tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 29, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
-- announcement concerning the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: good morning to you. today is saturday, october 29. the f.b.i. has discovered new e-mails in its investigation of democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton's use of a private server. the f.b.i. still trying to determine what's in the documents and whether they might contain classified information. but james comey said in a letter to congress that the e-mails appear to be pertinent to its probe. these e-mails were uncovered while the f.b.i. was looking into illicit text messages allegedly sent by anthony weiner the estranged husband of humana aberdeen.
e will see what that means for the presidential election 10 days away. here's how you can join our conversation. if you are a donald trump upporter, you can call us at 202-748-8001. hillary clinton supporters, your line is 202-748-8000. third-party voters can share their ideas at 202-748-8002. if you're still undecided, you can dial in at 202-748-8003. you can also leave us your thoughts on social media. our twitter handle is twitter.com/cspanwj. hillary addressed these new revelations of the e-mail discovered by the press conference last night.
hillary clinton: our 11 days out from the most important election of our lifetime. voting is already underway in our country. so the american people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately. the director himself has said he doesn't know whether the e-mails referenced in his letter are significant or not. i'm confident whatever they are will not change the conclusion reached in july. therefore, it is imperative that the bureau explain this issue in question, whatever it is without any delay. so i look forward to moving forward to focus on the important challenges facing the american people, winning on november 8 and working with all americans to build a better uture for our country. host: these stories about the new e-mails made front age stories of the newspapers this
morning. you can see the "new york times" this morning. in "the washington post," there was this headline. "the f.b.i. will examine more clinton e-mail messages used by ides." director comey said he sought an obligation to act. joining us on the phone to give us more information is tom hamburger. he is a reporter for "the washington post." good morning, tom. guest: hello. host: thank you for joining us. so what can you tell us about what exactly the f.b.i. found on this computer that was pparently being used by both representatives anthony weiner and his wife? guest: in the course of a separation investigation, one
involving anthony weiner's illegal and inappropriate from his photographs personal phone, the f.b.i. seized computers, phones and other devices that it turns out in the course of that investigation into possibly illegal texting of minors wheeled e-mails that included -- that e-mails between his wife that may be of some interest of the ongoing investigation into hillary clinton's. that's the assumption. all that we know from what jamie jape has told members of congress in this short letter yesterday is that some of the
material on those devices may include e-mails that relate to the investigation, which it previously said was closed into hillary's e-mail server. host: do you know how many e-mails might have been discovered? guest: there's been estimate that it may number in the thousands. comey said in his letter to congress and in a subsequent memo to the f.b.i. to his colleagues in the f.b.i. that he's not certain either of the amount, how long it may take to review them or the scans -- significance but he felt obligated to let members of congress know that new information has surfaced. it's possible that he acknowledged some of these e-mails will simply be duplicates of the ones that have already surfaced. on the one hand, there's a possibility that what's contained in these e-mails on
the anthony weiner and his wife devices yields nothing new to our knowledge or the f.b.i.'s knowledge of hillary's use or potential misuse of a private erver. host: is it typical for an f.b.i. director to update congress when so little is known about exactly what was found? a lot of questions been raised ann the timing of this announcement so close to the presidential election. guest: that is a great point. it is unusual for a new and uncertain announcement be announced but we're in a very
unusual circumstance here. comey felt he had to be bad choices is the way he described it to our colleagues. one choice was not to say anything because of the general caution and the tradition that the f.b.i. and the justice department does not escalate investigation or announce one close to an election. for fear of influencing the election. so he face that caution on the one hand and on the other because he had already testified and told congress that the investigation into hillary server was closed and there would not be criminal charges, he felt the obligation to update congress with this information and let them know that indeed there is some new information hat's surfacing. something does surface that
as been disclosed. guest: the campaigns were both to clinton and the trump campaigns, republican and democratic parties were absolutely rocked by this news yesterday. it really did change everything, at least for the moment. hillary clinton was proceeding in proceeding in great confidence. in fact, at the time this letter leaked about a little before 1:00 p.m. yesterday. hillary clinton was in arizona, usually a republican state, one that she hope to win. she was heading for what looked like a significant victory and she was ahead in the polls and in the early voting statistics. and suddenly this news that the
investigation once thought to be completely closed into possible criminal activity involving the use of a private server changed everything. it shot the clinton campaign. donald trump was exalt in saying this is bigger than watergate and suddenly republican candidate who is had been on the defensive of supporting donald trump who has been under fire himself use know, suddenly found himself now saying to the democratic opponent will you support your nominee who may be involved in an act of criminal probe. so it has certainly changed things both the confidence of both the clinton camp's confidence has been dampened. and the trump campaign has new and donald trump has a new spring in his step and donald trump was using yesterday and the super pac to try to raise money, something he desperately
needs because that's well behind hillary clinton at the moment in the money race. host: all right. that's tom hamburger, "washington journal" political reporter, thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: let's go ahead and turn to your phone calls. our first caller is jim from jacksonville, florida, calling in support of hillary clinton. jim what, do you make of all of this? caller: well i don't understand hat the new e-mails are. the information that he gave was it was e-mail that was sent to they were nton and already verified the e-mails that were on hillary clinton's server. so that means he's already seen these e-mails. so to me, he's got his head up his butt. host: all right. that's jim from jacksonville, florida. next caller will be arthur from glen burnie, maryland who is calling for trump supporters.
do you think this changes the momentum and the dynamic of the race? caller: of course it changes. it's just more of the piling on corruption is terrible. when she first came out on the issue last year, she said oh, i've done nothing wrong. i was able to get to "washington ournal" every morning. they are exactly what she is all about. it is her whole program. it doesn't deviate. when caught in lie, she will do nothing but blame the messenger .nd try to ignore the message divert the children or religion or race or something. play the victim this is what she's all about. she is nothing but -- she's a sadist queen of the status quo and just corrupt to the core. host: all right. that's arthur from glen burnie,
maryland. we hear your point this morning. donald trump, again, did talk about these new discoveries on the campaign trail yesterday. he was at rally in new hampshire and here's what he had to say about the latest investigation. donald trump: i have great respect for the fact that the f.b.i. and the department of justice are now willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistakes that they made. [applause] donald trump: this was a grave miscarriage of justice that the american people fully understand and -- understood and it is everybody's hope that it is about to be corrected. [applause]
donald trump: so that is the big announcement that i heard 10 minutes ago and i guess obviously most of you folks have heard about. d for all of the people that have suffered, for doing so much less including just recently four-star general, general petraeus and many others. perhaps finally justice will be one. host: paul ryan said -- yet again hillary clinton has nobody lse to blame --
host: nancy pelosi put out a statement as well. here's a little bit of what she had to say after the exhaustive use of the e-mail server -- host: sadly but predictably, republicans are doing their best to misrepresent this letter and warp the f.b.i.'s serve to serve their conspiracy mongering against hillary clinton. from baltimore, maryland, bo is calling on the line for hillary clinton supporters. bo, what do you think this morning? caller: well, i think this. no matter what they say, i think t's a bunch of -- and seen before and hillary still has my
vote. and if it falls short on her, even people on the street, she still has my vote. it's just a bunch of crap. host: all right, bo from baltimore, maryland. next up is chris from kansas who is calling on the line for trump supporters. hris, with a do you think? caller: the bottom line is there's no way that director comey actually reopened this investigation. that's where it's done unless there's compelling evidence. we know that there's 33,000 e-mails that she deleted from her system that they never saw. and that wikileaks is still releasing e-mails that clinton and her supporters have done. i think what needs to happen is he needs to appoint an independent counsel to come in or take the information that's
collected from this information of the investigation and hand it ver to a grand jury. that's part of the reason why he reopened this. it's clear as former member of the military, everyone knows that what she did violated security protocols like just like donald trump has said. if it was and mike pence has even said. if there's -- any member of the military, the man would be in massive trouble. and everyone knows and that it should have been hand -- that's why it should been handled over to because clearly, comey or at
ast the f.b.i. or the system feels compelled to to not bring prosecution even though there's clear violations. host: next up, we'll hear from an undecided voter, dolores from camp hill, pennsylvania. dolores, is this -- does this affect of how you might vote come november 8? caller: i'm afraid so. i think it's a very sad situation and i'm very disappointed. seems to be more corruption and having anthony weiner, the serial predator have this information and god knows whoever else. and i agree with the kansas, that gentleman. if it is going to affect my
vote, then i vote, then i will not be voting for hillary because i think it is so unfair because the rest of us would be incarcerated for what she's done and i'm very sad about this. host: and so dolores, does not voting for hillary clinton mean that you're going to cast a vote for donald trump or does this mean you're looking for another party? caller: i'm not sure to be quite honest. i'm really not sure. i definitely won't be voting for hillary though. this just sings me, the more you hear, the more information, the more corruption there is. i'm possibly voting for trump or another party at this time. i can't vote for hillary. because there's just too much corruption. host: all right, dolores from pennsylvania. next up, let's hear from new jersey. rhonda is calling on the line for clinton supporters. good morning, rhonda. caller: good morning, america. yes, i am most certainly going to cast my vote for hillary clinton. this is just another way the republicans are trying to steal
the election. if they never vetted donald trump and his taxes and the fact his relationship with russia, why hasn't the f.b.i. done an investigation on that since wikileaks is dropping all these e-mails? this has gotten ridiculous. it's like a clown show. you know if there was someone else running, maybe i probably wouldn't vote for hillary clinton. i really loved paul ryan but he never even got in the race. you know, and now we're stuck with these two people and we have -- i'm vote for the less evil because i know donald trump is not a good person. and that's so obvious. and you know what else i feel? i feel like he's brainwashed america with his money. like all these people are looking at him in his plane and they feel like if i vote for him, he'll make me rich. he doesn't care about anybody in
america. he only cares about himself. host: all right. rhonda from new jersey, a few comments now from twitter. one person writes in. weighing potential damage to comey's reputation versus influence of a major election. comey acted in careless self-interest. another person tweets f.b.i. investigated hillary clinton 10 times but can't look into police brutality in the u.s.a. not once? f.b.i.'s incompetent as lawyers. david from waterton, south dakota, is cuge the line for donald trump. david, what do you say? caller: well yes, i was watching cable news last night and the former prosecutor for the state in new york said that if hillary clinton, if they dig into it, she's looking at 120 years in prison for all the crime she's committed and the clinton
foundation is one of the most illegal and corrupt so-called charities where she made $120 million while she was secretary of state taking money from enemies of our country and places where human -- rights don't exist and the last caller just made up and said that trump has relationship with russia. trump doesn't have a relationship with russia. and for the clintons as corrupt as they've been for as long as they've been, it's about time somebody finally starts to do something. host: all right, david from south dakota. here's a little bit of the story that ran in the "new york times" this morning. the details of this new investigation or these new questions into hillary clinton's private e-mail server. the story says that f.b.i.
director james comey's letter says the f.b.i. would review the e-mails to determine if they contained classified information which is tightly controlled by the government. -- host: hillary clinton speaking to reporters last night, addressed this issue of voter trust and how that might affect her support going forward. here's with a she had to say.
