tv Washington This Week CSPAN May 28, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
playing field where one set of regulars of why to one group of companies, and another set of regulations apply to another group, even now they are competing in the same space. important for the agency to not pursue ideological ends, but to make sure consumers are protected. have a baseline level of privacy lessction, and a level -- stringent protection for some of the information consumers would share, based on the ftc's deceptive practices authority. lydia, you asked about the internet of things, which is one of the exciting developments in communication policy. sensors would start relying an almost infinite amount of information that would make us much more efficient and effective with everything we do.
inot of that conversation our airwaves would take place under unlicensed spectrum's, something the cable industry has been at the forefront of, particularly with the work on the five gigahertz band. going forward, i think there will be four issues, not all of which are under fcc per view, but the first definitely is, and that is spectrum and freeing up more airwaves to support the internet of things. the second is privacy, which my colleague just touched on. we also have to think about that security, with all of connectivity, and finally, making sure we do not exhaust ip addresses. i think all those play into the internet of things and will be important going forward. the fact of the matter is, you've got to bang agencies in this space. when itbeing the agency comes to telecommunication platforms and the like, we have way the worldhe
is evolving. once upon a time, you two are still wedded to paper, and i am. i'm surprised i don't have it in front of me. that's where our information was stored. now most of our information was not. when you talk about companies that have access to your personal information, it seems like every hour we are hearing about a data breach. it is important for us to keep this working relationship with the ftc and other agencies to ensure that there is a seamless or means of protection for consumers by all of the agencies that have either influence or impact here. we are the expert agency when it comes to communications agencies. there is section 222 that speaks to that. we have an item that we will review.
i guess from where i sit, i look at wanting simplicity and ty, if i saidabili that correctly. this is your very personal information that i know you want protected, and we want to protect it too, and there should be no disconnect along that plane when it comes to your personal information, and i think that is why this conversation is important. >> your question got to the internet of things. we have an agency, and congress has not changed our authority in the meantime to give us greater control over the internet of things. i want the ftc to do what it does best, and if it is not doing sufficient work, that is for congress to review, not me to judge. commissioner rosenberg and i have been working hard on the unlicensed issue, trying to
bring more unlicensed spectrum. unlicensed spectrum and approval of certain devices depending on the circumstances, i don't want the commission to have a heavy role. we have assigned ourselves certain roles because of our interpretation of certain things. because of one of our decisions, we now say we have statutory authority to do certain things on privacy, and amazingly we are having data security and cyber security not mentioned in the statutes at all. is going,rned or this considering what congress has asked of us. mignon clyburn: when you have regulations and laws, they are snapshots in time. when you have regulatory authorities, i believe we are interpreting things taste on our current framework. you cannot talk about a law that might be 20 or 30 years old and what wet to anticipate
see on a showroom floor. this is a snapshot in time, and what we are charged to do is interpret that through today and through this current lens. privacy is a cherished principle. we all understand that. but it is also -- jessica rosenworcel: privacy is a cherished principle. we understand that, but it is also evolving. nine out of 10 of us could consider it important to control where our information goes. at the same time, i think every consumer knows there is a value proposition associated with going online and exchanging information for services. that must sound familiar to all of us, because there is that same moment, when you pause and print read all that fine and you check that box to get free shipping, and maybe you all come through it for hours and try to figure it out, but most
of us just check it, because we are aware that we are willing to exchange information for a free service. i think not just the fcc, but our colleagues at the fcc will have to wrestle with how privacy norms are changing and how our behavior is changing, and our expectations are changing. mignon clyburn: i can't remember what the most recent study was that talked about how consumers are not engaging, especially our seniors, asthma with getting the full benefit of -- as much with getting the full benefit of ,roadband and the internet because they are fearful. as part of this regulatory space, we need to be mindful. innovationncouraging and connectivity, which is what we are doing, we have to think , the the entire plane entire ecosystem. i know we overuse that word, but it is so important here, because it lends itself and reinforces
the fact that it is not static, not siloed, and we cannot come through and posture eyes stuff in siloed ways and expect american consumers to be rightly served. ajit pai: i think the commercial -- the commissioner friend this vertically. the question is, what kind of framework preserves consumer expectations? i fully embraced the 2012 privacy report about having a level playing field for all ansumers in the space, and consistent set of protections for consumers. let me tell you have the ftc has gone off the rails. if you were at home with an android smartphone and you power up on your wi-fi network, you are using one isp. if you are over a cellular network, you might have another isp. when you are at work and use their wi-fi network, you might
be on a third. a coffee break at starbucks, you might be on a fourth. should consumers face a multiplicity of regulations depending on who the isp is? a man not even know who it is. whohey might not even know it is. yet, the ftc is issuing strict regulations to single out isp's as competitive in this space. this does not make sense to me, nor does it make sense to john lieberman, nor does it make sense to a lot of the people who have weighed in on this issue and said we need a uniform set of regulations to apply to everybody, not a single niche of the marketplace. new competitors are trying to pose a competitive threat, some to income of players. let me rosenworcel: build on that. i want to agree with everything. there is some asymmetry. but let's think about mobile phones today.
