tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 22, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
,autionary tale before people not to just dismiss this. this issy for us to say not going on, and i honestly don't believe it is widespread fraud going on in this country, but i think we have to take into consideration that people feel so passionately about -- they don't have confidence, they suspect there is a lot of fraud going on. that is not a great situation and i hope that elected officials can get out there and do things to reassure, both at the local level, the federal level, that we go out and maybe have to go to extra -- go the extra mile to reassure people that the system does work.
just ridden with fraud. host: here is president obama in south florida on all of this, yesterday. >> when last night at the becomes the first major party nominee in america's history to suggest that he will despite losing the vote, and then says today that he will accept the results if he , that is not a joking matter. i want everyone to pay attention. , because whenous you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of our election, that undermines our democracy. you are doing the work of our
adversaries for them. our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters, that those who occupy the seats of power were chosen by the people. even when you are preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one running and you lose, you have to see the bigger picture and say that here in america, we believe in democracy , and we accept the will of the people. host: i wanted to ask you about the power of surrogates for hillary clinton in this campaign . we have seen the president, we know michelle obama was campaigning. the strength of those surrogates, this year. guest: it is a great asset for the lenten campaign.
they can avoid these well-known surrogates to campaign before constituencies where they will likely be received. function of having a relatively unified party behind your campaign. we saw at the democratic convention in philadelphia, the democrats really coming together. bernie sanders getting on board with hillary clinton. she emerged from philadelphia with a united party. we did not see that in cleveland. in cleveland, what we saw was the runner-up to donald trump basically saying i will not support the nominee. ist is a problem, but it sort of a function of a party that is not united behind donald trump.
i will see -- i will say one quick thing about donald trump. you can blame him for a lot of things in this election. for instance, i think he has worsening ofo political rhetoric. that hiso back and say was ats in the debate, it self-inflicted wound, it was a stupid thing for him to say. that that comment is more of a function of who donald trump is, he is a guy that does not like getting pinned down. he instinctively recoils against this. he likes to thumb his nose at conventions. i don't think as the president suggested in that speech, that donald trump's intent was to undermine the american democracy. host: we go to tammy in
illinois, a trump supporter. caller: i have a question, or a couple of comments that i wanted to make to your guest, regarding voter fraud. i have read where there are five democrats who have claimed voter fraud in the past, and obama was the 2008em, back in election. is an undercover showing thatround, clinton's campaign and the dnc are affiliated with the bird dogging violence going on at trump rallies, as well as the voter fraud. obama and clinton are claiming we are having hacking going on,
so how can we positive -- how can we be 100% positive that someone is not able to affect the votes despite the fact that george soros owns the machines? i am not familiar with everything that the president said in the 2008 election regarding the issue of voter fraud. i do know that he did not make the kind of statement that trump election.tioning the i have heard of the issue with the voting machines. i don't believe that george are in ahis minions back room somewhere, trying to jimmy these machines to spit out incorrect results.
the hacking issue is an interesting one. we have had questions raised about is our election system going to be aborted with stand any hacks on election night, could something happen that could really throw the election into question, could it be hacked in some way? i don't knowthat all the ins and outs of this, although as someone who helped cnn call the elections on election night, i can assure you that people are very sensitive to this issue. i think we've got a fair amount of confidence that on election night, the system and the reporting of votes is going to be insulated from hacking. once again, we will certainly find out, soon enough. host: let's hear from joseph in
florida, a clinton supporter. caller: how are you doing? . host: good, go ahead. caller: i am a clinton supporter, and trump needs his own country because he has everyone scared to vote. does he expect to just be named president? he is unfit to be president. i am from the philippines and i am afraid that he would deport me based on his accusations. i want to let the president -- president of the philippines to we asang on because people of the united states need to come together as one, with peace. racism and all that is happening with our country is ridiculous. we need to come in peace. i don't believe hundred percent what trump is doing.
to me, he is like a dictatorship. is fighting for the low income people as well as trying to help the low income people like myself, struggling. i make $8.05 an hour. we need someone who will be for the people. we don't need anything for the rich and i disagree with a lot of things down trump is saying and i support hillary clinton 100%. i don't see any evidence of voter fraud, and i think we will be doing just fine with the first female president of the united states. host: we are running short on time, that i wanted to ask you about senate races and start with the new york times editorial. they are endorsing katie mcginty in philadelphia, in the senate race against incumbent pat
toomey. that talk about minimum wage and the sensitivity of middle-class families. what you tell us what other states you are watching -- why don't you tell us what other states you are watching? guest: pennsylvania has a very key senate race that both parties have a big interest in. you could probably make the case whoever wins the senate race is going to have a good chance of prevailing in the battle for the senate on election night. one thing that is interesting about the dynamic that we see in other states is that hillary clinton is opening up an advantage over donald trump in the polls, and the question is, that?t toomey with stand if mrs. clinton wins by six or seven points, pat toomey may
have a decent shot at being able to hang on. margin clinton has a big like 10 points in winning pennsylvania, if that happens, then it will be very tough for pat toomey. another place we will see that dynamic at work is in new hampshire. republican kelly ayotte running against maggie hassan. another one where a big highon tied could carry -- in ade could carry hassan important and key race. another big race will be in nevada, the same dynamic will be at play. if the race is close at the presidential level, the republican has a chance to win. that is the race to replace
outgoing democratic leader harry reid. you will see this. in aave seen republicans state like ohio. rob portman is pretty much established with a pretty clear lead. that is a state where trump is expected to do a little bit better. the incumbent senator is well-positioned to hang on against the challenge from former democratic governor ted strickland. virginia, an undecided caller. caller: thank you. about orve a question a comment on trump, who is now asking for votes.
i am not sure whether people are aware that when he held his charleston, four days before west virginia held their election, he told the attendees they did not have to vote. this goes along with what the pollsters are saying or the a newbiene, that he is to politics. i think he is not really aware that not only are we voting for commander-in-chief, but we are voting for our local people. in my county, we are interested in board of education, the sheriff and our other statehouse people that we have to vote in. neglectingng he is the local, state concerns. not just the commander-in-chief.
host: thank you for calling. guest: i can remember during the republican primaries where trump with sort of the choking from the stage, saying will be don't support me, don't vote or there is no voting on tuesday if you won't support me, but one point this caller makes that we touched on earlier is that donald trump is really running this campaign on his own, to a large extent, certainly a larger extent than we have seen republican nominees in the past. he is not campaigning with the whole ticket. -- hes not have the full does not have a unified party. a lot of them are going to vote for him because they cannot stand hillary clinton, but he does not have a unified party.
presidential candidates always campaign to some extent above their party, and let's be clear, this is clinton is looking out for number one as well in this regard, but in particular, donald trump is just sort of a from-- of part -- apart the rest of his party, and is probably unaware, or may not he affectsciate how turnouts which affects races down the ballot. host: jenna on the line for clinton supporters. i was trying since yesterday to get in touch with you, because there were some facts that i wanted to throw out there to have people understand some things, but listening to jim talk, there has been -- he actually touched on it.