hillary clinton: i think people a long time ago made up their minds about the e-mails. i think that's factored in to what people think and now they're choosing a president. so i would urge everybody to get out and vote early and all the state that have early voting because i think americans want a president who can lead our country, who can get the economy working for everyone, not just those at the top and you can bring our country together. i offer that. i can do that. and i'm very confident that the american people know that and we're going to continue to discuss what's at stake in this election because i believe that it's one of the most consequencial elections ever. host: let's hear now from you. stephen from utah is calling on the third party line. stephen, what's your thought this morning? caller: yes. well, i think this whole thing about this one server is silly because hillary wouldn't be able
to access her phone on her phone? i can access more than one serve for the my phone. i mean, you can access three or four servers if you want to on your phone. host: so stephen, you're calling on the line for third-party voters. who do you plan to support? caller: i couldn't vote for either one because we're supposed to be one nation under god and trust in god. and neither one of them is consider to be anywhere near god because both are covetous and their hearts.in so i couldn't vote for either one of them. host: that's stephen from utah. next up is gregory from montana calling on the trump line. gregory, i think you're actually in missouri. caller: right. host: sorry about that. go ahead, gregory. caller: no problem. first of all, i got say the
secrets of the f.b.i. really doesn't have the timetable like everybody else. they don't put in 40 hours a week. they don't have to have their reply in by friday. they do their own investigation. and they finally stepped up. i think they did the right thing, finally. but anyway, they don't have a time schedule. why do people still believe in this woman? i don't understand. i mean she only had it for yoga and no security reasons for anything. prior to the story or did the story. 33,000 e-mails. that's the people's e-mails. it's not hers. it's not congress. it's the people's. we pay her salary. host: gregory -- caller: yeah? host: gregory, prior to this new revolution, donald trump has been lagging in the polls. do you think this could change the outcome, give him a boost? caller: yeah, very much so. i mean for a common person. i never could trust mrs. clinton
or mr. clinton. he lied to the people too. and that's what got him finally impeached. host: all right. gregory from missouri. david from flint, michigan, on the line for clinton supporters. david, go ahead. caller: good morning. yeah, i heard about it and it's a whole lot of smoke about nothing. and republicans are so happy and they're rejoicing and stuff. it's not going to help that no good liar donald trump. i've already voted. my sister voted. we're over 6 06789 my family, we called in and we went in early voted and i'm going to get all my god sons, all my family. e're all voting for hillary. so it would help the republicans. host: scott from maine is calling on the line for third-party supporters. go ahead, scott. caller: yeah. hey, good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'm just astound, i
really am. out of 333 million or whatever it is we got, these are the best two that you guys put up. i'm voting jill stein because she is everything bernie was and a little bit more. and i don't know how she's going to get her name out there. i really don't. but people just -- we need woman president. because the good old boys have had it long enough and look what they've done. we got to get a woman in there and she's the next best thing to bernie and people need to get out of the box. just step out of the box for a minute and take a look at her. look her up online because the media never talks about her. but she's a viable, viable option to what we got in front of us, the circus. every four years, we go through this. and people just keep buying it. they just keep voting the same old crap. and one after another, you know. host: scott calling in support
of green party candidate jill stein. fred from ohio is calling up next. fred, you're in a swing state here. you're calling in a line for donald trump. how do you think this impacts the race? caller: well we might have been a swing state in some people's mind but ohio is all trump. and this is trump country. and i got to say this. anybody that's voting for a third party or thinking about voting for crooked hillary clinton, they need reassess their values in life. because mr. trump will be the salvation of the united states of america. and praise god and praise donald trump. host: all right. that's fred from swing state of ohio. madeleine from new orleans, louisiana, is calling up next. madeleine, you say that you're undecided. how does this affect your thinking? caller: well it just makes me
even more undecided. my big question was what was huma abedin doing sharing a government device with her husband or something that was being used for government business with her husband who is not a government employee? you know me father worked for the federal government for 40 years. and as a child, we were told things that had to do with his office, i mean, something as simple as a pencil, we were not allowed to use because that was the tax pair's dollar and it was supposed to be used strictly for the benefit of the people that he was working for in his job. we have gone completely nuts that the fact that a government's device could be ust shared between a couple.
and dealing with the government and not any kind of vacation and we sit up there and act like it can be honest and it cannot be. it cannot be with somebody in business that is dealing with government. you cannot have honesty. and that is -- the key issue to all of this is there is no integrity on either side. we're all using government for our benefit and we're all using government to enrich ourselves. it appears that nobody separates themselves and says that government is to benefit all the people, not individuals. host: all right. that's madeleine from new orleans. up next is alicia from garland, texas, calling on a line for clinton supporters. alicia, does this change your opinion of secretary clinton? caller: absolutely not. i voted on wednesday. i stood in a moderate line for
hillary clinton. i stand for hillary clinton. this is much to do about nothing. people, wake up. onald trump is the new hitler. we have to wake up and understand that hillary clinton has been fighting this race for american people all her life, r women, for the african-americans, for everyone that's been counted out. if you think that those e-mails are going to show anything new, you better look again. i want the same rigor that you're going about going after hillary, you have a sex offender, a 13-year-old girl. you have 12 women now that have come out. no taxes. donald trump is nowhere near the white house. and this is going to be another scam to keep hillary off the trail but she's strong and she will prevail. nd on the 8th, she will be
announce the first woman p. praise be the god. host: james is calling from georgia on the third-party line. james, did i get that right? caller: yes. i'm a libertarian and i'm going to vote for johnson. i cannot vote for hillary. i mean, she's an obvious crook because of not necessarily because of these new e-mails, but because of the foundation that she formed that enriched themselves, meaning bill and hillary. and her whole family. what is amy salary over there? d then the corruption of the corporations and the foreign government. they were able to get money from the foreign governments to support a charity in the united states which enriched them. i can't support trump either. trump is a capitalist.
not only a capitalist but he's an imperialist and he's probably going to be worse. the only problem is if trump doesn't get elected and this is found to have crooked dealings, he will not be pardoned but our president, president obama, will probably if gets the election and she then is going to be held up for investigation in her first term, the things that obama can then pardon her so that twhrfer she can't be prosecuted and she can't be investigated. the only one of the two then, therefore, is johnson. who is honest as the day is long and he would be a good president. host: all right. that's james from georgia.
these are not the only news story that happened. here is a look at the other major headlines across the country. one of the stories is from roll call. supreme court decides to enter transgender bathroom debates. the supreme court agreed to step into the heated social debate that whether schools should allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. --
host: meanwhile in north dakota, police have arrested over 100 people in a crackdown on those who are protesting the north dakota pipeline. here's the story from reuters. police arrested 141 native-americans and other protestors in north dakota in the 10th standoff that spilled into friday morning seeking to halt construction of a disputed oil pipeline. police in riot gear used pepper spray in an effort to disperse 330 protestors and clear camp on private property in the path that opposed $3.8 billion. that's according to statements released by the morton county police sheriff's department. some attached themselves to vehicles and starting fire, police said. now there was one pieces of good news and that is that g.d.p. growth is up.
here's the story from the "wall street journal." g.d.p. growth hit twos-year high of 2.9%. an acceleration in the u.s. economy in recent months should relieve fears of the u.s. losing steam. it is the broadest measure of 2.9%.utput advanced at a host: those are a few of the other headlines that have been driving the news recently. let's turn back to your phone calls now though about the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. dave from georgia will be our next caller. he's on the line for supporters of mr. trump. dave, good morning to you. caller: you know, i'm just glad
it's coming out. hillary clinton has gotten away with so much. maybe she won't get away wit no longer. host: all right. that's dave from georgia. next up is sharon from hamilton, ohio, who's calling in in support of hillary clinton. we heard from another voter in your state who say it's trump country but you're calling on the line for hillary clinton. what do you think of all this? caller: i think it's so sad. i am still voting for hillary. i believe that it's just toot attempt to sabotage something good for the american people from the republicans. and it's just sad. i am still going to vote for hillary. she's going to finally do something good for the american people. host: all right. sharon from ohio. next up, david from montello, georgia, is calling from the undecided line. david, how does this affect your decision? caller: well it -- my decision
was kind of being swayed towards trump because of the scotus nomination of the foreman. but right now, i mean, this investigation isn't an investigation isn't an investigation. this is only comey trying to gain some credibility within his own agency. it's not going to go anywhere. there's no time for to it go anywhere. for hillary to get out and say i need for -- if there's a need to tell the american people of exactly what you found hinders the investigation if there was one. there's not enough time to fully investigate this. i don't think it's going anywhere. comey has lost all credibility within his own agency and the american people. so he's trying to make a stab at trying to gain some credibility and it's going to fall flat on his -- host: do you think that f.b.i. director comey should have waited until the election or at
least until they had examined the e-mails more closely before making any type of announcement? caller: like i said, i don't think there's going to be an investigation. i think this is all just a bunch of showmanship. there's not enough time to do it. and maybe there would be enough time for the inauguration. but i don't think it's anything. and a special prosecutor probably should have have been the one, the talking point here. this is the only way it could be credible if there is an investigation. host: all right. that's david from georgia. now let's remind our viewers about what happened back in early july and exactly what f.b.i. director comey said when he decided not to prosecute in the e-mail clinton case.
here's that clip from back in july. >> finally with respect to our recommendation to the department of justice, in our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence that the f.b.i. helps collect. although we don't normally make public or realm days,s to the prosecutor, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutor abc what resolution may be appropriate given the evidence. in this case, given the importance of the matters unusual transparency is in order. although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges. their obvious considerations like strength, responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions
and how similar situations have been handled in the past. in looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. all the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities to have information exposed in such a way that would support an interference of misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the united states or efforts to obstruct justice. we do not see those things here. host: and that was f.b.i. director james comey speaking back in july about the bureau's decision not to bring criminal charges against hillary clinton. now the story in the" hill" newspaper say that president obama will continue to campaign with hillary clinton despite
these latest revelations. the story said that the white house on friday stressed the new probe won't affect president obama's support for the democratic presidential nominee in the final days of the campaign. obama spokesman eric schultz indicated obama will not shift his campaign special. as a result, the campaign 11 out from election day. the quote is i don't think anything has surfaced to change the president's opinions and views of secretary clinton. that comes from eric schultz. there will be several campaign events happening today that c-span will be bringing you live coverage of. bill clinton will be campaigning for his wife, hillary clinton, in columbus, ohio, and that will start at 2:15 p.m. here on c-span. and then later today at 6:00 p.m. eastern, donald trump will be in phoenix making a campaign stop there this evening. you can studented to c-span for our live coverage of those
events. let's get back to your phone calls now on hillary clinton's e-mail investigation. amy from tampa, florida, is calling now on the line for donald trump. amy, good morning. caller: good morning. and thank you for having me on. host: sure. what is your thought? what do you make of these latest developments? caller: i definitely think that there must be something quite egregious within the e-mails. otherwise, why would they bring it out at this time when it's so close to election day? and this is one of the reasons why i'm supporting trump because i really do not feel like i could pass the -- cast a ballot for someone who may have been involved in criminal activity and there's a lot of things from the past throughout the summer that has come out that really is skeptical about the whole clinton foundation and a lot of things that she was doing as
secretary of state. so i just knowingly cannot cast a ballot for someone involved in that and i think that trump is the best person to go into washington, expose a lot of corruption. i don't think it's just the democratic party. i think republicans are involved in corruption as well. i'm not a party affiliate. this is why i'm supporting trump with all his flaws, i was not initially a trump supporter, but i think as it gets closer and closer to the election, i'm actually, you know, really for trump now. host: and amy, what is the mood there in florida, again, which is another swing state? do you feel that sentiment is shifting? caller: i'm not really sure. i mean, i will tell you as far as signs and bumper stickers, there's not many out this election cycle. host: for either candidate?
