tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 29, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
with donald trump and their editorials on campaign 2016. ♪ good morning. welcome to the "margin journal -- welcome to host "washington journal." here are your headlines. an airplane was hijacked it ther the hijacker left other passengers go. it is not terrorism-related. a gunman was shot by capitol police and taken into custody after drawing a weapon on officers at the capital. the facility,ent complex, and white house into
lockdown. in georgia, the governor will veto legislation that would have given faith-based organizations the ability to deny jobs 2k, lesbians, transgender people. thoughts onyour religious liberty laws. if you support, dial into (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. you can also tweet us @cspanwj or go to facebook.com/c-span. "theront page of washington times" with the governor yielding to corporate pressure and vetoing the religious liberty belle. the influence of the entertainment and business lobbies was felt when the georgia governor knucked under a title wave of pressure by the .owing religious liberty bill
it sought to protect religious wedding vendors from participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies was not warranted in georgia where no such disputes have risen. [video clip] >> i find it ironic that some in religious community feel it is necessary for government rights andm protections. if our religious liberty is and notd upon us by god man made government, perhaps we should heed the hands-off and off- the hands admonition of the first amendment. the inclusions and omissions in can lead toes discrimination, even though it might be totally unintentional. georgia governor
talking about why he has decided to veto the religious liberty legislation. we are wondering if you support or oppose the idea of religious freedom laws. support, (202) 748-8000. opposed, (202) 748-8001. we will get to those calls. act ii "the washington times" they report in north carolina a similar culture war played out as transgender rights group filed a lawsuit to halt the bathroom bill, which they claim is discriminatory. that is amid more threats from big dismisses about a boycott of the state for not towing the line of sexual liberation. what are your thoughts? " notesshington post public support for such legislation is weak according to
polls. 53% say the state should oppose a religious liberty bill and 40% were opposed. support they would bill that allowed businesses to refuse employment based on the owner's religious belief. found2/3 ofll americans said businesses should not be able to refuse services to gays and lesbians even if doing so violates religious beliefs. the georgia measure essentially legalized discrimination by giving organizations that receive taxpayer funding ability to deny employment to gay and transgender people. you are opposed. tell us why. caller: good morning. i would not say that i have the biggest composition, however i
live --y live and let biggest opposition, however i would say live and let live. while does the religious right ss over make such a fu and over at every opportunity they can find to let people live and let live. noses. off their live and let live. you live your life the way you want, and let other people live their lives the way they want. host: you say you are not necessarily opposed. explain that. there are bigger and more important issues in life, in the world. there is real terrorism. we take one step toward and two steps back in this country. we are fighting social -- it is
like divide and conquer. we're focused on social issues where they should have been shelved a long time ago and we should deal with the important security matters of the day. host: in new jersey, you support these laws. good morning. why do you support them? caller: i support the laws. i do not support them if they are confederate. confederate state laws. host: in new jersey on our support line. mike, in atlanta. what do you think about the decision from your governor? i think it was a good decision. i was worried. we have a lot of movies. "the walking dead" is filmed in
georgia. i did not want to lose the opportunity to be one of the zombies. i heard one of the city getcilman is trying to enough people together to go against the veto. i do not know how that works. i want to say that i'm glad you are back. i missed you. you are the best. god bless. host: mike mentioned the movie industry. , the criticsg part say, of the governor's decision. times" notices there was a big backlash. a contribute $6 billion to the state's economy. in the last fiscal year it was $6 billion to the economy from the movie industry. the veto may not be the end of it. of the museumsy
in washington. some georgia lawmakers hope to overturn the legislation. minutesrters say that after the governor announced his veto of a religious liberty belle, some lawmakers called to overturn the decision. special session or not the veto of 757 ishares the debate is not -- assures the debate is not over. the religious liberty fight will have a prominent place in georgia for years to come. capital secondhe floor, he said he could not sign the bill into law. the backers say he made the wrong decision. senator crane, a republican running for congress, said it is an example of how the political class is bought and paid for by lobbyists. rather than protecting the first amendment, the political class
would rather sacrifice those rights to keep the money flowing. you oppose the laws. you are on the air. i am a born-again again christian, but i disagree with these laws. that it is agree wrong, you cannot hire someone raised on their standing with god. if you look for someone that is sin-less you will not have anyone. in michigan. you support them. good morning. caller: i do support the boss. --the laws. i believe our country is based on religious tolerance. if you own a private business, you are allowed to say i do not want to serve you.
it is different when we are talking about employment, but i gavewith obamacare, it private religious institutions having to do things that are morally wrong. they are against them. host: that issue was brought up before the court last week when the justices heard the oral arguments in one of the cases wrought by a religious group. poor said the the mandate for contraceptives in the obamacare law violates their religious freedom. the justices hearing the case seemed divided and it could end 4-4 decision. finish your thought. a quote that ronald
is those attacking religion say they are doing it for open-mindedness. is it the truth they are intolerant toward religion? host: daniel, who supports the laws in michigan. and egypt air airliner was hijacked this morning in route to cairo from alexandria, egypt. aircraftine, egyptair lands in cyprus. the hijacker trying to get to cyprus. it was not terrorist-related. it was over his ex-wife. egyptairr of fish -- tweeting confirmation that their flight was hijacked. this was earlier this morning
and 2:30 a.m. eastern. they tweeted that negotiations resulted in the release of the passengers, except for the crew and 4 foreigners. the french news agency says that passengers are still aboard according to the aviation minister in cyprus. bloomberg news tweeted this morning at 5:30 that the hijacker has yet to issue to man's and negotiations continue. that is according to the egyptian civil aviation minister . you can follow the news from several news organizations on twitter online as there is more developments. we will let you know as we go along on the "washington journal." we are asking about state religious laws. billses are considering
to protect people of faith from being forced to condone or same-sexte in marriage, which became legal last year as a result of the supreme court decision. 23 states have enacted similar laws. you support or oppose? joe?-- you oppose, caller: i oppose. republicans are extremist religions. i compare it with extremist sharia law. there iscountries, if a same-sex marriage, they get killed. up, beat them up, tie them
put them in the tallest building. they kill gay people, even women. if the women have an affair, they stone them to death. here, we do not do that, but the extremist.re is too we need to separate religion. this is the irony. republicans are so religious doctorsy go to kill were they have abortions. that is the irony. .e said they were killing kids how about him? that is the irony. host: that is joe in florida. utah, you are on the air.
caller: i support religious laws. there are eternal religious laws that if applied and acted upon would increase the value of individual communities in this country. these laws were given to moses and called the 10 commandments. we have taken the commandment covet and wet covet.it into thou thalt it leads to killing, stealing, fathers, not honoring and mothers, not keeping the sabbath day holy. if you kept the sabbath day and and ant day for environmental rest day for the earth. this country is not one nation under god anymore. tool tos is satan's
destroy people. host: this is from the national state conference of state legislatures website. map showingether a the freedom of religious restoration act that has passed of 2015. in 1997, the supreme court decided federal religious restoration acts did not apply to the states. theseates have enacted laws to echo the federal religious freedom restoration act law. that map you can see where of 2015.ve acted as let's go to the constitution, the first amendment, that says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging
the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government fervor dress of grievances. the government can not substantially burden a person's ability to follow their religious beliefs unless they compelling interest in imposing that burden or do so in the least restrictive way you read what do you think? new hampshire, you are opposing. it is your turn. caller: good morning. i oppose religious laws like that. one nation under god was a not onehere and this is nation under god, there are 11 different religions here. some people do not believe in god. if you are in business to serve .he public, you need to do that you should not be able to discriminate.
if you do, when does the bigotry stop? if you are marrying people, or serving people that are getting i do notwho is to say want to marry a black person with a white person. i do not want to marry a protestant with a christian. where does the bigotry stop? i do not like the religious laws . they are too restrictive. manyis a country with different religions. even some without religion. in school, you are taught evolution parody find it in all -- in school, you are taught evolution. thefind it and all of books. there are a lot of beliefs in this country. willu test pick a few you not serve, or a few that you will serve, you should not be serving at all.
you are there to serve the public, not just segments of it. support in florida. tell us why. caller: first of all, the reason why it is important is because i do not believe in a premise that it is discrimination when it comes to gay marriage. the reality is that nothing is stopping a gay man from marrying a woman besides his own choice. that is not discrimination, just how that person feels. if the law said you are gay, you cannot marry a person, likely establish for centuries, i understand that would read discrimination. .here is no discrimination the idea of religious freedom is how a person conducts yourself. if you conduct yourself contrary
to the purpose you are being hired for, that is not discrimination. this coming nation is -- discrimination is when you treat someone different based on something they have no control over. even if you are born that way, you have a choice of how to conduct yourself. may get stuck in that section. respecting religion does not mean that if it is written in religious.t is stealing, murderer, and lying are all in the bible. we have laws about it. should we say that we are respecting religion and should take it out. , and peopleconduct need to understand this is the biggest mistake cents plessy versus ferguson. unlike being black or female, in the comingt
female, black, or white. that is something you have no control over. who you choose for sexual activity, that is a choice. what do you make of the governor's decision in georgia and the pressure from corporations. walt disney, national football league, intel, and others? caller: it is a money thing. the moviestice all that come out, there's always homage toof homosexual behavior. there is a lot of money. atlanta is known for certain things. a lot of the shows promote that lifestyle. that is what hollywood likes. they passed the civil rights and hollywood was not tripping over itself to include a black person in every movie. nowadays, it seems like everyone
is tripping over themselves to promote homosexuality in one form or fashion. it is about money. the "washington times" disney which has found films like guardians of the galaxy 2 in atlanta, they would plan to take business elsewhere should any discriminatory practices be signed into law. it could also threaten an atlanta bid to host the super bowl. other deals included apple, time warner, and salesforce. state tos not the only find itself in the grip of big business. pat mccrory has invited the center of several blue-chip corporations by signing the bill -specific public restrooms and changing facilities must be used according to biological sex not
the preferred identification. it would prevent any other local government from following suit. it would allow people who undergo sex changes and have their birth certificates changed accordingly to use the bathroom, shower, or facility of their new sex. we are asking you your thoughts on state religious laws after the governor of georgia vetoed legislation in that state. look at the reaction from capitol hill. have made saying we great progress to move towards a more open and inclusive society. religious liberty legislation is a step back. senator jeff merkley saying thank you to the governor for vetoing anti-lgbt discrimination bill. diane black from tennessee said about last week's hearing of the supreme court over the contraceptive mandate in the
president's health care law saying to show my support for little sisters of the poor. the court must protect religious freedom. we told you yesterday a gunman was shot at the capital. from the "washington post" they identified the suspect as a minister from tennessee. the 66-year-old was arrested in the district after he disrupted congress i shouting he was a prophet of god. he walked into the visitor center at 2:40 in the afternoon and was going through security screenings when one officer opened fire. tourists were warned of an active shooter. the police swarmed the capitol grounds and put the capital building and the white house under lockdown, ending a peaceful day when congress was
in recess and tourists were flocking to the cherry blossoms and the easter egg rolls. yesterday, this is after the scene was clear and the gunman was taken into custody. [video clip] >> much of this information is preliminary. i want to stress that while this is preliminary, based on the initial investigation we believe this is the act of a single person who is frequented the capitol grounds before. there is no reason to believe this is anything more than a criminal acts. isadditional information gained, i will provide as much as i can through our public information office. i want to ensure the visiting public that u.s. capitol police officers continue to protect the capital for all who visit.
