tv After Words James Clapper Facts and Fears CSPAN July 6, 2018 8:01pm-9:01pm EDT
a democratic representative, jim heinz of connecticut. afterwards is a weekly program with guest host interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> and jim, thank you for agreeing to the interview. this is a privilege for me. we've sat across from each other now we get to have a conversation about this remarkable new book. >> thank you for doing this. it's an honor for me. >> let's start with the person. the book is remarkable and some of the criticism of what we are today politically. we have some astute evaluations, not surprisingly, not a ton on jim clapper the person beyond your early history. let me ask you question, been doing this for six years on the
intelligence committee. you are this curious guy to have as a witness. my question is, though it may be stereotypical thinking, military family long tradition of being involved in national security doing tough work, you're not the first person i would think of as being an aggressive warrior for social issues. for lgbtq rights, for thinking about the challenge of making sure muslim americans feel comfortable in our country. the book you emphasize that and then there's a moment where he say you are almost in tears when president obama made a statement about muslims. tell us about where that notion comes from. >> before i answer that, i think you for your service on the committee.
a burden that people serve on the intelligence committee bear that doesn't happen with other committees is it's mostly secret. you don't get much benefit from the home district. that's a sacrifice on your part. as far as a benefit of writing the book it was cathartic. and to think about what are things in my life that influenced me. i have to say it was my parents. my dad was an intelligence officer going back to world war ii. he never pushed military service or anything like that but it's just his example.
social justice probably came from my mother. she was big on that. but emily put that together. i didn't appreciate the impact my parents had until they were gone. for that i point to a single set of influences was my mother and father. >> host: that's a wonderful story you tell about your mother. you are in asia and she invites a junior officer at a social event to join your table to the stairs of other. >> this occurred in 1952. we were station and posted the base in northern japan. my dad was in the intelligence organization. like most kids, i didn't like going to the dentist. my dentist turned out to be an
african-american. in 1952 only about four years after harry truman issued a famous order to desegregate the military which probably did institutional he but not socially. so the big center of life for officers was the club. we'd have a big sunday brunch not bands impersonating american music. it was quite entertaining. one of the sundays we were dressed up which was kind of painful, my sister and i. my mother spotted her dentist who is sitting on the periphery of the big ballroom he was the first lieutenant. my dad was the chaplain and she deliberately picked up all is when the band took a break she walked over to his table, spoke with him for a few moments, took
him by the hand and brought him toward table. that doesn't sound like much today, but in 1952 and a white dominated military, that was huge. she got all kinds of stairs in the room went silent. we'll never forget the look on my dads face of amusement and fear. the reason i remember this incident and he south us and we had sunday brunch together. it's so indelible because my mother never said a word. she never talked to me about it after we got home and she talked about lots of other things which i forgot. but for some reason the way she did that stuck with me for the rest of my life. >> to that experience you have that early on process on that
really made an impression on you as well. >> guest: it did. i was a young lieutenant myself. about 1964 or five. i was placed in the organization that managed troop affairs. i was an administrative officer so i processed a lot of article 15 and i had occasion to have to process out of the service with the dishonorable discharge to outstanding airmen who were outed and i remember that i was a target but i just remember thinking what a terrible waste that was. it seemed to be very unfair. twenty years later, i became a two star general and i had the
chance to atone for that. i had the opportunity to restore clearance for civilian who work for me at the time was gay. i felt like i made it for those two airmen. >> before we get on more professional topics, this is the era of the kiss and tell them the dramatic hardships being overcome and alcoholism. all of the social maladies. there are three generation of clappers in this book. there's not much there about the challenges of any of those families. so i have to believe like mine you have personal issues with kids but none of that comes out. is that a personal choice or family of real boy scouts? >> we were blessed certainly i
was, both her kids turned out great. my daughter is an elementary school principal and the married educators and that is due to my wife. i was off doing career things that she was tending to the kids and did a great job. >> so the kids sue race. >> and i'm the first to give her credit for that. she did. we had all the normal stresses, particularly when somebody moves, we did 23 moves and that was hard on my son through high school and that's not easy for somebody of that age. but i weathered it in their great people and the first to give them credit.