caller: for either candidate. i would say there's probably a few more than trump because i do. when i drive from work in different places, i take notice of those kind of things. there's just not much out there. so i don't think people are really hyped up about it. or if they are hyped up for trump, they're keeping it quiet because i really don't, you know, express my political views to anybody just because -- i don't know. i just feel like i want other people to make their own decisions and i don't want them to think differently if i'm affiliated with a candidate that has republican label behind it. i think there's a lot of stigma associated if you affiliate yourself with a republican candidate. host: next caller is david on the line for a clinton supporter from dayton, ohio. caller: good morning.
i like for the american people breathe and inform themselves. if they read the reddit management act. if if they found every e-mail that hillary ever wrote, there is nothing that they could do to her because she's a private citizen now. and all she's guilty of is a civil offense, which is a fine or a suspension. she's not a government employee. there's nothing they can do to her. and then i want people to read the espionage act and see if she tried to give e-mail to an enemy of the state. you will find no record of that. she's not guilty of anything. the reason why the federal to gement act has no tito it, because the united states congress does it all the time. they disclose classified information for their own
benefit and they also use it to do inside trading and they will steal government employees and we could do something about that. thank you. host: thank you. few comments from twitter. one person writes in eventually we the people will get tired of how corrupt our government is and finally decide to replace every one of them. and another person tweets comey was right to inform new evidence was found in the hilary rodham clinton e-mails so voters can decide outcomes. melissa from daytona beach, florida, is call trying the third party line. melissa, where is your vote going to be cast this november 8? caller: well, i was a democrat for 40 years but i already voted for jill stein. just let me say tom hamburger then journalist you had on at the beginning said that the investigation, the f.b.i. said it was shut down. that's not true. it was six times in the news. it's open-ended. it's still going on. it's comey and he's an honorable
man. i remember when he worked for george w. bush and john ashcroft , almost dying and alberto gonzalez and another henchman came in the hospital to get him to sign some legal papers to force him and comey went right there, right there. he lost favor with the bushes and the republicans but he's an honorable man. if he would have come out after this, comey, with the information, i believe they have something. it's connected on that computer. anthony weiner's computer, that's what he said. he said there's thousands of e-mails and there is a connection. if he would have waited after the connection, people would have screamed. why would you wait? hillary lied. he said colin pau told her it was ok to have a private server and colin pau said no, i didn't say that. now, huma, her assistant, her
husband, anthony weiner, for him to be on a computer, sex texting underaged girls with his baby on his chest, if he had any integrity, huma, she would have grabbed that baby, told him to hit the road. but look who she works for. there's no integrity here. host: all right, melissa from florida. jason from san diego, california, calling on the line for secretary clinton supporters. jason, go ahead. caller: yes. yes. hi. i just want to say that donald trump is a pedophile. he is a pedophile. he is a disgrace. i remember many years ago that of the star with the wig government went after hillary clinton. they tried to do to that what they did to martha stewart. host: next caller is joyce from
raleigh, north carolina, calling on the line for donald trump. go ahead, joyce. joyce, are you there? caller: yes. host: ok. go ahead, joyce. what is your thought on this latest news about the e-mails it? were discovered on a caller: there's just too much. i think he's got his hand on trump to say not our country. anybody that can support somebody that supports abortion right up to the day the baby's due is not -- it's got to stand up for god and an answer for that. we're killing millions of babies. we're going to have to answer that as a country but i'm not going to stand up for god and he will ask me why did i vote for somebody that supported that and i'm going to have to tell him i don't know why i did it.
so i'm not voting for her. and she's a big liar. and people should wake up and realize that god could be using trump. he has always used very good men to bring about his purposes. thank you. host: all right, joyce, from north carolina. george is calling from bradford, massachusetts on the line for those who support third parties. george, why did you decide to go third party in this election? caller: i'm going for third party for one reason. because i can't trust him and i surely can't trust her. so i got no choice. the reason i'm -- host: does this change your opinion at all or reinforce your decision to go third party? caller: i don't trust him. he's a loud mouth. and i surely don't trust her or anything. so, i mean -- host: ok. that's george from massachusetts. brad from virginia beach, virginia, another third party
voter. brad, good morning to you. caller: good morning. yeah. my comment is why is it that the f.b.i. director didn't find no wrongdoing on this third-party candidate but he just continues on and recently leaked out that she had bleached and destroyed all the evidence from the e-mails? my question is on that what do you think about that? host: all right, brad, from virginia beach, virginia. there's still a few more minutes for you get your thoughts in in this segment that we're doing and our question of the morning is to get your comments on hillary clinton's e-mail investigation here. here are the lines for you to calls. if you are a donald trump supporter, call us at 202-748-8001. if you're a supporter of hillary clinton, the line for you is 202-748-8000. third-party voter, call us at 202-748-8002. and if you're still undecided,
call us at 202-748-8003. and let us know whether or not this latest news as impacted your decision. of course, you can send us a tweet. our twitter handle is twitter.com/cspanwj. you can leave us a comment on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. here's a story from "politico." democrats turn on comey after he reopens clinton's e-mail wound. the story says in july, they praise the f.b.i.'s director decision not to recommend charges against hillary clinton over her use of private e-mail server while serving as secretary of state. but on friday, top party officials turned on comey ripping him for not only taking on new steps they hope was over but also for the way he announced them. these story quotes dianne feinstein on intelligence saying the f.b.i. has history of extreme caution near election day. so it is not to influence results.
these breaks are appalling. elijah couplings was also displeased saying frankly, i'm surprised that the f.b.i. sent this letter given how obvious it was that republicans would immediately misconstrue and mischaracterize it. i can understand the f.b.i.'s concern for being attacked. but i believe the f.b.i. now has an obligation to make public as much information as possible. joe from sun city center, florida is calling to support mr. trump. what's your thought, joe? caller: well i think it goes back to when bill clinton was sitting in the back of the airplane with loretta lynch and a couple, two or three days ter, somebody decided to not look into any further of the e-mails or do any prosecution or
whatever lawyers do, you know. we mostly have ambulance chasers down here, no litigation lawyers. but anyway, oh, that's about it. host: all right. that's joe from florida. don from california is now calling on the line in support of hillary clinton. go ahead, don. caller: hello. hey, just calling to say hey. these people here in america and you guys, man, i don't know what's been happening to these people, man. it seems like morality don't mean nothing no more. i don't see how they can vote for this donald trump, man. and he is just about the most immoral person i have ever seen my lifetime and to be president of the united states of america? are you kidding me? these republicans have really
lost their minds. ok, now, but then again, i want to also say that this woman said god chose trump? ok. babylon is falling. so, yes, he would choose trump to help babylon fall because america is going to be destroyed no matter what you do. all right, trump, hillary, whoever you put in there. god is putting america to an end and this place is going to be destroyed. host: all right. caller: because the bible said fear on all sides. host: all right, don, from california. next up is dwight from brooklyn, new york, calling on the third-party line. dwight what, do you think this morning? caller: yes, good morning. god bless america because it seems like with all these callers, we pretty much -- basically, even if hillary does get elected, she has all these problems with the f.b.i. if they do decide to arrest her,
throw her in jail, then she has the right at that point to pardon herself and even if he does pardon herself, you know, if she doesn't, then america has the right to impeach her. and if america wants to impeach her, then do we really want the vice president, you know, to step in and take over? that guy, you know, i'm not even sure if he knows he's the vice president even after she does get elected. but i mean, to think of a third party, i would definitely go for artie lang because he really knows how to run the country. bengi comes in late and the next thing you know, howard and robin are talking about if they can change this country anymore. they want to bring iraq in as part of another country and then bring it into america and making it a sovereign state. i mean, who even thought of such a thing? this is like one of the most incredible things. even if these e-mails were turned out to being? that were anti-weiner was looking at them, is she really looking at them? host: all right.
that's dwight from brooklyn, new york. next up is race rey from tennessee cuge the line in support of donald trump. ray, go ahead. caller: hello. host: hello. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. ofse e-mails are just a part the whole clinton -- the way they do business. you can look back and see she come out of the white house saying that there were black rope. $260 million me $260 million in income within a few years without some kind of mixing of the books and getting the money? i mean, it's so obvious. look at everything she's touched, syria, egypt, all those middle east countries that are in turmoil. she was in there at the time
that all this was going on. host: all right. caller: everything she did was wrong. it's like donald trump said. she got bad judgment. host: ok. that's ray from tennessee. and we have time for one more caller in this segment and that ill be bobby from california calling to the line in support of hillary clinton. sale -- actually, we've lost bobby. that will conclude our segment of hillary clinton's e-mail investigation. but we will be returning to this topic later on the show. so stay tuned for that. coming up next, we'll take a closer look at the expected affordable care act premium that are due next year with two health care policy experts. and later on, russia expert will be joining us to talk about the increasingly frayed u.s.-russia relationship. we'll be right back.
♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, this morning from 9:00 eastern to just afternoon. >> the british empire and its commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say this was their finest hour. >> we are live for the 33rd international churchill conference in washington, d.c., focusing on the form is british prime minister's friends and contemporaries. speakers include british historian andrew roberts, author of "master and commander's: how four titans won the war in the west.
" at 7:00, george p bush, state senator was a menendez, and musician phil collins talk about the spanish mission the alamo at the 2016 texas tribune festival in austin. is thisemories i have group of people were going, and they do they were going to die, but they went. when they were there, david crockett went. but there was something really noble and romantic. i have learned that it wasn't quite as black and white, and that's one of the things i think would be good in this day and age. we put it into context. >> sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifact. upfront.hur's he noticed is not wearing weapon. he would often lead attacks during nothing but that riding crop. and the men looked at this and realized if the kernel, later, l --rigadier -- if the:
colonel can take it. , and atas macarthur 8:00. >> it serves as conscience and chief, with the highest level of integrity. locked onal compass true north, so can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. >> the 10 commandments for presidential leadership. what they are, and provides examples of presidents who excelled at each one. for the complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. >> "washington journal," continues. host: right now, i will be discussing the affordable care act in recent news, that premiums will be rising next year. are brian blase, with
the george mason university mercatus center. and ron pollack, executive director of families usa. thank you for being with us this morning. i want to start with just the news of what was announced this week. here's a story in the "wall street journal," that says the obama administration monday confirmed a 25% average jump in premiums for the affordable care act benchmark health plans trade they gouged later sign of deadlines for hundreds of thousands of people whose insurers are dropping their plans because of rising cost. brian blase, wire premiums rising so much? -- why are premiums rising so much? guest: the president, when he was promoting the law, promised premiums would go down for the average family with workplace coverage. we know between 2010 in 2015, premiums have increased about $4000. the premium increases we are talking about this morning are
for the individual market. the people who are purchasing coverage on their own. they don't get coverage through the workplace. those premiums increased substantially from 2013 to 2014. that was the year the ca key provisions took effect. now they are increasing again significantly, 25% on average as insurers realize that the number of enrollees that they have are much smaller than they expected, and enrollees tend to be much poorer and sicker than unexpected. premiums are only part of the story. the president also promised there would be increased choice and competition because of obamacare. but we have seen from 2013 to this year is a decrease by 25% in the number of insurers participating in the individual market. from this year to next year, a further decrease of about 25% of the insurers participating in the market. one third of all counties are only going to have a single insurer participating in the changes next year. there are two principal problems that are leading to this.
