tv Mc Donnell v. U.S. Oral Argument CSPAN August 22, 2016 5:56pm-7:01pm EDT
the gratitude of campaign contributions is not a crime as quid pro quo it is. >> that is why one under review. >> if i could just follow up , if a senator rights to a federal agency and says this union or this company is critical to the company of my state and by the way does not say this but the biggest contributors to his campaign what would not make that a crime? not beyond a reasonable doubt? the reason why he was urging this meeting was because the entity happen to be a of a big supporter? separating lawful from unlawful conduct ? >> this court has addressed that very issue in the
mccormick case and establish that merely taking favorable action at or around the time of campaign contributions is not sufficient to show the quid pro quo nobody has said something that i think they are prepared to look at as official action although i am not sure why to personally exercise that sovereign power with the dissenting vote from the majority action but nobody disputes that so therefore this court has already carved out instructional safeguards to prevent against the quid pro quo from the coincidence of timing. but look back to what is fundamental the role of the first amendment because the petitioner sought to wrap themselves in the mantle of the first amendment because it has nothing to do with the first amendment the personal loans and luxury goods that is not a case
about campaign contributions but when they are at issue relying on citizens united and with a piece of citizens united this court looked back to the circumstances that prompted the federal election campaign act of 72 involving circumstances delineated in the decision from a court of appeals and they specifically cited those practices to involve the american milk producers paying $10 million of campaign contributions spread out of a variety of committees to get a meeting at the white house that is all they did in order to gain a meeting with white house officials they paid the money other corporate executives testified that paying money was a calling card to get to the door to make appointive you heard and this court said page 356 of the citizens united opinion those practices
noted would be covered by the bribery laws if the quid pro quo arrangement accrued. of course, is very difficult to prove quid pro quo that is why there are limitations on contributions to candidates but the court had no doubt to pay for access was a criminal violation. >> so you have a governor whose priority stops as ceo thinking about locating a plant in his state only if he gets the tax credit the governor talked to him and says, to my stream we will go fishing and talk about this they have a nice day planned fishing they talk about whether they can get the tax credits or deferred taxes if the ceo opens the plant in the states is that a felony? with an afternoon
of trout fishing to discuss the official business at that time? >> i don't think so but if you change the hypothetical to say instead of fishing i will fly you to hawaii with your family can have a vacation then we can go over the policy. >> i don't think the government put any weight on the amount of of quid and i know, it's an afternoon of trout fishing is worth the two charts that and pay for that i thought it was whether he was to gauge to the official acts under the circumstances that he did that because of the gift so now all he is doing is talking about jobs for virginia and to make that decision based in part on the tax credits it seems
that he is guilty of a felony. >> i am not sure but the reason why i changed the hypothetical of a larger quid the implications of carvings of the now from official action means he keenan be sold and when you change trout fishing to a trip to hawaii is more nefarious than the message that it sends. >> that is the point of that is exactly what the chief justice asked what is the lower limit in the government's opinion for the quid? tell me right now if you say $10,000 i feel quite differently about this if you say an afternoon of trout fishing you will feel quite differently it is hard to see that conduct is dishonest but i didn't think that was the government's solution i've got their position, you tell me right
now it is not the government's position that that is sufficient to be that quid? if you say that i will feel differently about the case. [laughter] >> that is tempting but i will not exempt from the corruption laws. [laughter] exactly. >> the run this through all of the elements with the petitioner says sen the courts hypothetical sir suggesting believe they you could possibly do to remedy the issue is to shrink the definition of official action with no basis or really any common-sense basis. >> are you telling me that is why i asked in the beginning in the news said to push back then you complained about their definition of right up there definition was perfect i would not have asked. you tell me how to do this
he said it sends a terrible message but i am in the business of trying to figure out the structure of the government that is a part of separation of powers where i express my concern in dissent in citizens united. >> but the point is the of one that every single one has raised because like any other organization the prosecutors can be overly zealous. we need protection novel sides and it will fail to catch some critics by vendor stand that. and i want to know your view it doesn't take a law to say
the meeting that is too specific but with that language that we write to discuss. >> we all agree with a line should be dry think the language that will satisfy you is the petitioners language requires the influence on another governmental decision. >> blob blob blob. [laughter] it is too narrow i think so newt reject that submission is that when the governor calls a secretary of health to say take the meeting he did not disclose it is his benefactor so they can have a preferential opportunity that other citizens to do not pay will have to make his case before you i think that is the official action petitioners says it is not unless he further since the message that i do think wasn't trying to influence
the outcome of the court will reject the government's position in this case then i take a fallback position for the government when you have the disputed official actions such as the steady in a particular project or will the tobacco commission find that, and then with the official takes action to direct that decision to influence or to advance the benefactors interest with respect to that decision decision, that constitutes the crime of bribery. . .