>> i think you become conscious of the fact that other people live different lives in suit pursue different careers. from age five you are immersed in this intelligence world what do you think in an alternate universe you may have done? what are the have-nots that you have not pursued? >> guest: at one point i thought i wanted to be a dr.. i got over that. then i reach the point where i started making serious decisions. i knew i wanted to follow my father's footsteps and specifically be what he was. i learned enough about it to appreciate its importance in his commitment and dedication and most especially i learned a lot about how to treat people.
in an intelligence enterprise. i try to carry those lessons the entire time i served in whatever capacity. >> may be a dr., that didn't happen. was there any point across decades of service you did try to retire a few times. was there any point you thought this was your opportunity. >> i went to vietnam and 65 and 66. it was terrible. it was very stressful for sue and me, we had only been married about five months. my plan was to get out of the air force. i was going to go back to san antonio finish my masters degree get out of the air force and become a civilian for national
security agency. i got plucked out of anonymity and was meant toward by some senior officers that made all the difference in the world for my wife. of course, when i retired from active duty and 95, never figuring i would come back to the government, i got a call in late summer of 2000 want to come back and be the director for an agency in that morphed into -- i got canned by mr. rumsfeld by most five years and i thought bill that was the end. then i got a call from secretary of defense bob gates who asked me a five would finish the bush
term which would've been about 19 months in the pentagon. that turned into three and half years. it has asked to take on another job. none of this was planned at all. it just kinda happened. it's not like i mapped this out. >> now it is safe to say based on the last three pages of your book that this president is not likely to ask you to come back into service. so you may have finally succeeded at retirement. and you have some experience here as an author. i know little bit about what the life is like. it is separation of your spouse and family all of the time. tell us about what that feels
like. now i assume you around the house and how does this feel and what are your strategies for jim clapper version two-point oh? >> i do not expect to get asked to come back to government. my wife's birthday was in march and i turn 77. i have round homebase on the court of life. i did not realize how tired and stressed out i was. i thought i was some kind of iron man. the job is you recognize is all-consuming. i never actually had an entire day off during the whole six and a half years. it is liberating to be free of day-to-day burden of worry and stress.
i find great satisfaction things like projects around the house. last sunday we went to home depot and bought plans and i planted them. i have never done that before and it was quite satisfying. i now have a vested interest in those plans. it was quite pleasant. >> now that thousands of professionals have been watching now get their section in this. let's turn to your wise man observations. you obviously have seen over half a century a dramatic change in intelligence community and how they think about the intelligence community. we don't need to get into the details, but what is the great unfinished work. a lot after 9/11, what are the weaknesses the ic has today.
what are the changes guys might need to think about for the next ten or 20 years? >> a weakness was the fact that the community was not as integrated and collaborative as it needed to be. they recommended the creation of a leadership position is full-time job would be to foster and promote integration across multiple components of the intelligence community. that one point you went up to the law and it passed after the 9/11 commission which established the commission and there was talk about creating a department of intelligence. i think it would be a mistake for this country.
for many reasons including privacy. their concerns and fears that you could create some problems. for the united states model and our values i think as awkward as it might be a song is you can integrate, that's a never-ending journey. it's not like were all done with immigration, doesn't work that way. that's the major area from an oversight standpoint. the committee should pay close attention to it. the components of an intelligence committee are not allowed to drift apart and be separate and have silos so they're not working together as a team. the classic example of the sun being greater then the parts. there has to be a full-time champion in that. >> have we settled into a place
where the role makes sense functionally. in talk about it in your book and you talk about the dni cannot look at the authorities of the various department heads. it takes that out of the chain of command and influence. as he put on out we had a number for some time have we got that right mercer some things that need to be done. >> what you're referring to if you're an aficionado was section 1018 which was a provision asserted in the law to compromise to get it pass. it basically was intended for the department of defense equity. what it basically said was the dni would no way cause the application of the authorities and cabinet secretaries who have components of the ic from their
department. this specifically applied to dod. four of the major agencies are embedded. some things have been made since then notably. some very creative and statesmanlike change that was made under the leadership of bob gates. mike mcconnell was director of national intelligence and i was the under secretary. i have the under secretary of defense and intelligence were a hat for the director of national intelligence. it was a very important change because basically helped integrate those two staffs with the equities of the secretary of