a lack of competition and rising premiums. the first is that young and healthy people are not buying the coverage in anywhere near the degree they were expected to. lessaw made insurance much attractive to them and unless they receive really large subsidies, they are choosing to pay the individual mandates and remain uninsured. host: ron pollack, less competition, is that which you believe is behind the rise in prices? guest: it's really important for your viewers to understand that this is really much a do about very little. the overwhelming majority of people who have health insurance are totally unaffected by. most people have health insurance, they have employer-sponsored insurance. they are totally unaffected by this. those who get medicare or medicaid, a very substantial medicaid allowance of about 17.5 -- aon people -- 1720
group we're talking about are those people who are in the individual market place, who are getting coverage through via affordable care act. there are about 10.5 million people who are in that group. among that 10.5 million number of people, the vast majority, 85%, are not going to be harmed by a. the reason they are not going to be harmed is that consumers don't care so much with the premium is. they care about what they have to pay out-of-pocket. one of the key features of the affordable care act is it provides there is substantial premium subsidies, tax credit premium subsidies that help to make insurance affordable. up, so doemiums go the subsidies. people who5% of the
are participating in the marketplace under the affordable care act are getting the subsidies, they are not going to be harmed. the group that is really affected by it is a group of about 1.5 million people. these are people who have got relatively high incomes, and they don't get subsidies. the subsidies extend all the way say, for a family of four, up to $97,000 in annual income. if you have income below $97,000, you get the subsidies. and when the premium goes up, so to the subsidies. , aboutre those people 1.5 million, who are over a 400% of poverty. they are not going to get subsidies. this big announcement really has to do with a tiny percentage, less than 1% of the american public. now, we talk about choice.
the average person who is participating in the marketplace is going to have a choice of approximately 30 plans. even if there is one or two or three insurers in your particular community, every insurer provides multiple plans. on average, people will have a choice about 30 plans that they can select from. mind you, if you have employer-sponsored insurance who have, most people employer-sponsored insurance really have pretty little choice. 30% of us who have employer-sponsored insurance are told here's the insurer that's going to cover you, and here's the plan that's going to cover you. unlike that, in the affordable care act, there is plenty of choice. it is unfortunate that premiums
are going up. no question about that. thatey reason for that is there was an assumption that a lot of employer-sponsored insurance were going to migrate into this individual coverage. the individual coverage is there for people who don't have employer sponsored insurance. that aumption had been lot of employers were going to drop coverage for their workers, because those workers now had an alternative. and that they would go into this private marketplace. that didn't happen. now that's not terrible news. those folks still have employer-sponsored health insurance. but as a result, you had a disproportionate number of ,eople who are sick or older who are going into the individual marketplace. that is because one of the key features of the affordable care act that i think everyone thinks is very important in good is
that insurers can no longer deny or try to discriminate -- charge a discriminatory premium to those people who have a pre-existing health condition. so those people, for the first time, about 130 million people who have some pre-existing conditions. they are now protected. those are did not have employer-sponsored insurance with a pre-existing condition disproportionally went into the marketplace. as brian said, that means that premiums are going to go up very i think this is going to level out over time. my presumption is more people will migrate into the marketplace, and you're going to see a much more balanced risk pool. host: brian blase. problem withntral obamacare is it significantly increase the underlying price of insurance. ron is right. people have subsidies, they're going to be largely insulated from that increase in premiums. but the subsidy is a cost that is picked up by taxpayers. i thinkoint, ron
underestimates the number of people affected by these premium increases by about 38.5 million people. peopleioned 1.5 million in the exchange you don't receive subsidies. that is correct. there's another 10 million people who are producing in the individual market who don't qualify for subsidies are going to be affected by these premium increases. host: and the individual market outside of the affordable care act. guest: right. it's about half exchange, half nonexchange. moreover, there are 30 million people who still don't have health insurance. if they want to pick a health insurance plan, they're going to be affected by these large premium increases because premiums are going to be much more expensive if they want to opt into the health insurance system. host: do we know whether those 30 million people qualify for subsidies? guest: reasonably, somewhat. guest: we actually do that. -- do know that. of humandepartment services issued the report this week, they told us that more than three quarters of the people, 78% would qualify for subsidies. host: who are still uninsured.
guest: that's right. who are uninsured. and i have to say that those people who have purchased insurance outside of the marketplace, outside of the affordable care act, the vast majority of them are also eligible for subsidies. they may not know about it. one of the big problems, those of us who have been trying to get people enrolled in coverage through the affordable care act, we have encountered still, despite all the hullabaloo about the affordable care act, there are still lots of people who are unaware of what they can get out of the affordable care act. in my view, this is really important for young adults. adults actually get the best deal out of the affordable care act. provided on aare so-called sliding scale. what that means is the lower your income, the higher the subsidies. groupadults are the age
that have the lowest income. they are either in entry-level jobs when you not have a job. so they can get significant subsidies. and i think over time, as the department of health and human services is doing, they're going to be broader outreach to that group. more of them are going to come in because they are going to find that it's a good deal. for the first time, coverage is affordable with the subsidy. i think we're going to see more balanced pools and therefore lower premiums. host: let's turn to our collars, and then -- callers. then we will hear from brian blase. you can join in, if you have insurance, call call (202) 748-8000. if you have insurance through your employer, call (202) 748-8001. those who are uninsured can call call (202) 748-8002 with your thoughts and comments. let's hear from scott in thomasville, georgia, who is calling on the line for those
who receive their insurance from the affordable care act. how is that working out for you, scott? caller: it morning. first of all, to correct some of your references. appliesrdable care act to all group health insurance and individual coverage in the united states. there is no buying insurance outside of the affordable care act. i do have what's called off exchange blue cross blue shield policy. this past -- a go myself and my two boys, 11 years old and 13 years old on the plan. paid $1500 last year, going forward, it's going to be $2200. i live in south georgia. six years ago, we had four insurance companies offering individual coverage in the area. this year, we have one. to say the hullabaloo and there's no -- this is much do
about nothing, i have to say i'm glad i got up to listen to this. i had heard anybody say that. it may be that way for him living in whatever bubble he lives in, on a group plan, but in rural parts of the country, it's not like that. host: that is scott from thomasville, georgia. brian blase from the mercatus center, your comments. guest: you are hearing similar stories across the country people's premiums going up significantly year after year as of the affordable care act. and the diminishing numbers of insurance. i think ron is fundamentally wrong the young people are better off because of obamacare. costare probably the worst of any demographic group. variation isl someone who is a young adult, 1/6 on healthbout
care as those in the 60's. basically prevented insurers from providing discounts to young and healthy people. that significantly increase their premiums. we're seeing that in large numbers, not sign up for the plans. in terms of what was expected, what was needed by law for to work, they need a large number of these relatively young and healthy people to come in, to stabilize the market place, because insurers were going to incur large losses on older and sicker people and young and healthy people and they can economically rational decision not to purchase coverage, because it's a really bad deal. unless they are below 200% of the poverty line. 200% of the poverty line is about 24,000 dollars. if you are an income below that level, you qualify for two types of subsidies. a large tax credit to reduce your premium. you also qualify for a large what's called a cautionary acceptance that reduces the amount of deductible you pay. if people don't qualify for both of those subsidies, the plans available to them have
relatively -- have very high premiums, very high deductibles, and the lowest cost plan next year will carry a $6,000 deductible on average. and they have extremely narrow networks. this coverage is just not attractive to people that don't receive giant subsidies to purchase them. i think ron is incorrect that the majority of people who aren't purchasing coverage would qualify for the subsidies. even if they would qualify for subsidy, it's likely not to be a large enough subsidy to make the coverage look attractive to them. he is partially right. where he is partially right is it has been a compression of what they call age bans and with the premiums are. it's three to one now, if you are young versus someone old, the old pay three times more and have three times higher premiums. where is wrong, however, is that the subsidies are provided on a
sliding scale. the overwhelming majority of 165 have incomes of about percent of poverty level. in the subsidies for those folks are very substantial. and because young adults have lower incomes, they are the ones who get the larger subsidies. it is truly young adults often feel like they are young invincible's. they are not going to need insurance. they are healthy and so that is part of the issue, that young invincible's tend to feel that is less important for them to have health insurance. i think as more and more young adults learn that the premiums they would pay with the subsidies are really affordable, and actually, it's very favorable compared to paying a tax penalty for not having insurance, and you don't have insurance as part of the
process, think you're going to see over time that that's going to change. host: what is the size of the tax penalty? guest: the size of attacks belting out a six under $95 per person. it has grown. and more and more people as they understand that are saying i think i'm going to sign up for insurance. host: let's hear from bill in northbrook, illinois who was an employer. bill, what you think about the affordable care act and is it working for you and your employees? guest: i have my insurance through an employer. host: i'm sorry. it was a shortage of information i had on the screen. --ler: my point is this prices have really been totally distorted by this health system. -- not only are they now facing much higher premiums, but they are being
forced to choose a managed care. way that theally a entire system is moving to managed care. prices isscalation of basically what's driving it. unfortunately, i think that's exactly what the government wants, is that everyone is in a managed care program. in illinois, 100% of medicaid is a managed care. it's an increasing percentage of the rest of the pool. that's my comments, and i would like to hear a response. host: brian blase? guest: we are seeing insurers responded to access losses. insurers are exiting the market. humana, andh care, had, largely exit the exchange is across the country. we've seen 17 of the 23 health insurance cooperatives that were
started with loans through the law full because of such financial losses. the insurers who are staying at taking two actions. one, they are significantly increasing plan deductibles. there also narrowing provider networks. we're seeing an increasing number of hmos on the exchanges, and most of the plans now don't allow any out-of-network services. guest: bill was talking, he gets employer-sponsored insurance. everybody, whether you are getting employer-sponsored insurance or you are buying insurance on your own, have felt before the affordable care act was adopted and afterwards that the costs have gone up. we've got to do something about america's health care system that transforms it to a more cost-effective system. no question that that is very important. all,er, first of employer-sponsored insurance is morey and large
expensive than coverage through the affordable care act. a lot of people may not feel that, because the employer is picking up most of the cost. it does mean that they are receiving a reduction in compensation because when the employer picks of health insurance, the employer is going to do less on the salary side. but even with these increases that affect a relatively tiny number of people, those premiums are less expensive than the keynote of cost employer-sponsored insurance. bill is also right that there is a movement towards managed-care. that's not a phenomenon of the affordable care act. that's been going on for quite a while. , and itcare can be good can be not so good. it depends how that care is managed. whether you have adequate access to physicians, whether the care
is provided to you in a way that's accessible to you. managed-care is on the good, is not necessarily bad. it depends on how his implements it. -- implemented. recently, they talked about changes they thought the evisceration should be making to the health care law. [video clip] need to are changes the occur. the president articulated those in a journal of american medicine article. he restated them last thursday. some of those things are, number one, we need probably to further subsidize the portion -- the 15%, if you do the math, the 85% to get the subsidies, the 15 the tone, how do we think about those people? we think that some of that possibly news to be subsidized. >> the provision that keeps a group of people out because of the 9.5% and stuff, in other words, you need to open it up
further. >> that is people who are in the marketplace now that are not subsidized. if you are not in the marketplace now when you're not subsidized, number one, november 1 i would recommend you shop. because the premiums have gone up, you might be eligible now. we estimate about 20% of the people would be eligible that weren't before. >> because the cost went up. they may getht, so those subsidies. for that of a group a people, we believe there may be policy changes the need to occur to help them. marketplace, but still currently receive subsidies. in terms of another change, the president articulated that we believe that in places where there is not enough for adequate competition, need a public option. so that those people are able to make sure that they have a place and a plan and choices and options. a third change that we believe is important is working on high-cost drugs.
