Alan Alda attends Alan Alda's Flame Challenge Announcement at The Paley Center for Media on June 1, 2012 in New York City. ; Credit: Craig Barritt/Getty Images for World Science F

You probably know Alan Alda, he’s been killing it in Hollywood for decades - from “M*A*S*H” to “The Aviator” - picking up nominations and awards left and right.

In the middle of all that he was also the host for PBS’s acclaimed series “Scientific American Frontiers.” For eleven years, Alda travelled the world interviewing scientists in his humble and humorous way. In that time he worked with thousands of scientists and found ways to break down their breakthroughs so the audience could understand and engage with their discoveries. But scientists aren’t the only people who might want a hand becoming more relatable. In his new book, “If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face?,” Alda shares the lessons he learned in the field so more people can benefit from becoming better communicators.

AirTalk is launching a special one-on-one interview series for this week. Today’s guest: Alan Alda.

Alan Alda will be discussing his new book next Monday, June 12, at 7:30 PM, as part of the Library Foundation of Los Angeles’s ALOUD Series. The event will be at The Wallis, at 9390 N. Santa Monica Blvd. in Beverly Hills.

And next Tuesday, June 13, at 6:00pm, Alda will be at the Norman P. Murray Community & Senior Center in Mission Viejo to talk about his new book. 

Guest:

Alan Alda, Emmy-winning actor, director screenwriter, and author of many books, including his newest, “If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face?: My Adventures in the Art and Science of Relating and Communicating”  (Random House, 2017)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

U.S. President Donald Trump announces the Air Traffic Control Initiative during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 5, 2017 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

President Trump didn’t waste much time making an appearance this week as he announced his plan to overhaul and reform the country’s air traffic control system from the East Room of the White House on Monday.

He says the reforms would take air traffic control out of the hands of the Federal Aviation Administration so it can focus on safety and instead create a private, non-profit corporation to manage the logistical duties of guiding planes and ensuring efficiency. This is part of a larger infrastructure push by President Trump, who is expected to be traveling around the country this week to champion this push.

In Washington, D.C. this week they’re also preparing for the tumult that many are expecting to follow former FBI director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. We’ll preview the hearing and look at whether President Trump could use executive privilege to block the testimony.

Also on the docket: analysis of U.S. response to the London Bridge terror attack over the weekend, how California is fighting back against the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord and what several Middle Eastern countries severing ties with Qatar means for the U.S.

Guests:

Bill Burton, Democratic political strategist with the firm SKD Knickerbocker and former deputy White House press secretary for Barack Obama; he tweets @billburton

Zachary Courser, research director of the Dreier Roundtable and visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College; he tweets @zcourser

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A condemned inmate stands with handcuffs on as he preapres to be released from the exercise yard back to his cell at San Quentin State Prison's death row on August 15, 2016 in San Quentin, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The California Supreme Court is deciding the fate of the Prop 66 death-penalty measure in a Los Angeles hearing Tuesday.

The measure, which aims to speed up current and future executions in the state, was challenged by a lawsuit and blocked by California’s highest court in December last year. If the court upholds the will of the voters, as precedent suggests it might, it would likely mean resumed executions in California. For context, the state has the largest Death Row in the nation, with about 750 inmates, and our last execution was in 2006.

There’s concern that the five-year requirement would fundamentally alter the role of the high court, forcing it to give preference to capital cases. But it’s possible for the justices to reject certain provisions of Prop 66, like the five-year deadline, while upholding others, such as the curtailing of prisoners’ appeals.

On the eve of the hearing, we debate Prop 66. Should the Court uphold all the provisions in the death-penalty measure? Would that alter the function of the Court for years to come?

Guests:

Michael Rushford, president and CEO of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an organization advocating reduced rights for accused and convicted criminals

Elisabeth Semel, law professor and director of the death penalty clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Armed policeprep up in Borough on June 3, 2017 in London, England. Police have responded to reports of a van hitting pedestrians on London Bridge in central London. ; Credit: Carl Court/Getty Images

On Saturday, pedestrians on London Bridge were hit by a white van in a terrorist attack that killed 7 people and injured 48 others.

The van attack, which was followed by stabbings, is the third to use a vehicle as a weapon since March, suggesting a new trend in terrorism. The attack was claimed by ISIS, and took place just hours after an Islamic State outlet used an encrypted messaging app to encourage attacks using vehicles.