we expect regular business tomorrow morning at the capitol visitor center. people can safely visit the u.s. capitol and member offices. post" sayswashington it is not clear why he was at the capitol building, but he is not new to authorities. the cars he was at the capital in october, where he went into the house chamber -- and if you go to c-span.org you will find this video that we tweeted yesterday. 10/22/15, and listen closely, you can hear someone from the balcony, where visitors are allowed to watch proceedings, they can shouting bible verses. congress.ed the speaker gobbled down. he was escorted out of the
chamber. he was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. and orderedd him him to stay away from the capital and surrounding streets. after not showing up for a hearing in november, he wrote chosenhave been called and sent unto you this day. i'm not under law, therefore i will not comply with the court order nor will i surrender myself unto your office. we will hear talks on religious liberty laws. the governor of georgia be telling one of the laws yesterday. north carolina passing one last week. massachusetts, you support them. catherine, good morning. caller: male and female is the foundation of everything. there would be no trees, no fish
, no birds, no animals. if you do not have male and female, there would be nothing. it has nothing to be with religious. it is survival. the language separates the human beings. if you check out male and female anything -- you would not ride in a car without male and female. it has nothing to do with religious, it has to do with common sense. everyone has a mother and father. people have to be very careful. take the homosexuals and put them on an island by themselves. without a man and woman, there would be nothing in 20 years. nothing. this is not a religious, this is a fact of life. host: minnesota.
you oppose. go ahead. caller: i just finished celebrating my easter. old-fashionedhe way, friday, saturday, sunday, monday. i do oppose the state would regulate anything i want to say. when i closeppose the screens that the media is all the time about who is running for this counsel, people of that religion, people of that. i do not think that religion belongs into government. that the governor would tell you to do this. i oppose that very much and i believe that our founding fathers did a very right thing. there should be a separation
between the state and religion. that is all i want to say. human rights campaign claiming victory saying thanks to the you can see all the logos there. the corporations that were opposed to this georgia state religious law. the ibm statement on the legislation, they were glad that the governor vetoed it. also on twitter, the legal organization for lgbt writes -- governor's veto of this legislation." also you had on the right, eric erickson, a conservative logger, who said this --
eric erickson also went on to say that this will be part of the governor's race in 2015. what is your reaction to the state religious liberty laws? charlie in simi valley california -- in simi valley, california, go ahead. you support them. waser: the first amendment not to keep religion out of the government. it is to keep the government out of religion. and if our country, which was based on a christian background
and providence, and has been since the 1960's turning in such a way with legislation to get it back on to track -- and i realize that probably sounds like i am contradicting myself, that the country sets itself straight again. look, there are going to be people who have choice, and you do have a choice on your religion, or to have no religion. there are plenty of people that will still marry couples of same-sex. there are still people who will bake them cakes for their wedding. so they should not impose on people who it is against their religion to bake that cake or to marry that couple. they aretolerance seeking, they must show tolerance, too.
it would seem they are trying to toce the hand of people cater their wedding or to marry them out of spite. i mean, it is like they do not -- yes, ihey want, would be in support of any laws that bring things back to a natural order. thank you very much. host: that is charlie in seamy valley, california. , youe, a libya, washington oppose it. -- you ain't, olympia, washington, you oppose it. what is your take on this? caller: i think there is a middle road that can be followed. for example, let's say you did know want to make a cake for a lesbian or bisexual couple. the law could require you to refer that person to another agency or business that would do it for them. i mean, you could apply that in
every instance, where something is happening against the belief of one party. not are required -- they do have to do it, but they do have refer them to someone who will. i think that would take care of it. host: ok. , who opposesine it, and washington state. president obama's court nominee a vulnerableing gop senator. merrick garland will meet mark kirk. kirk's office announced it monday afternoon. he will be the first republican senator to me with garland. he is considered the most vulnerable senate incumbent running this fall. he is running to retain a seat in a deep blue state, easily won in 2008 and 2012 by president
obama, and will face representative tammy duckworth. chuck grassley says democrats could force the vote on the nominee. said monday he expects democrats to force at least a procedural vote on president obama's nominee challenging the gop's insistence that the appointment be left for the next president. senate judiciary chairman charles grassley said democrats will likely try a maneuver known as a motion to discharge the move the nominee -- the nomination out of the committee and onto the floor. it does not mean they will succeed in appointing nominee -- in appointing the nominee. it could set off a procedural path that could require 60 votes to move forward. that vote count would be difficult for the 46-member democratic caucus, but it could act as a test vote on the
nomination. hillary clinton is putting pressure on republicans to also take up mr. garland's nomination . she said in "the washington "mrs. clinton would not second-guess the decision to fill the seat left by judge -- mrs. clinton said justice sotomayor your's hispanic heritage brought needed perspective to the high court. that on the supreme court battle on capitol hill. president obama is traveling to -- is traveling to atlanta today to talk about opioid addiction and treatment. we will have coverage of that on c-span2 at 2:30 p.m. eastern time. campaign 2016, donald trump will be in janesville, wisconsin, the hometown of the speaker of the
house, paul ryan. .e will be there with a rally that is today, 5:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. back to your calls. tennessee, you are supporting religious liberty laws. good morning. greta. good morning, i have my talking points written down, so libby i can get it in before you have to cut me off. -- so maybe i can get it in before you have to cut me off. this is not about separation of church and state we are talking about. we are not talking about government institutions. secondly, the person who mentioned sharia law, i think he has it backwards. he is talking about forcing .eople to follow certain laws that is exactly what forcing business owners to do is doing. it upon theng
business owners. we are talking about making cakes and that sort of thing. honest, we are talking about forcing people to be present -- photographers, wedding planners, musicians -- they have to be present at a ceremony which they find morally abhorrent. i think there should be court exemptions if these people can prove that this is part of their .stablished religious doctrine they have creeds and confessions and documents to back that up. if you would let me say this, too, i also feel that if atheists do not want to serve christians in that capacity -- we are not talking about selling a hammer of the counter to someone, we are talking about
being present at a christian ceremony. if muslims do not want to serve a jewish couple or something, that is perfectly fine with me. we are in 2016. goodness gracious, people, there are so many alternatives and outlets during can you not find another business who really wants to serve you? this is all kinds of great business opportunities for people to fill in. one other point about boycotts -- i wonder if people applauding the governor for his veto would a religious organization -- let's say the southern baptist convention held their meetings in georgia and they threatened to leave if the governor did not sign legislation. would they also feel the same way then if this extortion were applied in reverse? "the new york times" is
times," "u.s. says it has unlocked an iphone without apple." law enforcement possibility to unlock an iphone raises questions about the strength of security in apple devices. host: more on that in the papers this morning. then, capitol hill is eyeing what to do about the issue of encryption. there is a bipartisan bill that would block states from passing laws designed to ban encryption. it comes after state legislature s in california and new york --entially banned encryption
trying tos still figure out what if anything it wants to do to regulate encryption. wants to, california raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. many of that -- many are looking at that as a test case of what happens with raising the minimum wage. chuck, you oppose these laws. good morning. go ahead. caller: hi, greta. just a brief response to the caller who said if you want to put all the gays on an island and they would die out. let me assure her that most people are straight. the managed -- the marriage -- there isment was
not a single person i know who does not support religious freedom. a business is not a church. it does not matter whether you are talking about a baker or -- a bakery or a restaurant or a factory. they are not in the business of enforcing moral doctrines, they are there to turn a profit. therefore, they have to abide by civil rights laws, regardless of whether they protect religion or sexual orientation. you can decide which goods and services you want to provide, but you do not get to turn down paying customers just because you have theological disagreements with them. you do that, and it is basically coercing your customers into abiding by your personal religious doctrines, and that is not what religious freedom is about. religious freedom is not about coercing other people into abiding by your beliefs, or else you will turn them away from your business. that is not what religious
freedom is all about. in cherry hill, new jersey, you support. caller: i do supported in principle because they are there to protect people who are exercising their religious beliefs from being sued. there are people who sometimes seem to be looking for excuses to sue other people, and people who believe in holy scripture and what it says about homosexual behavior, i understand why they do not want to participate in a gay marriage , and they should not be compelled to do so. host: merle, hampton, virginia. you oppose, merle? good morning. ok, we will move on. we lost that caller.
a couple of other headlines i want to give to you before we wrap up this conversation. cnn is tweeting out this breaking news, more on what happened with egyptair. the hijackers took the plane over and a wife, not terrorism, the cyprus ministry of transportation. all the passengers except three or four and the crew were let go. the plane was rerouted from cairo and landed in cyprus. from "the washington post," look who showed up at yesterday's easter egg roll. jay-z, beyonce, and their daughter. there was also this, a follow-up to last week's "washington journal." when representative ron bloom last week tweeted the picture of waterfront, it
said -- host: this came to light after we asked alan holmes norton to react to -- eleanor holmes norton to react to what he had to say in the tweet. that does it for the conversation on religious liberty. we will take a break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to money and politics, talking with fredreka schouten of "usa today." later today, age discrimination in the workforce. we will talk about how these cases are filed.
