tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 29, 2016 12:43pm-6:31pm EDT
harder to understand others point of view because there is a middle ground and we are human and we believe we have to offer to the world can become together later? >> i have been doing that all my life. >> that is a good question after election coming into the foreground with the electorate not just of political process but the social fabric of america. did people have a desire to get along? but would they rather pull away? but i would argue that this is the challenge at large for society the way we treat each other on twitter or social media is not new.
coming about because of this campaign. to isolate ourselves in mobil's of comfort so i have been arguing for some time the surprising thing that it takes this long to happen. they're all put on display. so we have to decide to be in these places in so far we have spent quite happy. i think that is where we will stay. but think we will retreat back. >> i feel like this campaign
lifted up a rock. you cannot put the rock back down and are we better off knowing what was under the rock? cement we are better off if the rock is still there laugh laugh. >> i feel with so many things clearly what we see now with black lives matter in is the reality since the founding of the country that we never healed to put a band-aid issues is out we rip off the stage is ugly but the band-aid back on and read ever fix it. with the underlying cause. but i will say the one positive sign but talk about
this nostalgia but the reality is we are a diversified country and this is the good part. somebody was allowed to do what i could do. felice is that we never heard before. but with traditional media and television? there is no match one show that everybody watches there is a lot that was never part of the process we have these diverse society like open borders. this is what you get and some of it is really bad and ugly and to make sure to half of one definitive voice
to make the case how everybody should act and look. not just this campaign but the changing society. [applause] > the presidential race is far from order, according to a new poll that puts donald trump two points behind hillary clinton nationally, after the similar poll last week and put the secretary of state ahead by 12 points. the latest poll has a three point margin of error and was conducted before yesterday's waslation that the fbi looking into evidence that might
have an absent from the investigation into hillary clinton's server. we heard more about that and the potential impact on today's "washington journal." 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, > we will see if former president> though clinton has any ink to say about the fbi investigation later today. tothinks -- speaks supporters in columbus, ohio. also, donald trump is on the campaign trail today. that is live at
6:00 eastern on c-span. our children, they look up to us. now, they are looking to see
what our leaders will do. will be the one respected around the world or the one who .mboldens our enemies a steady hand or a loose cannon? common sense and unity or trauma and division? a woman who spent her life helping children and families or a man who spent his life helping himself? our children are looking to us. what example will be set? what kind of country will we be? hillary clinton, because we are stronger together. >> i am hillary clinton and i approved this message.
>> far too many families these days do not have what they deserve. i believe families deserve
quality education for their kids, child care that they can trust and afford, equal pay for women and jobs they can really live on. people ask you, what will be different if i am president. kids and families have been the passion of my life. they
will be the heart of my presidency. i am hillary clinton and i approved this message. >> what is at stake in this election? the supreme court, the justice guaranteed your rights is gone. now, the next president's choice breaks the type. for justices support your right to own a gun for self-defense. for justices would take away the right. >> the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right. >> what does the second amendment mean to you? >> what does hillary say?
>> when it comes to guns, we have too many guns. >> hillary has made her choice. now, you can make yours. defend freedom. thisra is responsible for message. >> voters in new hampshire heard from donald trump yesterday at a rally in new hampshire. the republican nominee spoke about several domestic and foreign policy issues. he also commented on the continuing investigation into e-mail clinton's private server. this is 40 minutes. ♪
we must not let her take her criminal scheme into the oval office. i have great respect for the fact that the fbi and the department of justice are not willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistakes that they made. this was a grave miscarriage of justice that the american people fully understood. it is everybody's hope that it is about to be corrected. [applause]
mr. trump: so that is a big announcement that i heard 10 minutes ago. and i guess, obviously, most of you folks have heard about it. in all fairness, for all the people who have suffered for doing so much less, including just recently, four-star general james cartwright, general petraeus, and many others, perhaps finally, justice will be done. [applause] mr. trump: with that being said, the rest of my speech is going to be so boring. [laughter] mr. trump: should i even make this speech? we will talk about voters. right?
we will talk about trade. we will bring back our jobs, we will strengthen our military. and let's get going, ok? [applause] mr. trump: how to check -- i want to thank general flynn. thank you for being here. just before general flynn was going up, we heard this news. i said general, get up there and keep them busy. we want to digest what just happened here. thank you, general. in 11 days, we're going to win new hampshire. [applause] mr. trump: the state of my first victory. and we are going to win back the white house.
75% of the american people think our country is on the wrong track, and we're going to fix it. we are to get our country back on the right track, and very, very quickly. real change begins with repealing and replacing obamacare. we can't forget how big news that is. we can't lose track. it's a disaster, just like everything else in this administration. it has just been announced that americans are going to experience another massive double-digit hike in obamacare premiums. including a 116% premium hike to our very good friends in the great state of arizona. even bill clinton admitted obamacare is the craziest thing
in the world, where people wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. in minnesota, where the premium increase will be almost 60%, the democratic governor said the affordable care act is no longer affordable. jonathan gruber, the architect of obamacare, admitted it was all a fraud. he said it was passed because of the stupidity of the american voter. we are doing a lot of good work, aren't we? we are catching all of these people. we are doing a good job. jonathan gruber, there's another. we didn't forget. i never forgot jonathan gruber. i said if we do this, i'm going to run, and people forget. i said i'm never going to forget jonathan gruber.
the architect of obamacare, what he said. we didn't forget. can you imagine? it's a little more than a week before the election, we didn't forget the name jonathan gruber. but the only real stupidity is that shown by politicians to pass this monstrosity over the serious objections of certain politicians and the american voters. job killing obamacare is just one more way the system is rigged. but with what i have just announced, previously, it might not be as rigged as i thought. right? right? the fbi, i think they are going to right the ship. they're going to save their great reputation by doing so. hillary clinton wants to double down on obamacare, destroying american health care forever.
she wants to expand obamacare and make it even more expensive. i will repeal and replace obamacare. and we will replace it with a much less expensive plan, and a plan that is much, much better. just this year, hillary clinton declared obamacare is one of the greatest accomplishments of president obama, the democratic party, and our country. that's turned out to be wrong. do they do anything right? we don't win anymore, i mean, you're going to have such a good time starting in 17. we're going to start winning
again. we're going to start winning again. because it's turned out -- i've been saying this from before it passed. obamacare is a catastrophe. beyond imagination. insurers are leaving, doctors are quitting, companies are fleeing. workers hours are being cut, part-time jobs are all over the place. it was beautiful full-time jobs you used to have don't exist. and deductibles are through the roof. you don't get to use it. if we don't get rid of obamacare, we have no choice. if we don't get rid of it, our health care system is gone forever. we will never have another chance. and by the way, if we don't win this election, you're never going to have another chance either. that i can tell you. it's never going to happen again. repealing obamacare is one of the single most important reasons we must win on november 8. the real change also means getting rid of the corruption in washington, and again, maybe that's happened. wow. it's a big day.
think of it. i won my first primary in new hampshire, and i'm getting here is the news this morning is -- this is bigger than watergate. this is bigger. in my opinion. this is bigger than watergate. hillary deleted 30,000 e-mails after receiving a congressional subpoena. there were more serious things there were more serious things done, but that was so obvious. she gets the subpoena, she bleaches and the leads 30,000 e-mails. -- and deletes 30,000 e-mails. it's not about the sale of uranium that nobody knows what it means. i know what it means. to russia. then she talks to me about russia. 20% of the uranium in our country to russia.
but you know, the deletion of 33,000 e-mails, that is so out there. after receiving a subpoena from the united states government, she lied to congress, she lied to the fbi, she made 13 phones disappear, some with a hammer. the clinton crew gave more than $675,000 to the wife of the deputy director of the fbi, and the man who was overseeing the investigation into hillary's server. right now, that takes care of itself. i'm very proud that the fbi was willing to do this.