we have different privacy regulations that are going to apply to the hardware, the software, the wireless network associated with it, and the online applications that you might access. candidly, that is far too obligated for consumers. for consumers. you should not have to be a network engineer to understand how information is collected, and unit -- and you should not have to be a lawyer to understand how your information is protected. across the board, we should be thinking from the consumer perspective about how to be consistent on those market places, because i think the frameworks we have in place, which are from a long time ago, and we are wrestling with how to update them, they are too complex. ajit pai: but it calibrated its rules to consumer preferences. for more sensitive information,
there should be an opt in requirement, and for less sensitive information, an opt out requirement. jessica rosenworcel: remember, there are questions about opt in and opt out in our existin rulemakingg, and we will talk of -- existing rulemaking, and we will talk about that going forward. to be clear, we are having an open conversation, but the fact that we refuse to give anybody with a stake in this issue a few extra days to submit comments on the questions -- jessica rosenworcel: i want to point out that i didn't count them. i was the one who said it was more than 500 questions, and i do believe that this is the kind would benefitt from longer rulemaking. so why is thely: chairman saying absolutely not? and say to listen to us
we need more time on a complicated subject matter? as my colleague highlights, the ftc has been able to handle this. we are going to slice off one portion of that and say, for broadband providers, we know that, and here's what it looks like. we already know what the rules are going to look like. that was in the npr in. the chairman is already moving forward with that in a short order. jessica rosenworcel: i actually think we should focus on something else, harmonization within the agency. there are different privacy rules that apply to cable operators under section 631, and to satellite providers under section 638. we also have privacy policies under section 222 in the law,
and going forward it is my hope that we can find a way to create a level playing field within the agency and within the industries that we oversee. you are sourn: right. we are not talking about identical playing fields, because we are not talking about identical interactions, products, or offerings. harmonization should always be the goal, but sameness, when the options and the product is not the same, i depart a bit on that because i think it is unrealistic. maybe that is not what you're saying, but it's how i interpret it. michael o'rielly: if harmonization means more regulation, don't put me up for that. i would say what the statue says, and it cannot the something -- cannot be something that the four of us create. it talks about telephone
records, not broadband data services and some of the other things we will capture in our universe. that's problematic. the words on the page actually have to mean something, or activities are not bound by anything. mignon clyburn: a lot of the things we are talking about today were not envisioned back then. that's why when you talk about law, and you talk about application and interpretation, we are not in the 1800s or early 1900s, so certain laws on the books right now are certainly not applicable. i am going to be extremely sensitive to some of them that might be. and we talk about some of the communication standpoints, which are more narrow from the point of this conversation, you have regulatory bodies in place that rightfully interpret what might have been written at a certain point in time and apply it to the way we consume and use these services. michael o'rielly: but if the statute has gotten out of bounds
with what is happening, that is the job of the legislative branch to fix it. mignon clyburn: we know how quickly they move, right? michael o'rielly: if they take a longer timeframe, that's because they have take -- they have determined that takes a longer time frame. is this conversation happening because you don't take the opportunity to talk to each other in washington? [applause] to involve the audience. go ahead and lineup, and we will try to get to those questions in the last seven or so minutes. >> you all have clearly demonstrated the complications of the issues before you. is the fcc adequately equipped in terms of personnel and funding to handle this growth in privacy regulation, and all these other issues before you? the chairman's office has been making the case that they need more resources. what do you think? mignon clyburn: when you look at the number of personnel and yearse it to five or 10
ago, we are at an all-time low in terms of numbers. that is for a number of reasons. thate not the only agency has been under some strain when it comes to resources. budget crunch. a our budget as not increased, it has constricted a bit. you are going to have, i don't know the exact numbers, the low 1600s in terms of number of personnel -- the issues are getting more complex. i'm not going to sit here and say that you are wrong, we are doing incredible work, ,onsidering the fact that compared to five or six years ago, we have fewer people. here'sijessica rosenworcel: something that concerns me. all of our issues are getting
