am 73 years old nown and yes, i have many friends, especially american veteran. Loom they all look at me. Yes and many say, how come you stay with no change in that and that is why they recognize me. Problm but sometimes i have someyoun problems with staying young. Ime i remember one time coming back through los angeles oversees. And i saw my passport to the y customs service. And he looked at my passport for up to two minutes. And then he looked at me again and i said, okay, drivers license. And then i thought okay, green card. And behind me there is a long line of passengers and some have their passports. Y r and he read the name and i said yes, that is me. E and i said you know who i am . And he said yes, general ky. [laughter] and he said to me that my father served in vietnam and so at home ea yave the picture with general ky and it was 35 or 40 years ago. Ned tha and they say you looked too young. And they mentioned that that man they should be some sort of oldi man with white hair and so i ok, asked him, okay, you trust me and he said okay, now. And he asked me what is your yog did you tel so yes. Cspan did you tell him . U know, guest no. T i said next time. Pl too many people were working. Cspan let me ask you about your life since 1975. I did you come to the United States and under what circumstances. Guest i came and why i stay as a refugee. And i think i stayed that way for one or two months. In california. Er that, and after that i joined my herer family here in fairfax, anthen virginia. So well then one day i was invited in los angeles and so we while i was in l. A. I met withse some japanese friends and they convinced me that california has a Better Climate and weather for me. So we decided to move their since 1976. Cspan where do you live two. Guest we move around. We bought a house once with the money that i make from the book and from the speaking to the people at the tour. And i only had to put 10 down or 12 . And then i left Huntington Beach for almost three years. 988n what years were those . Guest 1980 1988 through 1991. And then when i come back tosear america, we go to seattle for one year because my wife, you sm know, has some relatives there. But after one year i found out there was too much [inaudible] and so i said to my wife, we should move back to california. So right now i am in los angeles in Hacienda Heights next to the famous chinese temple that the former Vice President gore [inaudible] cspan how many children have you had two. Guest i have seven children. Four boys and three girls. Cspan how many times have you been married two. Guest three times. Cspan how many grandchildren do you have. Have you been in guest six great grandchildren and one grandchild. Cspan what kind of businesses have you be jen since youve ben in the United States two. From h guest when i moved from here to california, i went to the bank and put my money on it. Thef the members of it recognized me and so they come out and then it happened that one individual was in a liquor store and he is asly to me and is 60 or 65 years old in the area, he is to king. So after we became friends and he asked me what are my intentions and i said, i dont know, with a little money i want some Small Business. He and then he says that the bestr Small Business is in l. A. , and he had a liquor store. Of and i can sell you my best store. And i said well, i am happy. , fr and it became that i was a liquor store owner. Cspan do you still have the liquor store . Guest no, i do not. And after a few years, one day the vietnamese invited me and il remember together for a militarw parade in new orleans. With while i was there i met with friends in the american ta community and so we would talki. About this and again there was , an american banker in dorlands and he said to me, why dont yod come here and help us americans. You know, to expand in the fishing industry. So i said okay. And three months later i moved lp out there and again with the help of the local bank i bought a fishing boat and the dock and i became a fisherman. For a very short period. Time you and i was not lucky that time. I came in at the time that they, have that is where you go out and they were nice and so also at the end i asked the bank my president and here i try my best and so i give them the fishing h boat and the dock and oh, everything. Cspan did you actually fish , map. Reoursel guest oh, yes. Cspan did you run the liquor store yourself . Guest yes. With my son and my family. You ie cspan what would people say to you when they found in the liquor store and knew who youexk were . Guest i can tell you an example. One night i was by myself and everyone had already gone home. And he says i had a case of beer and i thought, okay. I have to go back to the coolert and to bring out this and the gentleman said with yourand nd permission, let me go find it myself. And i said, okay. Ou so he went back to my cooler an. Beer. Igout five cases of and so i looked at him and i thought, you have a big party, a lot of beer. And he said oh, it is myand then wedding. And then we talked and i said in that case to show my gratitude i will give you this beer for fret for your wedding. Cspan did he accept that . And e guest oh, sure. At first he said no. And then i was there by myself and we had a big tourist bus and we stopped and there were 60 or, 70 german tourists. Ught to so there were several that were coming to the store and iiquor thought, okay, they are going t. Sell a lot of liquor and beer. Y but they all look at me and they said can you sign your autograph for us. So i sign it and they [inaudible] canon of aas beer. [laughter] and so you stop here and then i they said in germany. They the tourists, someone told them that one individual has a liquor store. So they asked about it in germany to include onestop. Hee cspan lets go back two years ago. This picture include president ai nixon and that the time i assume you are the Vice President. Rcume what are thes circumstances of that picture . Of predent guest that is during an w official visit. You were cspan that story about why you are Vice President seems to bother you. K guest well, as you