The simplicity of vehicular attacks makes them easier to carry out and harder to prevent than more elaborate plans. So if ISIS’ reach is so far, why aren’t they happening every day?

Guest:

Brian Michael Jenkins, senior advisor to the president of the Rand Corporation and one of the nation's leading experts on terrorism and homeland security; he tweets @BrianMJenkins

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A sticker on the window of a local pub indicates the acceptance of Bitcoins for payment on April 11, 2013 in Berlin, Germany.; Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

The recent spate of ransomware attacks on companies like Disney and Netflix, as well as the torrential spread of the malware WannaCry, have put the spotlight on the cybercurrency Bitcoin, the preferred payment form of hackers around the globe.

We’ve heard your questions during our recent ransomware segments and we’re taking a step back to the basics – what, exactly, is Bitcoin?

Host Larry Mantle sits down with Nathaniel Popper, who writes about the intersection of technology and finance for the New York Times, to get some answers.

How does it work? Is it truly untraceable? What’s the appeal of cybercurrency? Why is it considered revolutionary? Will it last?   

Call in with your Bitcoin questions: 866-893-5722.

Guest:

Nathaniel Popper, journalist who covers the intersection of technology and finance for The New York Times; his recent article for the New York Times is “What is Bitcoin? All about the Mysterious Digital Currency;” his book is "Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

June 1967: Israeli Centurion tank corps prepare for battle during the Six-Day War.; Credit: Three Lions/Getty Images

It was less than a week long, but 50 years later, the Six-Day War between Israel and surrounding Arab states is still making an impact.

The war of June 1967 ended in victory for Israel, which still controls the highly disputed ownership of the West Bank. Tensions prior to the initial airstrikes had been bubbling up since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Though the events leading up to the Six-Day war have been a subject of debate, one thing is clear: It has and continues to shape the political landscape of foreign relations today.

Larry speaks to an expert on the Six-Day War to find out how history will shape the future of the Middle East.

Guest:

Aaron David Miller, vice president for new initiatives and distinguished fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; he was an advisor on Arab-Israeli negotiations to  Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State (1978-2003) and has written numerous books including "The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President" (St. Martin's Press, 2014) and “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace" (Bantam, 2008)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Passing cars leave a streak of light as steam rises from the cooling towers of the Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant at night on June 11, 2015 near Grafenrheinfeld, Germany.; Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

What does nuclear science have to do with a tree changing genders? Why do we have nuclear subs but not airplanes? Is it possible to answer those questions in a fun and approachable way?

Author James Mahaffey’s latest book "Atomic Adventures" makes it easy. An acclaimed nuclear engineer and bestselling author, Mahaffey digs into the bizarre and quirky past of nuclear science - uncovering a trove of fascinating and funny anecdotes about the atom and its fission.

Guest:

James Mahaffey, retired senior research scientist at Georgia Tech for 25 years in the field of nuclear engineering, nuclear physics and nuclear weaponry, and author of his latest book “Atomic Adventures: Secret Islands, Forgotten N-Rays, and Isotopic Murder – a Journey into the Wild World of Nuclear Science” (Pegasus Books, 2017)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee during an oversight hearing on the FBI on Capitol Hill May 3, 2017 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Zach Gibson/Getty Images

The eyes of the nation will lock in on the District of Columbia this Thursday for a Senate hearing that some have even taken to calling “Washington's Super Bowl.”

That’ll be when former FBI director James Comey testifies in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It will be the first time Comey has testified publicly since his firing.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, there was some talk that President Trump would use executive privilege to block Comey’s testimony. But Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday that Trump won’t stop the former FBI director from speaking at the hearing.

What kinds of questions will James Comey face from Senators on Thursday? Will Senators stay on topic or will they use the hearing as an opportunity to ask Comey other questions? How forthcoming do you think Comey will be with information?

Guests:

Kevin Whitelaw, congress editor for Bloomberg News; he tweets @KevinWhitelaw1

Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Law School and  former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Obama

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A woman walks into the State of California Earl Warren building January 22, 2007 in San Francisco, California.; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In a decision that many are calling a watershed for California, the state’s Supreme Court last week overturned three convictions - two for attempted murder - after finding that race played a factor in the selection of jurors in these cases. 

The decision by the seven judges was unanimous.

The decision will have wide-ranging implications for how a criminal case is tried in the state. But it also points to how the California Supreme Court’s attitude toward weighing criminal cases might be changing and what role Gov. Jerry Brown’s appointees have had and are having on the court’s rulings.