[applause] just yesterday, we learned that bill clinton's right-hand man just for clinton foundation donors and other donors to funnel as much a $65 million in personal profit to bill and hillary clinton. this man explained that the cozy relationship between the consulting firm, the foundation in clinton's personal income had helped bill and hillary enrich themselves and obtained in-kind services, including personal travel, hospitality relations, and the like. the same people were lobbying hillary clinton at the same time. these people are seriously corrupt. terrible conflict.
hillary's pay for play included defense contracts. take raytheon, they hired three lobbyists that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for hillary's last campaign. and are raising money for her campaign. and by the way, 50 to one in ads. in florida, we are winning. ohio, were winning. iowa, we're winning. doing great in new hampshire. i think we are going to have a tremendous victory in pennsylvania. we better have a great victory in new hampshire, please. ok? [applause] in fact, when this news of the fbi's investigation, when it just happened a little while ago, they said mr. trump, i think they would understand.
we could skip your speech in new hampshire. this is so big. i said i don't have the courage to skip the speech. believe me. i don't have the courage. i'm not skipping enhancer. i never will. we had the big rallies and they said the big rallies will never work in new hampshire. that you have to sit down and have dinner with everybody. i said that's a lot of dinners. they don't expect that. remember, i would have a lot of small meetings, people would talk in new hampshire with any other place taught me about drugs flowing into this country. and your police departments, so great. they told me. i went to some and became friendly with them. i never knew, honestly, i never knew it was so bad. i said to the people of new hampshire, because more than any other place, you look at the
beautiful little roadways and lakes and streams and everything is so beautiful. the trees, and you say how could they have a drug problem here? i would sit down with groups and say what's your biggest problem? i figured there was a maybe the veterans, which are suffering greatly in this area. and we will solve that problem. but it was always heroin. i said heroin? i learned so much. i said to the people of new hampshire if i win, which i did win new hampshire. if i win, i also said, if i go all the way, we are going to stop the inflow of drugs into new hampshire and into our country. 100%. and i gave the people of enhancer my pledge. more than anybody else in this case. because they really, about
what's happening with the world of drugs pouring in. hard to believe, it's just so strange when you look and see the beauty of this place, then you see that heroin and drugs are your number one problem. by far. anyway, within months, these lobbyists sealed over $26 billion in foreign arms deals, including over $19 billion in qatar, some people say qatar, which happened to offer bill clinton $1 million as a birthday gift for some face time. the lobbyists, one of whom was the sister-in-law to hillary clinton's current campaign chair, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. the contractor got billions of dollars in contracts, and hillary clinton got her campaign cash and money for her foundation. i am putting up your medicine ultimately. today i wrote another check for $10 million, i'm spending money
like crazy. i will probably have close to war over $100 million of my money spent on the campaign. but there's something nice about that. unless i lose, in which case they would say what is that all about, right? but we're going to do is right for you, not what's right for some contributor or special interest. hillary put the office of the secretary of state up for sale. and if she ever got the chance, believe me, she would put the office -- you know what office am talking about, the office, call the oval office, for sale. i propose a contract with the american voter which will end the corruption and give government back to our great people. i want the entire corrupt
washington establishment to hear and heed the words i'm about to say. i have never loved this expression, but it's become the hottest six. if we win in november, we are going to washington, d.c., when we win, ok. and we are going to drain the the swamp. at the core of my contract is my plan to bring back our jobs. you have been suffering with the jobs. the jobs have gone like candy being taken from the baby. new growth numbers just released but the average growth rate for
this year at a disastrous 1.5%. china goes down to 7% or 8%, gdp, it's a national catastrophe. last quarter, we were at 1%. our job numbers last week were horrible. they were anemic, as this person goes. anemic was the word they used. obama is the first president in modern history not to have a single year up 3% growth. it's hard because we are a large country. well india is a much larger country, they are at 8%. china is at 7%. and china is not happy. we are at around 1%, and we just keep going along. just keep going along, losing our jobs to mexico and every other place. 47 million americans are on food stamps and 45 million people --
this is our country, are living this is our country, are living in poverty. meanwhile, our trade deficit with the world is now nearly $800 billion a year. you say who negotiates these contracts? true, obama. it's true. instead of campaigning for hillary clinton, he ought to be in the white house, in the oval office, negotiating trade deals. beating isis. taking care of our veterans, which he does not do. we are living through the greatest jobs theft in the history of the world. they are stealing our jobs. the greatest in history of the world. new hampshire has lost one in three manufacturing jobs since nafta. a deal signed by bill clinton and supported strongly by hillary. we lost 70,000 factories since china entered the world trade organization.
another bill and every disaster. we will start negotiations so fast. if we don't get the deal we want and get arminated much better trade deal. and i won't go into the details. they are under a vast system and we are under our system. the day the deal was signed, it was an ineffective deal, with us having a massive, 17% at least disadvantage. so, it's complicated, i am not going to bore you with it, but we have been dealing with a defective deal for year, and we
are going to renegotiate it. if a country wants to fire their workers and go to mexico and then ship their product back into the united states, we will charge them a tax of 35%. so, when you think these companies, which right now are negotiating to leave new hampshire, ohio, all of our great places, great states, and right now as we are talking, they are negotiating deals. mexico is the eighth wonder of the world, what happening in mexico. what about us? it's going to be the other way around. but there will be consequences.
you know, when they realize they have to pay attacks to come through the border, because it will be a strong border, with their products, they are going to say we are not going to move. very simple. the politicians are controlled by the people who give them campaign contributions and probably other things. does anybody know what i mean by that? we will also stand up to chinese currency manipulation, and we will stop the transportation -- stop the transpacific partnership. we will become a rich nation again, but to be a rich nation, we must also be a safe nation. hillary clinton unleashed isis onto the world, and it has now spread into our country. there are right now one thousand open isis investigations in the united states, more than at any time that we have ever had.
now, hillary wants to increase by 500 50% the massive number of syrian refugees flowing into our country, that's over the obama numbers, and those are thousands and thousands. a trump administration will suspend the syrian refugee program. and will help them with safe havens and will get other countries like the gulf states -- who have nothing but money -- we have $20 trillion in debt. we will get them to pay. they have to do their share. that you know why? we can't let people into this country that we don't know about. we don't know. let me say this as clearly as i can. if i am elected president, i am going to keep -- [applause]
when. we love new hampshire. i love this place. i love this place. by the way, you know we are leading in florida, we are leading in all these places. we are down in new hampshire. i don't think so. these polls, these polls, these are called early polls, you know what that is. she comes up here with four people and is like, we have a wonderful crowd. i don't think so. i think we are winning new hampshire. ok, so we will change it. when i am elected president, i am going to keep radical islamic terrorists the hell out of our country.
a trump administration will also secure the defense borders of the united states. boy, you people have great energy. well, let's face it. you have been waiting a long time for the right person. you do have energy. [crowd chanting "trump!"] a lot of the different places, reports are coming out, they hate to write it, you know, the dishonest media -- they are the worst. they are so dishonest. they are so dishonest, folks. a lot of reports coming out of the early voting states, people
are voting who have never voted. they had never seen anybody who was going to bring back jobs and not let companies leave us in fire everybody and move. and then let product pour into our country with no tax. no, go ahead. fire all our people. move to mexico. make the products. your air conditioner carrier is a good example. they are leaving. they are probably not leaving, but they are probably all about to change their minds. how stupid is this? how stupid. i am a free trader. but these lines in florida are
four blocks long. they were never like that. they have never seen anything like it. a tennessee congressman said we have never seen anything like it. people are coming out who hadn't voted in years. literally, hadn't voted in years. so like in the laxity election -- in the last election, they didn't want to pull you. there are people in texas who hadn't voted in years, people that had never even voted, great americans, who just never saw somebody they wanted to vote for. they are coming out with the trump shirt, the hat, the buttons all over the place.