more technical and complicated, and we need more engineers. the agency is operating with its lowest level of engineers in decades, and our engineers who are tremendous are older individuals. , for some time, an attorney program at the fcc, and i think it is fair to say that we have a lot of attorneys and washington, d.c. i would like us to convert that program to an honors engineering program and invite engineers aggressivelys more and earlier in their careers, and i hope that going forward we can make that a priority. to answer your question, i think the fcc has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. the question is, what is the fcc doing with those resources? when you think about the rabbit toes the fcc staff have had pursue, it is striking how much , andhas simply been wasted how many delegate responsibilities have been
ignored. with respect to broadband appointment, there is so much the agency should be doing, but instead we have spent staff hours on things like the set-top ox proceeding, or singling out cable for special attention in the special access market, even though they took the risk to deploy some of those generation networks giving businesses high-speed connectivity. those kinds of activities distract us from the core mission we have under the law, to make sure that this industry and every industry is able to compete on a level playing field to the liver -- to deliver additional opportunities to all americans. -- digital communication to all americans. michael o'rielly: priorities are driven by the chairman. if you see where our staff is allocated today, it is problematic. when i have worked on things already this year, you see how many staffers worked on projects. we worked on rate and return, there were 10 to 15 people working on it.
the number of people working on privacy is 10 to 15. my colleague at -- when my colleague talks about 1600 and 10 to 15 fcc are working on privacy, that is disturbing. the wireline is being overrun with work and fewer people, and that is a problem in my mind, but that is something for the chairman to the side. peter sien: do you have a chance, commissioner o'reilly, for a chance to see what comes in, particularly with content and delivery? michael o'rielly: both. i did a number of complaints that directly come to me, and i the bureau of consumer affairs and what commits they are -- what complaints they are getting. to be quite frank, the number of people that are generally happy with their service are not the ones that are going to write to us.
it is those that have the biggest concern, or maybe some of them are a little unhinged. [applause] mignon clyburn: -- [laughter] mignon clyburn: we all have public accounts. regular visits from the consumer and government affairs bureau who help reinforce that. i get a mixture of most of the feedback i get, i have to say it is complaint driven. but i get quite a few at the fcc in terms of those who say we are on the right track or doing some things. , by things are going well the very nature of humans, you usually do not broadcast that to need to. unless you when things are going wrong, you usually escalate. that's why you have a bureau, and that's why we have
complaints, because we want to know that things are wrong and when consumers are not getting what they expected. that's important. michael o'rielly: just last week, for example, -- week, forjust last example, an elderly gentleman e-mailed us, saying he had a problem with this provider. we took care of it, and it felt good. people complain on twitter as well. i don't know if these guys get complaints all the time. someone complained that the serious xm channel on the 1980's station was playing a song from 1990, what are you going to do about this? [laughter] ajit pai: the consumer facing function, i think, is critical to the fcc. we are not simply an agency that regulates and tries to figure out the rules. we also have a serious consumer protection function that all of
us share, even though we might differ on the particular policy that applies. jessica rosenworcel: i think it is important that we spend time coming through the complaints they come into the agency to understand how consumers are experiencing communication services. we get complaints about billings, broadband not reaching certain locations, about content, and the only good -- the oldie, but goodie, the do not call list does not work. we are going to have to work harder to make sure consumers don't get those calls they don't want. mignon clyburn: on more than one occasion, i responded. you may need to about a lady in west virginia that was area shows that her a surge when it comes to broadband, and she is not. responded to her about other concerns. she thanked me. she was not necessarily happy, but we got an opportunity to
exchange because she does not have broadband services, but i responded to her and forwarded it. we do that individually. it is important for us to never forget who we answer to, and i at mythat is why i look public account. me grounded, and it is a reminder about to our obligations are to. michael o'rielly: there are also expletives from people -- i have learned -- ajit pai: i have learned new expletives from people who have written in to me. it is important to us to get inside to how many complaints are pending at any given time. that's one of the reasons why several years ago, i proposed we create on online dashboard, where anybody can see exactly how we were doing expect a consumer complaints, how many are pending at any given time,