media teaches us that the democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other. and i think that people need to need to behat we respectful towards each other, and we need to understand that senators are respectful towards each other. that will be more conducive to getting real policy done instead of just acrimony and vitriol. is, these people that we see on television and c-span are real people. when we saw president obama, what most stood out to me was that he had bags under his eyes, he is a real person dealing with real things. i thought that was what was most interesting. q&a,ncer: sunday night on high school students talked with us about their experiences in the weeklong government and
leadership program. plus their plans for the future. the students met with members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government, plus military and media representatives. us,t is your job to talk to and the insight he gave us about being kind of the outside source , reporting back to us and the electorate about what is going on in our government. >> ruth bader ginsburg was the most inspirational person we have met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. i either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a senator. >> i understand the need for bipartisanship, but i think it is important that politicians go to washington or their state capitals with their eyes on a goal and they are determined to meet that goal instead of sacrificing it in the light of money or bipartisanship or whatever it is. to a need to get back constructive discourse, like the one we have had here. a need to make this country
more respectful place where people feel welcome to give their opinions. 8:00ncer: sunday night at eastern on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: back at our table this morning, fredreka schouten with "usa today." the presidential campaign has gone past the $1 billion mark. talk about reaching that market what it means. guest: it tells you how expensive this race is, and it that supert the role pacs are playing. that number takes into account what candidates themselves have raised and what the super pac's have helped toem raise -- not all super pac's, but just those aligned with individual candidates. 406breakdown is roughly million dollars raised by those super pac's. with you compare that 2012, and we can show our
viewers that you are looking at $88 million in 2012. remembere thing to about 2012 is that super pac's were new. it was the first presidential race where super pacs played a role. president obama at that point had one. democrats were not that excited about it. it's surged so far. and then when you add in about million dollars so far, that the candidates have race, that is where you get over $1 billion. host: let's look at the candidates and where they are. 312 for republican -- 312 ,illion dollars for candidates democratic candidates. $311 million for republicans. hillary clinton has spent about $32 million so far. host: just in the month --
guest: justin the month of february. ast: so what does that mean far as raising money? guest: hillary clinton has raise the most money during the course of the election cycle, and that is not surprising. she is someone with deep networks and has been involved in politics for quite a while. bernie sanders has done a very good job of raising money from small donors online. he raised $4 million as of the end of yesterday, and between saturday when he won all three caucuses and the end of yesterday, he is a very effective fundraiser. in january and february, he exceeded fundraising by secretary clinton. cash onen you look at hand as of february 29, she had a lot more money to rid -- she had a lot more money. guest: yes, she did.
he raised a lot, but he spent a lot. she has been raising early and has been able to marshal her resources. host: is she not spending as much? guest: she is spending a lot as well, but she had a head start. and he isig surge, out there organizing and spending and getting people out particularly for caucuses. that is where he does very well. 10 of the 14 races he has one bank far are caucuses, and those require a lot of organization. host: what is he saying that means for his chances in the general election, if he is spending as quickly as he is taking in? guest: he is a prodigious fundraiser. he believes that the small donors will keep coming back and feeding what he calls the revolution. and really, he is able to turn on the spigot quickly. share withe we from "the new york
times" -- guest: it is early. are -- the states we are heading into, in the midwest and the northeast, secretary clinton's home state of new york, where 291 delegates are at stake. host: it is quite the clash. guest: she more recently represented it as a senator. host: let's talk about republicans. when you look at presidential
spending, ted cruz is spending nearly $18 million. donald trump is spending almost $10 million. john kasich is spending about $4 million. let's talk about these numbers a little bit, where the money is coming from for these republican candidates. guest: ted cruz has been among the best fundraisers around the remaining republicans. he has managed to get a lot of support from small donors. he has something called cruz crowd, encouraging small donors to bundle their donations together. he also has a number of super pacs that have drawn in a lot of money. that is not reflected there, but it speaks to the level of support he has from some very wealthy people. -- whomercer, who has helps run a hedge fund in new york, for instance, was a big donor to a super pac.
there are people who are giving $10 million and $11 million each to super pacs for helping ted cruz. the story is different for donald trump. donald trump has insisted he is not actively fundraising. he does have some donate buttons on his site. and about 27% of his money has come from other people. but the majority of this is coming from donald trump the billionaire real estate mogul. he has lent his campaign about $24 million so far. host: that is your headline from one of the recent pieces, donald trump is spending near $25 million. he has loan that in his campaign. -- he has loaned that in his campaign. what does that mean? guest: he can recoup it. he can give himself alone and he can be repaid. if he decides he wants to start raising a lot of money from other people, the campaign can repay him before this is all said and done. so, you know, it is not exactly
giving it out right. he could get some of it back. we will see. host: what if he were not to win the nomination and he has loaned himself this money? is there any legal action then? guest: the thing is, it can be tricky because you can sort of trick -- you can sort of quickly seek donations to recoup your loan. host: many campaigns end in debt. guest: you are right, but there are limits as to how much he can repay himself once the election is over. $250,000 is the amount that you can recoup once the election is over. host: i want to talk about the financial status of ted cruz. he sent out this e-mail less night saying, "tomorrow is too late. i e-mailed you two days ago, but the situation is serious. as of right now, i am still well short of my fec mandated
end-of-quarter deadline by more than $400,000." guest: people often take very desperate tones in their fundraising e-mails. i am sure he is feeling pressure to do well. has -- because he is someone who can write another check to get through the rest of april, so there is no doubt that there is a real push for cash. we will see. host: what about governor john kasich? he says he is going to stay in it. he is raising less money than the folks remaining. a second.ack for you had a lot of money being raised initially by jeff bush. the establishment money when there. once he got out, the establishment money went to marco rubio. out, it hasubio got been a mixed bag. i do not think that john kasich
has really pulled in the big establishment donors. a lot of them were sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how all this plays out. host: let's get to calls. andrew is up first from new orleans, an independent. what is your comment about money and politics? caller: thanks so much for coming on the show. i have two questions. considering the republican failure to call on a single candidate early on in the , theygn or at any time are still disheveled and unable to pick a candidate, why are corporations and interest groups donating to such a fractured party with a seemingly low chance of they november victory? according to "the washington post," all of the republican candidates have had $600 billion donated, where his democrats
have $300 million? cycle, unique election what lasting effects do you see? guest: let me tackle the long one first. keep in mind that this was a very crowded field. when you look at that $600 million raised through the end of february, that reflects money that went to jeb bush and marco rubio and two mike huckabee. it was a big, big field. i think now we are starting to see some of the donors reseed. we are seeing -- we are starting to see some of the donors recede/ i will be fascinated to see what we see in the march reports. more people are sitting on their hands and waiting to see how this plays out. you also have the trump factor. you have a lot of people who lined up very early on behind former florida governor jeb bush
hisly to see their money -- super pac raised $118 million, and that was notalive. host: what happens to that money that was raised? guest: we will see what happens. there was about $16 million remaining in his super pac at the end of february. waso not know how much spent or refunded. there are a number of options. you can decide to redirect the money to another candidate, donors may step up and ask for refunds. as happened when texas governor rick perry got out of the race. there was a super pac that had $5 million sitting in there from an individual donor and that donor said i would like it back please because you haven't spent it. we will see what happens.
they spent more than $100 million of what they collected. host: the caller wondering why corporations are getting involved in the republican race and giving money to republicans when they see so divided. you have a headline in one of your stories. hedge fund billionaires joined the anti-trump fight. guest: what's happened now i think is that a lot of the republican establishment donors were as i said earlier, lining up behind individual candidates. and then the trump phenomenon and they are deeply concerned about his positions, his policy positions and his temperament. so what we are increasingly seeing in the last few months is that more and more people are getting involved in trying to fund efforts to stop him. ,nd so we initially sought there is a pack called our principles pack that is at the forefront to try and stop mr. trump.
mr. -- members of the rickett family who own the chicago club -- cubs. and the patriarch of the family founded td ameritrade were the first to provide money and paul singer come a hedge fund billionaire has joined that effort. so again, paul singer was a supporter of marco rubio. i don't know exactly who he's going to support. but right now we know who he is against. host: what about the koch brothers? guest: we don't know yet. they have been more on the sidelines in the presidential race. you are seeing -- one of the , which their super pac is the main super pac associated with the coax recently -- kochs recently put a lot of money into the ohio senate race. you are seeing donors talking
along these lines. people are concerned among the republican elite, they are concerned about donald trump's candidacy and his potential impact on races down the ballot. they are moving to protect vulnerable republican senators. host: john is in texas. if you can give $10 million to a candidate like 10 -- ted cruz. ted cruz has a hedge fund manager. he is the son of a congressman from west texas. you can look it up online. he doesn't pay any income taxes, he doesn't pay any property tax. he doesn't pay income tax or property tax or sales tax. texas and the
uppers is hedge fund -- had for -- hedge fund there -- intent -- int: we will hear from gene florida. democrat, what you think? caller: what do i think about were all this money goes? i want to know about who's getting it back. host: what do you mean? caller: all these hedge funds pay and are using their own companies to advertise. host: i'm not following. what do you mean their own companies? caller: they obviously own companies. host: are you asking if they want something in return for the money? caller: no, i'm asking if their companies are getting the money back. the advertising companies that advertise get paid by the super pac's. do they own the company?
i don't think we have of people of examples funding super pac's and then benefiting from the money they put in to the super pac. i think that maybe the question you're asking, whether somehow -- they're companies are ultimately the beneficiaries of some of the spending of the super pac's. we have not seen a lot of examples. there is one firm connected to a ted cruz donor that does a lot of fairly sophisticated data analysis that isn't active in campaigns. host: judy in olympia, washington. independent. caller: i was wondering if you have read the book "dark money" by jane mayer tells about the koch brothers up to the present day. guest: i am reading it right
now. caller: i think every voter in america should read that book it justhey vote because makes you sick to your stomach to know the truth and those koch brothers did everything they could on the face of the earth to keep that book from being published, but she stuck through it and she got it published. it is something that every voter should read. host: your thoughts. guest: very interesting. jane mayer has been one of the first reporters delving deep into the coke family -- koch family and their early role in politics. she did a highly regarded story about the tea party movement and the extent to which the koch brothers, charles and david, their fundraising and spending helped fuel that movement.
there has been a lot of back and forth between her and the koch brothers. i think that her stories -- pushingally ended up charles koch to talk more about his politics and his motivation. you have seen him discuss it a lot more publicly in recent years. i did an interview with him last april and another late last year in which he says, i am all about -- my to defend by positions as a libertarian. i'm a free market person, i believe in limited government and that's why i engage in politics. it is a very interesting -- host: and at the same time, releasing his own book. guest: he did one before, so this is a follow-up. this is about his management philosophy and how he runs his company.
he thinks the way he runs his company can help -- everyone lives better lives. host: we will go to harry in pittsburgh. republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i was going to bring up the koch brothers as well. every time they bring up koch -- made, they forget his money in oil. other statement i have is my wife is a democrat, i'm a republican. i told her to vote for sanders and i'll tell you why. i have neighbors -- i told neighbors to do the same thing. the more money they can spend on the democrat side, the less they will have for a presidential election. if anyone wants to keep giving that kind of money, fine. trump doesn't take that much money. him,s why and supporting so is my wife and a lot of my neighbors. i'm in a democrat city. they voted for obama the first time, but not the second time.