Appellate attorney Kirk Jenkins, who studies the California Supreme Court, says that a recent rise in favorable rulings for criminal defendants suggests that Brown’s more liberal appointees may be causing the conservative justices to look harder at criminal cases.

Today on AirTalk, Mr. Jenkins joins Larry to talk about what the decision means for how appellate attorneys will approach jury selection moving forward and the implications this ruling has on future rulings from the California Supreme Court.

Guest:

Kirk C. Jenkins, chair of the Appellate Practice at Sedgwick LLP, a law firm with offices across the country, and author of California Supreme Court Review

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Harvard University students walk through the campus on the day Harvard University president, Lawrence H. Summers announced he is resigning at the end of the academic year February 21, 2006 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.; Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Harvard revoked admission offers to at least ten potential students after discovering that they shared racist, sexually graphic and offensive memes in a private Facebook group chat.

The group chat itself was an offshoot of an offshoot. The official Harvard College Class of 2021 Facebook group spawned a large messaging group for general pop culture memes, and a few of those members formed their own, darker group for offensive memes. One of the requirements for getting into this group chat was to post a provocative meme onto the more general meme chat group.

This was leaked to Harvard administrators in mid-April and the school revoked at least ten students’ admissions. Harvard has had to deal with an iteration of this last year, with students who wrote offensive messages online, but didn’t discipline the students involved.

Meme culture is as old as the internet – and the creation and sharing of memes, both general and offensive, often used by the alt-right (remember Pepe?), is a regular staple of the online world, especially in elite colleges. According to Buzzfeed’s Ryan Broderick, this story is a microcosm of the collision of a broader meme culture with the provocative, shock value memes of darker corners of the web.

Against the backdrop of this story, we take a deeper drive into memes. Who creates and shares them? What’s their intent? How do schools deal with less-than-savory memes?

Guests:

Katie Notopoulos, senior editor for BuzzFeed News, where she writes about tech and internet culture; co-host of the Internet Explorer podcast; she’s been following this story; she tweets @katienotopoulos

Ryan Broderick, reporter for BuzzFeed News and co-host of the Internet Explorer podcast; he tweets @broderick

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Marcus Miller speaks at the 2014 International Jazz Day Educational Programs at Osaka School of Music on April 30, 2014 in Osaka, Japan.; Credit: Keith Tsuji/Getty Images for Thelonious Monk

You may have heard his film scores or one of his countless collaborations with artists such as Eric Clapton, Jay-Z and Aretha Franklin, or maybe you’re a fan of his SiriusXM Real Jazz show, “Miller Time.”

Today, AirTalk is joined by the two-time GRAMMY Award winning bassist, composer, producer and jazz musician Marcus Miller himself.

Miller is one of the headliners in this year’s annual Playboy Jazz Festival at the Hollywood Bowl, presented by the Los Angeles Philharmonic. He talks to host (and faithful “Miller Time” listener) Larry Mantle about the festival and upcoming projects, as well as his experiences working with various jazz, R&B, rock and pop Greats.

Marcus Miller will be one of the headliners at the 39th Annual Playboy Jazz Festival at the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday, June 10. For more information, click here.

Marcus Miller will be one of the headliners at the 39th Annual Playboy Jazz Festival at the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday, June 10. For more information, click here.

Guest:

Marcus Miller, jazz composer, instrumentalist and producer; he’s the host of the SiriusXM Real Jazz show, “Miller Time;” his latest album is “Afrodeezia”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A view of cellular communication towers on March 6, 2014 in Emeryville, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In yet another case weighing the investigative needs of law enforcement against the public’s right to privacy, the Supreme Court of the United States will rule on whether police need to provide evidence of a crime before getting access to location data from cell phone towers that might help them figure out where a suspect is.

Unlike similar Supreme Court cases, this case doesn’t have to do with personal information or correspondence stored on a mobile phone. The high court ruled three years ago that police must show probable cause to get a warrant to download someone’s cell phone data. In this case, Carpenter v. United States, at issue is the degree of proof that a crime has been committed that law enforcement must show a judge in order to get a court order to obtain cell phone records. Current federal law says that police must have reasonable grounds to think the records are pertinent to the ongoing investigation of a crime. Privacy advocates say that the law should require probable cause that a crime was committed before access to cell phone records is granted.

Do you think that using cell phone records to track a criminal suspect’s location violates personal privacy if the police followed the law to obtain them?