when the official inserts that his action will be controlled by a thing of value that he has received. now we are talking about the question of what constitutes official action for purposes of a common-law crime that goes back centuries and was incorporated. we are talking about the statute that this court instilling to six years ago determine could be --dash. >> construed and finding it unconstitutional and the other say no because you can narrow it in this way to bribery. maybe the experience we have had here and the difficulty of coming up with clear enough instruction suggest that the caution the court showed at that point was ill-advised. i think it would be absurdly stunning if this court said that bribery and corruption laws have
been on the books since the beginning of this nation. they have been consistently enacted by congress --dash. >> is that to say the government has given us no workable standard. >> we have given you a workable standard, it's the standard that comes from this court's 1914 decision. , they are not limited to things -- perhaps what your talking about is how evil the conspiracy is. it's not evil to fisher have a bottle of wine but it's evil if evil if you up the ante. i think what i'm trying to say. >> i think what i'm trying to say is that it's going to be difficult for anybody to believe you could buy a governors position on a multimillion dollar tax support for an afternoon. that's why those cases -- can i
ask you a narrower question. >> one of the official acts, i will just read it to you is allowing johnny williams to invite people who are important to exclusive events at the governor's mansion. that is essentially allowing mr. williams to invite some people. >> justice kagan it wasn't hosting an official party. one was at the gov.'s mansion where the governor is giving his credibility to a brand-new product and the invitations were critical to johnny williams plan to sign up the university to do a study. >> i guess my question is this, the official act, the statute, the defamation requires there be some particular suit or controversy.
if i understand the theory of this case or the controversy here is the attempt to get university of virginia to do clinical studies of this product. is that correct? >> it's narrower than the full scope of the charge but it's basically correct. >> if you had just, if the indictment and the instructions that were based on the indictment had said the official act is getting the university of virginia to do clinical studies, right, that reads very differently from the way this indictment was structured because what this indictment does is it takes a lot of different pieces of evidence that might relate to that official act and charges them as official acts themselves. then the party becomes an official act or calling somebody
just to talk about the product becomes an official act. do you see what i mean? this might have been perfectly chargeable and indestructible but i guess i'm troubled by these particular charges and instructions which seem to make every piece of evidence that you have an official act rather than just saying the official act was the attempt to get the university of virginia to do something that they wouldn't have done otherwise. >> so justice kagan, what the crime was here was the governor accepting things of value in return for being influenced and taking official actions to legitimize, promote and secure research studies for their products. that is a supplemental j14. it then alleges he would do this as opportunities arose in the
course of his official actions and because he's the governor and he has a tremendous amount of influence throughout the government he appoints all the board of governors and sets the budget and they know he's an important guy, he has lots of opportunities to do this in different ways over time. if you look at the pattern of what he did, directing people to meet with stars representatives, arranging events at the mansion in which star can bring together its chosen guest list of the doctors he wanted to influence with the*people who were who were trying to influence it, the governor is taking every step he can do short of saying, do the study. his chief counsel would be inappropriate and he wasn't going to do it. if you look at the indictment the way that it is structured, it talks talks about a person who, as opportunities arose, was going to engage in official acts. this is corruption according to justice so the more your and it was validated in the theory of
corruption. the individual acts took a compounded window into the petitioner's mind. did he intend to allow his conduct to be controlled by the things of value that he received taking them all together, if they have the jury to allow to infer that he did. if you agree with me, then jury in directions must exempt certain types of certain actions like directing your secretary of hell to take a meeting which is a very significant event in the life of a cabinet member and governor or hosting an event at the mansion can't count because it should be viewed as social when in fact with the governor is doing is allowing his benefactor to get all the people in the room that he wants to influence to do the study. in my view there was nothing wrong, if i can complete the
sentence, in the way the indictment structured the crime in this case. the acts were exemplary and they were proved and. [inaudible] >> thank you, i have three basic points i would like to make. first i would like to start out by saying a lot of the problems are solved by the quid pro quote requirement. the or to any statute has the same official act requirement but no quid pro quote requirement at all. what that means is that if you take somebody to a fancy lunch with, i can't remember the bottle of wine you mention justice breyer but you took them to a fancy lunch to thank them for referring you to a meeting with a mid-level staffer, even if there was no suggestion at all that you're gonna do anything other than call that staffer and say can you take a meeting with these guys in exercise or independent, that would be in violation of the
federal gratuities statute. if anything was in the range of official duties counts, that means if you took the person out to lunch as a thank you for giving you a tour of the capitol building you would likewise have violated the federal gratuity statute because there is no quid pro quo requirement at all. justice breyer -- >> there's a difference between someone saying thank you for a decision you made independent of the gift, that is one case and someone buying you an expensive lunch and saying i'm paying for this lunch and make sure i get a tour. you don't see the difference? >> not under the federal gratuity statute your honor because that is meant to prohibit thanking someone for giving you an official act. in an official act is in fact a tour with the building or a meeting with a staffer then you have violated the statute when you take them to lunch as a thanks for that particular task.