keynote issues between the two and also, voting democrat is going to put bernie budget the senate committee in the senate and a things, point of views, can get passed, so people need to understand that, you know, you're still helping bernie out. what i'm saying? host: i think we do. democrats do take the majority in the senate, bernie line to be n chairman of the budget committee, that would probably a little aybe influence over the process, but i think the end of the day, the really had inord nat amount of influence over setting
budget. i mean, congress votes, congress as pro-authorize and appropriate money. i remember in philadelphia, the we have most , progressive platform in our history. to try that is designed to pull in the sanders' but one thing the caller probably should keep in unheard of is not for presidential candidates to elected. they go into the white house and carry ey don't exactly out every platform item that was the document, sometimes have been known to conveniently drop not really were their own. host: let's get a couple call and wrap up. hey, norman. to er: hey, good morning
you. when you can it, orrupt the f.b.i., the whole government is corrupt. manipulate easy to the voting. am 69, i have been around for little while, and i drove a 41 years. i traveled this country from one to the other and it's just, a nation of corruption and it's so sad. i just remember that when they kennedy, you know, after seemed like our hell. country just went to
know much to say about it, but i'm glad on on my way out. norman, thank you for calling. james, last call and we'll hear jim barnes one more time. hey, james. caller: good morning, gentlemen, in.glad to get i believe the lord is involved in this because i was persistent in calling and i was able to get in before the show was over. did. glad you caller: thank the lord for that. i want to mention about king had country, i this believe joseph was, he's a supporter the same as i, i believe he's along with martin had a dream, that is what we should keep in mind. rocket 't take a scientist to decide this election or decide who you want to vote for. anybody in favor of this country would vote for clinton.
clinton, that should be the candidate of the president of the united states and i help fulfill ould martin luther king's dream. thank you. final thoughts from jim barnes on this election. well, i think the callers are interesting, one reflect the country.t he previous caller reflected the pessimism that exists in the land. think there is probably, if woo were honest, probably more pessimism than optimism these we look at polls, more people think the country on the wrong track than the right track. in a funny way, if the country only come together after the election, but if we can pass hrough legislation, sort of show the public that washington can get some things done and if growth, i mean,
eally we tend to see that people have more confidence when there is economic growth. ofnk back to the second term ronald reagan, second term of bill clinton, those were both when we had a lot of tends to rowth, that be the one thing that restores than anything else is an economy that is and obviously since that touches so many americans, you makes sense. host: jim barnes, veteran journalist covering every 1984, co-author almanac on american politics and you can read lots ofconference, right? > "washington journal" continues. host: angie drobnic holan is joining us, editor for politifact. thank you for joining us this
morning. having me.k you for host: how did politifact get funded? and how is it guest: we're independent nonpartisan news website. bayere started by the tampa times, florida's largest newspaper, and our mission is to check what politicians and other political groups say in square.ic so every report on politifact is we ct-checking report and rate the statements that we look t on a truth meter scale and the ratings go from true to true, mostly half false, false, to pants on fire. are the fact checkers and how exactly do they make their decision? guest: well, we're independent journalists, most of us have and we r backgrounds research by looking at we talk to reports, archives of news
articles or data, depending what is. fact check we write up our report and then three editorsl of who edit the report and decide on the rating. new fact checks just about everyday. host: how important is it to do work in this or any election cycle? guest: it's really important. came out of the thinking that needed more fact checking. 2007, rted our site in because a number of journalists ithin the tampa bay times felt there was too much he said/she said, without telling people what were the facts behind the policy, behind the political statements. checking has been important every year. this year it seems like it is ever, more than discussion around fact checking over whether the presidential
donald trump and hillary clinton are speaking accurately about a whole range issues. host: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. ake calls from hillary clinton supporters, donald trump supporters, third party and been ded folks, as we've do thanksgiving entire show on this friday. our guest is in tampa, editor, editors of politifact the placefact.com, is to go. lots of information in the various n the statements. angie, this year seems there is a lot of mistrust of the press and people ho fashion themselves as experts on these various topics, how do you establish credibility the work that you do? guest: well, i think with most credibility tions, is earned over time, so we have a track record of being of fact checking, both democrats and republicans.
we e is another thing that do to be transparent and show is our our work and that reports are very literal of we this and wewe found saw this. we layout exactly our thinking issue, so they know why we're rating the statement we're rating it. the right-hand side of every report, we have a links. list with hyper i think we are reporting in a very skeptical age, we don't our readers to just take our word for it. with our source list, they can we consulted at and check it out for themselves. o i think that transparency around fact check suggest very important and that is how people evaluate our work. examples this morning of the fact checking going on. this is a short piece from the debate, hillary donald talking about trump and vladamir putin and the hacking issue. this is a statement we're about
politifact rated as half true. here is a look. it very d to make clear, whether russia, china, united anybody else, states has much greater capacity to we are not going sittidely by and permit state our s to go after information, our private sector information or our public sector information. and we're going to make it clear kinds t want to use the of tools that we have, we don't want to engage in a different of war fare, but we will defend the citizens of this russians need to understand that. i think they have been treating a probing, how far would we go, how much would we do, that is why i was so shocked when donald publicly invited into americans, that is just unacceptable. 50 nationalason why
security officials, who served n republican information -- in administration -- donald is chief, o be commander in comments like that really worry people who understand the we face.hat host: to our guest in tampa, why was this rated half true? we focused in on her statement that donald trump hack d the russians to into american data and we rated that half true. is part of our method, we look very closely at particular statements. went back into the archives, into transcripts and reports, what did donald trump say. what we found, he suggested that russians hack and try to ind the deleted e-mails that were on hillary clinton's private server. now i think you could argue, he was joking, said it in somewhat ironic tone, maybe he
wasn't, but regardless, he was not inviting the russians to data, he all american was tashingeting his comment at his political opponent. so we felt the casual listeners not lot of people are political junkies like the rest of us, would get the wrong that, we rate m today half true. host: first call, keith from tennessee, trump supporter. hey, keith. caller: good morning. my call. for taking my question is this. being said on trump that there is no way you could and you don't go -- do you go after thingos hillary the same way you go on trump? everybody, all the media is trying to turn this hillary and that is wrong. i do believe he's right on it
rigged system, it's been rigged as long as ki remember. going back to the '60s. host: thanks, keith. guest.ear from our guest: we do fact check both sides. we fact check hillary clinton donald trump. we are independent and nonpartisan. at evidence and, for example, we have looked at this laim about the elections being rigged and there is just not a you f tangible proof that can look at to say the elections are being rigged. many elections, certainly in the state of florida, are run by and republicans. here's not a power structure controlling local elections that would seem to have the incentive ability to swing it one way or the other. when we look at law enforcement a lot of states put a lot of effort into voter id,