defense. as well, the dni does play a role in the hiring of firing agent directors. the secretary of defense is required to coordinate this. whenever there is a nominee, if it requires senate confirmation or appointment. those things in the practice that has evolved over time between the two organizations have done a lot to overcome the potentially ill effects of that section of the law. >> my impression on the other side of the roster was this problem you mentioned of various components drifting away and the fbi going back to a place where they were at odds with the cia, my impression was it was working well because of the personal relationship you clearly had
with jim comey, john brennan, mike flynn, emma rogers and his predecessor. i sense is that you made it work for decades. i worry that if you didn't have personal history together we would have a problem. >> that is fair and a concern. in my case just having served a long time in the intelligence committee you knew everyone the senior officials in the community have grown up and mentored many of them. they all works pretty well. again, i knew i did not have a charter that i was going to be a czar or dictator. i was there to be a facilitator, and to promote cooperation
through persuasion or cajole or read. i tried to reserve those locations where i had to decide something were issued direction and make that the exception not the rule. it is much better in this arrangement where you are starting to achieve consensus. >> less spend a minute because you bring it up in your book about mike flynn. somewhat of a tragic figure having played guilty to lying to the fbi. you make a point in your book that as an officer he was quite good until he found himself in a role. here's my question, all of you senior leaders in the intelligence committee has taken a different path. jim comey was unique is because written a book and become a polarizing figure. john brennan a little more circumspect but pretty
aggressive lately. you make a statement in your book are the complementary to the president. mike flynn i think of you sitting at the table together took a different path. whatever you think of donald trump he became one of the most aggressive flamethrowers that we have seen. obviously that's not end well. what you think happened? >> you have to salute mike's 30 plus years. very distinguished military career. it's probably spent more time deployed in afghanistan or iraq and most of the army contemporaries. i salute that service yet today. i was of coefficient at his
ceremony to lieutenant general. you work for me as a staffer about 11 months. i supported him for his direction as direction of the defense. an agency i have but in the '90s. so special concern of mine. for one reason or another, did not work out. my concern was mike's impact on the workforce. doctor mike vickers who preceded me also had a role to oversee dia of her a different set of reasons my crew very concern. we agreed that we will terminate after two years when the normal term is three years.
mike flynn took that very well. a wonderful retirement ceremony for him in the summer of 2014. i lost contact with him. my observation from afar is that i think he became an angry man. he began advising several of the republican candidates connected with mr. trump. yes, he became very outspoken and very ideological. this raises the concern weather is john brennan or myself about a speaking out what the views are. that in itself is controversial. i acknowledge that. is something i anticipated when i retired. i never would've thought of doing that.
but were under different circumstance now. i started trying to defend the community and then it evolved. not one that i planned on or desired. i felt after 50 years or so defending institutions of values of this country are under assault. >> host: it must be painful and we will come back to this. it must be painful when reading your book there is not a partisan word in their. you criticize partisan activities on both sides. obviously john brennan i would
not begin to know how he has registered or stereotyped to certain way. you're probably right whether it's true or not, it must be painful to see what i sense our efforts to defend the integrity of the process. as you say lies will corrode our democracy, john brennan standing up for the cia, it must be painful to see the president's supporters say that is a partisan. >> it is bothersome. it is not partisan. this has more to do for me and for john in defending those institutions and values. of course the ones nearest intercessor the intelligence community. for john is former director of the central intelligence agency. the principle of truth to power is important.
in trying to keep the intelligence community which got difficult trying to keep it out of the politics which is always better if intelligence can stay out but intelligence itself is the community became political object and political football. that is, indeed regrettable. >> let me take you to a place through your career you are not comfortable going. he said over again in your book and that is policy. i want your reflections on the nature of the trump administration foreign policy. this scares me. i gotta give the guy credit, we'll see where north korea goes but we got some hostages back, talks on the table. i have my party affiliation but
oh be clear about giving credit where credit is due. we could go into the obama foreign policy but this foreign-policy were statements are made without deliberation and the sense of unpredictable force and power. it's interesting. north korea who knows where we will end up. you've been watching policies but would you think the risk and opportunities are of the trump form policy which is radically different. >> i've tried to look for a place where i could be supportive.