everybody is catching on that things aren't going that great in this country with the democrat party. as far as trump is concerned saying he's a wild card maybe that's what we need. he may be the best president we have or the worst. i will take a chance on him before a socialist and a woman worth $255 million criticizing rich people. host: what you make of his analysis? guest: it's fascinating to me that he's a republican and his wife is a democrat and they both support donald trump. donald trump certainly has managed to appeal to a lot of , particularly working-class folks in former industrial states. i think the people i talk to who supported him, and some were given money, have said they found them refreshing. that they for respect the fact that he speaks his mind, and they respect the fact that he
has been putting his own money into the race. host: what about down ballot? there is a lot of concern, you see it in the papers. trump's success could on balance control. vulnerable senators could lose because of donald trump on the ticket. a republican from minnesota fundraiser saying everything is implied. is a brickwork, the house, potentially the senate. mr. coleman said republican would have to -- republicans would have to decide. if i were me and i were running and trump was across the ticket, i would disavow him. guest: i think some republicans are making that calculation. the previous caller found them very refreshing. other people don't necessarily find -- feel that way. there has been a lot of attention and controversy about his remarks about women for
instance. and there are republicans were very concerned that when, a big part of the electorate, particularly the suburban female voters, will not be supporting -- supporting him and they will have potential trouble. republicans are trying to defend seven seats in states that president obama one both in 2008 and 2012. make somehave to political compilations about how they navigate this very interesting presidential race. host: on the democratic side, this story from the hill newspaper. senator grassley hits back at clinton after she pressured him and criticized him for not taking up the sprinkler nomination. he says the fbi will question her. trouble she's in, i would imagine she would want to change the tone of her campaign. he was referring to a los angeles times story that
indicated an fbi estimation of the private e-mail server she used as secretary of state is entering a final phase that will include interviews with her advisers. the democratic presidential front-runner is poised to criticize grassley during a speech in -- at the university of wisconsin. the two have a contentious history. nebraska.omaha, democrat, you're on the air. caller: i would like to know what the media -- why the media is hesitant to mention hillary clinton's small support donations. they always mention when bernie sanders's -- what bernie sanders small donators give. but not hillary clinton. guest: she has not done as well amongator sanders has small donors, but one of the things when you look at the numbers is that she has improved her performance among small
from 2008, the last time she sought the presidency. so she is making inroads. she is the top fundraiser the election cycle. regardless of party. she has worked very hard to raise money. host: we are talking with fredreka schouten of usa today. the presidential campaign going back the one billion -- going past the $1 billion mark. that is the amount of money raised. what are your questions and comments on this. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002. let me get in also more news about the egyptair plane that was hijacked. bbc is reporting the hijacker has surrendered at the airport in cyprus and the situation there has been peacefully
resolved. that from the papers, bbc reporting that. great falls, montana. independent caller. caller: i was just calling. i heard the last comment about the lady saying why you aren't talking about hillary clinton's small donors donations. i just read the other day about george clooney holding two two the tickets are going for $325,000 apiece. i do not you call that a small donor donation. her ties to wall street, where she is getting all this money for giving speeches that she won't give out her speech information. to me, both parties, including corrupt and were
need somebody like bernie sanders. i am proud to say i am one of the small donors who have been for a donation. every time i hear somebody -- or the media count them out, i get on and i give him $27. i'm 58 years old blue-collar worker. i worked my whole life and bernie sanders is the first in my to represent me whole life. i voted for barack obama, don't get me wrong. in fact, when he was here in great falls, montana. i held a hope sign behind them. but when i found out, when i heard ralph nader say that he was getting more money from wall street than any other candidate, it really upset me.
article, michelle alexander, who wrote about this new jim crow that said neither one of these parties deserve the african-american vote. that bernie sanders is the right man for the job. he should be running as an independent, they should break up both of the big parties. it's just so frustrating to see all of the coverage about donald trump and here's a guy, bernie sanders, who just one six of the last primaries. you go on morning joe who will have a poll for two seconds. host: ok bob, i have to get another calls. here is a tweet from one of our viewers. -- bernie'se is
left version of lying ted. he wins caucuses which require true believers to spend hours for a cause, none of them in november. guest: the caller definitely reflect some of the passions about senator sanders. takes 2700 -- 820 $700 donation before an individual hits the maximum that he or she can give to a candidate. so if someone's giving $27 at a time means that bernie sanders can keep going back to the well. that is the value of the small donor. of passion isort reflected in his ability to succeed in the caucuses. san mateo, california. mary, a democrat. caller: one of your previous scholars asked if she had read dark money. i will ask if she has read clinton cash. guest: i have not yet.
caller: you really should, it is an excellent book. registered a democrat since 1970 which is the first year i was able to vote. in the last 10 years, the democrats representatives around here are such liars that i just cannot support any of them. i'm a trump supporter at this point, i think our country will be in much better shape if we have somebody who understands the implications of nafta and his new trade agreement, the trans-pacific partnership. we have got to make the trade benefit the united states and set of just sucking up other people's products. but the final, they wanted to make is that millions of us have been the military and security clearances. more millions of us have worked for the federal government and i have a top-secret compartmentalized information clearance for years.
if i had done anything that hillary has done, i would be in prison. i think that the democratic party forgets how many millions of us know that. caller: who -- host: who are you supporting? caller: i'm supporting trump. wholeheartedly. he is not for sale to the ". i think -- to the big interests. i find it funny that both parties are not supporting him. host: that is in upward -- a real appeal to vote -- callers we talk to. donald trump doesn't anybody anything. he's not beholden to special interest. guest: that's very much what he says all the time as well. it would be very interesting to generalthis is in the election. at some point, the race gets so expensive, it's very hard to entirely self fund. we we've passed -- host:
avoid past $1 billion. how expensive credit guest. -- get? caller: i think the product -- final price tag on the last presidential race was $3.6 billion. was more than $6 billion for the whole shebang. so it is very expensive. there is a calculation about how much of your money you will put in and frankly, donald trump says he is worth $10 billion. their other estimates and say it's probably far less. we will see how this plays out. and i don't need to sort of question his motives in the -- of what his intention is when it comes time to raise money, but i suspect he will have to ask other people to fund his campaign and we will see how much of it is small donors, how much the establishment that seems to dislike him so much now to back him. host: if you are mentioned clinton cash, the book written
about how and why foreign governor and business -- foreign government and businesses made hillary and bill clinton rich. we covered the book and the author. you can go to c-span.org to learn more about the book. mike in north carolina, republican. caller: good morning, ladies. i am a republican at least for today. i am not a trump supporter, at least not yet. although i am being question that direction by simple reality. --e is my question for fred .our --for fredreka schouten any of the issues you bring about mr. trump and his issues -- what he said about women, it's fair. it's fair game. he's a presidential candidate and the gloves are off and i think we need to know who these people are to the best of our abilities. what i find troubling and a lot of republicans and conservatives
do consistent refine troubling is what we think is a double standard. i'd like you to comment on, do you think there is one? and how do you feel about what we think is maybe a lack of interest in bill clinton's behavior? and bill clinton is it fair game as well because they are tied -- he is tied to hillary. to me and many other conservatives, she has run cover for him. and since we will talk about a war on women. why aren't we talking about his behavior, her enabling of it and her covering it up? that's my question, thank you ladies. guest: i think it's interesting. as this race goes on, particularly with mr. trump is the front runner, i think he will be raising that question ,ore and there will probably be
i anticipate there will be more discussion as we swing into the general election. of course, there is also the question that hillary clinton is not bill clinton and to what hisnt do you delve into well-known history when you are covering her as the candidate. i actually was here for the impeachment and cover that. it was well covered, what happened to the monica lewinsky case. i think right now, people are focused on the candidates in front of us. host: we will go to florida, don, independent. caller: hi ladies. good morning. question is, i noticed a lot of countries around the world have labor parties. because it's always what the price of labor. all the major problems in this businessescaused by
trying to drive down the price of labor. we have got business outspend labor 60 to one. doesn't that mean for 60 politicians, labor buys one. thank you. i think that you have traditionally seen an american elections that sort of battle between business and labor. with much of the labor unions supporting democrats and will again, will be out there in force trying to elect a democrat this cycle. we have talked about before, what is sort of interesting in this cycle -- cycle is a division in the republican party. groups so far,s -- not waiting in
to support the front-runner. i'm not sure if i'm being terribly responsive here, we don't have a traditional labour party, but we have traditionally have had organized labor supporting democrats. host: you have read about the supreme court nomination battle .aying out in the senate races we have one conservative legal group who he you wrote about now airing ads in states where there for theleground states senate. we want to show our viewers what the judicial crisis network put together in this ad in iowa, new hampshire, colorado and
indiana. [video clip] obama and his liberal allies have been working hard to paint garland is a moderate to the supreme court. but there is no painting over the troop -- truth. he would be the tie-breaking vote. the second amendment right to keep in their arms, got it. partial-birth abortions, legalized.
unaccountable agencies like the epa, unleashed. how do we know? we have seen garland record and it is not moderate. he is demonstrated his strong hostility to gun rights. he even sided with the federal government on keeping personal information's on anyone who purchases a gun. unaccountable agencies at the dozen" aces, he sided with the agency every time. according to the new york times, if -- as judge garland is concerned, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal supreme court
in 50 years. moderate? nice chat -- nice try. this playing in district of columbia and other areas to target senators. you have this majority pack tied to democratic leader harry reid airing a tv ad in new hampshire that ties republican senator kelly ayotte to donald trump.
http://twitter.com/cspanwj -- [video clip] senator kelly ayotte is there to help donald trump. they have joined party bosses in considering -- ignoring the constitution. newspapers call ayotte's actions appalling, wrong and disappointing. >> delay, delay, delay. kelly ayotte, ignoring the constitution and not doing her job. host: what is your reporting on this? guest: it's interesting. -- the the sort of presidential race is spilling into the supreme court race which is spilling into senate races. you saw this line, as soon as , senator a vacancy
harry reid, the minority leader, immediately, as soon as republican said we will not have a vote or even consider someone to replace korea, harry reid -- replace scalia, harry relieved -- harry reid released saying they are waiting on president trump. they are playing on the concerns that the independent and democratic voters have on donald trump and time that to the supreme court. if merrick garland were confirmed, you have a 5-4 court, more liberal majority on the court. his view is as pretty moderate, but you would have five people who were appointed by democrats. and that's why we are seeing so much advertising early on. the judicial crisis network has spent more than $4 million on advertising to target vulnerable thetors and to strengthen
spine of republican senators in key states because it means a change of records for a very long time. host: what of those key states as illinois were senator mark kirk debt -- is up for reelection. he will meet with merrick garland today on capitol hill. this from the judiciary chairman, chuck grassley of iowa saying democrats could force a vote on the nominee. he said in a town hall, democrats could use a maneuver known as motion to discharge to move the nomination out of the committee and onto the senate floor. republicans can stop them there. the maneuver would be subject to debate. setting up a procedural path that could require city votes to move forward. that would be tough for the 46 member democratic caucus, but could act as a test vote showing where senator stand on the nomination. laurel, maryland, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning.
comment and a bit of a in disguise. one thing i'm wondering with the election on the democratic side is, we have seen hillary is winning the african-american vote all around. i'm wondering how that is, considering if you look at their record, bernie is the only one out of the entire presidential spread that i'm aware of with any history of civil rights activism and yet somehow, hillary is the one who is winning more of the reputation in that regard and earning more goodwill from the african american community. guest: i think secretary clinton would say that she has a record of civil rights and has worked very hard over the years both as issues lawyer on these and keep in mind, secretary clinton has been in politics and around politics for a very long time, has very deep ties to a lot of traditional democrat -- democratic situate these.