now, who knows? they may have all the trump stuff and you never know. maybe they are voting for cricket hillary clinton, but i don't think so, right? i don't think so. history has taught us that we don't think so, so i think we are doing great. and yet, on the border, we have no choice, we will build the wall, and mexico is going to pay for it. we've got to stop the drugs. my pledge to everybody, but in particular to new hampshire, because i know what you are going through with the drugs. i know what your incredible law-enforcement, police, and fire department -- believe me, they are not spoken about. and how about when they are shooting during fires, shooting at the firemen. this is a new phenomenon. they are shooting bullets at firemen going to fires and fighting fires. so, we have a divided country and we are going to make our country love again. we are going to make it like this room.
countless americans who have died in recent years would not be alive today if not for the open border policy of this administration. this includes incredible americans like 21-year-old tara. you have seen her story. you have read about it. the man who killed her and heard federal custody and then was released into the united states community under the policies of this white house. he was released again and again after crime after crime and now is at large. sarah graduated from college just the day before with a 4.0 grade point average, top in her class, she was violently, violently killed. outstanding individual.
i know her parents. also, a convenience store clerk in mesa, arizona. he was murdered by a gang member previously convicted of burglary who had also been released from federal custody. so many people, please, please, don't release him. he is violent. and he shot a man through the head. i man gunned down in the sanctuary city of san francisco by an illegal immigrant. and this person was deported five times. now he has a good lawyer and the case will go on, and on, and on. shot in the back while standing with her father, great parents, great brother. then there is the case of 90-year-old girl who was brutally beaten and left to bleed to death in his home -- earl, who was brutally beaten and left to bleed to death in his home.
the perpetrators were criminals with records a mile long that did not meet the obama administration's criteria for removal. people beg that they be removed from the country, but our geniuses wouldn't listen. in california, a 64-year-old was sexually assaulted and been to death -- beaten to death with a hammer. her killer had been arrested on multiple occasions. people beg, please the port him. -- please do port him. there are thousands of cases like this. when i'm president, it will end. not only will the borders keep out the criminals, they will keep out the drugs that are poisoning our youth.
by the way, there are people in new hampshire who are not our youth who have a tremendous problem. we are going to try everything we can to get them on-addicted. -- un-addicted. as i said when i won the new hampshire primary, we will stop drugs from pouring into your community, and i guarantee you we will. you will be so proud of your president. you will be so proud of your community. we have an amazing movement going on, and the movement like
they have never seen before. a movement that hopefully won't be stopped. a movement that the biggest people in the world, the media, the biggest, have said they have never seen anything like it before. every crowd, every auditorium. the other night we had a situation, we had thousands and thousands of people, and i said to the fire marshal, isn't it possible to let more in? i said could we let the man? they said we can't. they said we are worried about a stampede. it's a stampede of love. it's true. because there were so many people.
they said we have security guards but they are not nearly as strong as 45,000 people come charging. we have something going on that's so special, so special. we are going to reduce your taxes, simplify your taxes. we are going to make your businesses welcome in our country. we are going to reduce taxes for middle income people, the forgotten men and women. greatly simplify your returns. the only company that won't like us is h&r block.
we will simplify your taxes. and your businesses, we will take your taxes from 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, and we will make them the lowest. tremendous amounts of regulation are killing small business and big business. we are going to have a tax friendly country again. it's going to mean jobs, expansion, growing. we are going to create the border, stop the drugs, have people come into our country -- we want people to come into our country, but they have to come a in legally. we are going to streamline the process. we want them to come in legally. and we want merit. we want wonderful people that love our country. they want to get out and do a great job.
in will we want to have them also come in based on merit. a word you don't hear anymore. too bad. we are also going to, very importantly, appoint justices to the supreme court or you can be proud of and who will respect the constitution of the united states. we are going to save our second amendment. [applause] we are going to help bigley on education. we are going to go with choice. our military is depleted. we are going to rebuild our military. we are going to lead through
strength. hopefully, we do not need to use our military, but i will tell you this. we are getting rid of isis. we are getting rid of isis. we have no choice. not since medieval times have people seem -- chopping off of heads, drowning in cages, burying in the sand, not since medieval times. it all grew during the tenure of obama and hillary clinton. isis. she stands up and says what she says. she was there. it came out of the vacuum. we should never have gone into iraq, but once we did, we should've gone out the right way, not the wrong way, in the
way they went out with so sad, so bad, including giving back most soul -- mosul, which now they are fighting to take aback, and they should have used the element of surprise -- does anyone agree? we never use the element of surprise anymore. give them plenty of time to get ready and then attack. and it turns out to be tough for them they ever thought. we are going to have a country you are going to be proud of again. we are going to have a president that hopefully you will be proud of. i am going to work so hard for every community. i will be working very hard for the african-american community, the hispanic community, for every community. and we are going to have this divided nation come together, and i just want to say, we are going to make america strong again.
we are going to make america -- it doesn't sound nice, but we have no choice -- wealthy again. we are going to make america great again. i want to thank everybody in new hampshire. get out and vote. you are special people. you are very, very special people. god bless you and vote. thank you, new hampshire. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
department's long-standing practice of not commenting on an ongoing investigation that could influence the outcome of the election. that is according to an unnamed source. feltreportedly said he obligated to do what he did after promising to keep lawmakers informed while testifying about the investigation in july. we heard hillary clinton speak about the us by -- about the fbi's decision. here is a brief statement and response to reporters. mrs. clinton: good afternoon. from perhapss out the most important national election of our lifetime. deserve the people
full and complete facts immediately. has said he himself doesn't know if the e-mails referenced in his letter are significant or not. i'm confident whatever they are won't change the conclusion reached in july. it is imperative the bureau explain this issue in question without any delay. forward to focus on the challenges facing the american 8 and on november building a better future for our country. >> have you or any of your advisors heard from anyone else at the fbi today or are you concerned that these new e-mails they said they have found will in any way reveal classified >> we haven'tcca
been contacted by anyone. first we knew about it was when you knew about it, when a letter was sent to republican members of the house was released. we are calling on the fbi to release all of the information that it has. even director call me noted this new information may not be significant. >> you have 11 days to go. what would you say to a voter who would be seeing and hearing what you are saying, saying i didn't trust her before, i don't trust her right now and they are heading to the ballot box tomorrow? i think people have made up their mind about the e-mails. now they are choosing a president. so i would urge everybody to get
out and vote early, all of the states that have early voting. i think americans want a president who can get the economy working for everyone. i offer that, i can do that, and i'm very confident the american people know that. we are going to continue to discuss what is at stake. >> thank you so much, there are some reports that these e-mails -- have you spoken to her, hash she been able to give you any information? have heard these rumors, we are not sure what to believe. that is why it is incumbent upon the fbi to tell us what they are talking about. right now your guess is as good as mine.