>> we had a summit with kim jong-un, don't know where that will go but there are potential pitfalls. but, why not try something different. i do not know the rhetoric has much to do with the apparent change in the bpr k policy, frankly i think what had to do that was the north koreans had achieved whatever it is they thought they needed to achieve in the way of nuclear deterrence. as well, if anybody will get a noble peace prize it will be the president from south korea.
i think he's one of the most astute presidents. i think he has done a lot to manage his account up north. and to bring this apparent call me know the stormy waters in terms of the relationship between north korea and the rest of the world. i am hopeful there. when i moved t went to north koa in november it had a profound impact on me just engaging with the north koreans at the time. i did think there was some merit in dialoguing with it. i think that's the only way out. if this results in a good thing, and i think there is value of thinking nothing else but me angry and agree to have more
discussions it would be useful. >> host: right now it's unclear if the summit will happen. there's been a back-and-forth that's pretty typical. if you could overcome the genetic uncomfortableness, were talking about policy. what would you advise donald trump with respect, what is the success. the united states is saying we want total denuclearization. that feels unlikely. what is a win for the united states? you've been there. what would you advise the president in terms of how to get to that success? >> one significant step that could be taken which is a win for both sides would be to do something as an advocate for the last administration and that was to establish an intersection in pyongyang and similarly had one for north korea in washington.
similar to what we had in havana, cuba for decades. to deal with the government we did not recognize. not to do that as a reward for bad behavior, i understand with the north korean regime is about. but, having a full-time diplomatic presence in pyongyang as a means of communication would be a big improvement. i cannot make the case, but i could argue things may have turned out differently for some if we had a presence in north korea and could be bugging them about the state and the welfare. >> what you mean by bugging? >> pestering. pestering and engaging with the north koreans on a day-to-day basis would be appropriate.
i don't know that things would turned out any different. secondly, in their would enhance our understanding and insight about the country. thirdly as information into north korea. >> host: it sounds like have a more robust conversations with diplomatic exchanges that's a win. >> i think so. if you have a recognized steady-state of diplomatic dialogue or the possibility for would be an improvement. i did not find it unreasonable with the north korean to man for a peace treaty. it is a cease-fire. everybody stops shooting. so what you see is a very formidable conventional force overwhelmingly superior. they understand that. they think that force the
republic of korea is poised to invade north korea, invade the dprk and have a regime change. that is what they fear. so peace treaty at least to enter in negotiations would be of good thing. >> when you say denuclearizati denuclearization, that could be a two-way street. as the north koreans might look at denuclearization, what they see is the extension of our nuclear umbrella over the republic of korea. they could demand denuclearization of the peninsula applies both to the united states and north korea. many no bombers or any nuclear capable weapon system would be allowed into the republic of korea were operational proximity. i hope we are prepared to think
about how we would respond to such a demand. i could see the north koreans applying their definition by saying this applies both ways. >> will spend a couple minutes on russia. you been watching russia for 60 years or so. you talk about this in your book, i sense that you are frustrated at the time but the leadership in d.c. to tell the story i think our response was a slap on the rest for vladimir putin. so, if you're whispering in the ear of the president and you have advice for how you need to deal with putin in the next 3 3 - 5 years what is he doing wrong and what shall we be
doing? >> guest: i will say with that anemic reaction in retrospect i wish we had hammered it harder earlier. at the time, in consideration that tempered that, first reluctance to amplify or dignify or magnify what the russians were doing. secondly, given the partisan environment of the russia campaign, not putting a hand on it president obama was concerned about it and putting the hand on the scale in favor of secretary clinton. but be that as it may, what to do now. one thing that would be useful and i wish president trump would find his way clear to call up the russians for what they did.
and specifically, putin. this was orchestrated the russian meddling was orchestrated by putin. there is very strong against the united states and what we represent and the threat he thinks we pose to them. it's a throwback to the czar era and a grand vision of a greater russia. sees russia is a great global power. i interpret what we did in the last administration was simply phase i. i had hoped that would be reinforced by more steps by the administration which had not happened. >> if i remember earlier the president himself and it can only come to him, galvanize the
country and have a sense of urgency. what they did during the election was dangerous for this country. that is the main reason i chose to speak up. the threat posed by russia. >> if u.s. is not speaking with one voice we have a problem. let's get into a deeper treatment of what might be involved in a more robust response. why did president obama allow the russians to take crimea? i sometimes look at that and maybe their window been an option to counter that. is that what you want most people went away from that.
between where we are today use the word anemic and i would agree with that. between anemia and full-blown military conflict? what rules do we have? >> one thing we could have done perhaps which i personally was an advocate for but it was not administration policy was to be more aggressive about arming the ukrainians. eventually that was done. so we can think about it all day long but reversing what putin did with crimea is very opportunistic, i don't think any of this was on his mind particularly until president yana cove which left and went into exile in russia. i think putin got very concerned about the vacuum in the ukraine and went to the west.
