Stay updated with breaking news from Future question. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
sorry... made to the system to ensure that? sor �* ., , made to the system to ensure that? sor ., , , sorry... don't worry, iwas 'ust auoin sorry... don't worry, iwas 'ust going to — sorry... don't worry, iwas 'ust going to say. i sorry... don't worry, iwas 'ust going to say. do i sorry... don't worry, iwas 'ust going to say, do you i sorry... don't worry, iwas 'ust going to say, do you think h sorry... don't worry, i wasjust| going to say, do you think there needs to be any change to the system, something put in place to make sure there isn't any future question over the relationship between civil servants and ministers and trust between them? i between civil servants and ministers and trust between them?— and trust between them? i don't think there _ and trust between them? i don't think there is _ and trust between them? i don't think there is a _ and trust between them? i don't think there is a change - and trust between them? i don't think there is a change to - and trust between them? i don't think there is a change to the . think there is a change to the system about the relationship between ministers and civil servants, although i think there are all sorts of ways to improve the civil service, all sorts of ways to improve the civilservice, but let's all sorts of ways to improve the civil service, but let's not go there this morning. i think it is important keir starmer and sue gray follow the process we have heard about, the rules that govern moves like this. they have said they will and one of the criticisms of the advisory committee it is pretty toothless, relying on a name and shame... , �* toothless, relying on a name and shame... ,�* , , , shame... doesn't it suggest it needs to change? —
of private conversations with civil servants without thinking it will be passed on to political opponents or anyone else. do you think there needs to be any change made to the system to ensure that? sorry... don't worry, i was just going to say, do you think there needs to be any change to the system, something put in place to make sure there isn't any future question over the relationship between civil servants and ministers and trust between them? i don't think there is a change to the system about the relationship between ministers and civil servants, although i think there are all sorts of ways to improve the civil service, but let's not go there this morning. i think it is important keir starmer and sue gray follow the process we have heard about, the rules that govern moves like this.
significant election fraud in the 2020 election and also criticize trump's tweets for pressuring him on the justice department matters, the media just don't like these guys and pro-trump republicans on the other hand think they're being betrayed by the former loyalist. >> there's just a culture in washington as well you don't want to be seen as a person who's the talker or the leaker, bill barr likely has a career ahead of them in republican politics and for him to be speaking out against is going to make his future question whether they want him and him his inner circle and talking about the decisions been made and decisions were being made obviously trump is still a very popular president within the republican circle, bill barr to make this tight rope a little but i disagree a little bit about that but ultimately he wants to be seen ultimately valuable in washington.
as judge kavanaugh. and then the committee meeting. and then the floor consideration. then the final vote. several stages ahead. and each of these witnesses who will appear before us on thursday will be under oath to tell the truth. i tho i hope that they do and i hope that we come to a conclusion. in terms of investigati in terms of future investigations, i don't want to go there. >> one other future question. if democrats win the senate, are you open to bringing back the filibuster? because a lot of us believe if the filibuster -- if it was a 630 on vote threshold, this would be a different process. >> interesting. a republican senator this morning in the gym raised the same question with me. and i said i think that we're learning our lesson here. that eliminating the fill luster on the supreme court and maybe other federal court positions has really created a much more political process. it is better for us to move toward something that is
forces, all very unpredictable. >> elise jordan here. i was struck by how quickly when french president macron gave remarks to reporters after meeting with president trump and said you know he is going to leave the nuclear agreement. and that was a big push that macron had made when he was over here to try to come up with some kind of side agreement to make it a workable situation and it seems like there have been several openings for the administration to perhaps secure more favorable terms. but president trump has seemed adamant all along he was going 0 rip up the deal. how do this affect our standing going into negotiations with north korea? >> this is the key future question, elise and you're ride to raise it. if you're kim jong un and you're watching the united states pull out of this deal, why on earth would you place any faith in an agreement from the president who has made it very personal.
other space. >> raises this much more important future question which is intelligence has been wrong, presented in the oval office and been wrong, predictive intelligence from the bay of pigs to vietnam right up to the iraq war. what are you going to bring to it as president when these difficult questions come up where the intelligence may be imperfect? >> another dimension is not only what was just talked about in terms of them not having the experience of looking at what is good and bad intelligence that bush administration particularly the cheney wing of the foreign policy establishment was cherry picking raw intelligence. they were looking for the
important future question which is intelligence has been wrong, presented in the oval office and been wrong, predictive intelligence from the bay of pigs to vietnam right up to the iraq war. what are you going to bring to it as president when these difficult questions come up where the intelligence may be imperfect? >> another dimension is not only what was just talked about in terms of them not having the experience of looking at what is good and bad intelligence, that bush administration particularly the cheney wing of the foreign policy establishment was cherry picking raw intelligence. they were looking for the stories they wanted to have
revenue and customers? i tried to answer that a little bit with the charter school movement. i don't believe, as i said, in privatizing the public money, but this is a future question. what is it about the present state of things that retards the adaptation and the embrace of innovation that is working somewhere else? for 30 years, it has been the problem that bedeviled me the most and one that i could not totally unravel either as a governor or a president. if you do that, we'll be halfway home. >> want to come back and moderate a panel next year? >> sure. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, the former president of the united states. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. president. that was great. >> well, a standing ovation there for president clinton, who was simply speaking there on the subject of education. as you probably know, america spends the second most of any