making sure the registration process is air tight. it.just don't see then it turns into this conspiracy theory, you kind of is being mething happening and we're fact checkers, we need to see evidence. our site is really focused in on the evident. we look at both sides. there has been a lot of talk this election about the do a favoring clinton, we not see ourselves that way. we see ourselves as independent. e're just as quick to fact check hillary clinton as donald trump. host: to fort lauderdale now. third-party person, gabe, thank you for weighing in. say?would you like to caller: good morning. is a question related to jobs have been lost here in the states. is, ve heard from both that nafta, different trade agreements and i believe i
have that jobs been lost, technology has changed. longer take pictures and wen companies manufacturing, try to print less. technology is changing and i from both talking about this really the reason those jobs have been lost. would like to fact check that. has been affecting trade us because we are in i don't trade, but listen to both saying that what -- and y the reason of now promising to get back all ohio, to all to to verify, i like you this and get more information. host: thank you. point.understand the
jobs and trade. he makes in technology. angie drobnic holan, what are you seeing out there? uest: that is such a great question. we've done a number of reports deals, about nafta, about china. the economists we talked to say overall trade is good for the united states, it grows the economy. the down side of trade, a plant may close somewhere and notices when the plant closes and jobs go away. thing ght not notice the they want to buy at walmart is cheaper. a lot of stuff in the economy, with people noticing things.t one thing i would say, there has een a lot of talk in the debates about nafta, donald trump saying hillary clinton and nafta, inton supported and it's been a terrible deal. when we delve into the specifics
nafta, nafta seems like it has been a wash. for sn't been that great the u.s. economy, but hasn't been that bad, that is what the have told us. when we look at the jobs going the bigger thing behind that is the trade with china. most favoredeiving nations status. his goes back years, it goes back into the george w. bush administration, the bill clinton administration, george h.w. bush administration. republicans and democrats who have supported china.ade with that is the way a lot of the american job losses have come this with all manufacturing moving to china, where labor is so cheap. is more the issue here than nafta, in the reports we've looked at. i should repeat, again, this is -- these are economy-wide
ramifications, it is really hard to tease things out like this and that caused that. when we talk to economists studying the economy, that is they say. host: here is more from the hofstra mber one where university, where donald trump talked about hillary clinton tpp, this trade and is rated mostly true by politifact. signed nafta, one of the worst things that manufacturing industry. go to new england, ohio, want,ylvania, anywhere you secretary clinton, and you will see devastation with 30, 40, 50%. down afta is the worst trade deal maybe signed anywhere, but certainly in this country. you want to approve trans you were rtnership, totally in favor of it, then you heard what i was saying and you win that debate. you know if you did win, you would approve that and that will
almost as bad as nafta, nothing will top nafta. accurate. not i was against it once it was the terms were laid out. i wrote about that -- >> the gold standard. called it the gold standard of trade deal, you said the inest deal have you ever seen and then you heard what i said about it and you were against it. > donald, i know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. hoped it i did say i would be a good deal. when it was negotiated, i was for.responsible i concluded it wasn't. i wrote about -- obama's president fault? -- efore you announced host: very sharp piece of the debate, angie drobnic holan, true there. guest: yes, we looked specifically at trump's tatement that hillary clinton called it the gold standard, trans pacific partnership, and
correct. she did call it that. now let me back up a little bit, anybody could make sense of the back and forth. he starts off attacking her on nafta, you and i just talked about that. now he talks about the trans pacific partnership. i'm not sure how many people understand the trans pacific partnership, because this is a deal that does not include china. it is the barack obama it, ittration negotiated is trade deal between the united states and some of the pacific countries. while the u.s. has been diplomatic in trying to talk it is a trade deal meant to increase u.s. presence the pacific rim as counter weight to china. the deal is not supposed to be china.ng that helps if anything, it is supposed to activity toward the united states. o the obama administration has supported this deal. hillary clinton, as secretary of state, supported the deal. administrationhe
of now i would say looking at her public comments seemed to be enthusiastic supporter of it. then the campaign started, opposed the deal, i would say bernie sanders has been very skeptical of trade and the campaign clinton said, well, now that the final been made public, i -- show no longer supports it. things stand on the trans pacific partnership. host: back to calls. clinton supporter. hey, roger. major facts are important, i think we are inundated from being by white lies that we don't have waytime and the -- with the the media is suffering economically, don't have the esources to check out little things that constantly get cut and pasted and everything you country from e local talk show hosts, to
hannity and our newspaper, the news observer paper, they just 1.5 million dollar suit from little tiny statements investigative report hat have huge effects on our crime investigation team in north carolina. the think that what solution is to hammer people who propagate false little things that have a huge people's general opinions. thank you for the work you are doing. from thank you, let's hear our guest in tampa. guest: i think that reader captures a lot of sentiment, a lot of factual issues in the american political now.ussion right i think people are really concerned about it. seeing ifact, we're highest readership levels that we've had. hen i look at what the rest of the media is doing, i see fact in done by news
organizations that really didn't do that much fact checking before. a lot of fact checking is going on. readership levels are very high. people are interested in this kind of journalism. know people are tired of the election and may be feeling cynical right now, when i see the fact checking going on, that makes me optimistic. host: claudia from kansas city, missouri. good morning, trump supporter. caller: good morning. about the e to talk first issue that you brought up, that donaldyou said russians to hack hillary clinton's e-mails. hat i heard and i heard it several times the same clip, he hack it, ing them to hadas implying that if they already done so, would they look had gh the data that they
and see if they could find certain things. at it in that regard, if that is true fthere i didn't ething that hear, then wouldn't have you to completely false? host: angie drobnic holan, what you think? guest: we rated it half true. comment.peculiar one thing about donald trump is hat he's a very dynamic public speaker. he often says things where his could be interpreted he's been or ironic, difficult to fact check in that way. sometimes he contradicts himself. we've done a number of reports where he says he didn't say say o. that e did one about the russians hacking, was an eyebrow raising statement when he said maybe the
hillary can find clinton's e-mails. there is a lot of concern now russia e comment that has been hacking officials in democratic campaigns with the purpose of either the election or maybe just sowing distrust among the democratic system. it's been a big issue, this campaign. over to dave in alifornia, mckenleyville, california. dave is a third party person. gahead, please. caller: i voted for mcmullin, trump. on trump's behalf, you know, he's not the only one who there was -- that the system was rigged against him. same sanders made the complaint and turned out bernie as right, turned out that the democratic national committee, chairmanship of
schultz had been working on behalf of hillary. at least onery got question in advance she would be asked during the debate because brazil, who worked for cnn, had leaked that question to hillary. and to say that the media is -- hasn't been biassed ludicrous.mp is i'm 68 years old and never i remember a so-called media, r, member of the injecting themselves into a on behalf ofdebate the democratic candidate. if i valid been trump, i would said, excuse me, i thought i was debating hillary, not the media. follow-up from the guest in tampa.
media the question of bias this campaign election have been pervasive. i can tell you as a fact checker, we fact check donald trump 250 times, he gets a lot things factually wrong. we give him poor ratings about of his statements have been ated mostly false, false or pants on fire. i think maybe trump has had the most trouble with the fact things,s because he says large things that are inrack rat and small things that are inaccurate. is to look at the statements and rate them. ratings in ance our the name of objectivity, we have call the statements the way we see them. a have a method, it is transparent method. we lay it out in advance. to hold the t candidates to the same standards nd at the end we hope our reader consist read the reports and come to their own decision.