Guests:

Rebecca Lonergan, law professor at USC focusing on national security law, and former federal prosecutor for 20 years; she was with the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles from 1991-2007

Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project; he tweets @natewessler

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, responds to comments earlier in the day about incidental collection of communications relating to U.S. President Donald Trump.; Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Russian probe has dominated the headlines and all eyes will be on Capitol Hill when former FBI head James Comey testifies in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee this Thursday.

One person who will be following the hearing closely is California lawmaker Adam Schiff, who is the ranking member of the House Intelligence committee and the Democratic Congressman from the 28th U.S. Congressional District which includes Burbank, Glendale and West Hollywood.

The House Intelligence committee has launched its own investigation into alleged Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election, and potential Russian ties to the Trump campaign. The House committee has issued a number of subpoenas in recent weeks, including one for President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Larry Mantle spoke with Congressman Schiff on the Comey hearing, and his committee’s own investigation into the matter.

Let’s start first with your response to what we’ve been hearing from the Senatorial Committee that’s the counterpart to yours in the House: NSA Director Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said they didn’t perceive themselves as being pressured by the president on the Russia investigations but wouldn’t detail those conversations. 

My response is, it’s not really the question or the pressure but rather the question is did the president make this request? Did he attempt to interview in any way? Whether they gave in or felt they were being directed or felt they could resist is a separate matter. So we need to get these answers and I think these answers ought to be given in open public session. I have talked to Director Rogers after his testimony and underscored my view that these questions need to be answered. So, hopefully that will be forthcoming. I think to the degree that the White House may wish to claim executive privilege ... I think it’s been waived and waived in part by these witnesses testifying in part to that very issue of whether they were pressured by the president. 

So you think they’ve opened that door. If you were to have members of a presidential administration commenting on private conversations with the president, would that not in some way be disruptive to an administration? How do you pick and choose when a member of an administration talks about private communication and not? 

It’s one thing if you’re talking about conversations that deal with policy matters. The president is debating whether to renegotiate a trade agreement or not to or to fulfill something he pledged to do. That’s one thing — it’s another if the discussion involves potential illegality. In those contexts, the executive privilege is always given way and it ought to hear if there were inappropriate conversations that were evidence of a potential attempt to obstruct or interfere in the FBI investigation in any way. That should not be subject to any claim of privilege. 

There are supporters of the president who are already running online ads that attack the credibility and the record of James Comey making this testimony. What do you think the impact of that effort to impeach his testimony might mean?

It’s hard to see how it’s going to be successful because it looks so completely self-serving. A lot of people have questions about the judgement James Comey exercised. I was one of them, during the course of the Clinton investigation and his decision to violate Department of Justice policy. But, nobody thinks he’s a liar. No one thinks he’s going to make up conversations with the president that didn’t take place. And if they pick a fight between his credibility and that of the president about what took place in those meetings, they’ll lose that fight. I have to sense that because these actions are taking place and these organizations are mobilizing, they realize that the director is very likely to contradict the president. 

Where is the line in your mind between the president talking with the former director about the Russia investigation and engaging in obstruction of justice? 

Well, if the president intervened with these directors like Rogers and Coats, if he asked the [former] FBI director also to drop the part of his investigation and then fired him because the director wouldn’t, that crosses a very definite line for me. It’s certainly inappropriate, unethical. Whether it goes beyond that, whether it rises to the level of removal from office, not only does it have to meet sort of a legal test, whether it constitutes obstruction of justice but also very practical test. And that is, would the GOP, which is the majority party in Congress, be able to go back home and make the case to their own constituents that this was not simply an effort to nullify an election by other means, that in fact the president’s conduct was so disqualifying it justified removal from office. That’s a pretty high bar and the standard for impeachment is a pretty high bar, but I think that’s the very practical test and it’s a very different test than what you can prosecute in a criminal case. 

We had an exchange in the Senate testimony where Mr. Rod Rosenstein was being pushed by Senator Harris to answer whether he would be willing to sign a letter that he would not fire Robert Mueller at any point and he declined to answer that question. Are you confident that the special counsel to the Russia investigation, Mr. Mueller, is fully independent and that he’ll be able to complete the investigation with the resources necessary?