-- democratic constituencies. there are some exit polls in some of the states that show bernie sanders doing well among young african-americans, a generational gap sort of seems to be cut across some racial and ethnic lines as well. host: stephen pennsylvania, a republican. good morning. caller: i would like to make a comment. i am retired, i'm a white man. i was no later mechanic for 25 years. theve probably been to half buildings in the city your been in. i grew up in washington dc. i live in pennsylvania now. what i want to tell you is what i observed, i got to -- i worked construction in 1980. i worked my way into the maintenance and service there.
years later, i had to come back and take it construction job in maybe the mid-90's. the thing i noticed. theof a sudden on construction jobs, 18 story buildings in rosslyn, virginia, downtown washington, all over. .ll the hispanics i'm standing there thinking, i grew up in a world, i remedy civil rights act, i read the washington post every day. and i'm sitting around and i'm thinking, we went to all this help with's -- hell with civil rights and it would try to be objective and grew up thinking this is horrible, these young black guys, they need a shot now to make a better country. they need the good jobs now. they didn't have the good jobs in the 40's and 50's and xts. so what did we do? we open the
border and i come back to the job. there's so many hispanics and mexicans on the jobs serving tacos on the truck wagon at lunchtime. host: steve, we're running out of time. caller: why does the , whyan-american community would they support hillary clinton and an open border? host: we got to leave it there. guest: it's interesting. i think we will have this debate play out more. , it's anlinton interesting debate happening among democrats on the question of immigration. i think both hillary clinton and supportanders very much sort of overhauling the current immigration system we have rid you have seen in the past, secretary clinton had some reservations about extending
driver's licenses for instance in new york to people who were not documented. it's an adjusting debate. an interesting debate. i don't know if i have a neat answer for your caller. i think it speaks to the underlying tensions and divides. host: it's a call we have heard before expressed about immigration proposals need -- mean loss of jobs are african-americans. we have to leave it there, thank with usaoining us today. follow her reporting on their website and on twitter. thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will turn our attention -- our attention to age discrimination. you can file an age determination case in most states with the equal employment opportunity commission within 300 days of the alleged to scrimmage reaction. with some it is 180 days.
we will talk with laurie mccann, an attorney with aarp. fred hiatt, the editor of the editorial page on the washington post will talk with us about their sit down donald trump. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to light with the c-span series landmark cases. our 12 part series explores real-life stories of constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said the constitution is a political document and sets a political structure. it's also a law.
if it's a law, we of the courts to tell the means. >> the fact it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it's exactly how you don't want to do it. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? this record set it should make the decision -- the supreme court set it should make the decision. >> we will look at scott b sanford tonight at 10:00 eastern. >> this is my first election i will be participating in. i think it's important to be involved, especially with out and -- without an incumbent. i'd a friend who went to the polls on tuesday and said it was the most crowded it ever been.
>> the reason why had decided to vote in this primary election is because this election season has probably for most people been the most captivating ever. i feel like it's important to be represented in the election process. >> i'm voting in the selection because with the extreme racial disparity in this country and economic inequality, it is essential that we choose a president who will represent all of america. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome to our table laurie mccann, the senior attorney for the aarp foundation here to talk about age discrimination. how do you define it? the federal age discrimination in employment act defines it as an adverse
employment decision against people age 40 and over. but age discrimination can occur at any age. the premise of age discrimination protection is that everyone has the right to be judged based on their ability to do the job or their potential to do a job and they should not be judged based on an arbitrary number like their age. so while the federal law defines it as age 40 and over, many states have actually prohibited it at any age. the federal congress decided, it's true, it occurs far more frequently against older people. so they made this decision to define it as 40 and over. host: when and why did congress make this decision on this law? quicklye are approaching the 50th anniversary of the age discrimination in employment act. it was enacted in 1967. it was in response to rampant age discrimination in hiring.
it was very common for employers to have job advertisements that 35. people 25 to people over 35 were not even able to apply. types in response to that of rampant ages can nation that congress enacted the aba. host: was it pretty clear cut them versus now? you say the rats running, don't bother to apply -- you say they had ads running. act, theior to the discrimination was blatant. jobd have these age-based advertisements and mandatory retirement was the rule. casesd to retire in most by age 65, if not earlier. so when the age discrimination in employment act was enacted, it protected people ages 40 to
65. in 1978 conga --, congress decided to raise the protective age to 70 and 1986, the age cap was removed altogether. america, theye in can continue to work as long as they want to and as long as they are able to. host: what's the situation now? is ages commission happening frequently? guest: it is, unfortunately. the most blinged ways are a thing of a past. see more subtle discrimination. so age-based hiring ads are gone, but we often see maximum years of experience criteria for jobs. hiring discrimination, we believe is one of the most common types of discrimination. but we don't know how much is out there because especially in present day hiring practices, you apply online. you may send in a resume and you never hear back, so you may have
a gut feeling or a hunch that your age had something to do with it, but the fact that you are not getting an interview. but you don't have any proof to go on and you are not going to follow charge with the equal employment opportunity commission. host: what was the impact of the recession? guest: charges went through the roof as they always do when the economy goes down. --rges with ages commission with age discrimination go up. employers have knee-jerk reactions when they need to cut costs. they focus on older workers. for a couple of reasons. one, the perception that they cost more which aarp has done studies to show that that cost differential is very small, if at all and is offset by the values older workers bring to the job. but also, the stereotypes about
older workers come into play when an employer has to reduce workforce and cut costs. if they -- they say we need to be more productive. or if they need to change and adopt more technology. the stereotype that older works -- older workers are changed person can't learn new technology comes to play. older workers are always very vulnerable when this happens. int: you might be interested what laurie mccann wrote in the new york times recently. in most states, to bring your case to legal attention under the federal age discrimination in employment act. you must file a charge with the equal employment opportunity commission within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory action. in some states, it is 180 days. guest: it is important to know your rights under the federal
age discrimination in employment act. -- if feel that you you've noticed some actions that might suggest that you are discriminated against. we recommend that you keep your record. who said what and who else might've heard it. when there is unequivocal notice that you are being terminated or you didn't get a promotion or you were denied training, that clock starts to run on that day and you need to be aware that if you want to take legal action, you need to file the charge or 180 days,0 depending on what state you are employed in. host: we are showing our viewers the tips you put together about age discrimination, knowing your legal deadlines. that's what are talking about. also be your own advocate and there is strength in numbers. why do you put that on their? guest: when it comes to being your own advocate, the eeoc
receives thousands of charges of age discrimination. but i always tell our members who call-in, it is the squeaky wheel that gets the attention. beenan investigator has assigned to your charge, i recommend you call them every couple of weeks and say how the investigation going. colleague,that my john smith, heard my supervisor asked me, don't you want to spend more time with your grandchildren. have you followed up with him? have you called him about that conversation? just check in every once in a while to make sure the investigation is proceeding and that they are not just accepting the employer's expert nation, but they are -- explanation, but they are following up on leads you have given them. host: i'm sure our callers will have questions. herndon,to nate in virginia. democrat, you are on the air. caller: i'd like your guests to address age discrimination, not
so much against those of 40 years of age and older, but those of 30 years of age and younger. graduatecent college and i and many of my friends find ourselves with student debt, we find ourselves with new degrees which we have been told would allow us to achieve the american dream, but time and again, i and other people that i know are told that we are not hire a bull because we -- hire able because of experience. guest: thank you, nathan for the question. before, although the federal age discrimination and employment act only -- discrimination in employment act only covers 40 and older. include any age determination. my device to you would be the
same i give to older workers. , you're understand saying your lack of experience is being held against you. so i would be prepared for those type of weston's in an interview and be ready to counter them -- questions in an interview. although i haven't had years in the workforce. while at college i did this and that and i've had this volunteer experience and i'm willing to learn. iowa's tell people, be prepared for those tough questions. -- i always tell people, be prepared for those tough questions. be aware of the stereotypes for your group and be prepared with information that this -- suggests that you are well and those are just stereotypes. host: between from our viewers saying don't company's have to make substantial investments in new hires? why should they hire someone in -- that is older? guest: that is a good question
but it goes into an assumption about older workers. older workers tend to be more loyal and stay with companies for longer time. a minutessumption that somebody becomes eligible for retirement that they will retire. continue towant to work past what would be considered normal retirement age, either because their 401(k) took huge hits during the recession, so they need money for their future retirement. or they need the money now. older workers have kids in college, they need to pay the tuition and many people just love to work and continue to get inspired by working with people of all ages and have no interest in retiring. an assumption that just because you turn age 65, but you are heading out the door. host: a democrat in center harbor, new hampshire. good morning, barry. good morning.
i was an airline pilot forced to which by the age 60 rule now is the age 65 rule. that rule was changed and i was 66. once you were out the door, you could not come back. the federal government continues to discriminate on age in a couple of ways with pilots, also probably with police officers. if you want a job as a pilot working for ice. they will not hire you over a certain age. one of the requirements is that you must be able to qualify for a pension with 20 years of service. by the time you're 56 or 57. into a jobnot get with ice when i was in my 40's, because i was too old. i think especially with airline pilots, we have to take a physical exam and have our skills tested every six months.