have made it very clear that if they are going to be sending this kind of letter that is only originally going to republican members of the house, that they need to share whatever facts they claim to have with the american people. thank you all. >> we will see of former president bill clinton has anything to say about the fbi investigation. to speak safely clinton supporters in columbus ohio. we will take you live to 2:00 eastern time when things get underway. one on the fbi investigation to have a clinton's e-mail
server from today's washington journal. 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
[applause] --mr. clinton: look. i feel kind of crazy -- i feel like the 25th speaker at a four-hour banquet. everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everybody has said it yet. i do want to say a couple of things -- first of all, i am profoundly grateful to all of you that supported hillary through the primary and the general. this fellow had a
bad week, and by accident went to the wrong rally. give him a hand. [applause] [applause] mr. clinton: give him a hand, you now. one big difference in this campaign -- interested to know that today, in iowa, a woman was arrested for voting twice in this election for hillary's to,nent, and she said i had the election is rigged. you have some experience with this in ohio. sincecame the 36th person 2000 to be accused of fraudulent voter id out of 200 million
votes cast. as your republican governor like this charge is bull, so many of the others, but it shows you what the difference is. who would have thought when we that itthe campaign would come down to who we are as americans. the arizona , in 126 years, has never endorsed a democrat. why they are screaming, by the way. in 126 years, the arizona republic has always endorsed republicans. [applause] mr. clinton: except this year they endorsed hillary, and they have received death threats because of it, but they hung tough, because they know we are
about the business of defining what it means to be an american in the 21st century. the columbus paper, and the cincinnati paper have not endorsed a democrat for 100 years. they endorsed hillary this year. a,e dallas morning news" -- sort of, symbolic paper of republicanism in the middle of the country, has not endorsed a .resident for 75 years now, right on the edge of world war ii, they said it might not be a hot idea to get rid of roosevelt -- we might not want to change commanders in chief right now. they had not done that again, but this year, they endorsed hillary. for all the other side's bloviating about national security, two former cia
directors have endorsed hillary, and dozens of republicans who spent their careers and national security have endorsed her, telling you what is really important about protecting this country. a commander of our forces in afghanistan -- a four-star general, endorsed hillary. wes clark, who commanded our forces and was involved when we ended the war in bosnia, endorsed hillary. why do they do this? because they would like to have a commander-in-chief that reflects american values, and can keep us safe and strong enough so we can grow out of the problems that we have. but this election is about you. the one thing this crazy campaign has done for the other side is i can still go around -- i was in pennsylvania, reading,
the other night, at a small college, and i went through the economic choice, the education choice, and lots of other issues, and half the crowd there , they were really involved in the election. they were voting for hillary. they still have not heard this stuff, because as you just saw, one side would like you not to hear. here is what this election is about -- when hillary says stronger together, it is about having an economy that works for everyone, and a society that everyone can be proud to live in. [applause] and, it is a way of life, and it is a way of thinking, and it is quintessentially american. so, when her opponent says make america great again, hey, i am a
70-year-old white seven or. -- southerner. i know what that means. [applause] mr. clinton: i know what that means. [applause] mr. clinton: first it means i will give you the economy you had 50 years ago. that is like me saying i would like to be 20 again. but i wouldually, not vote for somebody who promised to make me 20 again. more importantly, it is saying you have to vote for me because i dislike the same people you dislike, move you back up the social total pool, -- total poll, and move other people down. that is a bad idea. 50 years ago, it wasn't so great for african-americans, hispanic americans, first-generation immigrants, were women in the workplace. children with disabilities could not go to school. nobody saw their abilities. gay people were still confined
to a closet, even if they were free to walk around. what hillary believes is that a lot of her opponent's fervent supporters do have a legitimate beef, which is they have not been seen in their economic despair. they live in places that have been left out and left behind, and nobody has done enough to bring them back, but this totem pole deal is one bad idea. she wants to tear down all the totem poles so we can rise together. the choice you have to make is she says we are stronger together. he says no, we are not. [laughter] it is okon: she says to be angry, but the only thing that will help you is answers, so answers are better than anger. he says no they are not. she says i understand your
, but what you need is not somebody rubbing salt in your loans so you are mad every day. what you need is empowerment. --owerment is way by their empowerment is way better than rubbing salt in your loans. he says know what is not. she says we all like competition -- we are an football season, we have a great world series going on, and we have an election going on, but the only reason we are still here is because we have rules. the rule of law, the protection of the constitution -- everybody should live under the same set of rules. we should have the ability to grow and flourish. so, constant conflict is not the answer. the answer is cooperation. it works better than constant conflict. he says know it, it doesn't -- no, it doesn't. and she says you can say
whatever you want, but america is better because we are more diverse, and we are going to the future, so we ought to treat each other with bridges, not walls. and he says i disagree. that is the choice. what does it mean to be an american in the 21st century? and it is profound. that is the reason all of these republican newspapers, and republican national security people -- many of whom probably disagree with her on her economic plans, and her specific social policies say nonetheless, she loves this country, and she is capable of being commander-in-chief, and we do have to have an economy that works for everybody. we are stronger together. [applause] mr. clinton: so -- [applause] allclinton: and it is coming down, like it normally does, to a handful of places,
like you in ohio. hillary,rry ohio for she will be the next president of the united states. [applause] mr. clinton: there is not a chance in the world that is not true. vote want you not only to early -- to take everybody you can -- there is a lot of evidence, by the way, when you get this close to an election, what your families, friends, neighbors say to you is more important than when -- what you see in paid ads. it really matters. i will just give you an example -- i was in destin, florida, the other day. the big republican place. that is where they sent me, where at least these people did well. this guy comes up in a clinton/gore cap, and i said thanks for being with us back
then, and he said i was with her before that. all these people start listening to him. i said what do you mean, and he said i went to an early childhood conference in the 1980's, and hillary was the best person there, and that i was invited to arkansas to implement the school program. he said she is one of the best, kindest, most able people i've is thesen, and it is people just dropping. they get this venom dripped every day. he was pouring out his heart from his personal experience. i tell everybody, there is one thing you need to know about this election. her strongest supporters are the people that have known her the longest and worked with her the most closely. her second strongest supporters are people who have had dealings with her opponent. [laughter] [applause] mr. clinton: so --
[applause] mr. clinton: every time you see one of her ads and one of his, every time you hear the back-and-forth, you have to put it through that filter. do you want to go back to trickle down economics? that is not the change we need. this is a change election, all right -- the question is are we going to change forward, build on the good things president obama has done, or turn around and go backwards? every time i come to ohio, i think about one good thing he did -- when he got elected, he made it impossible for me to ever have the experience i had with congressman lou stokes. when lou with retiring in cleveland, -- was retiring in cleveland, i called them and i said i want to do something for you in your district -- you decide. he said let's go to this little grade school where americorps volunteers are helping kids learn to read. so, we did -- we are sitting in this old-fashioned auditorium --
it is like this. all the kids are out here. he speaks, i speak. the america court kids stand up, everybody claps, and we start shaking hands. we start with the sixth-graders, go to the first graders and kindergartners, and this young, african-american boy looks up to me, and he says are you really the president? i said yes, i am. >> he said but you are not dead yet. elected,ack obama got a lot of the kids in this country thought the definition of a president was an old, dead white guy -- washington, lincoln, jefferson. he freed me of that. people actually believe me now. [laughter] mr. clinton: we are laughing, but you do not want to go back to trickle down economics. he says -- her opponent -- all we need to do is cut taxes for millionaires, billionaires, the
biggest companies across the board. repeal the health care law. repeal the dodd frank bill, which stops wall street from making may street. all will be -- main street. all will be well. that does not sound like a new, antiestablishment program to me. she says no, everybody that has gotten the financial benefits since the great crash eight years ago should at least pay their fair share -- a minimum amount. that is their fair share. the so-called buffet rule -- 30% taxes won't kill anybody. and she says let's spend the money to put people to work and modernizing the american infrastructure, which is roads, bridges, airports, seaports, but also making sure every child in this country has access to affordable broadband so they can
do their homework at night. 5 million kids still don't have it. [applause] mr. clinton: also making sure that people that live in areas that do not have a lot of sun an d wind can claim the benefits of clean energy. iowa has the cheapest electric rates in america because they have the largest reliance on wind energy. you want to bring more jobs to ohio -- cut the cost of power. we the biggest market in the world. that is why your manufacturing leaders in congress -- there colleagues, commerce and ryan and -- congressman ryan and sherrod brown have endorsed hillary, because they want to work together to bring jobs back, but to do it you have to have a modern transmission system to take the energy where it is efficiently generated, where it is needed. and one of the -- from where it is efficiently generated to where it is needed.