i'm trying to figure out the right verbal formulation. the point i'm trying to make is that if we can figure out a proper verbal formulation that i think there are some very serious for agnes problems. >> look, i read the grounds for this report and i read the model penal code and all these efforts to get language and i've looked at the president statute and i think i can limit that because the statute itself seems to cover things but it's also true that a person who tries to influence those things has committed bribery and i think that's correct and now my problem is with how do we write those words so that they do catch people who allow the government the freedom to go into these ridiculous cases. i think the d.c. circuit.
>> i'm not saying this was a ridiculous one by the way. >> understood your honor. i think the right answer you start out with the circuit decision and you look at that lifting of words and do cause proceedings. those are actually decisions that the government made as a whole, as a sovereign and then you say are you making a decision on that because you're the final decision-maker or if you're not the final decision-maker be because of your official power you have the ability and authority to influence other decision-makers, then are you doing that. >> here. >> the argument that. [inaudible] as government officials saying you want to have a meeting, give me a thousand dollars, that's corruption and that's inherent in the position that says it's okay to facilitate a meeting, it's okay to say how do it for
you if you pay me a thousand dollars. that is your view that that would be okay. >> your honor, frankly this is leading to my third point which is, if there is absolutely no evidence that you are trying to influence the outcome and it really is just a meeting, yes, but that reflects the point that these are not ethical codes of conduct. there are lots of other statutes that would do precisely what you are saying justice o'connor. [inaudible] >> i am very, very sorry, justice ginsburg, my apologies. there are lots of other statutes that would prohibit that precise conduct and you don't need to take statutes. >> just take his own example which is the example of someone who's running a business and he is taken $5000 a pop every time he arranges a meeting with the
criminal division for somebody. >> sure, there's a statute that prohibits supplementing your public salary with private money so if you are essentially taking outside money for the performance of your official duties, that's illegal and that was discussed in this case. there's another statute that prohibits you from doing, from taking anything from anybody's whose interest could be affected by the performance or nonperformance of your duties and that's another one, it would prohibit another bribery statute that prohibits you from taking any action, not just official action but any action in violation of your official duties. >> why aren't they any less bag? what you're saying is, holding a meeting, taking a phone call, having a party is not illegal, that is something that you're entitled to do so why would all those statutes be any less
vague? >> they may well be in certain circumstances but i think the ones that are simply saying, you can't take anything from anybody who is a covered person, that's not bad, just says you can't take anything from anybody who's in your job. most federal officials are very familiar with that. that's why you just don't take gifts from anyone. the problem here is that we had a state regime that was much less stringent than the federal regime and the government wanted to use the open-ended verbiage to fill that gap and what they perceived of the state law. i would respectfully submit that is in inappropriate use of federal power. >> thank you counsel. could i invite you to return? our records reflect this was your 100 oral argument before the court. you are the second to reach that rare milestone this century. i distinctly recall your first argument in january of 1989.