this is one of the last vestiges of age discrimination which is out there. if i had been out there for -- and been able to work, i would've been able to pay a substantial amount of taxes, rather than having to live off of social security. i think you get the picture here, i will let you -- at the time when we were fighting to raise the age from 60 to 65, we really didn't get much help from the aarp. host: your response. guest: i'm surprised to hear that. theaarp strongly opposed faa age 60 rule and actually supported raising it to 65. our position would be it should be eliminated altogether, because we believe there are better ways to assess someone's ability to fly an airplane, rather than that arbitrary age. we have filed several amicus curiae briefs opposing the faa rule and also, we are involved
in cases that have kept people cockpitng in the because of the faa age 60 rule. same with police and maximum hiringr and mandatory retirement ages. we believe that individual testing of people's abilities to do a job is a far better way to assess whether or not they could be a capable pilot or police officer or firefighter. unhealthy, be a very overweight 35 euros would be far more game -- far more dangerous to the public than a fit 67-year-old. we have seen it in the news, time and time again that a lot of the pilots who safely land airplanes and very date -- in very dangerous situations tend to be the more experienced pilots. we will continue to advocate on behalf of older pilots, as well as other workers who still face
mandatory retirement, despite the lifting of the age for most people in 1986. laurie mccann is our guest. a senior attorney at the aarp foundation. she has been there for 24 years. we are taking your questions and comments about age discrimination in the workplace. on twitter, they want to know how many percentage of age termination cases are dismissed. guest: far too many is my guess. eeocharges filed with the foreither considered to be cause or not for cause. we believe too many are quickly dismissed by the agency because of understaffing and other issues. that gets back to my conversation earlier to say, don't let that happen to you, make sure that you provide them with all of the information that
they need to make a thorough investigation, because they do. they need your help. it is up to you to be a strong advocate for yourself as possible. host: claims of age bias have been on the rise, but the standard of proof is high. explain what happens when you go to file your charge of age discrimination with the agency. a charge ofu file discrimination with the equal employment opportunity commission and then they investigate the charge. as i just said, they will either find cause or no cause. regardless of what their finding lake --imely find filing that charge, you have protected your right to go into federal court if you want to try and prove age discrimination. even if the equal employment opportunity commission says they do not see evidence, that does not stop you from going forward in court.
so once you file the charge with the eeoc, you have to wait at least 60 days to file the charge and if the eeoc does complete their investigation and gives you a cause or no cause determination, your time limit after receiving the notice that their vendor their investigation is 90 days to file the charge with federal courts. , it is yourin court job, you have the burden of proof to prove you are discriminated based on age. so you need to say i was in the protective age category, i suffered an adverse employment decision so i was not hired, i was terminated. i was qualified for the job i was terminated from or the job you applied to. not only did i not at the position or that i lost a position, but that somebody younger, who was less qualified got the position instead of me.
then the employer only has to come forward with what is called a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the decision. it was notl say, no, age, it was for example, performance. says -- hasployee the opportunity to disprove their explanation. that's when i come forward and say, the person you did the job was far less qualified or i had really wonderful performance reviews for years and had a sudden drop in performance, which courts view is very suspicious. this is where you want to bring in any evidence of age-related boss said it your need young blood or energy. watch what is spend more time with your grandchildren? there is really a smoking gun piece of evidence. you never read -- you really
have someone who says you're too old for the jobs were letting you go in hiring someone else. that is really there. the courts allow you to stick with circumstantial evidence to make your case of age discrimination. host: we will go to date city, florida. patricia on our line for democrats. caller: good morning and thank you for taking out my call. this is a very dark street we've been going on for years and years. since the recession, it has magnified. there is a site over 50 and out of work. the people posting are still posting for a site that is close in essence since 2011 or 2012 if i remark correctly. people with worlds of experience, different types of jobs. they are just not even acknowledged and one of the last interviews i had was a simple data entry in a law firm. i sat with quattro attorneys --
.uattro -- four attorneys they rejected me there. they told me i would be bored, they told me there was no room for me to grow. they told me that there were no health benefits at that time. there was nothing. just a simple data entry position. one of the main reasons i applied for it was to get a foothold in a different state, other than where my training comes from originally which was new york. i came away from that and i thought to myself, my god. what is his world come to today. we who were always taught to be proactive, what we do today? this is a very dark street. the statute for any state or even the federal government for that matter, they need to be updated because this is a crisis in this country. there are people who want to work. what do we do? guest: thank you for the
question. it raises a very important issue and one of the ones that aarp foundation is fighting for is what you describe is the problem of what employers sometimes consider overqualified workers. so you're invested interested in a position, but they just assume that you will be bored in the position because your experience is greater than what's required for the job. would you describe is, there are not many -- there are a myriad of reasons why you may be interested. you might be trying a new type of job with a new skill set. you may have to relocate and in most cases, you just need the job to pay the bills. handyers often just out of reject these applications because of the assumption that if you are overqualified, you won't be happy there.
you will leave soon thereafter. the caller who is raising the question about discrimination against younger workers. you need to be prepared to say, i don't need health insurance as i have health insurance from a previous employer. i am genuinely interested in this position. i see myself staying here for a while. i look forward to learning from it as akers and i view very exciting development in my career. right, that the age discrimination in employment act does need to be strengthened . aarp is working hard. we are currently trying to urge the enactment of the protecting older workers against discrimination act. representative mark kirk from and ais, a republican democrat from pennsylvania are
helping us with this legislation. to provet is too hard discrimination and far more harder to prove age discrimination than any other forms. the protectingf older workers against discrimination act is to level the playing field, so there is no more -- it is no more harder for ages from a nation than others to get other types. janet -- caller: i have a comment and a question. i am a member of aarp and have been since i was old enough to to be a member. i am a member, my husband is also a member. i just happen to flip on c-span this morning. i like to see which are talking about. lady, ilike to ask the don't what her name is. host: laurie mccann.
caller: laurie mccann, an attorney for aarp. what, i think to when obama was running for president, and aarp came out in support of obama. and then they denied having done just wonder if aarp is supporting someone this time, because i probably don't want to vote for that person, because i did not vote for obama, and disaster has been a host. host: laurie mccann is with the aarp foundation. there is a distinction in gues.: guest: there is a distinction. arm ofthe charitable
aarp. aarp is not partisan. not support obama and we will not be supporting any candidate in this election as well. what we try to do is educate our members on the issues and try to get the candidates to talk to the issues that are important to our members during the campaign so our members can make a more educated decision when deciding who to support election. host: let's go to a caller from dearborn, michigan. democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question commitment first of all i heard a gentleman talking about pilots. ago thatr a few years i heard a pilot on this program talking about his salary being
about $19,000 a year. they don't make great money, for one thing. thing, like the age discrimination, there is more than one person that has spoken to me and told me they went to apply for a job and the company did not want to hire them so the way they turn them away so they cannot get charged with age discrimination as they say you are overqualified. guest: that is true. i just addressed whether that is a big problem. assume thatill older workers overqualified for the position and therefore would not be a good fit. be alieve that that can code word for age discrimination, and it is too easy of a way, as you say, to get away with age discrimination. what we think should happen is during an interview if an employer has concerns about whether or not i can -- a
candidate will stay to justify the training, those questions should be asked of candidates of every age. the 25-year-old should be asked those questions as well as the 55 euros. you compare the two answers because often the 25-year-old is likely to have more jobs in the next five years than the 55-year-old. if the employer has objective evidence that that person has over coldfusion and it may be a .roblem, that is one thing assume that will not make a good fit for the position, that could be discrimination and should not be tolerated. host: republican line you geneva, florida. good morning. i wanted to share a
personal experience i had. i was a supervisor with the state agency, and i witnessed age discrimination myself. we interviewed for a position and i happened to know one of the applicants. he happened to be the best person qualified for the job, and he was 59 years old. when i sat down with the manager was,asked me who my choice and i gave his name. the manager said he is too old. contacted my friend and i said this is the deal, and i said if you want to pursuant, like filing a grievance, because he was a state employee in another agency, and he said no, i do not want to do it.
did not want to work for somebody who discriminated against him. problem, and int am not generally a person who is in favor of quotas. but like you said, these cat answers of you are underqualified or overqualified, those are just ways of blowing people off. host: quotas? guest: i applaud you for recognizing that the supervisors comment was discriminatory and free like the candidate no. your friends response is .ctually quite common earlier we asked how common is -- how commonand
is aged, nation, but the number reported to aarp is just the two of the iceberg, because so many people, like your friend, and he will not file a charge. they would rather spend their time and their energy focusing on the job search rather than filing a charge with the equal employment opportunity commission. that is what the reasons we think it is underreported. host: how long can it take for the oc to resolve all the claims? guest: it takes a long time. the aarp foundation is involved in a number of lawsuits were the charges are still pending with the eeoc, and we are preparing to go forward in court, rather than wait for the investigation to be completed. what's you file in court, it takes years. and employers will often delay ,s long as possible, both paper and trying to delay the lawsuit.
it is time intensive and emotionally draining. a lot of people decide not to go forward. host: who pays lawyer fees? guest: it depends on your relationship with your attorneys. some attorneys will take a case on a contingency fee basis. the not charge any money up front, but if you prevail they take a portion of what you win in the lawsuit. the asian nation employment act is what is called a make whole statute. the goal is to put you in a position you would have been in if you have not been discriminated against any lost wages, and he lost benefits. no compensatory or punitive damage legislation in this act as there are in the
title vii legislation pieces. there is no potential for huge punitive damages. host: nathan, connecticut, democrat line. you for c-span, and greta you are doing an outstanding job as usual. i was very impressed with mark's call and experience. my experience is, and i was an affirmative action committee chairman for my state for many years, when i was in college in the 1960's my art professor, who was the finest portrait painter in the country, his name was deand color, -- name was was forced he to retire. he lived until 1992. by university was breaking the law, is that correct?
in 1967, it only protected people up to aged 65. the eighth- in 1968 cap was increased to 70 years old. age cap wasthe the root of all together. for a long time, even after mandatory retirement was eliminated, tenured staff members could be mandatory retired. he may have followed under the exception. that exception has been universities are still allowed to offer age-based early-retirement incentives to tenured faculty members.
you could say we will give 25 thousand dollars if you retire, but you have to retire by age 70 to get the incentive. those types of age base early retirement incentives are unlawful for everyone else in faculty but for tenured members, universities are allowed to offer those. host: a couple more calls. krista in massachusetts. independent line. caller: hello. i was just calling because i agreed with the pilot to called earlier about the age limits. i have a dentist and i know a lot of the federal jobs for professionals like me are restricted. agecannot be age -- over 42, which is ludicrous because sometimes you are much more skilled as you get older. so to discriminate is really ludicrous.
also been self-employed, which was absolutely wonderful, but i lost my business because of discrimination by a state licensing board. it is extremely hard for people to move to other states in my profession, so if anyone issues with -- so i have a lot of issues with that. host: we will leave that there and you will get to her story after we hear from walter, on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to challenge her on a comment she had made. i have been on a number of forces, and we looked into whether the person was a good fit for a job.