thatseries of proposals are part of the president's budget, we just highlight one to give you a sense. one of the biggest ones is giving the department of health and human services the ability to negotiate on high-cost and specialty drugs. because that's not something we can do now. so we have to accept price-sensitive negotiate. so yes, there are things that we believe can be made better. i think we view it in the world more of building on progress, and there are issues. some of those issues have to do with how do we encourage more competition to get lower price? those are some of the policy approaches we propose. host: we are talking with ron pollack of families usa and brian blase with the mercatus center about the affordable care act. we just heard some ideas from fixes from the obama administers them. you agree that those of the right fixes the need to be made? guest: she was the three of them, i think there are others that the secretary has also been
promoting. she talked about further subsidization for people, so that it would make premium coverage much more affordable. i agree with that. secretary clinton has also proposed that as part of her platform. and i think that makes a great deal of sense. she talked about a public option. the public option would be very hard to see that happen in this congress, because republicans are strongly opposed to it. in 2010.he didn't pass i think there could be a compromise there. i think secretary burwell was hinting at what that compromise could be. in those areas where their limited numbers of insurers or plans, possibly there could be a public option so that there would be some choice for people. additional choice for people. maybe there wouldn't be a public option throughout the country.
that's a possibility. the third area she talked about was doing something about prescription drug prices. partare the fastest rising of health care costs today. there are a host of different ideas, secretary burwell mentioned one of them, but there are others. we want to get more competition. we want to speed up generics coming to the market, so there's competition with brand-name drugs. that will get prices down. we want to have greater transparency about pricing. that will be helpful as well. i think those things are useful. i would add one other thing. this is something secretary doing, i wasready surprised she didn't mention it. mentioned before that there is issue not just about premiums, but there's an issue about out-of-pocket cost. deductibles and copayments. he's right about that.
however, hhs is doing something very significant that i think can be built on, specifically, what they are doing specificall, what they are doing is they have now created a so-called standardized plan. it's not required, it will exist in different communities across the country. what a standardized plan does is it provides basic core healthcare services pre-deductible. you have to go to your primary , sue get care from your primary care physician, or you need prescriptive drugs, you can get those things on a pre-deductible basis. my hope is that this concept that hhs is now pushing is going to be available throughout the country. host: brian blase, is the all the way to fix the affordable care act to repeal it as donald trump has suggested? guest: i think the secretary's fixes are big fixes and a
testament to the fact that the law is working much worse than the administration and its advocates expected when it passed. the key problem is that not enough young, healthy, middle-class people are purchasing coverage. how you getion is more young, healthy, middle-class people to purchase coverage? you could increase the size of the individual made a tax penalty to try and colors more people that way. you could increase the subsidies , enron is right, secretary clinton has proposed a large new out-of-pocket tax credit which has an annual estimate of cost of $90 billion a year. gets atthink that that the key issue of underlying health care costs. that just disperses the costs taxpayers. fundamentally, i do think we need to replace the affordable care act with a new structure that allows individuals to purchase health insurance plans that meet their needs and their budgets.
a life insurance regulation to the states instead of a one-size-fits-all approach from washington. guest: one of the things i think, since we are in the clinical season and would probably should talk about, what the impact would be in terms of different kinds of changes to the affordable care act. what would happen if donald trump were elected president? what would happen if hillary clinton were elected president. ? we know the veranda corporation has done a careful analysis of this. what they tell us is that if donald trump is elected, 20 million people would lose health insurance. on the other hand, if hillary clinton is elected, 9 million people would gain insurance. and that's because what donald trump wants to do is instead of providing these tax credit premium subsidies, he would provide a tax deduction, which is more helpful for wealthy people, because the higher your tax bracket, the more valuable a
deduction is. exist areedits that much more helpful to people who need the help the most. host: let's hear from an uninsured voter, that will be rudy from chicago, illinois. rudy, go ahead. what is your experience and why you opted not to purchase health care? i'm transitioning into medicare, some 65 years old. i'm going to go into the medicare system, which will be comprehensive in terms of what my primary care physician has the capacity to help. but there's a problem that the affordable health care act tries to address, and that is prevention, cost controls, trauma, and the new epidemic of young people mistreating and misusing archon x. those individuals in those states that are very critical of the formal care act opted not to accept any public money. the same states have been
discriminatory, particularly in access to health care for the poor, particularly african americans. now there's an opportunity to expose them to prevention, immunizations, school physicals, as well as get into pharma care. the states don't pay their bills. that's why most physicians don't want to deal with any state medicaid type program. another transition to medicare, my doctor gets paid. so what happens, the critic of the affordable care act refused to knowledge that massachusetts made a great decision when they created a state plan. they have some the greatest hospitals in america there. with these other states, you have four people in black people comes up in public hospitals, not getting access to a primary care physician, not having access to prevention. that deals with the infant mortality rate. we forget when children go to
school and need immunizations and so on. the formal health care act for me is a great success, because it gets that cost controls. it doesn't take $6,300 to transfer the patient in the city of chicago from one hospital to another hospital. but the hospitals are driving health care costs up. the affordable health care act is making them take a realistic look at what he things are going to cost and physicians have to get paid. host: that is rudy from chicago. brian blase, your thoughts. guest: he had invite some significant problems with the health care system. i agree with ron, their underlying health care costs that are real problem. i think many of the problems result from government policies. 90% of health care spending goes through third-party payers. lots of people don't know what prices are, consumers don't know what prices are. doctors don't know what prices are. it's hard to coordinate decisions and efficient way when no one knows the prices and
people don't have incentive to choose cost-effective care. let me talk briefly about the medicaid expansion and obamacare. most of the people who have gained insurance coverage as a result of the law have gained coverage through the medicaid expansion. medicaideing with the expansion, this is a really big story that is underreported thus far is that it's costs are significantly more than what was expected. last year, the federal government released a report where they estimated the average cost of the medicaid expansion enrollee in 2015 would be $4300. one year later, the increased that estimate based on actual data to $6,400. it was a one year, 49% cost overrun for the medicaid expansion population. expansion,icaid washington incentivize states with a 100% reimbursement of state spending through the medicaid expansion. what we have seen states do is
negotiate very high payment rates to insurance companies for managed care. the total magnitude of the problem -- and 2014, the congressional budget office estimate of the cost of the medicaid expansion would be $42 billion in 2015. the actual cost was $68 billion, a $26 billion cost overrun. guest: i have to say, it sounds like ryan lives in an alternate universe. program of the medicaid is much lower than any other kind of insurance. ask any physician. ask any hospital. the payments are the medicaid program are lower than they are in medicare, lower than in individual insurance, lower than insurance provided through an employer. what we have seen is that the medicaid program has resulted in the very people the rudy was talking about, who used to have no access to health care, are
now getting coverage. thankfully, 31 states have decided to expand medicaid. we are talking about red states as well as blue states. arizona was one of the first states to do it. indiana, governor pence has agreed to expand the medicaid program. is it'sreason for that a good deal for the states. he's right that the way the affordable care act is structured, the states receive 100% funding, or a did receive 100% funding in the first three years, so that for those people whose coverage is expanded, the federal government is picking it up in the states are not. starting next year, it's going to be slightly different. 2017, the federal government will pay 95% and the states will pay 5%. ultimately, it will go down to a 9010 split. -- 90/10 split.
there are still 19 states that have not expanded coverage. my production is particularly if secretary clinton wins the election, i think we're going to see those states come in, in other words, the slowness when the medicaid program was first started in 1965, of states picking up the program, ultimately, every state came in. they found it to be a good deal. what's interesting about it, today, on the regular medicaid program from the federal government takes up 57%, the state picks up 43%. with the expansion, it's between 90% to 100% of the federal government picks up. it's a really good deal for the state. in the process, is rudy was saying, as more people get coverage through the medicaid program, there are fewer of them who are likely to go to emergency room. it means the state is going to save money for what we call uncompensated care that the state has to pay for. and as more people get coverage,
a lot more people also get jobs, that provide significant revenues for the state. it's a good deal. host: on to ask you about the bigger picture. and part of the broader purpose of the affordable care act was to help decrease the cost of countryare across the overall. country overall. when they talk about seeing premiums rise for those who are on the exchanges and those who are receiving employer-based compare, how does that to what premiums might have been , had the affordable care at not been passed? guest: that's a good question. we know starting in around 2005 that health care inflation began to slow and health care inflation is what is the percentage increase in health care spending from one year to the next. that corresponded with president bush signing health savings accounts, which are tax-free
health savings vehicles that are linked to hide electable health care policies. we saw prior to 2005 health inflation was about 8%, 9% a year. starting in two dozen five-county, dipped to about 5% per year. in 2005, dipped to about 5% year. in 2008, 2009, there's been a lingering factor is been associated with lower health inflation that we saw historically between before 2005. i don't think obamacare has any relationship to the underlying change in health care inflation. if anything, it added to health care's miniatures with huge new subsidies for the exchanges and the medicaid expansion, as i discussed. in the numbers i'm citing are in the 2015 actual report that came out of the department of health and human services. you can read that the cost of the expansion is 49% more than was expected.
guest: brian, what you were saying before, which was terribly untrue, is that the cost in medicaid is more expensive than other kinds of coverage. that is clearly untrue. ,ou asked the right question about what has happened since the affordable care act, with respect to costs. what we have seen is that compared to prior to the affordable care act, costs overall with respect to the health care system, they have grown. but they have grown at a much lower rate than what we experienced before. how much of that is attributable to the affordable care act? i can't say. some of them a have been a treatable to the economy. but clearly has slowed down under the affordable care act, to get some credit for that. host: we just have a few more minutes left in the segment. let's hear from coleman in midland, texas. what is your daughter, this morning?
caller: good morning, c-span. explainconomists can why these premiums are so high. i am the one who invented this new tax system where obama collects $1 trillion every year in the irs collects only 2.5 trillion, so $3.5 trillion for the irs and me. at 3081% of all federal taxes. i don't understand this. all you americans don't pay this. i'm the one paying for it. you do not pay me anything for
this but you take this money out. host: that's cauldron from midland, texas. let's hear from a more caller in the winter back to our guest. that's jennifer martinsville, indiana. janet receives medicare, what is your experience? there: the older guy on , he is obviously from the obama/clinton cap. the other guy speak some truth about all of these plans. i and my husband are on medicare. in one of the things that i know is that all of this blanket medical advantage insurance plans and all that -- it's all instigated by the affordable care act, because they want to under the thumb of the united states president, who they are hoping, with the old
guy anyways is hoping is going to be hillary clinton. i think you're going to see a big movement of people dropping a lot of insurance and telling the government's to take a hike, because every doctor, every hospital, every medical place you go today, the first thing do yount to ask you is want to sign an end-of-life will or whatever. they want to tell you that you could get better health care if you are on medicaid. we don't have a lot of health care, my husband is verio. and we are having to pay for a lot of stuff or do without a lot of stuff because people who do not work, who have medicaid, who have a house full of medical devices are not paying anything. janet from indiana.