here is a statement rated false by politifact. two and debate number here is hillary clinton. >> you know because it sounds in the business or you're aware of people in the business, you know that we are time ever first energy independent. we are not dependent upon the middle east but the still controls a lot of prices. the price of oil has been way that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies, right? we are, however, producing a lot of atural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels and i think that is an important transition. we've got to remain energy us much nt, it gives more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in east.iddle we have enough worries over there without having to worry about that. a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change,
think that is a serious problem. moving toward more clean renewable energy as quickly as we can, because i the 21st century clean energy super power and new jobs and s of businesses. we i also want to be sure people behind, i'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. those coal miners and their fathers and grandfather dug that coal out, a lot of them lost lives, they were injured, but they turned the lights on factories.d our i don't want to walk away from them, we have to do something for them. host: angie drobnic holan, why the false rating here? guest: we focused on her united states was energy independent for the first time ever. that is false. are not energy independent. e are still importing more
energy than we use. now we are on a better trajectory, the united states is. we have been producing more of particularly , with the natural gas, but we're not energy independent and it is also questionable whether if we were energy independent, would ever? the first time there was times in the '50s it orms like we were very close at energy independence. overall, we rated clinton's statement false. host: our guest with tampa bay times since 2005 and previously papers in ther florida, also in alabama, louisiana and new mexico. columbia university, masters there and master library of science, university of south florida. angie drobnic holan, editor of next call fromes carl, who is in kansas city, missouri, clinton supporter. hey, carl. caller: hello. to fact check an
assertion that hillary made. hillary, but she said trump was buying chinese steel or his construction projects and i read that, too, and also i so he had a shell company that it wouldn't be obvious where he was getting his steel. he other thing i want to talk bout, i'm 72 years old, 82-nd airborne veteran from when kennedy was in there and i shake fear when i think if i would have been in there with trump in power. have started world war iii, we were loaded on the to cuba. go the other question on fact hecking that i have, is trump financing his own campaign, is that a reasonable true statement? i hear he's putting everything on credit and then charging the people who ed contribute to his campaign and he's paying himself back.
the other thing i -- i'd like to make a comment because i don't want to talk about his valiences indiscretions and over the line behavior with women, it's i am overed, what concerned about is -- i think it s deplorable, i think it is sucking the air out of the room and these -- the president i'm the one who is a cheater, who is a scoundrel, a charlotte an, have they university the thing? have they fact checked that attorney general in florida that tried to bribe? host: thank you. carl lays a lot out there. o you want to take the steel part first? that was a key moment in the last debate. still looking are into the steel claim and we yet, 't fact checked it unless maybe they publish today while i was here, but i don't
think so. the steel ng into claim. we have looked into some of the other claims on trump's business background. check, one of the most popular fact checks about his ankruptcy, those tend to revolve around casino business in atlantic city. we've also looked into the trump the floridassue and attorney general. if you go to our website or google politifact and whatever are interested in seeing, story.n usually find a and there was something else he said, now i can't remember. on and get move other calls in. new brighton, pennsylvania, dorothy.pporter, caller: well, good morning. host: good morning. you know, clinton ruined name. trump's he's -- he won't lie to you. who knows vladamir putin more hillary?
she sold him the rights to remember? now, she's hiring these people go and fight at trump rally. hurt.an already is because she a fix -- ms the people in america he had nothing to do with that. the universe girl should apologize to donald trump. host: thank you, anything you want to add, angie? we did a report on who donald ing fights at trump rallies. donald trump mentioned this in debate.rd and final it's been something that has been hard to parse.
was like undercover sting james democrats by o'keefe's organization, he is andn for disguising himself trying to get people on tape. he tapes are all edited, it is hard to evaluate them independently. story,ling a complicated i urge people to look for the eport on the fight at trump rallies. it is not clear who is causing t, democrats going there looking to have a fight, sanders supporters, the chicago rally a lot of student involvement, students organized themselves. situation.plicated host: question about your ratings, what percentage would pants on t rating of fire? guest: over the long-term, i 20% of the statements get the pants on fire rating. think it is important for me to say, we don't pick statements andomly, we don't do random
sample f. something sounds wrong to us, we'll say, let's fact that f. something sounds ridiculously wrong, we want to fact check it. first mission is debunking the statement. i would say our ratings tend negative, that is what we want to correct. diversity of discussion in american politics and some statements are true, politifact, we have orientation toward the negative. pantos fire rated statement by donald trump from the debate in las vegas couple talked about six billion missing from the state department while hillary clinton was there. >> you were very much involved in every aspect of this country, much. you have experience, one thing you have over me is experience, but it is bad experience because have you done has turned out badly. for 30 years, you have been in a
position to help, if you say i use something else, make it me to do that. i wouldn't mind. the problem is, you talk, but don't get anything done, hillary, you don't. just like when you ran the state $6 billion was missing, how do you miss 6 billion. you ran the state department, $6 billion was either stolen, they gone.know, it's 6 billion dollars. if you become president, this going to be in some mess, believe me. tell us moreguest, about the pantos fire rating here. this got our worst rating, really wrong there is ot $6 billion missing from the state department. this was not missing under watch.y clinton's the rationale, i don't think it is even a good reason, there was inspector general's report that looked at how they're handling the paperwork.
they said the state department needs to do a better job of contracts.g they found that amount of ontracts was $6 billion that needed the better paperwork, but it wasn't that the money was missing or stolen. he suggests it was stole know there is zero evidence that the thereis missing or stolen is only this report that is telling the state department, ey, make sure to document the contracts correctly. that is different from what he worst rating.he host: to a third party voter. good morning. caller: good morning. hello. on the air, u are sir. caller: thank you. good morning. read, i forget where i read it, it said hillary clinton had uranium, and 0% of after that happened, clinton $145 ation received million. is that true? find that n, i
disturbing. host: thanks, let's hear from our guest. guest: we have looked at the uranium claim, something you see a lot on the internet. now hillary clinton did not sell thatum to the russians, so is just wrong. what did happen and this is a example of how things get pun out of basic facts, but people spin them and distort them and exaggerate them. there was a is toronto-based company that had uranium mine in the united states. toronto-based company wanted to sell itself to russia company, now because it had uranium on in the united go through regulatory process, the federal government the deal and basically the federal government had the opportunity to object say, no. it is not a public process, private hese involved
companies. so it went through this process and the federal agency signed it. on the company was sold. now one of the federal agency state department. it is not clear hillary clinton knew about this or not, because involved private public s, it's not a process. one of the questions we asked during reporting, was russia buy thanksgiving company to get to the u.s. uranium mines? on these to experts deals and the world uranium market. they said, no, russia would -- doesn't even seem ossible russia could export uranium from the united states, they don't have proper permits. what it was, this toronto-based company in addition to having the mines in the united states, in kazhakstan. that is what russia wanted to acquire. the president had the ability,
not hillary clinton, to stop deal. it was not stopped and that is basis for ory is the the claims about uranium. we have a couple different i orts on our website, encourage people to read them. this is a classic example where down for to boil it t.v. because it involves international companies, nternational finance, regulations, it is complicated hillaryt the sound bite clinton sold uranium to russian system inaccurate and incorrect. politifact.com, the place to find out about those more.ments and richard calling from santa cruz cruise, california, hillary supporter. good morning, richard. caller: hi. the show. i was going to kind of supporter concerned with
the revelation in the wikileaks and the project there uncovering pretty much proven voter fraud the gentleman resigned from the was planning hat go and rack up voters at the 50 years. that is one of my questions and the you just answered uranium question. 'm looking up now, i believe years ago, i guess would be bill one of our biggest china, so just kind of oncerned you were selling, you know, america, little by little, here, tort sell-out america, so, yeah, i veritos, ject wikileaks, bernie sanders know, the as, you nomination was stolen from him.