I am confident of that and I’ve talked to Rod Rosenstein and I don’t think there’s any way he’s going to interfere in Mr. Mueller’s work. If Mr. Mueller says he needs a certain amount of resources or more resources, I don’t think there’s any way he’s going to refuse that request. He knows we’re going to be overseeing all of this. We’re going to make sure that Mr. Mueller gets everything he needs. We have a lot of questions we want answered from Mr. Rosenstein too, which he has deferred right now to Mr. Mueller and this is a slightly differently issue and problem and that is Mr. Mueller will have to look into whether Mr. Rosenstein acted appropriately in drafting that memo to the the president. The president, at least initially, used as a pretext for the firing of James Comey. Ultimately, it will be reported to Rod Rosenstein who is the subject of it, and so that conflict will have to be worked out. 

How has your life changed? Here you are in this place where you’re on cable news almost every day, you’ve become a leading face of the Democratic Party.

It certainly has changed, in a lot of ways certainly from the election of this president. Most fundamentally, I’ve never had the concern I do today about the president of the United States, and obviously I’ve been around long enough to serve under both Democrats and Republicans, where I feel the president’s lack of appreciation for the separation of powers, the necessity of a free press has really shaken the republic. I feel a deep obligation, given the position I have, the responsibility I have, to stand as a bulwark in support of our system and democracy. 

But your personal life must be very different even than it was a year ago.

Absolutely. I can’t walk down the street without getting a lot of feedback about the work I’m doing. Most of it, thankfully, very positive, some of it not so much. That is definitely a new phenomena. I have experienced that to some degree in my district for many years but now I get that wherever I go in the country and that is something quite different.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Comedian Paula Poundstone.; Credit: Michael Schwartz

If you had the secret to happiness, would you keep it to yourself?

Stand-up comic and panelist on NPR’s “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” Paula Poundstone has a new book where she shares her own hunt for blissful joy by any means possible. In “The Totally Unscientific Study of the Search for Human Happiness” she’s the guinea pig - trying out everything from driving a Lambo to volunteering.

Is happiness something you can seek out or inflict upon yourself? Is it always elusive or intangible? Poundstone explores it all through her own hilarious lens and survives to tell us the tale!

KPCC In Person is collaborating with Paula Poundstone and NPR on weekly live tapings of her new podcast, called Live from The Poundstone Institute. The first taping starts Tuesday, June 6. Tickets are $10 for the general public, free for KPCC members. [For more information, go to the AirTalk page]

And on Saturday, June 10, KPCC In Person is presenting a solo show with Paula Poundstone at UCLA’s Royce Hall. That event is sold out.

Guest:

Paula Poundstone, comic and author of the new book "The Totally Unscientific Study of the Search for Human Happiness" (Algonquin Books, 2017)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Christopher Wray (L), Marc Everson, IRS Commissioner and Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama speak at the Justice Department on November 4, 2003 in Washington DC.; Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

On the eve of former F.B.I. director Comey’s testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Trump tweeted that he will nominate Christopher Wray, former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense lawyer, as the new F.B.I. director.

After leaving the D.O.J., Wray became Gov. Chris Christie’s personal attorney, representing the governor during the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, nicknamed Bridgegate.

We look to what’s ahead for Wray. What’s the confirmation process? How will he be received in the Senate, and if he becomes director, the F.B.I.?

Guests:

Garrett Graff, journalist and author; former editor at Politico Magazine and the Washingtonian;  he wrote a biography on former FBI Director Robert Mueller, "The Threat Matrix: The FBI At War In The Age Of Global Terror” (Back Bay Books, 2012); he tweets @vermontgmg

Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI from 2012 to 2014; president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization providing assistance to law enforcement officers who are required to defend their official actions in court

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

(L-R) Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency (NSA) Director Michael Rogers testify during a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing.; Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

As the Russia investigation continues, four intelligence officials were on deck to take questions about the probe.

Here’s a recap of the hearing and a look forward to tomorrow.

Guest:

Steven Dennis, congressional reporter with Bloomberg News who’s at the Senate Press Gallery; he has been following the story; he tweets @StevenTDennis

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, May 3, 2017.; Credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former FBI Director James Comey will say in his opening statement to a congressional hearing that President Donald Trump told him, "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty" during a January dinner, according to documents released a day ahead of his planned testimony.

Comey is set to testify before the Senate Intelligence committee Thursday. His prepared statement was released Wednesday afternoon.

In the statement, Comey said he and Trump dined together privately in January. During the meal, he said Trump asked him if he wanted to remain on as FBI director. Comey said he replied that he wanted to serve out his ten-year term and "was not on anybody's side politically."