tht: were you following at? it is difficult to hear you. caller: one there was a legitimate reason to bypass someone who was 65? they might have then as equally qualified. if what you are saying is that the 65-year-old might be only qualified as the 55-year-old, i totally agree. that was my flight earlier. age is just a number and there are far better ways to assess an
individual ability. and i agree with the previous caller that discrimination is ludicrous, and that is why we fight it hard every day. you're are right, there are lots of federal jobs, in federal prisons, in law enforcement positions. if you want aindividual ability. and i agree with the previous caller dentist position in a federal prison, or some of these mandatory retirement ages and maximum hiring asia still opposes the caps on ages for pilots, we oppose the cap on those types of jobs as well, for the same reason. there are other ways to assess someone's ability. everyone should have the right their ability on to do a job based on their qualifications and not what year they were born. host: independent color, houston, texas. relay my wanted to experience with the eeoc.
i had filed a discrimination charge based on age. i had been with this company for two thirds of my life. they came out with a charge that i was not performing my duties which i had been doing for the last 20 years and i filed a discrimination charge, eeoc came back and said that they could discriminatory practices, but they were not siding with the company. fileoffered me a chance to suit against the company, which meant that i would have to spend my money in order to resolve this, which i did not have. i really do not have any faith in the commission. guest: unfortunately, the number of cases that the eeoc can bring
in relation to the number of charges of discrimination that they receive is very small. keep in mind, they receive thousands of charges of age discrimination, they also enforce title vii of the civil rights act and the americans with disabilities act. they do have a lot on their plate. one of the things aarp tries to do is educate our members so they are aware of that, you should not expect that the eeoc is going to take your case. they can, and they do, and they try to focus on cases that will but it can beact, just devastating if you think that the agency is going to take your case on your behalf to find out that they are not, because i agree with you. it is a very expensive thing to bring these cases, not only in terms of wanted terry, but also
time and emotions as well. it is a serious problem. more you can find information on aarp's website. you can follow the foundation on twitter. thank you laurie mccann for the conversation. guest: pleasure to be here. host: when we come back we will talk with fred hiatt, the editor of the washington post editorial page. we will be right back. ♪ >> the media teaches us that democrats and republicans are supposed to be at all to each other. i think that people need to to beize that we need respectful towards each other,
and we need to understand that senators are respectful towards each other. that will become conducive to getting policy. instead of acrimony and vitriol. >> the people we see on television and c-span are real people. president obama, he is a real person dealing with real things. i thought that was interesting. top high school students from around the country attending the 54th annual senate youth program talk to us about their experiences with the weeklong government and leadership program, plus there plans for the future. they met with members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. loved the insight he gave us about being the outside us and reporting back to
the electorate about going on in our government >> risk in her was the most diverse -- ruth bader ginsburg with the most influential person i met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. toi think it is important the politician puts google in washington or their eyes on a goal that, and determined to meet that goal instead of sacrificing in the light of money. >> we need to get back to respecting all americans to matter what their background, and to making this country and respectable ways for people to give their opinions. >> washington journal continues. host: fred hiatt at our table this morning, here to talk about your interview with mr. trump last week. how did it come about?
-- howicted on schedule did it get on your schedule? the majornvited , and hiss to come in spokeswoman has been saying for a long time that he would like to do it. just before we did, monday?said how about he is the first one to accept our invitation. host: what were the ground rules? guest: on the record, just my editorial board, we are very separate from the new side. -- news side. what i said is we would like an interview that focuses more on substance than on the horse race. and we would like it to be on the record, and that was
something they were fine with. host: and there was not a conversation about it should be on or off the record? guest: there was a conversation, but there was no dispute if they were happy to be on the record. host: and it was the editorial team in the room. it was in the room for donald trump's campaign? guest: he was there with his spokeswoman and campaign manager . there might have been one other, but i think that was it. host: he met with you for more than an hour. there is an audio recording. why not cameras? guest: that is a good question. my video team would like to know the same thing. [laughter] we just had a couple of days to set it up, we do not think about it too much. sometimes i think video can get in the way, as well as being useful.
there was no great ideological reason, we just ended up doing it this way. host: you asked several questions yourself. overall what did you make of his interest to the questions? guest: first of all, i give him credit for coming in will -- on the has been editorial page we have been very critical of him and have had some have things to say. that is why we wanted to give him a chance to address our concerns on the record. and he did, and the tone of the conversation is great and very cordial and polite. i do not know if you remember when ben carson endorsed tr there are two different tribes, when you talk to them versus us the relish.
i can see why he has an impression. that editorial after your meeting, you wrote that unfortunately the visit provided no reassurance regarding his fitness for the presidency. i am not a radical person, he told us as he was leaving, but his answers left little doubt how radical your risk the nation would be taking in entrusting the white house to him. why did you write that? guest: i think he would be a huge risk for the country. i think he is a risk to our democratic system on many levels. , to the extenth policy can be th learned, we disagree with a lot of those. host: your critical of his foreign-policy agenda as well .
there were comments he made a couple of times about the role of nato in this country. this was the or the attacks in brussels i very next day. but he has tweeted out and said the same things he said in that washington post meeting. i want to play for you a little of the exchange you had on this issue. >> i see nato as a good thing to have. i look at the ukraine situation ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it is other countries in nato, and yet we're doing all of the lifting. i say why is germany not dealing with this? why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of ukraine are not dealing with this? why are we always the one that war,ading the third world
potentially? i think the concept of nato is good, but i do think that the united states has to have some help. pay hundreds of billions of dollars every year into other countries that are technically wealthier than we are. , weany, japan, south korea spend billions of dollars on saudi arabia, and have nothing for it. and i say why? wouldd go in and i structure a much different deal with them. it would be a much better deal. when you look at the kind of money our countries losing, we cannot afford to do this. host: what did you make of his answer? guest: i think he is wrong on
just about every level. in one sense, the complaints about our lives is not different from what americans have been saying for decades. there are burdens to being the leader of the free world. one of those burdens always dealing like you are paying more than your fair share. the united states has been fighting with germany over this forever, with japan, with france, it is natural. but i think you listen to the , he'sty of what he said questioning more than the burden sharing. he is questioning the u.s. being a leader in the world. the would it mean for dollar to be the international currency? it is a very different, radical new of he would hold back, strikeout when he felt we were
under attack, but otherwise pull in and i think it's threatens the system that has more or less kept the peace for 70 years and allowed europe antiseizure to become prosperous over the last half-century in a very risky way. host: you write in your column u.s. leadership matters today just as it did after world war ii. guest: there were a lot of people than also who did not think we should go to war, and then afterwards were people who said why are we doing the marshall plan, isn't it time to come home? i have we already spend a lot saving them? the marshall plan turned out to be a great investment, not only e, but for the united states. criticism of
donald trump foreign policy, saying it is dangerous babbling for policy. then you have the wall street journal this morning with their editorial. the republicans would accelerate under retreat begun on -- president obama. critical ofe been president obama in some respects, particularly a retreat from the middle east, which i think has not had good results. president obama has also talked about nationbuilding at home. they do not think he has made the case to the american people as a president should why u.s. leadership is important. , obama ise comparison fundamentally still committed to u.s. alliances and he has worked
with europe and china and others to come up with a climate change treaty. he has tried to negotiate a even though i might differ with some of his policies, he is an internationalist. in u.s.believe leadership there is more that separates them that unites them. host: let's get some calls. democrat, from nevada. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very happy that we have c-span. what a wonderful program. thank you, sir for being a part of it. i am a retired political science teacher. i have a simple question. alleges that there are two donald trump assuming that mr. carson is correct, i
would like to know how the american people are supposed to know which donald trump will show up in the war room when we have a crisis with great pressure on it, and the president has to make a decision about the use of military power. how do we know which one? will it be the bombastic donald trump, or the relaxed conversational tone of the interview station? how will the american people know how this man will react in the most important role in president has? >> that is a great question. i guess my answer would be there are not two donald trump's. there is one donald trump and he for the spread the one who says i would like to smash that protesters face in, or in the good old days he would taken out of your
on a stretcher, that is donald trump. the fact that he can then enter an editorial boardroom and speak in a different tone of voice, my mind does not negate the damage that that kind of campaigning dust and has done. course, does not take away the fact that they are the same person. unknownthe risk and the that you ask about of what would happen when he goes into the war room, i think that is a good question. host: you and others from the editorial board repeatedly asked him about condoning violence and the distinction he is try to make. what did you think about the answers he gave you? guest: if you look at the transcript for listen, you will see that keeps coming back to the idea that these protesters are terrible people.
up,e once were getting beat or who he wishes would get beaten up. theyep coming back and say might be terrible people, i am not granting one way or the other, but does that excuse condoning the violence, and if you offer to pay their legal fees, are you not condoning the violence? he never really answers the question. he just coming back to the idea that they are terrible people. i would say in a democratic is am, the right response protesters disrupted is let the police handed, that handle it, not to threaten violence. host: we're talking about the washington post interview with donald trump. he sat down with them for more than an hour. timeser gave the new york interview about
his foreign-policy. a lot in the paper following up on those conversations about donald trump and his vision for this country if he were to win the nomination. we are taking your questions and comments about that as well as other campaign news. we go to my vermont, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my comment. regard to mr. trump's ability to meet the president, i am 58 years old. i have three children and four grandchildren. i will probably have more grandchildren coming my way. what i see here in the past, not just mr. obama but mr. bush and mr. clinton, the baby boomer
that startedere after george bush senior, we have tried this. this type of leadership. terrorist attracts were would mr. clinton was there -- attacks were when mr. clinton was there with mr. bush. havee continuing to attacks all over the world now. that wehink it is time might want to try a different type of leadership in this country. host: would you point to? for me, mr. trump is an excellent choice, i believe. of course, being from vermont,
and mr. sanders, outstanding intlemen, i must tell you, just want him for my children particularly, because i will not be distressed one way or the other. i think there is an thinktandable tendency to we have a lot of problems, we have been fighting al qaeda now for 15 years or 20 years and there are still terrorists out so let's try something lately go outside the box. i can understand the temptation, i think it is a risky one because i think these problems really are difficult, and if you go back through history, there is no president has ever come
out of a term with a perfect record. there is always successes and failures. bush and obama are quite different people one from another. it is true they are all someoneans, but saying who has never been involved in does not know much about the is likely to produce more problems, not fewer. i think there is a danger in the rather provoked bernie sanders and donald trump were constantly talking about how terrible things are in the country is run by losers and everybody is going backwards. it overstates how terrible things are, things in the united states are not best terrible, and we are not a poor country
compared to other countries as trump would say. it leads to risk taking, which in the end could leave us a lot even though ing understand why people are dissatisfied with the current political situation. host: they are also looking for somebody who quote, tells it like it is. this is something you saw in many supporters in these primary caucuses. people who vote for him say it is because he tells it like it is. on one level that is understandable. we are tired of scripted politicians and politicians to sound funny when they talk. hand, a lot ofr what trump says is not true. you remember a few months ago, he was a thousands of muslims had celebrated after 9/11.