throughout your career you have consistently advocated positions on behalf of the united states in exemplary manner. on behalf of the court, i extend to you our appreciation for the many years of advocacy and dedicated service during your tenure in this office and as an officer of this court. we look forward to hearing from you many more times. thank you. the case is submitted. >> tonight on the indicators, virginia commonwealth attorney and aclu legislative counsel on how law-enforcement uses cell phone tracking to find criminals and terror suspects. they are interviewed by dustin who is a cyber and security surveillance reporter. >> the way they operate is by impersonating a legitimate cell phone tower. it allows police to gather things like location, information, serial numbers serial numbers of not just a specific target phone but all target phones, all phones in that area. >> i can think of one particular
very gruesome homicide we had a couple years ago where while the case wasn't resolved by cell tower information, that's what basically broke the case. we would've never found the suspect. that's the historic cell tower information. it can be very, very helpful. >> watch the communicators on 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> here's a look at our primetime schedule from the c-span network. starting at eight pm eastern on c-span, the american enterprise institute holds a discussion on the 20th anniversary of the 1996 welfare law. at 830 eastern, here on here on c-span2, it is book tv with a look at what members of congress are reading this summer. on c-span three at eight pm, it's american history tv with programs and events on congressional history. tonight, more about the 1996 welfare law with a look back at the congressional debate which led to a republican congress
passing the bill and president clinton signing it into law. we will hear from panelist to discuss how changing the welfare system impacted poor americans and how the law changed existing welfare programs by creating work requirements and allowing state have more control over welfare dollars. see all of this tonight starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issue that impacts you. coming up tuesday morning, healthcare policy scholar at the american in a prize institute and ron, the executive director of families usa discussed the decision to reduce the exchange plan next year and how that impacts the affordable care act. also the executive director of
the national association of consumer advocate looks at the consumer protection bureau's recent proposal to overhaul debt collection. c-span "washington journal" live beginning at seven eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. why it is so hard for donald trump to retreat on immigration. part of nbc's first read this morning and joining us on the phone is mark murray, senior political editor for nbc news. thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. this really has been a centerpiece issue for donald trump since he announced his candidacy back in june of last year. he said he is not retreating but clearly there are some rethinking within the campaign. what is going on with regard to immigration and deportation. >> yes in the 14 months that donald trump has been running for president, immigration has been the consistent, unambiguous unambiguous policy thing that he has campaigned on. a lot of times, on other matters of foreign policy, middle east, you sometimes heard one thing or another but he has been incredibly consistent on immigration and one of the
consistencies has been when it comes to deporting and deportation of the 11 million undocumented workers in the united states for donald trump has said the united states must deport these people and then they could come back and try to apply for some type of legal status but they all have to leave first and he has been very consistent about that up until his campaign said to be determined on whether there should actually be a deportation force. let's go back to august of last year. this interview with nbc meet the press toast truck todd is also political director on board the trump plane with donald trump read this is august of last year >> the executive order gets rescinded. one good thing. >> you will resend that one to? >> we have to make a whole new set of standards and when people come in, they have to. >> your going to deport 14 -- >> chuck we have to keep the
families together but they have to go. we will work with them. >> august 16 of last year on meet the press, mark mark murray, those are his words. >> the ones that stand out to me again, steve, are they have to go. he has he has been very consistent over this past several months even repeating that at a today show town hall in april 2016 but given where we are, two, to have months to go before the election, there are at least some voices in the campaign that suggest maybe there is a little bit of wiggle room they might be able to have there. it is important to note, we haven't heard from the candidates themselves on this. i am a big believer that big policy changes come from the candidate and not from the campaign manager or people whose attended a meeting but from the principal himself will be interesting what donald trump has to say on this on the days
forward. >> clearly there are two issues going forward. donald trump does need to extend his base, one way to do so is to bring in the hispanic vote, but the other side of the coin is that he has been very consistent on this issue and that's why so many people have liked him and supported him and that could change if his views change, if they have often. >> that is the argument why it's going to be very hard for him to retreat on this issue. he is kind of caught between two forces. one is his past consistent statements on this and the others is the base that had been eating up this type of rhetoric and any type of change might end up creating a bit of a problem for donald trump. steve, you mentioned his ability to win over latino voters, one other theory, if they do decide to retreat, as difficult as it might be is not only do they need to win over latino voters but this is more may be an appeal of suburban america, swing voters to be able to say
look, were not that incendiary toward latinos, were not that incendiary toward muslims and african-american to be able to put a little kinder, gentler face on his campaign rhetoric to make him more appealing to swing voters. >> it's only been a couple of days since paul manafort was clearly forced out as you and others have been reporting. is this part of the change for donald trump? we keep hearing about a pivot and also, the new campaign manager might be bringing to the campaign. >> yes, i do think it's clear that kelly and conway has had a strong voice and some of the things donald trump has been saying, particularly on the stump last week. it appeals to african-american voters and also his line about having regrets, almost, coming close to an apology for people who have been offended by his rhetoric, but it's also worth noting that a lot of parts of donald trump haven't changed, this morning he was in a tweet storm about news figures and other folks who have gotten under his skin and it just remain to be seen whether this
is kelly anne's doing or this represent something more fundamental about donald trump and his rhetoric going forward and i would suggest that at least right now it seems to be a whole lot more of the former rather than the latter. >> first read is the daily blog available online a nbc news.com. mark murray who is senior political editor, thank you as always for being with us. >> thanks steve, take care. >> after this interview was done, news agency including the hill reported that donald trump is delaying his speech on immigration that he was set to give later this week. mr. trump told supporters i emailed that the speech is still being modified. he also said his campaign wanted to work on some of the language. according to abc news, mr. trump will delay his remarks for a few days.