so an opportunity to write around when he gave crimea to ukraine. this is a long-standing festering wound imprudence mind. >> it would have been difficult to push back. the russian military was there. the russians had forces already embedded there. so, one thing i could think of that would be more forceful support for the ukraine would be with the weapons. >> let me shift gears and talk about what brought us together which is oversight. i tell people it is one of the best parts of my job. it's really important at the time of a dysfunctional congress.
you are gracious to say don't get credit at home. we have an 80 billion -ish intelligence operation and they do many things in secret and sometimes i agree with your assessment most if not all don't keep an eye on the lawn the rules. they push up against those rules. i am still struggling with the president's decision to kill a u.s. citizen. i am glad he is not amongst us anymore but the idea that the president could say i am going to kill this u.s. citizen has to be a little uncomfortable with anybody. oversight is really important, your book, but gates' book would suggest that sitting in front of congress is far from your favorite part of the job.
so talk about that in general. for my colleagues in the american people, what can we as people charged with oversight, what can we do better? i suspect you weren't angry because we were given you a tough time. i suspect you're angry because you thought we were doing oversight well enough. >> angry or disappointed may be. i was around when the committees and when both committees. >> a church commission which was a response. >> many of the abuses occurred during and after vietnam and using national intelligence resources to spy on american citizens. that is what spohn the two committees. the house committee for intelligence and 76 and the other a year later. when the committees were first
established, not everyone but many members took it as a national sacred trust. not related to home state, district or party. i think that prevailed the first 15 or 20 years and gradually over time the partisanship has affected us generally and has invaded the committees, particularly the senate committee but the house. that's not good for the intelligence committee. the intelligence committee needs oversight. unfortunately, our histories repeat with abuses over time. if you go back over the life of the intelligence committee we need that oversight.
is what were doing legal ethical, moral, and in accordance with american standards and values? that to me should be the main purpose of those committees. sometimes what happens people want to do the job of seniors in the intelligence committee for them. that's not good either. you have a tendency to lose sight of the big and important things. that's what the committee is doing. that's how they started in the first place. the issue you have is a case in point. that is an important issue. the message is that the committees are credible and effective and they do things on a bipartisan basis. that has credibility both within the intelligence committee and i
think for the rest of the country. committees have a special burden because they have to represent all the voters, the american people who cannot have access to all the secrets. you are the surrogates for them which is a burden for members on those committees. unlike other committees on the congress to oversee other departments which are open and transparent. the intelligence committee cannot be. that place is a double burden. >> it has been painful for me. other than representing my constituents, it is probably the most interesting part of my job. i remember something you wrote about which is the work that then chairman rogers had. you could tell they were committed to having a good
relationship and a good nonpartisan relationship. we are a long way from that today. very painful both functionally and because it has become so partisan i spend my day thinking about this. what's your take on what happened to the house intelligence committee? >> first while you are right about there had been other areas but certainly when chairman mike rogers and the ranking member were running the committee into things on a bipartisan basis. they didn't agree on every issue were to say that they were handmaidens of the intelligence committee. they were tough. but fair. certainly i do not agree with everything they said and did. but they were bipartisan and that carry great weight. now are in a situation where you
have one party aligned with the white house which is strange. wade is the poster work is there's three coequal branches of government. they're supposed oversee the executive branch not align with it. and that's an unusual situation. there's never been quite another thing like that in the history of the committee. it's not good for system or for oversight. >> it will take time to climb out of that hole. we are conscious of the fact on the committee that you need to trust us that we worry about leaks and -- what is going to be done with a sense of organization that we hand over will abuse or political purposes or oversight?