host: angie drobnic holan. guest: the first issue, i haven't thought about that in years, we checked that during 2008 election. i thought it was dubai. politifact, i think you will find an old report on that, i haven't heard in a while. let's talk about bernie sanders and the election being, the stolen e election was from him somehow. we've looked into this quite a fact checked debbie wasserman schultz and critics during the appened democratic primary. didn't find evidence the rigged in primary was any way. the people came, they voted, and primary cuses votes, more people voted for hillary clinton to be the
voted for bernie sanders. so, i don't think the election evidence , we see no of that. what you can say is that democratic national committee debates on some emocratic debates on weekend and right before holidays and a ot of people thought that was aimed at favoring hillary clinton over bernie sanders, but of strange argument because i would say the democratic debates were for inconvenient times, we all had to work to fact check them. thinking why are we fact checking on friday or saturday night. that help ow does hillary clinton? a lot of people thought hillary debates,id well in the i mean, this is where you get spin-off into speculation. i would say when we think about whether the democratic primary as stolen from bernie sanders, it is like, let's look at the votes and the evidence of that nd i don't think there is
evidence to suggest that votes were miscast or anything like that. democratic ore primary voters wanted hillary clinton to be their nominee. is another example from the debates this is again, las vegas, hillary clinton and on guns, this was a statement by hillary clinton rated half true. >> and so when i think about do, we have to 33,000 people a year who die from guns. think we need comprehensive background checks, need to close loophole, close the gun show loophole, other matters sensible, that are the kind of reforms that would make a difference that are in any way conflicting with the second amendment, you decision the heller and what i was saying that you reference, chris, i disagreed applied way the court the second amendment in that
the district what of columbia was trying to do was toddlers from guns. they wanted people with guns to them.y store the court didn't accept that reasonable regulation, but they have accepted many others. i no conflict between saving people's lives and defending the secretary amendment. host: to our guest, why the half true rating here? focused on her statement that the regulation ssue was protecting toddlers from guns. this is actually referring to washington, d.c. in the district of columbia, the city, and the regulation pretty much banned most handguns, it would be very to legally r anyone own a gun under these aimed at s, not just gun safety or toddlers. because rate it false what we found in looking through all the legal filings is that
district of columbia, trying to keep the ban n place kept saying that is aimed at protecting children, we think it is very important to keep guns either out of the home or that they be dismantled or way, certainly official legal filings from the district where they said, we are trying to protect toddlers and children. having said that, regulations more aimed ating, trying to limit gun ownership. why we rated half true. california, im in lacerville, california, hey, tim. we are here, go ahead, tim. sorry. okay, i'm there is some statements made by the democratic candidate for congress, efore before congressional committee, nd then later on, that was
followed by the head of the telling the and ame committee that there would -- brought against the reasonlinton and hey said they didn't bring these charges is because they she did it ve intentionally. question to you is this. handbook for true that is it not they tell their attorneys, if lies, it creates guilt?ion of
tim, you still there? caller: yes, i asked a question. host: let's hear from our guest tampa. thank you, tim. the : i have not looked at justice department handbook, i can't speak to that. we have spent a lot of time fact checking hillary clinton's e-mails. now just to recap what happened, she was secretary of state, wanted to keep her personal personal otected, her e-mails are not subject to public record law. her staff set up a server, her own server, where e-mailing of her from. then when the public records requested for her public e-mail, her team went through the e-mails and determined which were public which weren't. that is a lot of the problem, what is public record and they are on a private system. was it illegal to do this?
a hard question state department has discouraged the staff from using is onal e-mails, but that something that evolved over the years and other secretaries of colin powellcularly did use private e-mail, but their own server. that makes hillary clinton different. co comey, he james prosecute clinton for charges related to the e-mail because he just said this not a good case. he said she was careful to have e-mail on a private server, the e said that it was not kind of case they would bring. that is what we found on the e-mails. host: sorry, didn't mean to cut you off. clinton s arizona, supporter. good morning, lynn. caller: hi. how are you this morning?
doing fine g. ahead. caller: great. want to say i feel this election has turned into a reality t.v. show, like never never seen i think the introduction of donald just don't matter anymore. i'm thrilled to hear people are facts when it relates to some things that are happening. networks being s accused of bagging one or the for ratings.rching this is great for the reality t.v. america that has been created. my question about fact check, powell t mentioned colin and other secretaries of state. i lived in the northeast and i my work that gh admitted it, e-mail has evolved n. interest of e-mails, she is getting beat up for having a private server, but
here were things marked classified under the bush rice, tration, i believe here were classified documents deemed classified after the fact, just like hillary, that over regular personal -- i mean e-mail, which would not ave had the protection or at least the attempt to protect from a private server. so i just think they were lax cal in understanding of how e-mail is hacked as e-mail came into the part of how we communicate. i want to hear from your guest there, you know, if she found hat to be true or not, pass secretaries of states and that it was just as careless for them withoutnicate on e-mail even a private server. host: thank you, lynn. ahead, robnic holan, go please. guest: what we found with previous secretary of states is use e-mail as t did.as hillary clinton
so it's hard to compare between the previous secretaries of states. there is two dational things to mention about clinton. and aid she is sorry wouldn't do it again. then the other thing is that it her hillary clinton and state department took a lot of steps to try to keep classified e-mail off of her private e-mail server. under the formal system, if classified information, it gets a header at the top of he e-mail and so none of the headers were in her private e-mail. happened is some classified information was not properly labeled. talking about approximately 100 e-mails out of e-mails. i don't think and i think this is what comey was saying, look e-mails, they did work pretty hard to keep classified information off the just a few little things that weren't labeled properly got through.
in our discussions with experts on the e-mail system, i ean classification thing has taken up a lot of public discussion, but a lot of the the e we talk to says bigger problem is archival issues, these are government ocuments and should be in a government system, so professional archivist should decisions about what should be public and what should not be. that got lost e in the discussion. host: time -- guest: classified system was separately. host: time for couple calls. ena, you are on, go ahead, please. caller: hello. lot ifact seems to make a of determinations once they do research. ho owns politifact, since you claim to be nonpartisan and who fact checks you? thank you. guest: that's a great question. i would say as far as who fact us, everybody fact checks us. we're extremely transparent in
we list all sources. our readers fact check us, they lot when they disagree or think we missed something. look atws organizations our reports and are more than willing to tell us when they hink we've missed something or gotten something wrong and the partisan website look at us all and publish critiques of our work. so just like everybody else on get fact et, we checked ourselves. as far as our ownership goes, tampa bay is owned by times, the tampa bay time system florida's largest newspaper. times owner is nonprofit alled the pointer institute, unusual arrangement. what happened, the last private times washe tampa bay nelson poynter, he didn't want to a chain r sold after he was dead. nonprofit ed a institute to own the newspaper after p it independent
his death. and so we're owned by the institute, we and the profit from the newspaper go into the organization, difficult time for newspapers, be e're working to sustainable and but we're not owned by a corporate interest, owned by a private institution. nonprofit institute run by journalist. politifact.com, about us, if you click on the far right there, it says about there, there is a pretty easy way for folks to send in suggestions for you to own fact checking, right? guest: there is. we're on twitter and facebook. people can contact us that way. i would say e-mail is the most direct way and it seems to be
the way most readers prefer. host: one more call from deborah. caller: in it's not against the law forer to publicize that in front of everyone. that's one question. that is in tampa. you probably know. they are going door to door in trying to get puerto ricans because they could slate the elections here to vote for rill ry and they're forging signatures. have you checked that yet? and donald trump says i am not biased against women.