that i felt as if i was lifting him out of obscurity. now his name is on the marquee of a broadway show. >> host: where were you at the time? while redoing? >> guest: i just finished writing my biography. i had done a series of books about moguls of the gilded age and i found that when i would go out to give lectures, people in the audience would start shouting out do so on so next. and i really thought i was his biographer of gilded age type tunes that i wanted to switch people. i knew that it would be a lot of economic history and what exposed me to a new era, constitutional law, constitutional law, military history, on and on. plus the most amazing story i have ever written. spee4 you
probably don't like the question i ask it before not of you but of others, is there someone today that would come closest to the way "alexander hamilton" thought about government? >> that's a very difficult question. i will say this, hamilton was the most verbal politician in our history. if he felt strongly about an issue he would sit down and write a series of 25 essays over the course of a few weeks about it. i think hamilton would fit very uncomfortably into an era of tweets and soundbites. he was a very rational, deeply intellectual in principle. i cannot think of anyone stylistically who reminds me of hamilton today. >> c-span: in 2000 for your book comes out, it is number one in the paperback bestseller list and on the combined new york sellers list in the top 15. all of these years later, what was your reaction?
>> guest: is six months on the paperback bestseller for an 800 page book that was published in 2004, i think it's, think it's safe to say that that is unprecedented. it is quite extraordinary. >> c-span: what is it on to your life? >> guest: it has a profound effect. it is been very much through the looking glass experience for me. the greatest thrill of course has been having the biography and translating it into a very vivid, three-dimensional life on stage. it has also been deeply touching to me the way i have been completely embraced and incorporated into the world of the show, not only the creative thing but the cast members. because i've never been involved in a show before, probably never will be again, and decided i decided i wanted to have every experience i can possibly go with a broadway show. i was with every theater festival, rehearsal, i sat in on
the recording of the cast album. i sat in one performance with orchestra and this black for otto under the stage. i had been a lifelong theater goer. never imagined i would be on the other side of the stage life. it has been in chanting. >> c-span: have you watched a close? what was the most of difficult part? >> guest: in my book i have hundreds of characters, one thing that i immediately realized was that history is long messy and complicated. so you have to be very short, coherent a tightly constructed. there's a conflict with conflict with that in a broadway musical, you have to have eight or ten characters, things have to happen to them, buy them, through them, through them, you establish them early and keep on developing them. so there are certain places in the show that things happen accurately but are done by or to
other people. for example there is a scene in the show where jefferson, or madison confronts hamilton with that rental scandal. he actually was confronted by three jeffersonian's, but not those three individuals. so what i loved working with him was in those cases where he felt obliged to use dramatic -- he would try to incorporate many authentic elements into the scene as he could, even if he had changed something. >> c-span: if you get on the website today, first small you cannot buy tickets, how far they sold out? spee2 as we talk, through january 2017. >> c-span: all of this year, and then january of next year. but if you get on and get on the resale websites, $1000 might to get you a ticket.
>> guest: people have been scalping civics for 1500, 2000, $2500 per ticket. they are hundred dollars per ticket. they are routinely galloping for thousand $1500 per ticket. >> c-span: what you think of that? >> guest: it's been frustrating because we did not create this show for private equity people. we have been doing what is in our power to try to offset that. for instance there is a lottery every night where the entire first row, people get tickets for $10 a piece of they with lottery. we also have starting in april every wednesday there's going to be a matinee for new york city schoolchildren. actually students who are in title i schools, though will be
mostly black and latino audience, 1300 kids wednesday matinees will be sitting there for $10 each. not only will they see this extraordinary show that is impossible to get tickets, they are going to have a q&a with the cast afterwards. their teachers have been supplied with curriculum materials that the teachers can use to show as a vehicle for teaching more about american history. we are trying to go about and we are well aware of the problem. it's a nice problem to have but it is a problem. >> c-span: you get the washington prize for which book? >> guest: bradley hamilton. and they asked me to get up there and pay tribute to him as the awards fall down. >> c-span: i want to show you a piece of tape from that award ceremony. here is ron chernow. >> i know you are expecting me to stand appear and start snapping my fingers and breaking into ron. i am afraid i'm going to disappoint you. what you. what i have to say is one side of me is dying to do exactly that. i'm going to do it.