that this was in new jersey, in the united states. it was false. it was proved to be false. but he kept saying it. i think there is a difference beween being willing to insulting, and sounding spontaneous, and telling it like it is. those things are not necessarily the same. host: independent line from alabama. you're next. caller: good morning. i think maybe the media keeps looking into character flaws and problems with the candidates, and i think the biggest problem is they are all politicians. money and influence are basically the rule. situation, wee keep hearing numbers on that. find this to
out. essentially, it is an 80% default right now. the fall are not paying. people say it is a great plan, which need to execute it better. i think people are getting tired statuspoliticians quo. sanders was a draft dodger whose family was rescued in germany by american blood. now he is a socialist. how in the world is that not the story of the day that he gets that support in a free country? guest: there's a lot wrapped up in question. i think the health care is a good example of why things are difficult. washington is very divided these days.
fines and the old days my have been result with some compromise , but they have become battles to the death. you obamacare has been pretty -- i thinkl obamacare has been pretty successful in bending the cost curve, making health-care expenses slow. but it was never going to be a solution to every problem. because republicans and democrats in washington have to use every battle to fund raise than two look forward to the next election, the singular presented in apocalyptic terms. where peopleuation are either disappointed that it did not turn out to be this great savior, or they look at obamacare is the cause of
everything that is wrong. i think both are exaggerations. host: democrat line, good morning. c-span andnk you for for the commentary. the bookenjoy festivals and the many kinds of tomentary that comes forward elevate and thomas. this gentleman is a very reasoned and seasoned journalist. i think him for his service in that role. relates tot as it this dichotomy that is happening in our country right now, i think this is years in the making, where we now have a lived -- i amas almost 60. i have a mother that is in her 90's. i am a black american, my husband is a physician. i have two who are in medical school.
we are not a common story that has been promoted on television about black families. a have an america that is diverse america, and international and integrated america. reachingourse is what this dichotomy right now. south lived in north and and internationally, i consider myself an appreciative person of the world economy. when we talk about donald trump, himselfo is promoting in a reality-based media with twitter and the dynamic newspapers losing their , myorial selections
question to the journalists is how do you feel that the dynamic of the medium of technology is imprinting this kind of --lity-based i will have fred hiatt jump in. guest: great question. thank you. i think we are in a totally new world when it comes to the media , and it is good and bad. there is no question that a lot people listen to just the television station where they could be sure there are only going to hear what they agree with, or just go to the websites where they can be sure they will only read what they agree with. i think that can foster partisanship.
it exaggerates this sense where andle have different facts do not see the world in the same way. on the other hand, to be more positive about it, the transcript of our interview with mr. trump has been one of the most read things on our website for more than a week now. we can see by how long people spend their that most people are reading the whole thing, and we are reaching what i think was a very substantive, useful conversation. we are reaching many more people than we ever could have. there are a lot of people out there who are trying to read this for themselves. to just read our news stories or editorials, they want to have the actual words of
the candidate. i think it is a world, where as you say, it can lead to fracturing, but it also has positive aspects in terms of people being able to educate themselves in ways they never could before. host: what about your editorial last week as the gop slides toward mr. trump? he did not specifically say mr. trump's name. -- why you call him a not so innocent bystander? guest: it a tough thing right now to be a republican leader who does not support trump. i understand that. but i think it is a time when the country needs its leaders to stand up and be heard from. , one of theember republican debates, when all of the other candidates were asked, what do you think of donald trump, and they all said he is
dangerous, it would be a disaster, and then they were asked if you would be -- if they would vote for him, and they said yes. you cannot have it both ways. if he is really dangerous and a threat to democracy, and a departure from everything we have known, then something has to be more important even than party loyalty. did you hear from paul ryan's office after he wrote that editorial? guest: i do not like to talk about my phone calls one way or the other. i think the feeling would be, and i understand this, at that mr. wright has to chair the convention this summer. he has to be the neutral party as chairman. a lot of what he said in that speech was great. i understand, he is in a difficult position. invitations tout
all candidates to come sit down. donald trump was the first. can you tell us who is coming next? guest: i wish i could. i have had expressions of interest, but nothing is currently scheduled at the moment. what we offer would be of interest to any of them, because we are saying we will top substance -- top substance and put the transcript of justice we did with donald trump, and people can see your words without the filter of the washington post. host: i want to talk to you about another part of conversation that you had over libel laws. he started out, when you asked him to go ahead and start at the beginning of your seductive he started out by saying i am not sure why i am here, the washington post has been very bad to me, and he questioned on
the way over why he would be the the going to the washington post office to sit down with all of you. the conversation that followed that with about the media. >> given the supreme court ruling on libel, how would you change the law? i would have get my lawyers into tell you, but i would loosen them up. right washington posts badly about me, and they do, i read some of the stories coming up here. staff, why are we wasting our time when the hatred is so enormous? i do a good job. i have thousands of employees, i do a good job. i have a very rational person, i am a very same person. a read articles by you and
and the level of hatred is so incredible i actually said why am i doing this, why am i even hear? are you -- >> it was wrong. the washington post never calls me. i never had a call why did you do this or why did you do that. they just treat me like ryan's horrible human being, which i am me know that are ever calls -- which i am not. nobody ever calls me. host: what were you thinking when you sat and listened to the answer? guest: we have been critical. i respected his willingness to come talk to us anyway. what struck me about that was
when he said i would have to ask my lawyers, because here he has said he wants to change libel laws, which is a pretty fundamental part of american democracy. the question is, how would you do it? it is a portion of the constitution that has been interpreted in supreme court cases that the president cannot change. it is a pretty fundamental thing to say. yet, by his own accounting, he really has not thought through how you would go about doing it typical ofnk that is a lot of his statements. it is very difficult to have a democratic debate when a candidate puts something out there, but then does not have the policy or says, i will figure it out later or i will hires people. how do you debate the?
it is the end of the conversation when it should be the beginning of the conversation. host: let's go back to our calls. caller: good morning. i ha two questions on two candidates. i've questions on bernie sanders and they say she is -- he is a socialist communist, but what i have checked out is he is a social democrat. that is what our founding fathers found in our country on. have is onuestion i ted cruz. his father was a cuban soldier who worked for castor and then came over to canada. , not onorn in canada american soil. i do not know why that has changed since i was a kid, you had to be born on u.s. territory
. tot: we will have mr. hiatt those questions. guest: bernie sanders, i take him at his word. he defines democratic socialist as more or less what we used to think of as a big government democrat. he does not want government to take over the means of production, which is how karl marx would have defined socialism, but he was government to do a lot more for vulnerable people. health care, so forth. we can have a debate on what parts of that are good ideas and what parts are not on ted cruz's birthplace -- parts are not. birthplace, there is some disagreement about this.
some say even if you're born to american parents, you are immediately naturalized and you are eligible. professorop-ed from a at the university of delaware law school that got a lot of readers. she made the case that that is not a natural born means. been tested and the lawyers wonder who would have standing to test it. thinkms to be most people of this that way. host: the editorial board has been critical of donald trump and ted cruz. democrat line, good morning. question or comment? we will move on to jim in ohio. you're on the air. caller: first thing i want to
say is i believe that donald trump is the only possibility we have of saving this country. i have heard some criticism of mr. trump saying that he has wise people to help him. he is smart enough to realize he does not know all the just all the questions of everything that wouldng to happen heard advisers have that specialized knowledge in that particular area. guest: i think every president has to do that right i think it would be more reassuring if we saw people around him, and we have not seen much of that. i think good advisers can only take you so far. he didn't want the greatest cabinet, one thing we have not talked about today is the divisiveness of a lot of
what trump has been saying, starting when he declared he would send rapists across the border. these cases, it is not so much that the policy should not be debated, but when you talk about the muslims as if it is one thing, or the blacks, your stereotyping and separating the country at a time when i would rather have a president who is trying to bring people together and promote conversation across barriers. host: when you pressed him on specifics for for policy, whether it was pressured china with trade or whatever, he said i am not going to tell you everything that i would do, because that would tell our enemies the playbook you pressed him on this theory of unpredictable it. tell us why. guest: there are times when it
is true you do not want to telegraph everything, but in general, you want to have allies in the world, they have to know if they can count on you. to havee very dangerous ambiguity, because if you are worried about whether china is going to be aggressive against japan or against the philippines, it is important for china to know whether the united states is going to stand with its allies that can affect chinese behavior as well as the allied behavior. what and then reaction to donald trump has said recently about pulling out of south korea. a south korea will i say his remarks are shocking. that he saysay they should rely on their own nuclear weapons. that is a window to how quickly
and more dangerous the world be -- could become. caller: with all due respect, you're the reason that i think surprised one election day in a landslide for trump. you're in the washington bottle -- bubble. you do know you are in the tank for hillary clinton. i do not know how anyone can consider voting for her. response? ,uest: in the washington post guilty as charged. we have not endorsed anybody. host: will you? guest: we probably will in the general election will have to
see who the candidates are. host: do you think your endorsement house way like they used to? guest: it depends on the race. in some local elections, our endorsements have some sway. in the presidential and even in the local, what i think we aim for is not to decide the election or tell people how to vote. can do most we usefully is tell people how we are think about a race and hopefully spark people to think whenusly about an election they cast their vote, take on board the issues we think are important. i do not think there was every day when the washing post we tell people -- every day when the washington post would tell people how to vote. you have been an editor since 2000, you joined the board
in 1996. you have worked for the washington post almost all of your career. caller on our democrat line. caller: i was just wondering, i thought maybe donald trump is thinking outside the box because worsee have been times like door for incident -- like dooarfur and sudan. the nato is what nato is. it was designed to between north america and europe. worse ofmanaged the dissolution
the soviet union in the warsaw pact. but terrible things still happen nigeria andorld in southeast asia. i did not lead to say that the world has been a piece for 70 years, and thank you for pointing that out. host: at the end of the interview, your deputy editor , shehe editorial page wrote a column about her exchange with donald trump. she said the meeting ended, and i think him for taking my turned to med he and said i really hope i answered your question, and added casually with a smile, beautiful. smile, andespond or walked out to meet my colleagues really before it went to the elevator. i was signed by the fact that he
thought it was ok to comment on my appearance. did you have any comment? i did not hear it, i was speaking with another colleague. i was surprised to hear what and thoughts. not on our appearance. said yous why you encouraged her to write about it. maker readers come again, up their own mind. >> there is a lot to digest. you can listen, read the entire thing on the washington post website. of the editorial page. thank you for being here and talking to our viewers.