what was the disposition, what are the different categories, and how do they change over time. we haverosenworcel: categories that are significantly better, but i agree that we should move towards real-time. i want to couple met the people who have worked to update that database and make sure that information is more transparent. they have done a terrific job. commissioner clyburn , what would you like to see the industry do when it comes to broadband deployment that they are not already doing? that is a great question. one of the things i have been pushing for is the affordability of products. i would love there to be multiple tiers when it comes to options for those who could .arely afford their services i would like for them to .articipate in lifeline
we have a program that has been expanded to include a broadband capacity, and i would really appreciate the industry being a part of the program that would provide opportunities for those them.nnot afford they would open up the universe for so many. that's on my wish list. michael o'rielly: a simple request, if it makes business sense, i would love for you to --and your reach to business to bring europe technology to americans. there are a number of americans who do not have adequate broadband services, and we are trying to resolve those issues, and it is very difficult. we have a subsidy program to try and provide funding to entice , ande to enter these areas people love to live in those areas, but it's harder to figure out how to provide broadband service. i would love for you to expand
your services to other areas if it makes business sense. peter sien: we have a question from the audience. ceo of the coalition for innovative media measurement. my question has to do with the new european data regulations, the consumer privacy protection part in particular. and that have any impact, how are you all seeing that, both in terms of u.s. corporations working in europe, and doesn't have any impact on how you are thinking about this going forward? peter sien: why do you ask? >> i was at a conference in europe, and their world very concerned. there was a lot of discussion about it, particularly the opting in of all consumer data, and from the measurement and research and advertising world in which i work, there is a lot of concern about how we will
in a global world with multinational corporations, where we are all having to follow differ regulations in different parts of the world, and how we will be able to manage that. some people say the u.s. would never do that, but i am kind of curious. i have never had you all in front of us like this, so i thought i would -- peter sien: take advantage. that's right. who is going to start? commissioner pai? [laughter] ajit pai: the short answer, we don't have direct involvement with european privacy regulations, but i have by somely been briefed of the folks working on the u.s.-eu data shield, which is something that was critical for us to enable u.s. companies to compete effectively in europe. that framework has been useful. thatnk it is also telling our commerce department has told
the european union, we believe backedivacy framework, up by federal trade commission enforcement, is sufficient to protect the consumers in the european union. thatnk it is telling them the fcc has carved out a space for itself, saying no, we don't think the ftc has done an adequate job in terms of creating space for internet service providers, we need special space for them -- special regulations for them. that is something of a careful about. peter sien: we have a gentleman over here. commissioner rosenworcel called the set-top box proceedings, and awfully complicated preceding, i wish we could simplify it will stop you mentioned that there is a lack of -- simple quiet. you mentioned that there is a lack -- simplify it. is aentioned that there
lack of engineers, and the set-top box is complicated. way to do this, that downloadable security in set-top ox is that can be sold on the open marketplace already exist, standards already exist, we have been trying to show the commission for at least five years now. questions raised in the box proceedings really go to changing business plans of the , and that creates the complication for the technology, so why don't you simplify this process by looking at the real statute that says, we want retail sales of set-top boxes? that could be changed. good point.nworcel: i look forward to reading more about them in the record will stop -- in the record. commissioner
clyburn, in your view, who owns that last file to the home or the business? mignon clyburn: that's interesting, who owns it? thought aboutally it. i always thought once you cross my boundaries, it's me, but i isnk i will change it to two responsible for it, and i think it is all of us. we should enable that connectivity. americans34 million who can't answer that question right now. for don't have the capacity what we depend upon as high-speed internet. i think that is important. that is a great question, how you phrase it. i think we all have a role to play. michael o'rielly: if i understand your question correctly, years ago, it was the local telephone company on the last mile, and we had rules and
regulations to bring more competition to that portion of the network. you actually saw cable step into that marketplace very successfully. i don't think that cable owns it, i think they are having a great deal of success in the marketplace, and that's where they have invested not only on the residential side, but the business side. the good news is, we are going to regulate the heck out of you. thanks so very much. [laughter] peter sien: we've got time from one -- time for one final question from bloomberg. of thepainted a picture regulatory complexity from the issues before you. can congress resolved some of those issues -- resolve some of those issues? is there a solution, or is there some other measure that is needed? jessica rosenworcel: the federal communications commission is under the jurisdiction of congress, and should congress