[inaudible] know i'm not going there. [applause]. he grabbed to be a scholar, somebody save me. i've had this fantasy of going onto stage and i told him that i would like to go on and just to the opening number. they could then pull me off with a hook afterwards. for some mysterious reason they've decided not to draw on my unique theatrical talents. >> c-span: how hard was i to do? >> guest: i've never seen them laugh so hard. they were sitting in front of the podium. when he got up on the stage and receive the word he said i can't believe it they have ron churn out wrapping on c-span. but that has been a fantasy of
mind to go on for the opening number. spee2's before it's a to our 55 minute show. the. the music you can buy all of the music, how much of this can you do by memory? >> guest: i can do most of it. i know lots of different portions of the show. i have seen the show about 50 times. of course i was very intimately involved over six or seven year. with the creation of the show. in fact when i first started working with lynn as he wrote to each song he would send it to me via e-mail. i would just here met the keeper singing and he was send them with the psychedelic screens as i heard him singing. i was absolutely astonished. he came over and saying the opening number and started snapping his fingers. he he was sitting on my living room couch and he started singing, when he
was finished doing it he said what he think we my first exposure to it. and i said i think that the most extraordinary thing. you've taken the first 40 minutes of, first 40 pages of my book and condensed it accurately into a foreign half minute song. what i do not say say to him but i was thinking it, this guy -- it's embarrassing that he distilled 40 pages into foreign half minute song and did it so accurately. >> c-span: the photo of lynn with your book in hand and he is in the water. is that when he first got this book? >> guest: what happen when i met lynn in november 2008 he was invited me to a sunday matinee and i had gone backstage and i heard from a mutual friend had read the book on vacation and made an enormous impression. he said said to me i was reading your book on vacation in mexico
and as i was reading it, hip-hop song started rising off the page. i said really? he started saying hamilton's life is a classic hip-hop narrative. then i was thinking what on earth is this guy talking about. i think he quickly picked up the fact that he had a world-class ignoramus about hip-hop on his hand. he said to to me on the spot because my first question was, can hip-hop be the vehicle for telling this kind of very, large and complex story? he said ron i'm going to educate you about hip-hop and he did on the spot. he pointed pointed out that hip-hop you can pack more information into the lyrics into the song because at stenson rapid. he said hip-hop not only has rhymed ending's, it has internal rhyme, and he started educating me in all of these different devices that are very
important to the success of the show. i'm not a complete ignoramus about hip-hop anymore, just mostly. >> c-span: is there anything in the show that you directly have an impact on? >> guest: absolutely. in terms of the relationship between hamilton and washington for example, i was having lunch with lynn one day and he was trying to figure out the dramatic essence of that relationship and it was very essential to the show. he said to me, would washington when he met hamilton during the revolutionary war, would washington have seen hamilton as a young diversion of himself? and i said absolutely. washington when he meets hamilton, hamilton is 22. washington when he was 23 he was was head of all the armed forces in virginia, led his men to a terrible massacre and in fact there is a beautiful song of the
show where washington things let me tell you what i have wished i know and had dreams of glory. i was a thrilling day when we have that discussion. the next time i saw i saw a new version of the show to see that scene and that song and realize that it came directly out of it. even very late in the game for instance even when it was at the public theater where it originated the off-broadway, said tim one day i said there is one big policy point that is missing from the show which is that when hamilton became treasury secretary the country was bankrupt. by by the time he left five years later we were as creditworthy as any other country in the world. and so what he has in the closing scene of the show, medicine comes out and says you took us from bankruptcy to prosperity and for that will
forever be in debt. he doesn't get enough credit or all the credit that he gave us. that is the direct response to what i had said. that actually was pretty late in the off-broadway run of the show. it was great. the beautiful thing about working with lynn as he is always prepared to listen. he was very good at filtering out whatever ridiculous or asinine things i would say. he had good good instincts if i said something that hit home to him he was fully open to it. he was diplomatic because if i said something that he thought was completely absurd he would not disagree, he would simply stare at me wordless. and i realized i had goofed. >> c-span: you were born where? >> guest: brooklyn. >> c-span: mr. miranda was born where? >> guest: he was born in new york i assume on the upper left