i'm not prejudice. and showing lewd remarks that many men said. have you set the fact that his first construction manager for the first trump tower was female -- was unheard of in new york. host: deborah, thanks for weighing in with all that. anything you want to take there? guest: you know, i don't think that we have -- i don't think we've fact checked about trump's female managers because i don't think it's in suit. one of the things about politifax is we look at questions that are in dispute. we don't spend a lot of time that things that nobody is questioning. host: our guests in tampa has be politifax.com. and you can also leave your own
suggestions. this is a habit of making appearances in unexpected places . today, it was the white house. he is the winner of the mark twain prize of american humor. from actors to astronaut at the white house. president obama noting that astronaut scott kelly holds the record for the longest duration in space by a u.s. astronaut. he said his head had expanded. back on earth, president obama is set to attend a fundraiser in beverly hills for $100,000 per person for hillary clinton.
it is going to be at the home of jeffrey katzenberg. it will be the 26th visit by the president to los angeles. here is a look at some
of the latest ads that are running in the campaign. >> in 2004, my son was stationed in iraq. he saw a suicide bomber approaching. my son moved forward to stop the bomber when the bomb exploded. unit.ed everyone in his diede one american soldier . my son was 27 years old. he was also muslim american.
tv-commercial tv-commercial tv-commercial
, would my son have a place in your america? >> i am hillary clinton and i approve this message. often the kinds of
kids who are called super predatory's, no conscious -- no conscience, no empathy. mindset that is you could put half of trump supporters into the basket of deplorables. trump and ild approve this message. >> donald trump's america is secure. terrorists kept out, the border secure, our family's safe. change that makes america safe again. donald trump for president.
>> i am donald trump and i
approve this message. >> a look at a new cnn orc poll, taking a look at race relations in the united states, showing a majority of americans say relations between blacks and whites have worsened during the obama administration. increasing numbers say discrimination is a serious problem in concerns about bias in the criminal system remain widespread. 54% leave relations between blacks and whites have gotten worse, and that is up from 43%. we are going to take a look at race relations and other justice issues in the united states from both sides. but the next president has to do to deal with those issues. the pleasure of introducing the moderator for our next and final panel. timesa new york
best-selling author. books have been nominated for literary awards. it also won the american library association stonewall award in 2013. educated at dartmouth and hard word, -- harvard, he attended school with president barack obama. he was once he highest ranked openly gay person in the white house. he participated in the first ever meeting between a sitting president and members of the lgbt community. onhas been involved progressive causes. he is a veteran of six political campaigns including two presidential campaigns and was named one of the top instructors when he worked at american
university. he is currently a cnbc columnist. and b et there is a lot here. one more thing. i think it is important. firsta founder and president of the national black justice coalition. he has spoke to audiences large and small. he delivered a landmark speech to 200,000 people. on the eighthech epidemic -- aids epidemic. : thank you, i was definitely not expecting that. we are going to discuss race in after obama for the final panel discussion. we are blessed do this a little differently. i think you had a chance to meet almost all of the panelists before.
i am going to throw out some questions and move along as quickly as we can. answers that are concise. allow for opportunity for conversation with the audience here as well. i want to begin, i'm not going to read everyone's bios, just a briefs and obsessed. i'm going to begin with mary frances berry. we have a hundred days left in the obama administration. after that, we will have president trump or president clinton. what should the agenda before the next president in terms of issues of race and social justice? mary: first you have to read my entire bio.
keith: first we have to get your microphone working. mary: then you can read my entire file. then i will answer the question. seriously, when michael was talking, i was thinking, it made me sad what he said. he was so full. one of the books i read, i'm not going to tell you which one it was, five dollars and a pork chop sandwich. vote buying and the corruption of american democracy. thats about people who say they have been waiting for politicians to do what they say they are going to do when they run for election and come around each year, generating turnout for every election, both state
and local, and make all these promises. ms. williams said, they never do what they say they are going to do. they tell you they are going to do this and do that. put a roof on the school. say never ever do what they they are going to do. some of them don't even try to do. at least every year, when they take me to vote, they bring me back and give me five dollars rk chop sandwich, so at least i know i'm going to get that. what i think obama, and i have to explain, what you can do so you can get something done. essentialotest is an ingredient of politics. i have written that someplace, too.
focus just one politics and what can happen after obama and so on, what can happen with clinton, if we are not prepared to bring pressure to bear and all we are prepared , frederick recite douglass said power concedes nothing without demand, and we do not demand, we will get nothing. view, whoever comes after obama is going to have to try to overcome that polarization in order to get some policy done. the reason why it has happened, not just him. he has not been able to figure out a way to do what michael said about the rest states, blue states, and all of that stuff that people thought was so hopeful and beautiful what he said. we like it. all the polarization, obama has been very effective at trying to likece some issues of race
police shootings, the role of the police. he has been less effective in my view in trying to balance other issues, like immigration and lb gtq issues. i favored position he takes, that is not the point. all that disaffected people, the deplorables out there still, remain disaffected because the way they feel they have been treated is we don't even want to hear what you have to say. we don't want to try to think of what youto discuss have to say. you people are just outside the realm of discussion. we don't want to have anything to do with you. the heck with you. when you do that to people, whether personally or in terms of policy, all you do is harden positions with people. you don't have to agree with them, but you can at least say,
you may have a point about x but let's talk about y. polarization is going to be the main problem. the issues to be dealt with her clear. obamacare needs to be fixed, it has got to be fixed. that is going to require less polarization. immigration, if there is going to be reform, that is going to require less polarization. some way to make people feel they are being accommodated. refugee policy, which we did not discuss this morning. there has to be some kind of middle way. we don't want terrorism but at the same time, we are a generous people. we want to take people in who need it. police issues. black people are not going, young people especially stand aside and cds continued
shootings and people getting killed without doing anything. i am out of them. i have been trying to pass the baton for 30 years. maybe now i found somebody i can pass it to. i think what he has left to his successor is capitalism intact, but you still got all this inequality. they probably teach here at the kennedy school that capitalism requires inequality. that is part of the definition. the point is, how much inequality and what can we do about it? ofhas left a good example how you behave in the presidency likenally so you can look somebody who should be in the office. if anyone black or latino and wants to be president, nobody says, we cannot have anybody like that be president. keith: let me move on to charles
badger, a republican strategist. you heard from mary frances berry four items on the agenda. she mentioned exceed obamacare. immigration. refugee policy. policing. would you agree with those issues? what approach would you like the president to take on those next issues? charles: i would agree with a number of them. there is a humanitarian crisis in syria, the likes of which the u.s. has not seen in a long time. possibly cents milosevic. most of the general milosovic and rwanda.
obviously, we've got to get refugees. health care is a delicate balance. there is a huge political polarization going on, that is going to make it difficult to get anything done. president obama and his , if it is president clinton who i believe it will be, they will have to figure out how to make fixes but the republican congress does not want to make fixes. misguidedink is a position. berry brought up our big issues. i want to talk about poverty. i think we haven't talked enough in this campaign. one of the issues that does not get very much discussion at the national issue, cost of living.