revise the law, we will cooperate with them. i appreciate that they are thatg a look at our laws go back to 1986, and they are trying to look at ways to update and modernize. i think that is a good effort, but in the end, we will be responsive to any new laws they might choose to pass. michael o'rielly: i think that is something in their capable hands. they will decide when to and when not to. there was energy to consider legislation at the beginning of this congress. it seems to have waned for a number of reasons. they will figure out the best time, and i will be responsive to how they change the law. mignon clyburn: i respect congress for more than one reason. i look for guidance from them, but i also know that i have a charge to keep when it comes to interpreting the law, and i plan to uphold that. ajit pai: i agree with my colleagues. i would only add a cautionary tale that it were wires fcc
-- thatip is dedicating it requires fcc leadership is dedicated to following the law. but when you look at the magnification -- when you look sionse navigation provide of 1969, i think it requires not just congress to update the act, but also for the agency to administrate the act to update its terms. that requires a strong commitment from fcc leadership. peter sien: this has been "the communicators." rosenworcel, ajit pai, michael o'rielly, and mignon clyburn, thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: you have been watching "the communicators." for the graduating classes all over god's planet, i wish
that you graduate into a world of peace, light, and love, but that is not the case. we all live in a fairytale, but i guess the 1% does. this memorial day, watch commencement speeches in their entirety, offering advice and encouragement to the graduating class of 2016, from business leaders like cap -- founder larry garrison -- larry erickson. and olivia sweet. >> you can count on yourself. what makes you special? what distinguishes yourself from others? yoursiness, we call it unique value proposition. figuring out yours is key. announcer: politicians, senator jeff sessions in huntsville, senator barbara boxer at the university of california: berkeley, and governor mike pence at indiana wesleyan university. >> to be strong and courageous,
and to learn to stand for who you are and what you believe. it is a way that you have changed here. carry into the balance of your life. announcer: and vice president joe biden at the university of notre dame, loretta lynch at spelman college, and president obama at rutgers university. pres. obama: is it any wonder that i am optimistic? throughout our history, a new generation of americans has reached up and didn't the arc of history in the direction of more freedom, opportunity, and justice. yourlass of 2016, it is turn to shape our nation's destiny as well as your own, so get to work. announcer: commencement speeches, this memorial day on c-span. the libertarian party holds its national convention this weekend in orlando, florida.
that event includes a debate tonight between the presidential candidates. we will take you there live in about a half hour from now at 8:00 eastern when things get underway. until then, here is the discussion on campaign 2016 from today's open to washington journal." -- from today's "washington journal." joining us now is james antle, the politics editor at the "washington examiner." talking about donald trump formally clinching the gop nomination. the democratic contest, this weekend's libertarian party convention. thanks for joining us today. guest: thanks for having me. trump hasld officially gotten enough delegates to be the republican nominee. how have things changed after this? guest: i think there's going to be growing pressure on the rest of the party to kind of coalesce around him and consolidate, because they have been these pockets of resistance to donald trump, and he is obviously a very orthodox -- an unorthodox candidate.
choice of a lot of both party establishment leaders, but even more so, a lot of leaders in the conservative movement had a lot of misgivings about donald trump. he has clinched the nomination much earlier than people expected. he has clinched it before the big primary in california, he clinched it before the convention, and he it before hillary clinton did. it's really kind of a significant developments. he faced a field of 16 , andknown opponents hillary clinton is still competing with bernie sanders. i think the outcome of that is pretty well-known, but she has still not secure the majority. it's an important development for trump to have secured the nomination and have done so before clinton has is symbolically important. on a practical level, it affords the party more time to coalesce and get their acts together, such as it is, head of the convention. host: they may need a little bit
of time and. guest: breathing room. host: to come together as this piece in the "washington examiner," notes. the clinching his nomination was met by somewhat shrugs in congress. with him onoke wednesday, and didn't congratulate him when asked about press reports that he and won the nomination outright. host: is this problematic for the party? where's this limit could be expected after the primary season? guest: it was a very contentious primary. i think paul ryan is trying to play an important role. if you look at the members of congress, there are very few republican members in either house who are committed never trump activist, people who will