we're almost out of time. i'm going to leave the final word to our guest, brian blase, your last thoughts. guest: let me say one thing to tie in what i think the last two callers were getting at. obamacare contained a provision guaranteed issue which ensures it has to offer coverage to any applicant and prevented insurers from varying premiums based on the health status of the applicant. it presented people in the norma's incentive to until they are sick to purchase coverage. and effectively pass costs onto other people. i think that the fundamental reason why you see the exchanges unraveling in many states. and something that has to be grappled with in a reform package going forward. host: ron pollack from families, usa. guest: the affordable care at his achieved a bunch of things, and these people who have health problems now have access to insurance, insurers can no longer deny coverage. there are no longer arbitrary for what an insurer will pay out if someone is really sick or has an accident. women can no longer be discriminated against in the
premiums they pay. there have been significant improvements. however, clearly, further improvements can be made as secretary burwell talked about. and hopefully, once we get over this debate about whether the affordable care act should be repealed or not, which i think will end that debate pretty soon , then i think hopefully, republicans and democrats can work together in a bipartisan fashion and make some improvements that will make health coverage and care much more affordable. host: ron pollack from families usa and brian blase from the mercatus center, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. russiaext, we talk with expert matthew rojansky, discussing the increasingly frayed relationship between the two countries. on, sarah westwood will be joining us to talk about the fbi's decision to look into
the clinton e-mail investigation once again. we'll be right back. ♪ >> c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. house, senate, governor's races. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, the georges that debate between republican senator johnny isakson, democrat challenger jim barksdale, and libertarian allen buckley. just before 9:00, democrat congressman rick nolan and republican stuart mills debate for minnesota's eighth district seat. debate for colorado's sixth congressional district between republican representative mike coffman and democrat morgan carroll. saturday night at 10:00 on c-span, the pennsylvania senate debate between republican senator pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. followed 11 :00, republican commerce and trey gowdy and democrat chris for daily debate
in the south carolina for district race. and at midnight on c-span, the north carolina governors debate between republican governor patrick rate, democrat mark cooper, and libertarian law and cecil. now until election day, watch key debates for house, senate, governor's races on the c-span networks. c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio lap. -- radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> bobby kennedy's last words before he got the stage were on to chicago. the next day he was due to chicago and meet with a very powerful mayor, richard daley.
his son, bill daley, who was chief of staff to barack obama says there's a 70% or greater chance that his dad would have endorsed bobby kennedy for president during that trip to chicago. authoray night on q&a, discusses his book, "bobby kennedy, the making of a liberal icon." >> america would have a different place. some of the issues we're revisiting today, racial tension tension and international discord might be a little different if he had tried to address them 50 years ago. >> sunday night at a clock eastern on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal," continues. host: joining us now is matthew rojansky, the kenan institute director at the wilson center. previously he was deputy director of the russia and eurasia program at the carnegie
endowment for international peace. matthew rojansky, thank you for joining us this morning. guest: happy to be with you. host: you are here to talk about the u.s. relationship with russia. there were several news reports this week of russia seeming to flex his military muscles. there were new designs for missiles, ships that were headed to syria, dividing nuclear shelters. what's behind these developments? broadly speaking, the u.s. russia relationship hasn't been this dysfunctional for several decades. host: decades? that's right for you to go back into the worst years of the cold war to find a relationship where questions of nuclear insecurity, possible military escalation, either conventional military between nato and russia or direct nuclear threat between united states and russia, the two leading nuclear powers in the world, by a factor of 10 or more. we each have thousands of
weapons pointed directly at each other. you literally have to go back 30 years to find a time where the level of saber rattling on those kinds of issues is as high as it is now. there are several in reasons for it. i think number one is this is a relationship which never really fully graduated from this mutually assured destruction dynamic of the cold war. we had a time in the 1990's were there was tremendous hope on the russian side from democratic reformists within russia that russia could come in some sense, join the west. there was an expectation of that on the american side, but what went with that was very complicated domestic politics. in russia, the russian people had a very difficult time economically, socially, and every other way, transitioning from communism to free-market capitalism and democracy. that tradition never completely happened. on the american side, the execution was we won the cold war. now, you are on our team.
and that means you play by our rules. it was that dynamic as we ended the 1990's and went into the 2000s, vladimir putin became president in russia. the u.s. of ministrations were absolutely preoccupied with counterterrorism, with conflict in the balkans and africa and the middle east and so forth. and the dynamic changed so that there was no sense that the united states and russia have a common agenda. we've gone through cycles. there are times we cooperate on certain low hanging fruit, for example, afghanistan, counterterrorism, counter narcotics, things like that. by a large, we've gone through these cycles where we end up back in conflict again. host: there's a story in the "wall street journal," about russia conducting nuclear bomb survival drills. there's a quote in there that says most people believe the third world war has begun, but right now, we are still in the cold phase of the war, which may or may not turn into a hot war. do you agree?
guest: one of the problem is the difference in perspective between your average russian on the street and the average american. united states, continuing this theme from the end of the cold war till today, americans by large something about russia that much. either is a scary adversary or as a potential friend and partner. it's just not that much on our radar screens. whereas for russians, the united states essential. it's in the news every day. russian leadership channels the sort of american threat, the anti-american rhetoric, constantly. that's one of the important differences, the notion that if the relationship is falling apart, the united states from lookings likely to be at other priorities and maybe not paying 100% attention to what can we do to fix the relationship with russia, where's the russians are going to say it's about to be world war iii. the stakes on this are higher than anything else you might be doing, with china, latin america, with the middle east. we to pay attention to this right now. this creates an incentive for the russians to raise the temperature.
these high risk maneuvers we have been saying russian aircraft and nato aircraft, ships and aircraft in the balkan -- in the baltic region, over the skies in syria. the russians are looking to raise the temperature, to get americans to pay attention. and that hasn't happened yet. host: it hadn't happened until this election cycle, where it seems like russia is figuring prominently in americans minds. u.s.u feel that perspective or sentiment towards russia has shifted during this president of campaign? -- this presidential campaign? guest: this is playing with fire. the extent that the russians have rattled the nuclear saber raises the risk of nuclear conflict. there are some plausible indications that they've intervened evangelistic politics, it's playing with -- with our domestic politics. it's playing with fire, because increased attention on russia. more americans are thinking
about russia than were two years ago. are any of those americans taking about russia in a positive way? no. they are overwhelmingly critical of russia and critical of vladimir putin. this is the trick, when you intervene into messy politics and anyways, the results can be unprintable. they are probably more likely to vote for candidates, whether it's on the presidential to get born the down ballot races who are tough on russia. and by the way, you see an increasing convergence between the mainstream rebel looking party and the democratic party to be tough on russia. i would argue that if that was the strategy from the kremlin, it probably has backfired. let's turn to the phone lines. we're going back to traditional lines for the segment. democrats, call (202) 748-8000. republicans, call (202) 748-8001 . independents, call (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a tweet, on twitter @cspanwj.
we already have a phone call in from naperville, illinois. michael is on the independent line. michael, good morning. good morning. i was curious and i would like the gentleman to comment on this. i think he commented to some extent already. i have two points. gainnot understand what we by being antagonistic towards vladimir putin. it makes absolutely no sense to me. we have been incredibly naïve and the way we deal with the russians. collapsed,e they their economy did because of poor planning. it never negated their military strength, and now this is all coming back to haunt us. this is why i voted for trump, because they criticized him for being friendly with putin, but i don't trust putin. i wouldn't want him running anything in my life, but by the
same token, he's a foreign presidents or leader, whatever. and he is looking out for his interests" unquote, his people's interests. at least some of them. so i just don't understand why we have pursued a naïve policy for decades regarding russia. host: matthew rojansky. guest: michael, thank you for the comments. , i thinkid it publicly the u.s. russia policy is not working. it's for a simple reason. it's demonstrable that it has failed. we applied ostensibly a lot of pressure to the russians. we have sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the effect in terms of changes in russia's behavior, the sorts of behavior to which we object mrs. clinton: , for example, the support for separatists in eastern ukraine, the support for the assad regime
in syria, intervention in our domestic policies in our election, information warfare and so on him another that has changed. if anything, it escalated. this is the dynamic we were talking about earlier, the incentive on the russian side to get more attention to be taken more seriously is to raise the threat level against us. there's a basic reason for this, and that's that unlike threats the united states has faced maybe during the 20th century -- hillary clinton, for example, has compared the behavior of vladimir putin's russia to the behavior of hitler's germany. a lot of people jump off on this very inapt analogy, talking about how dangerous, how scary the russians are. here's the problem. even if you agree with that, and i don't. even if you do, this is not 1940. russia has a nuclear arsenal, which means there is not a military solution to any conflict between united states and russia. i would argue that the first step in responding to the concern you have is not to
with vladimir putin. not to be preoccupied with whether russia is good, bad, or indifferent, it's a look at the balance of interests that we have on our side, which does include problems like ukraine and syria and others, but also includes global challenges like counterterrorism, preventing cyber war, preventing escalation of nuclear conflict, and figure out a way that balance of interest favors cooperation in ways that benefit us, but that the russians will also see a benefit in. thet now, unfortunately, balance is clearly favoring conflict. that's the problem with our policy. host: what is russia's ultimate goal? is it knowable? guest: i think the challenge for americans looking at russian goals is that we tend to have complete with frameworks for understanding the world around us. if you have had the experience that most russians from the elite down to ordinary working folks have had over the last 25 years, the world is a scary,
chaotic, and dangerous place. frodo -- comparative compare it to frodo putting on the ring, the world just looks different. it isn't to say that russians don't have the ambition to live in peace and prosperity. there is a basic common denominator that we can share. but the expeditions are different. syria, for example, is an apt illustration of that. somehow on the american side, even that we don't sincerely have a clear roadmap for getting there, we think there's a future where syria is a democratic, peaceful, multiethnic country. we think that's possible. i know for a fact of the russians by a assume that that is not possible. and that is never possible. for them, the immediate goal is to defeat isis. defeat islamic extremism and to restore some type of legitimate governance. have a disagreement about whether a sought is that legitimate government. the basic assumption here is the problem, which is that we assume that some type of democracy, some type of stability in that
sense as possible. and the russians assume it is not possible. the basic difference of worldview is the biggest problem right now in the relationship. bob: caller: capital of the cherokees. host: what is your thought? caller: my thoughts are thisoncerning matter. what is manufactured perception of fear and some of the rings you are hitting on chart, interests with russia such as food production in the regeneration of forests, farmland, and the reduction of pollution. all of these things can be addressed. russia, for instance, is not a
friend of monsanto. not these issues are discussed. it is up to the leadership and governance of ukraine, which is undermined, in the first place, of theg on on other side country. perhaps, as well, addressing the issue of cannabis prohibition in our lifetime. maybe that will never happen. not an expert on some of the domestic and economic topics that you raise. of course, there are a lot of lowest common denominator interests. we may not agree on all of the details, but we agree on a lot of things with the russian side.
not kwok rating on those areas? the answer is very simple. perspective,ian all issues are linked. if the united states is ,anctioning russia over ukraine the response from the united -- the russian risk is to say, you don't get to complement allies -- compartmentalize and say, we want all your help over the russians will simply say, we will withhold on all
guest: i talked earlier about the political dynamic that led to a breakdown in the 1990's. it's important to point out, and you give us a good opportunity to do that, there was simultaneously a geopolitical dynamic. the perception of that is true, if the purpose was to provide security. at the same time, trust between the russians and the americans was completely obliterated by the story of the war and bosnia.