the affordability of our cities, where folks live. back in the 1970's, mitt romney, his father george romney, he had a big fight with nixon. romney had this visionary idea of using federal dollars as a chokepoint to get local municipalities to make progress toward racial desegregation. to roll back policies. of public variety policy challenges by way of local ordinances, municipal policies, around limiting the housing stock. limiting buildings. not in my backyard issues, when you want to add economic diversity to a neighborhood.
there is a large body of social science research coming out over the last 20 years about poverty is its own sort of issue. robert putnam and others would talk about poverty being a problem, and added issue, a force multiplier, the concentration of poverty. how do you break up concentrations of poverty? new jersey has an interesting history. trying to create economic diversity in a neighborhood. that benefits everybody there. there are ways to use the leverage of federal policy and grants to lean on states and municipalities to bring about these sorts of things. also, it is about organizing at the local level. every major city has a homeless problem. an issue of gentrification. both people of color and low income folks, the working poor.
every person in the service sector to every major city in america, pushed further and further out. the cities are unaffordable. also, ways in which the federal government can be involved. one example, hud, for a number of years has been doing this idea of mobility vouchers to deal with the issue of concentration of poverty. how do we break up those concentrations by moving folks to neighborhoods with a different income? where schools are better and the crime rates are different. things and ithese becomes an economic benefit for everybody, up and down the scale. you get the social effects, whether you are talking about schools, parks, neighborhoods, shared resources. when folks have to share resources with folks who don't look like them, come from different backgrounds, different of --s, you get all sorts
low income folks having access to networks. resources, transportation resources. closer to jobs. that is the major area of poverty. i think it has been under addressed. a is a fruitful area that if president wanted to taco, they could and should. is president of the foundation. i went to find out from you, we have had six items on the agenda. that list?ith what would you add to the agenda and how would you approach it? leah for to thank having me at this conference. it has been wonderful to learn from everybody.
we can talk a lot about the policy agenda. i would agree with almost everything that has been said. i would like to take it a step above that. we can all put our heads together, we are smart people, come up with great policy initiatives we would like to see the next president sign and congress passed. none of that matters unless there is broad public support that allows you to get through the house representatives, 60 votes for the senate, and the president to sign it. for me, the biggest hurdle we have to overcome is not that we don't have ideas to address these problems. there is a degree to which we need better ideas than of the past, i think that is true. particularly addressing poverty. -distribution has not worked. we need to do a better job finding jobs for a, economically
improve communities. the macro problem is segregation. i don't just mean in the sense of black, white. in the economic and social science cents. that ideologically, where liberals and conservatives live are segregated. you have rule communities that are more homogenous. urban and suburban communities that are more diverse. that leads to different cultural outlooks read the fact that partisan affiliations are more segregated. wealthy and poor people in segregated areas. college educated and non- college-educated individuals are geographically segregated. to two different countries, living simultaneously within each other.
that, i think that is the dominant reason we have the polarization we have in america. the fact that we are talking one of the big problems for criminal justice isn't that the ideas of aren't good. the challenges, you have a large group of people who live in communities where, i have never had a bad interaction with the police. this is made up. this isn't my experience. this is politically correct exaggeration. accuse cases, you can them of racism or just not wanting blacks to do better. but the biggest problem isn't that evil intent. you have people who just don't know anyone who has had that experience. they just don't have that ability to empathize and relate because it is not part of their life. and vice versa, by the way. i think there are a lot of
people in the urban intelligentsia who have no sense of what it is like to struggle in a west virginia coal mine. the people who live in those communities feel like, people on television and in hollywood have no sense of how they live and the struggles they face. they are told that they have white privilege. they look around and say, what privilege do you see in my community? that is part of the challenge, too. a big part of what i am trying to do with this new think tank, research for equal opportunity, , i want to free-up build a new ecosystem on the right that tries to build common ground with progresses and people in the center on issues we all care about. i think that has been a big challenge for both sides.
actually create these mechanisms where we are learning from each other. one thing i have benefited so much from, i spent a lot of time on msnbc. as one of their token conservatives, i guess. the advantage of that for me, it has been tremendous. lotas allowed me to learn a about the thoughtful people who are bringing up issues of real gravity on the left that the right is not talking about. i have learned from that and brought some of those concerns and issues to the right. others have, too. a big part, in general, macro theme of what i am trying to do, assemble the ecosystem of institutions that are liberty minded and doing this kind of work. about social mobility and economic mobility and poverty. addressing the historic legacy of slavery and segregation. bring them together to build a
new conservative movement that is not merely stating it is about opportunity for all but actually executing on that. keith: thank you, i want to follow up. i will interject, i had an experience as a token liberal on not quite haved the same revelatory results. we will move on, here. rissa, we have heard three different points of view. i would like you to add your point of view and perspective. what issues would you like to see on the agenda that have not been mentioned? or what you want to second others have mentioned? on the policy agenda, mostly seconding.
we are very much focused on domestic policy, not because foreign policy is not important but that is what we are focused on here. a serious policy intervention on jobs. as you mentioned earlier, one that is targeted to the communities that need those jobs more than anywhere else. athink that is going to cover number of different communities. it needs to be targeted and real. criminal justice reform, which for me also includes policing. also immigration. immigration reform. because it is important for immigration policy, but because it is having impact on the civil rights of any that doesn't look american, whatever the notion of looking american is.
i do want to go to the point you made. those are the policy priorities. who gets elected in november matters a great deal, the reality is regardless of who gets elected, whether it is the democratic i'll or republican aisle, we need a cleanup on aisle three. civil society. i totally agree what we are seeing, we need to figure out how we are going to strengthen the civil society to up the game on accountability and delivery. folks have talked about how politicians come around when they are up for election and you do not see them again. the only people who win on election day are the candidates who have the more votes. for communities to win and the country to win, we need to be there the day after and hold them accountable.
also, to have their back when they try to stretch themselves to work with the other side, whoever the other side is. without the ability to work toward agreement, there is no governing. state of politics where agreement has almost become a quilt and with treason. equivalent to treason. there is no upside for people to try to deliberate and get to something. we need all of us to pressure on the outside so those agreements do capture the aspirations of the vast majority of americans. the reality is, we are not necessarily rewarding problem-solving. that is a big issue for all of us in terms of how we engage.
segregation, in all its forms, what it tends to feed is a lack of exposure to each other. not that exposure alone leads to empathy, but it is the opening to at least understand, even if you don't agree. a requirement in some ways, conducive to reignite the problem-solving approach in our communities. the opportunity is there. it is not an easy task. that is the next thing we have to look at in terms of a civil society. that is what i would like us to see. what steps, big and small, can we commit to take? so we pullaround us, back from simply thinking in what did this president
do or not do? why are politicians so messed up? in some ways, the reality is elected officials are a reflection of us. to be more active in the process of doing that. i'm sure we will talk about --istricting and heart of and other things that are part of the systemic problem. results in having, causing eyelids -- having kamikaze pilots instead of legislators who are happy blowing things up. keith: i'm glad you mentioned redistricting. that leads to the next question i wanted to get to. this whole issue, i have heard it over and over, with the limitations are of the presidency. the president can do this because congress is against this.