>> a big theme in your book is how challenging it is and you've spent your life trying to deliver truth and power when facts become subjective it's a threat toward democracy. how serious is this historically? we have a perspective and i read my history and you read the newspapers a hundred years ago they were awful. are we in a place that we have never seen before? is this just in a go of what happens? >> certainly in my memory i do not recall quite this circumstance. i look through watergate, is in the intelligence community then. maybe because i was young and naïve, never felt better institutions were really in
jeopardy. i do worry about that now. because of the cell phone. this is not just limited to the intelligence committee. assaults on the free press which is a fundamental underpinning of our system. all of these things i find bothersome. >> to see evidence, use that a close observer, do you see evidence that the fbi is under daily attacks by the president, are they beginning to bend? are they beginning to break? >> guest: so far, knock on wood, i think the institutions have been resilient. >> a lot of us are concerned that when the chairman of ftse
threatens to trach this and that all the sudden we be doing some we had done before which is providing members of congress with information on an ongoing investigation. >> that is shady. that i find very bothersome. the whole debate about fisa authorization is very damaging to expose all of that. this gets to the source of how it operates. as i learned the hard way, you learns in the aftermath of the snowden you have to go to school on all these revelations. long-term, i worry about not only the damage to the fabric of our system, but how adversaries whether nationstates are not nationstates will take advantage of that insight.
this exposure for me is not healthy. >> host: to questions. given these attacks on the institutions in your concern about the viability, what is your advice first two were senior people at the doj. i'm not talking about the young guys but the more senior people who are worried for their careers, what you tell them and question number two, would you tell the american people, how can citizens think about what's happening today. >> first, i think the intelligence leaders today also have sin oversight committees, they also have a heavy burden of providing the cover. so the workforce and intelligence committee continues to do what it does, hopefully
turning out truth and power. i think that is what the message i would convey to the american people is they need to be watchful and vigilant to make sure their intelligence committee has done a lot of things on their behalf is not criticize. they need to make sure it is allowed to continue to convey facts of truth and power. so you start polarizing intelligence you're in a bad place. that is not a good thing. you don't want to get into a trend of that. so far, i think by and large are institutions are resilient. >> host: i want to push you on that. you are very sensitive in this book to a couple of times when people call the intelligence
committee and you rightly defend the intelligence committee. what is a mid-level person supposed to think about the fact that the president is like in the cia's activities to the nazis. how would you advise that person to think about the attacks that are coming in from the snowden gang but from the white house. >> first of all, i did call them president-elect trump and surprisingly took the call to convey my regrets about his referring to the intel committee that way. i believe the rank-and-file in the intelligence committee, most of whom will focus on their mission and job to the utmost.
it's not affected by any this. certainly the cia probably the most visible of all the intelligence committees and with the fbi. they have a special burden. and a special burden on their leaders. i think the director has been great and very quietly but effectively defending the great men and women of the fbi. that's when i was so supportive of haskell's director cia. i felt she has the stealing is to push back because she needs to. that's what we need is leadership. again, that's next her burden that they have not had to bear in the past. >> were almost out of time, to questions the first is, people
who want to paint the intelligence committee as politically biased as the president and point to the intelligence leading up to the war. they say my fingerprints run that assessment. has the intelligence community learned from that experience? such as today being pressured from the vice president. >> guest: i think the changes that were begun immediately after the what were referring to with weapons of mass destruction in iraq which was published in october 2002, yes, my fingerprints are on it. but i said as a member on the board and approve that. we said set about immediately to make changes and enhancements to ensure we do not repeat such a thing. not the least of which is
greater insight into the sources that go into national intelligence. so, for example when they conducted that is the senior most intelligence document. one of the first things we do in at that meeting is to review all of this that were use. each agency has to certify the collection forces. if anything went bad that we have since learned about have to know about that. there host of her mother things. excursions, it depends on the sensitivity so there are many
safeguards and mechanisms built into this process. it's a perfect, of course not but it is a lot better than it was in 2002. i would like to think that the intelligence committee has profited from that experience and learn from it and it's better for it. >> are we going to be okay? your speeches used to say yes, little bit of ambivalence at the end of the book. >> guest: my collaborator and i, the only argument we had on the whole book was over the last three pages. we wrote a very dark ending and a happy face ending and ended up somewhere in the middle. looking at other traumas the country has endured and emerge from. my experience with southeast asia and overtime we emerged better for having to deal with the trauma. i think it will be in this case to. >> it's remarkable book telling the story of your remarkable career in service. >> guest: thank you. and thank you for doing this.
>> president donald trump announces nominee for the supreme court, filling the vacancy from anthony kennedy. watch live monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> looking to next week, the senate is back monday for the fourth of july recess. the debate will resume on the nomination of mark bennett to be a judge in the ninth circuit. president trump nominated him in february. there is a vote on whether to limit debate is scheduled for the afternoon. more nominations are expected later in the week. our coverage is live starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. thursday, peter struck a former senior official testifies about