not support him under any set of circumstances. whoyou have a lot of people are supporting the nominee, rather than explicitly saying they endorse donald trump. we know who the nominee is, it's donald trump very so the euphemisms don't really conceal very much. but it does reveal that there is still some remaining unease. paul ryan has to lead people from districts that trump carried, people who are trump supporters, but he also has a kind of be a part of the process of uniting some of these republicans who are more skeptical. and remember, ryan is now the only member of the congressional republican leadership who has not endorsed from very -- trump. he is trying to balance these factions and see what kind of concessions to the more mainstream conservative form he can win from donald trump. host: we are talking to james atle, the politics editor
the "washington examiner," about the 2016 race. trump nomination, the democratic race as well convention going on this weekend. democrats can call call (202) 748-8000, republicans, call (202) 748-8001. independents, call (202) 748-8002. have a special line for .ibertarians, (202) 748-8003 you wrote about former governor mitt romney, the last republican nominee, there is still a way that he could possibly take down donald trump. for those in the never trump movements, you say romney offers chanceatives a better that they are realistically going to get at this point, at this late date, romney may be the only candidate who can realistically do it at all, unless conservatives can find
another mark cuban type of billing error -- billionaire. guest: there are two questions. in terms of symbolism, mitt romney could not possibly be worse candidate, because it would really be an open act of establishment sabotage of donald trump, and it would sort of validate everything that donald trump is saying about the party establishment. in his outsider status versus the republican insiders. from a practical perspective, because they have had no success finding anyone else, romney is the only person left who has the money, the name recognition, and probably would get a significant number of votes. maybe even hit that threshold. there was one poll nationally that showed him over 20% nationally if you hit 15% as been the standard usually for qualifying for the debate, he might be able to get into the debate. if you are looking at a serious never trump third party or
independent candidate, romney is probably the only person who could do it. does he want to do it? legacy toed to be his have lost to the democrats not want -- not once, but twice in two consecutive election cycles? i don't know that he does. he's getting close to 70, he has taken his family through this a couple of times now. in this case, there's no realistic prospect he would get in the white house. he probably has a better chance than others might attempted. they would be unlikely he would win. i can understand his reluctance. for those who are really diehard never trump people, romney is probably their last realistic option at this point. host: do you expect him to keep sounding off on social media, being critical of donald trump? guest: i think as you have seen the blowback the marco rubio has gone after going so far out in criticizing from -- donald
trump, it would be very difficult for romney to walk it back at this point. and unlike marco rubio, he's probably done with electoral politics. i think you will still be a leader in the party, i think you still see him campaigning for people in speaking out on issues. it would be damaging to his credibility at this point for him to now say i said donald trump isn't qualified to be president, but he is ok. i think he will be tough to do. donald trump himself speaking yesterday at a rally in san diego talked a little bit about his success with republican voters, saying he would be able to bring them together. [video clip] trump: more important, in the history of the republican party, we have received more votes than anybody by far, by millions. [applause] and we have 10 states left to go. 10 states. and they will never say that. they don't say that.
i might as well tell you. you know the expression if you toot your own corn, no one is ever going to do it for you. this slime is never going to do it. i just read a story by woman named parker and a woman named haberman in the "new york times," and instead of saying donald trump won the republican primary, to me one day, right? they say his style of negotiation and the way he runs and the fact that he did this and that -- all nonsense. they say the republican party -- in all fairness to everybody, even then, the republican party is really coming together quickly. issa, youaw darrell saw duncan, all these people. these are the best. it's really coming together quickly. up to over 90% in terms
of approval rating. host: do think that the news is is good for the republican party is donald trump is make it out to be? he is you are right -- right that you were certain to see rank-and-file republicans who were divided during the course of the primary, home of. it's one of the reasons why donald trump's head-to-head numbers against hillary clinton have improved to the point where he is either tied with her ordinarily ahead, depending on the poll. -- or narrowly ahead, depending on the poll. there was a sense in the primaries that trump had a ceiling on republicans at 35%, 40%. he's now in the high 80's and he really needs to get into the low to mid 90's, but he seems to be headed in that direction. barring some kind of conservative third-party challenger, he looks like he might be in good shape. hillary clinton may be a unifying figure for republicans in a way that none of the republican presidential candidates could be. host: we're talking to james