Comey said Trump then made his statement about loyalty. Comey replied that he could offer his honesty, and that when Trump said he wanted "honest loyalty," Comey answered, Comey paused and said, "You will get that from me."

Trump abruptly fired Comey last month.

James Comey's Opening Statement by Southern California Public Radio on Scribd

Guests:

Alex Wayne, White House editor for Bloomberg News; he’s been following this story

Garrett Graff, journalist and author; former editor at Politico Magazine and the Washingtonian;  he wrote a biography on former FBI Director Robert Mueller, "The Threat Matrix: The FBI At War In The Age Of Global Terror" (Back Bay Books, 2012); he tweets @vermontgmg

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill June 8, 2017 in Washington, DC.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Coming out of former F.B.I. director James Comey’s hearing in front of the Senate Intelligence committee hearing, AirTalk recaps the biggest revelations and brings you legal, historical, neutral and partisan analysis.

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872866195245891585

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872868543502532608

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872873061418061824

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872880082141851649

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872885696519852032

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872895331796606976

https://twitter.com/AirTalk/status/872899079851843584

Guests:

Alex Wayne, White House editor for Bloomberg News; he’s been following the story; he tweets @aawayne

Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist and founder and chief executive officer of Rodriguez Strategies; he is also a former senior Obama adviser in 2008; he tweets @RodStrategies

Sean T. Walsh, Republican political analyst and partner at Wilson Walsh Consulting in San Francisco; he is a former adviser to California Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger and a former White House staffer for Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush

Garrett Graff, journalist and author; former editor at Politico Magazine and the Washingtonian;  he is the author of “The Threat Matrix: The FBI At War In The Age Of Global Terror” (Back Bay Books, 2012), a biography on former FBI Director and current special prosecutor for the Russian probe, Robert Mueller; he tweets @vermontgmg

Eric Freedman, professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University with emphases including separation powers and remedies for presidential misconduct; he recently co-authored the piece “Naming Robert Mueller as special counsel isn't enough — because Trump can get rid of him”

Robert G. Kaufman, public policy professor at Pepperdine where he focuses on U.S. foreign policy, national security and international relations; author of “Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama's Grand Strategy Weakened America” (University Press of Kentucky, 2016)

Adam Schiff, Democratic Congressman from the 28th U.S. Congressional District which includes Burbank, Glendale and West Hollywood; he is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee

Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Obama

John Malcolm, vice president for the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation; he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division from 2001 to 2004, where he oversaw sections on computer crime, domestic security along with other areas

Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI from 2012 to 2014; president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization providing assistance to law enforcement officers who are required to defend their official actions in court

Laurie L. Levenson, former federal prosecutor and a professor of law at Loyola Law School

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Theresa May arrives at the declaration at the election count at the Magnet Leisure Centre on June 9, 2017 in Maidenhead, England.; Credit: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Expecting a landslide victory for her party, Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May lost the control of UK Parliament on Thursday night.

May’s Tories remain the largest party -- winning 318 out of 650 total seats, but they lost 12, instead of gaining 100 as they had hoped two months ago.

This scenario is deemed a “hung Parliament,” where no party has an absolute majority in the UK government. As a result, the large party cannot pass any major law. Even if Theresa May stays the Prime Minister, this election could make the already complicated Brexit process even more difficult to navigate.

So what does this turning point mean for the country as a whole? What about its status within Europe? Host Larry Mantle sits down with Rob Watson, UK political reporter for the BBC, on the ramification of this shocking election. 

Guest:

Rob Watson, UK Political Correspondent for the BBC, live from Westminster; he tweets @robwatsonbbc

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Marc Kasowitz, attorney for U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the National Press Club June 8, 2017 in Washington, DC.; Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

President Donald Trump's personal attorney is planning to file a complaint against former FBI Director James Comey for details he revealed during his congressional testimony.

Trump's legal team will file a complaint early next week with the Justice Department's inspector general. The complaint will take issue with Comey's revelation that he asked a friend to pass along to a reporter notes he took of his private conversations with the president.

That's according to a person close to the legal team who agreed to speak ahead of the filing on condition that the person's name is not used.

The team is also expected to file a submission with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump has a long history of threatening to file complaints and lawsuits and not following through.

—By Jill Colvin, AP

Guests:

Lisa Kern Griffin, professor of law at Duke University; her scholarship focuses on evidence theory, constitutional criminal procedure and federal criminal justice policy

Clarice Feldman, contributor to the conservative publication American Thinker and former attorney at the DOJ

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.