what point do we start to revisit, reconsider, the whole concept of federalism? we reconsiderdo the possibility of constitutional amendments to change the structure of government itself so we don't have these debates that we can only argue on the margins? we can change what can be accomplished by any president. is that a possibility? avik: the idea of state and local accountability has a stigma on the left because of segregation. are able tohat -- transcend that, it is more accountable to citizens. it is easier for community to change what is happening at the local level then win a presidential election and get 60 senators and congress to do something. one thing about the conservative
movement, because it has been more friendly to the idea of state and local economy -- economy, there are state and nks in everyta state that try to generate policy ideas around state and local reforms. i mentioned the missouri, changing the way police departments are budgeted. we were talking about the texas public policy foundation which has a whole program called the ride on crime initiative. this is an area the progressive movement has neglected. there are not state-based and local-based progressive think tanks the same degree. around particular issues, grassroots. in terms of the policy engines, it is not so much their. -- there. emphasis there,
we wouldn't invest all our hopes and a president and then get disappointed. : i am deciding whether or not to say something i know will be unpopular. [laughter] i was think maybe i should just stop. thought long and hard about what you said about federalism. federalism is like judicial activism. when the national government you something you like, and don't like what the states did, you would love to not have the states have any power in that area. as my friend says on lgbt issues. why do we have to fight with the states? but when the national government does something you don't like, then you are happy in your state
constitution, be it massachusetts or california or someplace, you still have a degree of autonomy to shape what you in massachusetts want to do. it depends on whose actions we are talking about. the founding fathers, i know they are dead white men, the founding others who put this jerryrigged thing -- and i teach about this, so that is another , new it wasn't perfect. throughout our history, we have shifted from this. a lot of people think we have a national right to vote. i have run into that in a lot of studies. comes up any issue state passes something, they think the national government is in charge of our voting. the constitution gives that to the states. only come in in the federal government if there is under theimination
constitution, 14th amendment. that is good when your state wants to do something. i would shutter to have someone call a constitutional convention. what do you think would happen if in the polarized situation we live in in this country right now, somehow congress got itself together and started, or the states demanded, a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution? ify are people that think trump got elected, we would be slaves. if we had a constitutional convention, all kinds of things could happen. have one, going to that is number one. they made it hard to change the cost to ship -- constitution. i think federalism on balance, despite over the years the ups
and downs, leave some states as to engage in often progressive politics that you wouldn't he able to do if you just depended on the national government. i would say instead of doing -- campaignget finance money in politics. charles: i think we should go to complete public financing. to subversively blow up this concept of federalism. there is a south african concept, i am because you are. i think we could use a greater sense of that in our politics. federalismy in the
issue. case, was notre the mandate question. there was a second, lower -- got much lower press, medicaid extension. there is a body of law out of the supreme court about the federal government is constricting the states to be an agent of the state. that is what the legal question turned on. the absurdity of that is, i have worked in state governments. if you have worked in a state government, the asserted he -- absurdity of that question is 80-90% of state agencies are composed of administering federal programs.
hud is administered through state and local governments. there is not enough staff in hud, washington, or their satellite offices to in minister section eight. -- administer section eight. constrictingre state, if we are going to use deal.ord, it is a huge with the romney thing, using federal dollars and grants as a chokepoint to lean on states as a point of leverage. reasons -- of the particularly around decriminalizing marijuana, doctors are afraid -- the fda leans on them. one of the reasons doctors are
afraid of writing prescriptions, they are afraid of the fda lean on them. getting in trouble with her ability to write prescriptions. we talk about the interplay between federal and state governments. we extent to which, overwrite the degree to which states have autonomy. mary: they have the right not to do it. charles: if you don't take the funding -- keith: i want to focus on the question of what happens next. the next part of the question, a political question. a professor has argued, i believe in the new republic, hillary clinton would actually ofmore effective in terms
race issues or social justice issues than barack obama because she is a white woman. as opposed to a black man. anyone who would like to tackle that question, how they would respond. do you think a white person, even a president trump if he were so inclined, would be more capable of achieving african-american civil rights or social policy agenda than a black president, obama? president trop could be effective because it is like nixon going to china. he built a campaign on blue lies matter and lock her up. if he flipped, that would be a powerful gesture. the case of hillary clinton, president obama could have been more effective on criminal justice reform.
the one thing i would say in that case, i think he spoke out quickly. -- eloquently. one of the problems with president obama, he was not very good at directing with people in congress to hash out the details of legislation. speecherred to give the and let congress work out the details. where is a, because of her temperament, is somebody diligent about listening to people, put people together. that was her reputation in the senate. convening and bringing people together. fashioning deals. that aspect of hillary clinton, her temperament and personality, could be effective accomplish of these objectives. not necessarily because she is a white woman. keith: anyone else? i think there is
something to that. it was bill clinton who took on welfare reform because it was the unexpected. frankly, or organization had a lot of problems with how he proceeded to read in some ways, he had more space because he was a democrat. the same way potentially george w. bush could have done immigration if he hadn't waited so long because he was a republican. if you follow that argument, you might forbeing white, your hand to move forward. obama, itth president was also an attempt to deflect an attack that was very much out there. a narrative being built that he would only be a president for african-americans or for certain people. he was very cautious on how he approached those issues, at least in the narrative around the steps that were taken.
mary: if she did something counterintuitive with well for reform, race and cops, she would be doing something bad for black people. welfare reform was bad for black people. which is why the guys at the kennedy school, they had a tough time being there. my good friend peter edelman. in any case, that would be bad. if you mean by your question, which she then be some money -- somebody who would feel the pressure to do something because she is white? the answer is she probably would feel greater pressure, because african-americans are more to ang to say something white person who is in office than barack obama. we just want him to be there and stay and don't die. what she would do, i don't know.
if she follows the pattern the clintons followed before, which i am very familiar with, she will do a lot of social things. thele would sleep in lincoln bedroom. any bigmouth preacher could sleep in the lincoln bedroom. people could come to this and that. you are expressing an opportunity for change simply likelihood ofore accountability from the community? mary: might not vote for you next time. africano you expect americans or other communities of color will held her more accountable? mary: they will notice more what she does and she will worry more accu.
keepill worry, i have to these people. that is what the sleeping in the bedroom and coming to parties is about. [laughter] keith: there is another issue, explicitly political. the lame-duck session of congress. after november 8, we have until jenn my 20th when there are a number of issues. tpp, the supreme court nomination of garland. some sort of presidential directive, articulation of drone policy. a lot of these issues affect social justice concerns or people of color. what pressure can people in our communities put on whoever the incumbent president is to focus of issues of our concern? or the current outgoing president, president obama, during this interim time? you mentioned a number of
them. paul ryan has a criminal justice reform bill he is hoping to get through the house. it is something he wants to do. in terms of likelihood, i have not studied the vote count. cannot put odds on it. the reality is we are in uncharted territory. if you look at the lame-duck in 2010, it was incredibly productive. issues.n lgbtq you almost saw progress on immigration. they worked almost all the way till christmas. this one, who knows? wins,olks say, if clinton republicans may want to confirm the justice before she puts someone more liberal, rather than someone who is a moderate. they might want to get some