and one of the things we learned this primary season is a lot of kids in flint, michigan, have elevated lead levels in their blood as they drank water out of rusty pipes, and people knew it, and did not replace it, but we then lend it is nowhere near the only place in america where children have elevated lead levels in their blood. if you took all the rusty pipes up, gave all of our kids a healthy future, regard -- without regard to race or region, you would create a zillion jobs, and every single one would be an american job, and every single one of them would pay more than the national average income. [applause] mr. clinton: now, that will work better. and on the tax deal she said look, i don't want to charge all businesses more taxes, but if they close a plant that is making money in america to make more money in the short run so rich shareholders can get a tax
cut in a year and a day when capital gains kicks in, i do think they have to kick back every last consent they ever got from the state and local -- red state andgot from the local government. i do not think they should be able to bring their products back here. i am not for raising everybody's taxes. i want to lower corporate taxes if they fairly share profits with employees -- if they train employees so they can keep getting better jobs and better incomes. and if they will go into some of these areas that have been left nationaleft behind, to from kolkata, to the rest of the small towns in america, to neighborhoods in our cities that have had no new investment. if they do that, i would cut they taxes a lot, because would be doing what americans money by -- making helping other people make money -- giving other people a chance, other people a chance to start.
i have been doing this half my life. this will work better. you don't have to take my work for it. overve been fighting trickle-down economists versus growing out the economy from the updle down and the middle for 25 years. even the first president bush, who did not believe in it, were forced to follow it by the extreme of their party. so we can keep score -- the eight years i served, the eight years president obama served, and there are 20 -- what is the private sector job score? in their 20 years, 15.8 million jobs. in our 16 years, four years less, even if you count the more than 2 million jobs we lost right at the beginning of president obama's term that he has nothing to do with -- that crash occurred four months before he took office -- even if you count that, republicans
15.8. our two administrations, more than 32 million jobs. one.er than two to that is what is at issue in this campaign. across all the races and every region of america, you cannot afford to go back to triple down -- trickle-down economics on steroids. small businesses account for two thirds of the jobs. only one candidate has a small business plan -- to get more loans out. to relax the rules not at the top of the pyramid so futures can be gambled away, but at the bottom, so people can make any loans again. it works, and it is important. i could give you a lot more ideas, but you get the idea. she has an economic program that will work. we also need to live together. that means we need to treat each other with respect. hillary was the first candidate in either party to have a program to put affordable drug
prevention and treatment programs in every county in america that needs it, and this is the first drug epidemic in my lifetime worthy of addiction rates are even higher in small towns and rural america than they are in urban areas. then, she met with the police chiefs of cities that have very good community relations across racial lines, and they were an interesting group. they said look, we do not care about body cameras. have them. and we need more training -- always, we can use it. do it. hiswhat we really need mental health in every community in america. you don't want people to be killed under pressure, we need more mental health. she is the only person you can vote for who believes being part of a community includes mental health. this is a huge deal.
i was in pennsylvania the other mayor of that city's twin brother is the head of the city council, and it has suffered a lot because they have lost some jobs. i said how did this happen? he said one night a couple of years ago, 3:00 in the morning, i got word my sister had been to her, and rushed i held her in my arms, and she said i am not going to make this. you and your brother, you have to save our community. she was shot by her own child. no mental health coverage. and in honor of their sister, he became the mayor, his brother
became the city council chairman, and he said we are going to grow this together. we are going to get out of this, and we are going to have our heads in the right place. we have got to believe we are stronger together. i will never forget that as long as i live. friend -- he was african-american. i have a friend from new hampshire, where there are almost no african-americans, who was the chief justice of the supreme court when his mentally ill son nearly beat him to death. -- and this guy has been my friend for 25 years. i know him, i know his wife. they are wonderful people. i did noty son -- know -- i did not even know how to do this." he said i was for you because we
were friends, and i agreed with you that i am for her because i notice a life and death matter to get mental health services to every single community in america. 2 mr. clinton: this has a happy ending. he stayed with his son through his prison term. he made sure he got mental health treatment. a young man has an eight euros son now, mary -- eight euros son, married to a -- eight-year-old son married to a woman who won an emmy for a documentary. he got his son back because we did not give up on people. i am tired of everyone saying america's future is bad. we have at 79 months of job growth. we have never had that before. there have been trillions of dollars from other countries sent to america because people believe we have the right -- best future. why are we bad mouthing it? we have left too many people behind. let's put them up and go forward
together. that is a we have to do. nobody can be invisible to us -- and this is the last thing i want to say. the most important thing for you to do is vote, because if she wins ohio, she will be president. [applause] mr. clinton: the second most important thing to you -- if you get somebody screaming at you, like i did. do not respond in kind. ourthe difference in campaign and yours is we want you to go along in our trip to the future, and we need you, and it is not right that you have been left out and left behind, but answers are better than anger, and empowerment is better than resentment. get on the truck, and let's go home. [applause] let's go -- mr. clinton: let's go. old townmayor brown's yesterday, and there are a lot of republicans there, too. i did this rally, and when i
finished, i went out and i shall cancel. i always look for the little kid that get squeezed out. there was this young boy looking at me, and he said you know why i'm for hillary, and i said no, but i would like to, and he said because i am autistic, and she won't make fun of me. smart,you are pretty too, aren't you, and he said that is what they say, but i have trouble getting along. but he got the message. i said well, you should know that hillary joined with democrats and republicans when she was a senator, in an autism group, and she was the first person to run for president that had a position on this, and the number of children with your condition has tripled in the last 20 years, nobody exactly knows why, but we know you can all do better. he said good, i feel better now. ernest.
, two or three rallies back, there was a handsome young man that looked like he was from south asia, and look like he was about 10 years old. he said i am for hillary because i am a muslim, i love america, and she likes me. i was a republican -- i hope family's republican we are all for hillary because she likes us. i get home, and i go to this little book store where a woman has bravely risked her life savings to open an independent bookstore -- how crazy is that, right? and she is making it. she said i want you to read the essay i 13-year-old wrote about the first debate. he said i really liked hillary in the first debate because she had facts, statistics, and concrete answers to the questions. it gave me confidence. ans young man at 13 wrote essay i could not have written at 25.
it was so well-written. there is no telling what this kid's iq is. he writes all about that, and at the end he says i felt she cared about me. he said that is important to me because i have a very severe muscular distant -- disability. mental one, a physical one, and i need someone who cares enough to give me a chance to do everything my abilities will allow. that is stronger together. that is what this whole election is about. what is america going to be like for the next 30 years? i am telling you, we are the best positioned country in the world. we have the chance to elect a president with the standing in the world and the understanding of the world to keep us safe enough, and give us space enough to grow and lead the world away from this divisive rhetoric, and even killing, on our differences.