in the west, the guys decided to intervene militarily. the russian position was completely different. they said this was an illegitimate intervention. that really was, 1999, remember, moment andformative it began over a conversation on security. it's not shocking that the went into crimea, and used the kosovo argument.
they said that is about to be a genocide because there is this revolution, and it is pro-crimea. we have am is fundamental difference, and it has been around for decades. you mentioned politicians have taken this particularly well. we now have a situation where donald trump has expressed admiration for five mayor put in. how is that viewed, do you think? how you believe russia is behind
the wikileaks and e-mails? is the votingy and tabulation system so distributed and diverse that it would eat and almost impossible logistical challenge, but as i said earlier, unpredictable results. in many ways, the russian intervention has probably resounded more to the clinton campaign to benefit, or certainly to anti-russian racesates in down ballot saying, look at me, i will be tough on russia. i think that is a backfire. by the way, it has also mobilized a lot of the american voters, particularly one million or more, and the midwest, who simply will not support trump
over the ukraine and russia issue. beyond that, quite thickly, i should doubt that the russians even expect with think that a trump victory would be to benefit them. i think what they're are looking to do, more than anything is demonstrate that american politics and democracy is not sacred. africa, theope, middle east, and pontificate about how great our institutions are, you should have elections like us, balance of power like say, your they politics are just as corrupt as ours. from lewis inar kentucky. go ahead. yes.r:
about theomment people who are absolutely uninformed. i would like to tell them that the new yorker has small articles about trump and hillary on october 24, they should get that issue. they will then be a little more informed. i hear a lot that i don't know how to vote because i cannot get the information. the only thing i would like to say is i subscribe to a magazine called "the week."
it came out with a small article about a british man in russia i am said, i morning -- warning america that they should vote for trump, and if they don't, we are going to have a third world war. dismissed thatst as something that was ridiculous but i thought i would mention it. lewis, first of all, you don't need to go to "the week," there are plenty of magazines and newspapers that have carried this very big story in russia. the story is that trump is the candidate of peace and hillary is the candidate of war. that may be the russian perception. as i said, i'm not sure it is so cut and dry.
even at the top levels of the kremlin, i think they will have to deal with whoever is elected president of the united states. it helps them is a can discredit the american democracy in the process. the question is why is this happening now? why to receive such a high degree of intervention in domestic politics? arguably, this is something we have not seen since the cold war. what i'm reminded is the election of 1948. that is one in which joseph stalin writes a letter endorsing the progressive candidate, the third party candidate against the republican and the democrats saying, basically, vote for the progressive party or it will be war. obviously, that did not become true. stalin died in 1953 and we
entered a stable dynamic of the cold war. despite the rhetoric now, we may be embarking on something that looks to be the new cold war. we have achieved some stable dynamic between moscow and washington to negotiate and find this balance of interest-bearing we are not there right now. right now, we are on a path to conflict, unfortunately. host: we have time for only a few more callers to speak with matthew rojansky. alan is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i have a few questions. can you hear me? host: we can hear you great. caller: if you can adjust a few questions. i have been listening to you guys. the first question is, it almost seems a bit like a missile
crisis that no one covered from the american side. several years ago, the u.s. .oved our missiles away maybe you could comment on that. turkey was apparently going to let -- this is the second question -- going to let, erdowan was going to allow access to weapons. .hird question is iran iran and russia have very connected, especially with syria. iran is trying to be the power broker. there is the potential for horizontal proliferation. the saudi arabia and egypt are also concerned about the situation.
i'm curious if you can adjust, and i know you don't have much time, but i will let you answer. thank you. guest: those are great questions. let me -- i have written about a lot of stuff. try to google and find some more details, but let me answer as best as i can in the short time. the missile defense versus the deterrent dynamic is absolutely critical. the russians have been .omplaining about this the reason it matters is to send an offense in the world of is indispensable. it means your adversary does not have the ability to determine. the challenge of the missile system, since the
united states is deployed in poland, romania, and elsewhere, our argument is this is about etc. threats from vietnam, the russians say, we do not believe you. you could increase the number and completely negate the to turn that would be a stabilizing situation. we have to increase the number offensenses weapons -- of what the we have to do is kind of how that came to pass. is it destabilizing now? absolutely, yes. in terms of turkey, i think the byflict is driven much less the conflict in the middle east. constructing the
so-called crescent and also theoving relations with united states, israel, it is try to raise the temperature in the united states. it increases the bargaining position at the detriment of the united states. ultimately this will not be in the in the united -- middle east, it will be solved in europe. host: coming up next, we will speak with sarah westwood. she will join us to talk about the fbi's decision to look into new e-mails in relation to its probe of hillary clinton's private server. we will be right back. [video clip] to congress. seen perhaps1 days out from
the most important national election of our lifetime. voting is already underway in our country. the american people deserve to have the full and complete fax immediately. the director himself has said, he does not know whether the e-mails referenced in his letter are significant or not. i'm confident, whatever they are, they will not change the conclusion reached in july. it is imperative that the bureau without anyis issue delay. i look forward to moving forward and focus on the important challenges facing the american people, winning on november 8, and working with all americans to build a better future for our country. thank you. >> have you or any of your fighters heard from comey or today?at the fbi
>> we have not been contacted by anyone. first we knew about it was when you know about it. when the letter to the members of the house was released. we do not know the facts which is why we are calling on the fbi to release all the information that they had. even the director noted that the new information may not be significant. let's get it out. have 11 days to go. what would you say to a voter who is hearing you and saying, i did not trust her before, i do not trust her now, and they're heading to the ballot box tomorrow. >> i think people long time ago made up their minds about the
e-mails. i think that is factored into what they think. i would invite everybody to get out that have early voting. i think that people want a president who will get the economy going and bring the country together. i offer that. i can do that. i'm very confident that the american people know that. we will continue to discuss what is at stake in this election. i believe it is one of the most consequential elections ever. >> there are some reports that these e-mails work found on devices that belonged to her aid and her husband. have you spoken to her? which it will to give you any information about that? rumors.e heard these we do not know what to believe. i'm sure there will be even more
rumors. that's why it is incumbent on the fbi to tell us what they are thinking about. my guess is as good as mine. we have made it very clear. if they will be sending this kind of letter that is only going to members of the house, they need to share whatever facts they have with the american people. i expect that to happen. >> "washington journal" continues. host: you just heard from hillary clinton, speaking to reporters at a news conference last night after revelations that the fbi is looking at new e-mails that could be related to its investigation of her use of a private server. we're joined now by sarah westwood, here ticket was a little more information, to break down the latest details of
events. your most recent story for "the washington examiner" had this headline. staged trump." how have the developments foc affected the campaign so fa? guest: taken the focus off trump. women have come forward accusing him of sexual misconduct. now, the dynamic has shifted because clinton is on the defensive, having to explain what happened with the fbi, without actually knowing what is going on. she is now on the defense. trump is able to remind voters why they may have reservations about her. host: what we know so far about the new e-mails discovered? guest: we know the fbi
discovered at least one, possibly multiple devices at the home of anthony weiner and houma separatein investigations of weiner's sexual texting to a minor. they found information pertinent to the original investigation of clinton and her staff mishandled classified information. that is all we know. we collection know if there's anything significant in those e-mails. experts and legal analysts have come forward to say director comey would probably not make this public unless he had reason to believe this was significant. host: again, this news coming out days before the election, coming out yesterday. how unusual is it for an fbi director to make this kind of statement so close to the election?
guest: i'm not sure there is a precedent to this situation. where a case was closed, and reopened so close to the election. this is obviously a game changing moment in the sense that hillary clinton will not get to spend the last 10 days of the election to speak about what she wanted to talk about. she would probably have to spend a lot more time than she is withg jewel -- comfortable discussing whether there is a shoe to drop. it reminds democrats that she comes with a bit of baggage and the school followed her into her first years in the white house if she wins. host: what significance, if any, beingre about the e-mails found on a computer used by houma aberdeen. does that tell us anything about the potential nature of
the e-mails? guest: if you remember, she was deputy chief of staff at the state department and also simultaneously worked at the clinton foundation. what this tells us, because the e-mails triggered the fbi interest in the case is potentially these angels those were not handed over to the fbi went clinton and her staff were asked to turn over everything in their possession. that would be a problem. if classified information was laptop, that would peak the interest of a law enforcement bureau. host: here are the numbers to call for this segment. if you are a donald trump supporter, you could call at (202) 748-8001. if you are a hillary clinton
supporter, the number is (202) 748-8000. those voting for a third party, your number is (202) 745-8002. if you are still undecided in the final days before the election, you can call at (202) 748-8003. you can also send a tweet. .he handle is @cspanwj we are on facebook as well. we want to make sure the viewers are up to date on the latest information in this case. here is the story from "the new york times" that took the top .pot today the story says, fbi director co mey's letter to congress said that the fbi would review the e-mails and whether they had unclassified information.
while he said that the most seem to be pertinent, the fbi had not yet examined them. he appeared on the defensive, he felt obligated to inform congress, and they don't know the significance of the newly discovered e-mails. tens of thousands of e-mails were on anthony weiner's laptop, which the fbi had obtained as part of the interest -- investigation of him. garrett, what you think? caller: good morning. is aington journal" national treasure, as far as we are concerned. in regard to secretary clinton statement that you just broadcast about the letter being
ift to republican leaders, people were to read the letter in its entirety, they would notice at the bottom, the carbon copies were sent to the whole list of democratic leaders, including nancy pelosi. mrs. clinton has, well, essentially skewed the intent of the letter. and, misinformed the american people. i just want to point that out. theirwe are speaking with .estward you think this could be the him to theropel white house? guest: not necessarily. donald trump has a lot of
questions he has not really answered. that being said, there was already a tightening of the race. we were saying that donald trump was getting some upward momentum, likely given the wiki eaks. remember that hillary clinton, a lot of supporters are only going to vote for her reluctantly, possibly because they think that donald trump is an unacceptable turned it. he cuts a lot of her support is so soft and there is such a high number of undecided voters in race, it point in the is far too early to call it over, even though we are 10 days out and there has been a lot of already.ing going on this is the kind of thing that could accelerate donald trump to the point that it makes the race competitive. host: "the new times" have this handy history of hillary
clinton's e-mails, what we know about the investigation into her private e-mail server. it says 80,000 e-mails were initially turned over that were deemed work related. chains included secret information. classifieds involved information. there were nearly 15,000 additional work related e-mails that mrs. clinton did not deliver to the state department that were uncovered during the course of the investigation. i know you have been following the story very closely for sometime now. you mentioned the possibility that the new e-mail discovered might be part of previously unreleased or perhaps missing e-mails. tell us specifically what you
are talking about? guest: houma aberdeen is the only other aid known to have an account on the clinton.com server. as the effective scheduler and right hand aid, she would've had access to a lot of the same information that hillary clinton did. in fact, she was often the one sending hillary clinton information that she needed to know to do her job. contain a highld number of classified information as well, and those were not turned over until a freedom of information act forced her to turn over some e-mails. she was in the same situation as hillary clinton, picking and choosing the e-mails that she wanted to release and the ones that she wanted to withhold.