side. >> c-span: "alexander hamilton" was born where and raise? >> guest: he would on the island of -- in the caribbean. he sent his spent his adolescence on st. croix. on the age of 17 a hurricane at the island, he wrote a brilliant letter that was published in the island newspaper describing the shakespearean terms this hurricane. he was in the gentleman or friend and impoverished. at that point merchant recognize that they had a young genius in their midst and picked up a collection to send him to the north american colonies to be educated. he came with few introductions but he did not know a soul. so hamilton's not only be original immigrant, but a completely self-made, self invented figure. all of the other founding fathers are either virginia planters or boston lawyers,
there were born in the original 13 colonies. hamilton was the outsider. so he had many disadvantages as most of those figures had advantages. it's an amazing story. >> c-span: obviously we can only use a little bit of music but hears about 20 seconds. it's "alexander hamilton", the tunas stay alive. the reason i run this as it shows about his relationship with general eisenhower at the time and the time he was an aide to eisenhower how old would've you been? >> guest: general washington you mean. hamilton is 22 when when he meets washington, washington would have been 45. >> c-span: let's listen to this. >> single single mocha single
single mocha. >> that's it for a moment. what do you hear this was a valley forge winter. it's funny the problem is not the availability of food, it's the farmers were selling the food to british forces in philadelphia. i remember lynn had actually sent me very beautiful sad, mournful music for valley forge and he could hear the words of thomas pain over the music. those were the only words that survive from that original draft but he was extraordinary in terms of pushing out exactly what he needs, he is
self-critical and very disciplined writer, he's always very hard for writer to strike out a beautiful mind that he had written. >> he is about what is right. >> he is 36. >> c-span: when they hamilton and madison were there they were what, 30 or 36? >> guest: hamilton was born by 1755 so he would've been 32. been 32. and then 34 when he became treasury secretary's before all of this except for your case have been done by really young people. >> guest: it's a very interesting point because i think so much of the attention about the show has concentrated on the fact that this a black and latino and biracial cats--
cast, it's how young the actors were. i grew up with the musical and it was a bunch of late, middle-aged white actors with leagues and buckle shoes. here. here there are very few people in the cast who are over 40. so i think of the same way that this black and latino cast enables the audience to enter into this experience and provide a bridge to the audience between the sensibility of today and the sensibility of bed. i think the fact that the show reminds us that the american revolution and our history are made by young people. i think that is very exciting and it has not been talked about. >> c-span: as you know when miranda got the washington
award, they said that they were going to fund 20000 young people seeing it. >> guest: we got a grant from the rockefeller foundation. we will have oh one wednesday matinee per month where we have 11th graders. >> c-span: y11 graders? spee2 their their study in american history in the classroom. >> c-span: how has that gone nationwide? >> guest: we have now in the works three, maybe another four productions and so the via chicago production opening in september or october. it will be at l.a. next year provide worked in francisco for five months. so i'm hoping that and then in london in fall 2017. so i'm hoping it's the show goes to other cities that it's not the rockefeller foundation,
another local philanthropy will do exactly what we're doing in new york for reasons stated earlier. this is her single, single, most important audience out there. think out from the kind the cast album came out last october, the last figure side had sold 252,000 copies. it's a complete complete show, almost every word of the show. it's two cds and have a complete the bread dough inside. i think the cast album as much as the show has enabled the hamilton musical to enter into american popular culture in a way that i have never seen with a broadway show. everyday i get an email from friends and my six-year-old is driving me crazy she sits in a room all day listening to the album again and again. my right back and said there are worst problems for parents than having a child who only wants to talk about the foundingfathers.