that is what this whole thing is about. the nobel prize this year. and for us people of a certain age, that was a kick, right? the most important song he ever wrote for this election was "forever young." it says "you stay forever young ," if there is a letter in front of you, and you can climb every rung." listen, my heart breaks for a lot of people on the other side because they are so angry, hurt, they think their tomorrows are going to be like today, and they cannot change them because we do not give a rip about them, but we do. --ber, this is an election remember, this is an election about answers over anger,
bridges over walls. if we choose the former, we will do what our founders told us to do. those people were really smart. you think they thought we had a perfect democracy? thomas jefferson said when i tonk of slavery, i tremble believe that god is just. in other words, i am toast if i do not get for given -- forgiven. when the country started, only white, male property owners could grow -- vote, and that meant a lot of people, including the ancestors of me and governor strickland would not have been able to vote either because they did not have any power -- property. the founders said we pledge our lives, fortune, sacred honor, to form a more perfect union, because we are stronger together. and ever since then, in fits and starts, with struggles and
fights, like the ones we are going through today, we always chose to widen the circle of opportunity, deep in the meaning of freedom -- deep in the meaning of freedom, strengthen the bonds in our candidate. that is what is at stake. i am telling you, you have a chance to vote for a person who is the time she was 30 had done more to advance the public interest than her opponent has in a lifetime. [applause] and you have a chance to keep america forever young. lanterns. of those if i were 20 again, and a genie comes out and says you could live wherever you want the next 30 years, but you have to decide right now, i would pick the united states because no rational person would count us out.
any rational analysis would say we could grow our way into shared prosperity. we can grow our way into taking the world away from climate change. we have to believe we can do it together. there is no alternative. to leave you with this -- the single most emotional moment i had in this campaign for me personally ocher in easton, ohio. -- eastern ohio. i met a bishop. are you ok? bishop who told me his said the most important thing here is not that i am a bishop. he said the most important thing is that i am the grandson of
luther black of hope, arkansas, a working man, who bought all of his groceries from your grandfathers store, before there were any food stands, any help. -- asd your grandfather my grandfather told me many times -- when he came home and his children needed food, and he had no money, he said luther, take whatever you need, come back and pay me when you can. he looked at me and he said somehow, we have to get that back in america. we have to look at each other and see the hope in our eyes, and the pain in our eyes, understand the problems of the people have, the dreams we all have, and we have to help each other. he said that is what we have to do. this is a big deal. [applause] guest: you mr. clinton: --
as president clinton greets the platform guess, we have two major things we are going to do. we know he is going to shake some hands. we have a wonderful second half of our program. we will hear from our congressional black caucus, and they will come in a nontraditional way. you will not hear speeches. this is a rally, so they are going to bring it, so was in it wonderful to hear about our candidate, secretary of state hillary clinton, from somebody who knows her? [applause] >> we have heard so much about her, and she has done so much. what an honor it is to have our former president, and her husband, here, someone who knows her better than all of us. but someone else knows her as well -- someone, when we talk about her decades of a career,
someone who talks about when she graduated from law school. hillary could have gone anywhere, and worked anywhere, but she knew her mission was with our children -- underprivileged children, so she went to the children's defense .und all, how i like telling this story of marilyn wright edelman. all, how i love telling this story. [applause] rep. beatty: no other than marilyn wright edelman. you.delman: thank i think i have known hillary rodham clinton longer than including this room,
bill clinton. i think he met her two years after i did, and i could not be more honored to come and talk about my friend, who is a long haul or. i first heard of her when she was the student commencement speaker at wesley college, and she took on senator edward the vietnampposed war. i said who is that, so we figured out how to reach her. my husband and i brought her out to the league of women voters consult -- conference in colorado in 1969, so we could get to know this new firebrand against the war, and making sure we could bring peace in the world. in 1969, she went off and decided to go to law school, so i went up to talk to yale law school people and this young woman came up, who i had met in denver, and she said i would
love to come work for you, and i said i would love to work for you, and i said i would love to have you, but we do not have any money. and she didn't it she found her self a scholarship, came to work in 1969. came back as another intern in 1970, and the thing i like about her then is she would do whatever had to be done. a whiteher down to be parent investigating a segregated academy in the south. that was not an easy thing to do. she went and did that. i asked her to go to a migrant camp in florida to investigate the conditions of migrant children, and she did that. and she always did a good job. she would just do whatever had to be done, and i like that. i like people who get things done, and who are smart answer thorough, and to then could also figure out what should need to get done. we need in this president, some
study, smart people, in this nuclear world. [applause] we started: and then -- this was all for the washington research project, the parent association of the children's defense fund. she came to work with us. corporate going to a law firm, she came to work for the children's defense fund in 1973, and she, again, would do whatever had to be done, and we were doing the study of children out of school. we had looked at the census data and found there were 2 million children not enrolled in any school in america, and 750,000 of them were between 12, -- seven and 13 years old, but they did not tell us who these children were. we designed a study, and all of us at the children's defense fund went out and knocked on doors, many census tracts, many thousands of households, and we found out who those children were.
and knocked on doors in new bedford, massachusetts, and she found out about disabled children. 750,000 young children were disabled children -- children that were handicapped and did not have a federal right to education. so, the first thing we got done legislatively on a national level after publishing this report was to get the education for the all handicapped children's act, which is now the individuals with disabilities act, and hillary helped accomplish that. i tell you, the most shocking ad i have seen in this campaign was to see a man running for president of the net it states disrespecting -- of the united states disrespecting a disabled "new york times reporter" and those are not the values you want any leader to have. classes of make two children, and we're not going to
have leaders that have two classes of children in their mind. don't you go back there to all of that. [applause] mr. edelman: then after working for a year, she said i'm going to move to arkansas. i said you're going to move to arkansas? work, --ed her way to on her way to work, and to help george mcgovern, and she talked to me about this young man she had met. i said i had not met them -- arkansas? she went on down there, and when she went on down there, she started the arkansas advocates for children and families, a parallel organization at the local level for children, and i love her because she is a seed sewer, seed planter, and always finds a way to do something for children. and then she came on the children's defense fund board for 14 years in 1978. she was our chair for six years
until she became the first lady of the united states, and her first stop in washington for an -- the present came with her to celebrate young children beating the odds of poverty, abuse, neglect, and they both came to celebrate those children. we do that, and bill clinton was in someplace near rockford, in someplace near rockford, illinois, and he came over, and we would always welcome these children to give them hope, and i hope we're going to help hillary beat the odds, and make sure that our granddaughters and grandchildren know that they can be and do anything. she is somebody that gets things done. she does her homework. hand, ready, as a steady and in this nuclear world, where climate changes, and all these things, we need a steady, mature hand at the harm of this nation
-- helm of this nature. i hope everybody will go out and vote. if you do not vote, you do not have credit in the political marketplace. democracy is not a spectator sport. anyone that doesn't get out and vote and help achieve her agenda, you are not doing the right thing. i hope we will get out to vote this november 8, and ohio can vote this november 8, understanding that the vote is ,ur trump card for the future and is our trump card for success. get out there, and you vote for the children, vote to make sure every child and every person has health care building on the obama presidency. let's vote for early childhood. sure we do and make
not have the wrong person appointing people to the supreme court of the united states. any millennial voters who thinks it does not make a difference, think about the supreme court -- anybody who has any sense about the future of this nation thinking about this supreme court -- we are not going to go backwards. we cannot let this country go backwards for women, black folks, brown folks, get out there and think about that. this year is the most important voting time you have ever had. i'm here to say please get out there and vote for the most competent, proven track record, the one who gets things done. aboute who knows children. the one that will be thoughtful and make clear to our granddaughters and grandsons they can be and do anything. i hope everyone of us will show up at the voting booth november
8, wherever we are, take your children's parents with you. everybody, take your children, so they can understand what the grease of democracy is. it is the vote. voting booth, the make sure you take tamir rice, trayvon martin, you vote for them. they can't vote. they can't vote, but you can that will stop gun violence in america. you also vote in gratitude. take fred shuttlesworth in there, and say thank you. take dr. king, and say thank you. there,e ella baker in and say thank you. this is your time. let's move forward, and not backward. vote. [applause]
road to themore white house coverage later today with donald trump making a campaign stop in phoenix. that is here on c-span. we will take you there live when that really gets under way. >> den wiki, following this for the arizona republic. thank you for being with us. >> why so much attention. why has it become purple in so many respects? mr. nowicki: the
consensus is if any of the other republican candidates had one, we would not be having this conversation, but giving the unique character, he has made arizona competitive for the first time in 20 years. >> your former governor has been a strong advocate for donald trump. what kind of organization does he have on the ground, and what kind of campaign does he have in arizona? mr. nowicki: the trump campaign has almost no grounding and very little if the structure. they have 32 or so offices. -- in terms of the intersection, trump does not have any. disobeyed his seventh
time. he will make the case one more time. >> what about former governor jan brewer -- the she have any organizational support that could help on november 8? mr. nowicki: she is supported by the same wing that loves trump, very strong anti-illegal immigration wing, the type of republicans that support building the wall, etc., but that is not all of the arizona republicans. it is many republicans that take a more business, chamber of commerce approach, that have a little more sophisticated view of immigration, and how it interacts with the 21st century
economy here. alyssa, people like senator john mccain, jeff flake, support comprehensive immigration reform. those type of people are less likely to be influenced by jan brewer -- those types of republicans, i think. host: hillary clinton back in arizona next week -- as you point out, her husband bill clinton winning arizona in 1996 when he was challenged by republican bob dole. then you have to go back to 1948 -- harry truman, the only other democrat to win your state. mr. nowicki: right. it is very much a traditional red state, making it that much more surprising that hillary clinton, of all people, is the one who has put it in play. trump is his own worst enemy. his rhetoric has affected latinos, a fast-growing constituency. turnedyboy lifestyle has
off a lot of religious conservatives, especially performance. in utah there has been a lot of attention paid to mormons and their views of trump, but there are a lot of mormons in arizona as well. jeff flake, for example, is a mormon. he has not endorsed trump. he has been critical. and i think a lot of mormons look for him to direction. about to otherk aspects -- how much is the onnton campaign spent, and the race? they have digital as another platforms they are advertising on.