host: melanie from jury would, maryland is calling next on the line for hillary clinton supporters. what do you make of this? does this change your opinion of your candidate? caller: as a hillary supporter and someone following the extremely closely, i am outraged by this. the normalone beyond procedure a number of times. he has testified and now he is doing this 11 days before the election. i would like to say, they can find out today whether any of duplicate e-mails they already have. that is possible. we should have answers right away. that is what i have to say. no excuse for this one. , and let's hear from keith
then we will hear from our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good. caller: i'm not going to be quite as nice as the guy a while clintonsaid hillary skewed information. i watched hearing on your thing, and i know now that hillary lied to the american people. my understanding is it would be under oath. that is a crime. think, with the whole out that, this came ed to us.w and li i don't see how anyone can trust
her or anything she says. she has done nothing but lie to the american people. private she has a opinion and public opinion. how can you do that just go you were representing your people. you cannot do it too faced. keith.hat is sarah westwood? guest: there are two conversations we're having here. the law enforcement conversation. we don't know the specifics. we don't know if it is whom aberdeen under the microscope here or hillary clinton herself. politically speaking, this is very detrimental to hillary clinton. the nuances going to be lost on the lot of voters.
the investigation has reopened seathe is back in the hot for the fbi. the senate races are much tighter. something like this has the possibility to help the gop retain their position. politically speaking, setting aside the legal aspect, this is a devastating development for hillary clinton. host: what would be the argument in hillary clinton's defense that many people have made up their minds. as we mentioned, this has been going on for a long time. will more e-mails change people's minds? be that argument could hold water.
like i said, in this election, much support is thought. whole litany of things that donald trump has handled poorly. this is the sort of thing that eruld make a vote o vote third party. this is the sort of thing that ofld tip the thoughts voters. is a comment from twitter saying, trump may be no angel, but the clintons represent corruption. another comment from twitter criticized bywas
the right for original e-mail investigation, is he trying to save face now? let's turn to florida, where gregory is on the line for trump supporters. caller: my point is that hillary's senior staff, most of them were given immunity for telling the truth and getting off all of their devices. the reason this is such a big deal is the device was not die votes. these are smart people. i doubt very much this was not done on purpose. then, of course, you have anthony having access to this ich could have important information that he .ould have gotten out now they have to deal with the circumstances. thank you.
that is a good point. a lot of observers have said that if comey sat on this information until after the election, and it leaked after the election, i think there would have been a lot more .utrage of comey he felt obligated, and he said this in a memo yesterday, that he felt obligated to supplement his testimony before the house judiciary committee, he was pressed directly -- if you discovered additional information, would you uncover mey said,ector co yes, absolutely. something onound the level of significance that he felt he needed to inform the public because concealing it until after the election was not
an option. that's because the compelling nature that the fbi has. host: next is ron. what you make of all this? caller: i'm calling just because i wanted to let them know that this all started well over one year ago. they already pointed out, is hillary clinton was not running for president of united states, none of this would have been brought up. here is hillary clinton, running for president. they talk about first, benghazi, which did not go well. they said kevin mccarthy was just doing this to bring her down, then he got in trouble. along comes these e-mails, and everyone is trying to figure out, what were the e-mails all about anyway chuckle here is the republican party still doing the e-mails. they are doing everything they
can take the republican to be president of the united states. hillary clinton is the honest one of the whole group. the republican party is a bunch .f con artists hillary clinton will be president of the united states of america, and when she is done, what will they do, say, we tried? host: next up, douglas calling in support of donald trump. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. before i asked my question, i have a request to c-span. living on the east coast, i have to get up at 4:00 in the morning to listen to "washington journal ," is there any chance that when congress is not in session, you could extend "washington journal" for an hour so that more of us on the west coast
could listen in the morning? is that a possibility? we all appreciate a little extra sleep, but the time has been 7:00 to 10:00 eastern time for quite a while. caller: i understand. just a thought. i want to backup to callers. hillary made a falsehood yesterday, saying the letter went just to the republicans. it went to the ranking members. one of the committees that received the letter was the intelligence committee, which, right there, was a red flag. were blackmail possibilities. hillary destroyed the conscientiously
smashede server, so, into a million pieces, it would have been possible to retrieve that information. they found government business that was on those e-mails that were destroyed. how is that not obstruction of justice? how can i get a freedom of information request from the state department when information was destroyed. to me, she has committed impeachable offenses before the election. this is not what we need. host: all right. douglas in oregon, we can't early to watch "washington journal." sarah westwood? guest: because this will unlikely the resolved in the next 10 days, this will likely
drag into the first weeks and years of her election. it does not match up that they obstructingonally justice. there was not a subpoena in place for those e-mails. through the benghazi inquiry. we have no way of knowing if this would have carried on his hillary clinton was not running for president of the united states. anyway, it is irrelevant question for voters to ask if the clinton team did treat classified information this way. they will have access to far more sensitive information in the white house should she win. host: we want to refresh viewers omeymory of director c
initially announcing his findings. here's how he explained what they found. [video clip] >> although we did not find clear evidence that hillary clinton mishandled classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless of very sensitive highly classified information. for example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received. s involvedn secretary clinton sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails about that matter. there is evidence to support a conclusion that anyone in clinton's position should have known that an
unclassified server was no place for that information. there was also information considered secret at the time of sending. none of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system. it is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on an unclassified equippedsupported not with security staff like those at the government or a service like gmail. host: that was the fbi director speaking back in july about the findings in relation to hillary clinton's e-mails. we are speaking with sarah westwood of "the washington examiner," i want to speak about some new news this morning. donald trump's
daughter-in-law was speaking on a radio interview, and here is what she had to say. she told abc radio that she thinks donald trump forced the fbi's hand in this. she said, if he did not put the pressure on, i do not know we would be seeing this happening right now. you think that is a valid argument? a politicalnk it is argument. appeared as has impartial in all of this. he offered so much insight in his decision-making originally because he knew he would eat criticized for closing the investigation. he wanted to give at least the republicans who would criticize him, a window into his thinking. he is not taking into consideration having drawn the
ire of democrats. i can get is interesting that both clinton and donald trump have reversed their regard for james comey this week. yesterday, we saw donald trump, after months of slamming him for being involved in some kind of cover-up, he was praising him for being a great fbi director and pursuing this. hillary clinton who has talked about his impartiality is now saying, maybe he has motivations that are being driven by republican congressman. it's interesting to see the reversal they have both had. host: let's go now to the phone lines. is calling on the third party line. what you make of all of this? think shirley chisholm
said at one time when she was running for presidency. at present, our country needs a woman's idealism for tots -- perhaps in politics more than anywhere else. i think we are in a real value points. sometimes your enemy to find your purpose and also your strength. i think this is where we are. not just with mrs. clinton, but the country. as an independent, i do not see the labels. at this moment in time, we are in need of a real strategic vision for our country and for the world politics and economy. i'm not sure that we are 11 days out, where we had 22 million people voting, we will probably
voting, plus million where we can see ourselves now toh a vision and strategy move forward, beyond labels, beyond black and white, and unite around a proportional policy agenda that allows us move our country. helping young people to reach their lives. the right now are representatives of our future. for those of us who are older, stuck in this jaded process about perception, we need a country's direction to now be focused on doing. the actionable policies we have not had. gridlocked a fixation on class and economic
divisions that have not pushed this country forward. host: all right. sarah westwood, you mentioned the impact it might have on down ballot races. how have republicans try to use this news to their advantage. go guest: republicans have spent react. weeks asking to they were very excited to have this opportunity to turn the heat back on their democratic opponent. hampshirete of new pressed her opponent on whether she thinks that hillary clinton is trustworthy. hassan has had difficulty responding in the past. now, kelly ayotte is putting pressure on to respond. in missouri, there is also a
similar challenge. democratic candidates are in the position where they're going to have to explain their relationship to hillary clinton not have ity reflect back on them. host: here is a statement that speaker paul ryan put out on twitter. he said, yet again, hillary clinton has no one but herself to blame. by betrayed trust mishandling classified information and is the result of privateless use of a server. from philadelphia, pennsylvania,
mary is calling on the line in support of hillary clinton. caller: good morning. i think we are now seeing james comey is under the thumb of the republican party. that jasonunate threatened utah had a lawsuit against the fbi because they had done an investigation against him. he had threatened the lawsuit after knowing that he has oversight over the committee investigating the e-mails. this is really questionable. i think not only the justice department needs to review the information submitted to omey, but also the
cia since we have no idea who is leaking this information from wikileaks. and, this negative information out there involving jason chaffetz of utah. he should not be in charge of any oversight committee after threatening the lawsuit of the fbi and the investigators. have: i think what she may secretrring to was some service agents who released some unflattering information about jason chaffetz. public.ery on the point of james comey
being under the thumb of republicans, republicans made the same charge in july, saying that he must be complicit in some sort of obama led cover-up of hillary clinton's e-mails. democrats are making the same charge of james comey. think james comey is proving himself to be independent. now he has john the ire of both democrats and republicans. host: charles is on the third party line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. of laugh at some of the situation about the e-mails. what the republicans have been doing, even though i don't trust either one of them, the thing is all of this talk about e-mails in the first place -- the fbi do not use normal procedures for this. the thing is, i blame this on
obama. he should have investigated george w. bush who deleted over 20 million e-mails. no one wants to talk about that. the thing is, all this evil stuff, it is over with. host: all right. is that an accurate statement? did george w. bush delete 20 million e-mails? guest: the white house is not subject to the freedom of information act. even if he did, i'm not familiar to the details. with hillary clinton, the e-mail should have been in the possession of the state department all along. that did not happen. there is a distinct difference between that. besides that, we are talking about classified information
that may have been exposed to ofhony weiner, to any number other parties. we have no way of knowing. fbi's doing its due diligence to windsure that it did not up in the wrong hands by investigating this. host: let's hear now from an undecided voter from maryland. elo, how do you process all of this news in the past 24 hours? caller: i'm very disappointed about the whole e-mail stuff. [indiscernible]
if i were hillary, i would ask .y aid to resign right now i don't get it. from next up is chris silver spring, maryland, calling in support of donald trump. go ahead. caller: good morning. it probably won't be any surprise to you that when comey and if the investigation in july, he thought it was institutional corruption. the reopening is extraordinary. i wonder if you thought there wieneranything on the device, evidence of political collaboration undermining the investigation or something that proves intent. i don't know if it would just be the e-mail.
i wanted your thoughts on that. in arew mccain -- report this week, there were funneled to his wife. there is no evidence of quid pro quo. the timeline does not exactly match up, but it raises suspicions among people who are already skeptical. like the last caller said, there was a lot of skepticism among republicans when james comey closed the investigation in july despite the preponderance of evidence that suggests hillary clinton and her aides did break the law. some said, you do not need
intent to improve recklessness with classified information. in doing so, the director demonstrated his reluctance and going after hillary clinton. investigation so close to the election, i think there host: is a compelling reason to do that. host:host: the last caller for this morning will be justin, calling on the line in support of hillary clinton. go ahead. caller: good morning. two times, i've listened to this use the words, significant e-mails. he said in the letter that he does not know if this is of any importance. anyhow, we are talking about something that he does not know if it is of any importance.
anthony weiner, he is a sexual predator. the question i have for you, do wills -- if trump turn the white house in two of soap opera scene. host: we hear your point. we are just about out of time. your final thoughts? guest: i think both candidates are so unpopular in different ways, they would both face challenges. donald trump would have to contend with half of the country who thinks he is a sexual predator. you have the other half of the country who think, if hillary clinton wins, the country just elected a liar