>> c-span: this is what it looks like inside the cd that you get. if you have not been to the show you have to read this to know who is talking. >> guest: the wonderful thing is that we have two audiences. we have the audience inside the theater that is 1321 people every night, maybe 10,000 people per week. but i feel i feel as if we have a much larger audience across the country of people who are reading, people who are listening to the cast album and newsweek on my recently did issue that teachers across the country are already using the show and using the cast album as an educational tool. there'll be a certain moment, i don't how far down the road this will be where the producers will allow schools to start to license the show i perform the show. i think we all feel and hope
that this is going to be the single most widely produced musical in american schools for many years. i'm sure it will be. >> c-span: here is when miranda outside the rogers theater in august 2016 when he would come out and entertained the folks that are waiting in line. >> it's opening night of the show. [applause]. thank you for making it possible, i hope you'll come see the show. i think thanks to you it will run a long time. in the early 1850s to people walked past a street in washington near the white house. they realize they ancient widow sitting by the window was the last surviving link to the early republic. fifty years earlier on a ledge overlooking the hudson river in new jersey, the vice president
of the united states fired a mortal shot at her husband. >> c-span: that was actually opening night on broadway, linking about two hours before the show started and he read the opening paragraphs of my book. i was very startled when i saw the clip because there were a couple moments when he is almost on the edge of tears as he is reading it. as powerful as i knew his a emotional response to the book i learned how deeply he fell. we both fell in love with eliza hamilton who had been a completely unknown figure to the american public before then. i think we really change that. >> c-span: here is when miranda at the same ceremony where you to the wrap so people can see a little bit more of him speaking
of what he is like. >> and the version of hamilton is what made me fellow in love. the first two chapters out dickens dickens in terms of the hardship that hamilton faces in the incredible odds he overcame to come to this country and help shape it. it has been an incredible journey working with ron and learning about this history. i think the secret sauce of the show is that i am learning the stuff just a chapter ahead of you. i am falling in love with these characters and i'm falling in love with the fact that they are not the people i grew up learning about in ap u.s. history. they are flawed, they are messy. bird came alive to me when he was dating a gal who was still married to a general in bermuda. and and i said this is a guy who waits for what he wants.
>> c-span: explain more about aaron burr and what he's talking about? >> guest: the way that lynn presents the hamilton berg conflict, not just at the very and of hamilton's life but throughout is that they were rivals and he presents them as having very contrasting personalities which i think is true. hamilton is very aggressive and self-confident person who is not afraid to grab what he wants. burr plays everything close to the nest and is a crafty individual and would hang back. during the war burr fell in love with the wife for british officer and there's a scene in the show were hamilton says to him, if you you love this woman why don't you go get her. it is meant to really point out the difference in personality between the two men. as time goes on the difference
in politics and ideology will become even that much more important. that is is what lynn is referring to. >> c-span: as long as we are on the severe thing between burr, you mention it earlier and we have a little excerpt from the program about the reynolds pamphlet which you write about in your book but you can find on your book. this was written in 1797 and what was the reason? >> guest: when hamilton was treasury secretary, a very beautiful woman by the name of mariah reynolds came to the door and there is a tale that she was abandoned by her husband james reynolds and was in need of money. hamilton was then the most powerful and controversial man in the american government. that night he slipped out of the house, went to her rooming house, said that he found mariah reynolds of the top of the
staircase and she said and ushered him into the bedroom and he wrote the famous line and then she made it very clear that consolation would be acceptable and that was the start of an affair that went on for a year. after a month or so misty reynolds mr. reynolds appeared and thought he thought it would be more fun to charge hamilton for the company of his wife in bed. and it was so reckless of hamilton to have entered into, she had been a prostitute. if so reckless and self-destructive of him to enter into the fair to begin with. but suddenly he's paying hush money to the husband when all of the jeffersonian press the circling around him trying to get some dirt on him. and here hamilton is giving them the biggest story that they would ever get.
>> c-span: isn't there a difference in the broadway show from the actual wed happen? >> guest: yes it's a good point. you asked me if my, to change something. what happened in actuality was a scandal mongering journalist who is a kind of jeffersonian hitman of the area, he published the charges claiming that hamilton had paid money to james reynolds because they're secretly engaging in speculation treasury securities together. hamilton then publishes this say no i was paying money to james reynolds but for the favor of his wife's company. and actually said to lynn i said it was a little confusing to the audience because in the show it seems as though hamilton was preemptively publishing this pamphlet after jefferson, and madison told him that they know
about these payments. lynn did not have the pamphlet for hamilton's pamphlet so he added a line at the end of that scene where burr says alexander, you where you emerge you only grow. and that line came out of my thinking that i'm afraid the audience is going to wonder why he preemptively published this pamphlet. >> c-span: thomas jefferson, james madison, angelica is in the surrounding along with aaron burr, let's just listen a little bits you you can get the flavor of it. >> "alexander hamilton" had an affair and he wrote it down right there. ♪
♪ ♪ >> c-span: with all of the success of you finding people that are learning a lot more about "alexander hamilton" and his founders? >> guest: every time i'm at the theater and that's fairly often at least one person comes up and says i love the show and as i was watching the show i was embarrassed to realize how little i knew about the history of my own country. i am determined to change that. very nice that a lot of them are then going out and reading the book or reading other books about the founding era. i said to said to lynn at the award ceremony they show before, i said i don't know what your next show is going to be. you have had an impact in terms of stimulating an interest in