they have had big-name surrogates. they are all out for winning arizona. trump has not been putting that kind of money into arizona. the senate race is interesting because everyone knows trump and mccain have been feuding. while trump has been struggling in arizona, and has been the can with clinton, mccain seems to have opened up a double-digit democrat his opponent, ann kirkpatrick. recent polls show him with weeds of 10 or 12 points. it is interesting -- there seems to be some ballot splitting certainly, people will be separating the races in their own minds, and the democratic attempts to tie trump to mccain continue and is going
on for months, and they seem not to be working. >> this has to be terrific for you as a political reporter in arizona during a general election. mr. nowicki: it is really unprecedented in arizona in decades. i mentioned trump is going to be here seven times. hillary clinton is coming. mike pence has been here three times -- once with trump. it has been one after another with big-and political events. >> we will look for your work online. dan nowikci joining us from phoenix. he writes for "the arizona republic. think you forge a mess. mr. nowicki: thank you very much --thank you for joining us. mr. nowicki: thank you very much. >> stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race, withding campaign stops hillary clinton, donald trump, and surrogates, and follow key house and senate races.
c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> next, a group of journalists discusses the tone of the 2016 presidential race, and how it compares to past campaigns. they also talk about the role of social media this election cycle. this was hosted by the museum and franklin pierce university. it is one hour. ms. mccormick: my name is barbara mccormick, i am the vice president. it is my pleasure to welcome you here today. the mission to promote, explain, and defend the first amendment positions us perfectly to lead today's discussion incivility in presidential election discourse with our friends from the franklin pierce university. i would like to think -- recognize mr. fitzwater and his wife were in the audience. take you for joining us.
i would also like to extend a special thank you to kristin, right over here, and my colleague in today's moderator for all the work in helping to put together today's program. without them, this would not be happening. i would also like to extend a special welcome and thanks to the teachers and students who are in our audience. you know firsthand the unique challenges this polarizing campaign -- presidential teachingis posing for and having civil discussions in classrooms and online. i hope you take advantage of this safe format to share your thoughts, ideas, opinions, questions, and help us figure out what we can do. at the conclusion of the program, we will be giving out more resources on how to navigate these muddy waters of the election.
we have some resources. we have the election 2016. we also have a great teacher guide. some fabulous giveaways. i would like to turn it over to dr.university president, kim mooney. thank you. -- dr.ique: good morning monique: we are honored to be , just days newseum away from one of the most contentious political campaigns in american history. i would like to welcome you students and teachers in the audience and our viewers tuning in with a live stream. thank you for joining us. thank you for hosting such an esteemed panel today. we believe that franklin pierce university -- student life is the start of a full life.
it is why we involve our students on the front lines of the democratic election process. today's topic -- civility in presidential election discourse would be relevant during any election cycle, and i believe we can all agree, no matter of political affiliations, that this topic has never been more timely than it has been today pit we are grateful to john maynard. with that, i give you the stage to begin today's discussion. thank you. john maynard: thank you. frome just 11 days away election day, so we look forward to a spirited discussion with our panel, which i will introduce in a moment. as barbara said, the focus is to promote, defend, and explain free expression and the first amendment, which guarantees the proud tradition of political
discourse, which includes respect, tolerance, and rationality. so what is happening this campaign -- by all accounts, it has been ugly. the in the insults have been fun fast and serious. we have watched the debates, seen the stump speeches, and i have heard the rhetoric on the campaign trail. just this week, donald trump and joe biden challenge each other to a fistfight. today, we will discuss the state of civility in this presidential campaign, and maybe walk away with ideas on how today's youth, presented in the audience today, can revive civility and assure the health of our democracy. we have a stellar panel joining us. i will go down the line and provide the brief bio. atas is a media reporter politico.
ofcovers the intersection politics and media for the political blog "the fix" at "the washington post. she was a political correspondent and business reporter with "the boston globe." alexander heffner is the host of the pbs series "open minds." bill miller is the senior vice president at business roundtable. overseas outreach to capitol hill and the ministration on behalf of the association of chief executive officers of leading u.s. corporations. he has been an active supporter of no labels which is a national movement of democrats, republicans, and independence dedicated to a new politics of problem-solving. franklin pierce university. -- jed donlan is with franklin pierce university. his research is in deliberative ethics, democracy, and the teaching of philosophy. please welcome our panel.