antle, politics editor at the "washington examiner," about the 2016 race. on the republican line, we have michael calling in from new kensington, pennsylvania. michael, you are on. caller: thank you for c-span and taken -- thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask if he had read andrew sullivan's article, which i read recently in the new york magazine, and which he edits, i thought it was very interesting. country --how our how democracies and our country tyranny.for tierney -- in the form of donald trump. they said he has become so fragmented, and our society has thate so democratic, everyone votes, even those who don't know the vice president is. and plato's republic, he basically had this idea a long
time ago that countries become so democratic become right for tierney -- four tyranny. host: let's get jim a chance to respond. guest: i have read andrew sullivan's piece, it's an interesting piece. i think the country has seen some civic fragmentation, i think we've seen a lot of political polarization. we have moved away from a more constitutionally limited form of governments. we have amassed democracy and the welfare state. all of those things are very challenging for the political system and for any kind of national unity. i think you see donald trump is one of the symptoms of that fragmentation, and of that disunity. saw theis week, we inspector general of the state department issue a fairly
critical report about the former secretary of state hillary clinton's e-mail usage, saying that it would not have been authorized, and that she hadn't asked for permission to set up her at home server. will this really change public opinion? is this still a big issue for the democrats? reinforcehink he will some concerns that a lot of voters already have about hillary clinton. i think if voters trusted her, they might the more forgiving. but i think this reinforces the narrative that she is not transparent, reinforces the narrative that the clintons tend to hide things. reinforces the narrative that she is not particularly trustworthy. even within the democratic primaries, we looked at a lot of the exit polling, democratic voters who said they were looking for an honest and trustworthy candidate were overwhelmingly voting for bernie sanders. they were not voting for hillary clinton. so i do think this will continue to be an issue. particularly given that a lot of
her rationales for her handling of her e-mail records at secretary of state have not really held up well to outside scrutiny. host: as you mentioned, the republican primary race wrapped up before the democrats did, bernie sanders is still campaigning into the upcoming california race, which is coming up in over a week. in today's "new york times," it says for many sanders supporters, the e-mail inquiry is like an answer to their prayers. it says senator bernie sanders may be trailing hillary clinton by hundreds of delegates, mrs. clinton may be treating the democratic nomination is hers, but a stay-at-home mother and i heard sanders supporter --
host: do you think there are folks who are holding out for an indictment? guest: absolutely. donald trump has made one of his if hillarynts that clinton is allowed to run, she will face serious legal jeopardy. i think for someone other than hillary clinton to be the democratic nominee, there always probably needed to be some very adverse developments in the e-mail case for her. it doesn't seem likely that something quite that bad is going to happen, but we will see. the democratic race has been very interesting. for most of it, bernie sanders was a perfect opponent for her. he is strong enough that her campaign had to really be on its game, they really had to engage, be organized, be nimble. not so strong that he was ever
likely to win as long a she and her campaign did with a needed to do. but because sanders has continued to win very late, even if he can't catch her in the delegate math, it has created these expectations among a lot of his supporters that he really is in a better position than maybe he really is when you look at the actual delegate math of what accident determines the democratic nomination. that may create unrealistic dictations that sort of exacerbates the fact that this race is really ending on kind of a contentious note. it began on a more civil plane with sanders saying everyone is tired about hearing about your damn e-mails. now people are saying i hope there is something to this story so that we can have bernie and that of hillary. the democrats have some unifying of their own to do as they had to their convention. host: we are talking to james antle, politics editor at the
"washington examiner," about election 2016. a next we have ambrose coming in from maryland. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm good. what is your question for james antle. ? caller: i've been a longtime friend to get on c-span. i'm a junkie. i'm a pro-democrat. i hope your guest over there will be very fair to say that bernie sanders is going to declare himself as an independent. those who are praying for hillary to be indicted, those people who have given up on the republican party because of what they went through to the bush era. now going to support sanders. bernie sanders revealed to both major parties but they will never allow people who were not there brand to run.
it's not fair. she knows it's not fair, but we know he's not going to lose anything. but his aim is to bring the party down. we know his name will go in the trash as well. host: let's give james antle a chance to respond. guest: it's been interesting, in seenmajor parties, you've people running as third-party candidates within the party. within the major parties. whatd trump has managed some would describe as a hostile takeover of the republican party in exactly one the nomination. bernie sanders has ever appeared on the ballot as a democrat prior to this years primaries. he is always one his aces -- won his races as an independent. he's affiliated with democrats and collaborated with them, but
this primary system where he has challenged hillary clinton has really been the first time he has run as a democrat. he had some success, i think he has demonstrated the power of both an outsider message, the desire of a lot of rank-and-file democrats to move away from what's perceived as a more wall street friendly party, of bill clinton's era, away from the third wave centrist policies of bill clinton's presidency, and sanders has really resonated with a critical mass of democratic voters in been surprisingly competitive against hillary clinton. we have joe calling in from cleveland, ohio on the libertarian line. joe, you are on with james antle. james, i would like to become points, maybe 15, 20 years ago, the news media at a credibility on a scale of one to 10, maybe seven or eight or nine, now it's down to two or three if that. reason donald
trump has grown so popular with different groups is because first of all, he has been in the construction business and he understands the street talk. he hires all kinds of people, lax, asians, hispanics, american indians to put the steel up. he knows the language of these tradesmen speak. he also has employed more women than anyone. people forget that nobody has put more people to work the donald trump in the building industry, not to mention his golf courses and other enterprises. he has the pride in american growth and success. he doesn't want to see the democratic donkey handing out things instead of working for things. i think he truly does care. he may come across as crass, but that's to make a point. this man has a heart that loves america. host: let's give james antle a chance to respond. guest: i think that is's core message. he's going to argue that you may accuse me of all of these
various things, but i'm saying things that resonate with a lot of people. and they may resonate with people who you don't expect them to resonate with. i think that is going to be the real big thing that donald trump tries to take into the general election. i don't think you are going to see you here trunk try to soften. i don't think you are going to see him moderate much. i think what he is going to say is the way i speak is the way a lot of people speak, and there are a lot of working-class folks in america who are hurting. globalization of -- i don't mean that in the pejorative sense, but a lot of people who have borne the costs of globalization, not just the benefits -- it's a much more whense coalition of people you head into a general election, that it is in the republican primaries. rhetoric is's challenging for him to build the type of coalition that he needs to win. but some of these issues that he
has touched upon have appeal far beyond it their traditional republican base, which is why i think in some ways, he is a challenging person for the democrats to run against. host: we're talking to james antle, politics editor at the ," andngton examiner com talking about the democratic race, there's a new poll but from publicently policy institute of california that showed a really tight race as noted here in the "los angeles times," said a poll showed a statistical tie between likely democratic voters. clinton with 46%, sanders with waswith the margin of error plus five or seven percentage points. how big of a problem is california pose for her? guest: can bernie sanders take
it home and win california? it won't actually matter very much in terms of whether he wins the nomination or not, because the democrats have all proportional states. so you really have to win by huge margins, much bigger than bernie sanders has outside of the congress -- the caucus states to make up the ground he has lost. but in terms of momentum, and in terms of reception, and in terms of unifying the party, i think it's a big deal. i think hillary clinton really , not in win california order to win the nomination, i think she wins the nomination either way. but in order to be able to make party is moving beyond the divisions of the primary in uniting around me. if sanders keeps winning this late in the game, a give some degree of credence to his efforts to keep it going all the way to the convention in philadelphia.
host: do you think the efforts to unify the party will be easy for secretary clinton when she secures the nomination? she's less than 100 delegates away. should we expect more clashes like we saw in nevada? that wyomingts out democratic officials are concerned that there will be a similar event taking place during their convention. guest: the problem really comes into play if bernie sanders supporters don't feel like the process was fair. because the democrats rely heavily on superdelegates, and while clinton would lead even without them, or lead to so insurmountable because of them. if they feel that the nomination was stolen from them, if the process is in some sense rigged, it makes it harder for people to come together. it doesn't mean their complaints is valid, the perception
reality. i think trump has made an effort to wade into this contest on the even if he isn't going to debate bernie sanders, and help those sanders supporters feel aggrieved at the party. he would like some of them to move into his camp, and by being against the iraq war and being critical of trade deals, by being critical of a lot of dealings with wall street, he is better positioned than other republicans. and donald trump would like those who can't move into his camp to be demoralizes a helmet. -- demoralized and it stay home. you want bernie sanders to feel like process was fair, and you don't want trump to be able to stoke any anger or resentment that will be lingering after the process is over. host: we have jeremy calling in on the republican line. with james are on antle of the "washington examiner." caller: i wanted to say that mr.
trump is the best candidate in this race we can have as our president. he is honest, and his honesty is the single virtually has that no other politician in our current political climate has. he says things that nobody else would say, not because they don't feel or think the same way, just because they only think about winning the race, and not doing something meaningful for our nation. for example, he says i am rich. times,said this for many and people mocked him for saying this, but this is very valid point, because he is rich, and he doesn't need corporations money or supporters money to donate to his campaign so he their't have to comply to things, the things they want after he became the president. audio hand, we have this