[applause] mr. maynard: i thought i would go down the line. let's acknowledge that yes, in civility has been around for a long time. what makes this year something truly different? hadas: for one thing, it has risen to the level of the candidates themselves. one candidate in particular throws insults of the other candidate returns that and i think it's an ugly undercurrent that has probably only does always existed and is a minor portion of the population who feel as though they are now emboldened and can speak their minds on issues that for most of us we would not consider that part of normal society the way some of these people speak. as a person who is a victim of
some of that, it's a little bit arresting to witness this and realize its 2016 and some of these issues are still coming up over and over. it's not that the country has has moved past it. it something we have to work on. callum: to me it feels more personal. also more serious. i was thinking about contrast between this election and the last one. i was thinking about a story that we wrote when we were covering mitt romney stuff in boston. we went through old sec filings them are reporting that mitt romney had stayed in his ownership and executive capacity
at bain capital longer than he said. the campaign pushed back against it. they were not happy with the story and it felt like a game. it felt like they were going to the motions. you get a store you don't like and complain about it and move on all stop mitt romney did not call me scum or dishonest. he did not threaten to sue the boston globe. those are things we are getting in this campaign so that's what feels different. it's more serious and personal. we are not playing within the typical boundaries of that back and forth tween the press and the campaign. alexander: what they said is true and its unprecedented. i look at the incivility in terms of bigotry and obstructionism and the incivility of political correctness. underneath that is perhaps the most critical incivility which is the unprecedented inequality of wealth. inequity in many instances emboldened the candidacies of
antiestablishment outsiders but it is that condition that is uncivil in its very essence of american life. from a media perspective, i think there has been a complicity, a kind of incensed in terms of the relationship with his bigotry that is perpetuated the norms we talked about shifting. there are assaults on the first amendment, freedom of speech, assaults on civil discourse. when you have an outlook that is bigoted, it i think it leads to the kind of -- a kind of irreconcilable obstruction. we see this with the nature of politics broadly. i think this campaign speaks to incivility not just in terms of the candidates, in terms of the rhetoric they employ in the campaign trail -- it speaks to the obstruction we see with the
u.s. supreme court nominee whom the senate refuses to hear or consider to listen to. it culminates in this kind of incivility of political correctness and a refusal to upset the status quo. the political correctness campuses and there are students are fed up with the political correctness but it doesn't give a license to engage the ad hominem assaults, what secretary clinton said in terms of that basket of deplorables. we look at exit poll surveys i think while see to extent the body politic is rhetoricnd not just in but behavior. it is that cycle that is a one and torturing not
but politics.aign bill: i certainly associate myself with the remarks previous i would make a couple observations. number one we should not ignore and lephant in the room that is donald trump and he has civility that exists at this presidential level. of e had any other number republicans running against hillary clinton this would be a substance orient the campaign. of him.t because that is my first observation. the lines of along what has created the two-on-one trump but dy like mr. also what has created the the incivility. i have often thought if you the back and look at rowth and birth of the occupy wall street movement and tea party movement they were both ind of driven by similar
problems. t is this notion that politicians, big business, big organizations, are not listening more concerned with themselves and therefore i extreme.o something nd that extremism manifests both in the individual actions of individuals who created these movements and then politicians who have taken advantage of them and really taken them to the fore. whether it be in the media, i would say more fringe oriented but then the individual candidates who see that rustration that truly does exist all around this country and whether it is on the left sanders, orth bernie eally in this kind of populist desi list nationali
nationalist element and they mostly i think the scarring in this country began through the crash in 2008 and aftermath but it has been going on for longer than that. incivility bout the , an accumulation of issues that the american public haven't and they just had the proper outlet and i think that in this campaign they outlet, the proper right or wrongly, on the left campaignbernie sanders and on the republican side with the donald trump is willing to their darker side. jed, has it reached a dangerous level this year? as a think we see it different level at the presidential level we have not seen before. it is a couple minute nation of trends. educator, i find one of
consequences is i'm having a time engaging students in discussions about the , the political issues. i want to respect -- i have my political positions and i want to respect the positions of my students. the two major parties is difficult to support yet people supporting him so i don't quite know how to toe that line able to toe in other election campaigns. i'm concerned that incivility is what i like to think of the ethical foundation of democracy. form of just the government we happen to have. it is the form we think we want going back to historical developments i think attempt to cy is an realize the idea that human eings canning self-ledge
hraeugt, you a -- self-led and autonomous and free. if we are not willing to take disagree with seriously but give them a name deplore believe or muslims or mexicans then we're not included in the conversation the we need to fix the real problems that we have because i not just the sense of politics but sense of governance to govern. john: i want to ask what you media's role has been in covering this campaign in the ratings ten, debates, the campaign speeches people are tuning in to cnn. is there any way the media is contributing?
hadas: i think it is difficult because a lot of times people say you shouldnd be objective, deliver the news, it e -- you should not put through any type of filter. need the other hand you to show us what is right and what is wrong ethically and whatnot. so, cnn said maybe we should not his rallying so early with no context at the ame time and this is what i remind me the media don't go to vote. we individually might but the who ultimately cast the vote. in media can have an effect terms of attention but it is not ultimately the media who vote. the media, which i us all in -- put us all in the same basket but for example in the beginning not
paying enough attention to bernie sanders that for sure i believe and they didn't pay attention to donald trump in the sense of him being a egitimate candidate that was representing something important in the republican party and not just the republican party but voters at large in that they didn't take him seriously. joke hought he was a candidate and they should have taken him seriously sooner. bring this up all the revelations in the past few months about trump's conduct 2005 tape and the his tax returns, that is not stuff that just materialized the month. it is not like it just came up. it has been existing almost a we just happened to have found them and they think a conspiracy of them trying to bring him down. i don't believe that. it is the symptom of the media not taking him digging into not his history like they could have been.
how do you handle the invitation are old that has dump that has been directed toward you? callum: one thing we have is the felt has a role but i have at times we had some of the agenda setting or decision us.ing power taken away from one example was in april where "national enquirer" reported on this sort of slew of supposed ext extramarital affairs that ted cruz will and for a three or day period after that logical everybody in the mainstream press totally ignored story. most people said this is garbage and it is totally unsubstantiated. ignoring it. then what happens. donald trump surrogate, a conservative talk radio host and columnist from boston i'm afraid
she's live on cnn during with amanda arpenter, ted cruz's former director and accuses her of being one of the women and now thisere report and has been thrust into the onversation and there is no avoiding it. now what do you do? live tv, s said it on ted cruz -- he had ignored it respond compelled to and denied the allegations and we feel like we have to cover it. we have no choice. part of the campaign. hadas: but if ted cruz will not people d do you think would have still covered t. just because somebody says something tv, didn't donald trump also bring it up? other other -- the callum: he brought up ted cruz's father as j. tpfpf.k.'s assassi.
also the enquirer. different kind of innuendo. normalized the isnchy sex innuendo but what normalized is conflating the ormalization of hate speech ith an entertainment in chief potentially and that is what so devastatingly occurred with the and this cycle representing public television i have to say that our impetus, imperative, distinct from all others has to be ndependence and i say this knew dark the out of the news division. raised the money from our funders as an independent production house as does dozens things and that leaves us to
more, i think, a more fruitful outcome when it comes to media being y and accountable for the truth and increasing increasingly post-factual -- and both hit the nail on -- democracy there is nothing more important than the truth being the truth and the say with i would is, it to this toxicity is leading to a kind of of our discourse. we think of jerry planned eterring as a -- jerry eandering as a structure of hrpbledg ledge legislature the tech space and take more ley has it responsibility for importing a
set of values into our modern apparatus.ons whether facebook or twitter and a on't think there's been firm enough acknowledgment on the part of those organizations blueprint for and charting a future whereby we can have free expression but don't the kind of ate hate that we have seen this campaign. we can is something expound on. a support er of the of having them reaching across the aisle and getting things done but switching gears why have we become so polar i we see a nation and can a situation of that ending? gerrymandering is an interesting way to think about it because some of the and master change a that -- massive change that is industry is in the creating news for you and news
or you is absolutely contributing to, if you want a on your news int ou can tune into msnbc or read the huffington post. if you want a conservative view to fox or breitbart or red state and those sorts of creating these -- it it is the media for you and it isn't really tolerant of other viewpoints and it is absolutely -- when you ave a situation where i will never forget it fwas some time the ummer of 2015 and all edia cameras were trained on a landing on an air strip in alabama waiting for the trump land and there was nothing substantive about it. nly thing that was relating to it was they believed that that
would actually drive more this.ls to see and i don't envy who is trying a media empire because the fractionalization makes it more difficult. john: you asked questions about no labels and no labels is a way peace after t the the war. and this is an organization that founded by citizens. it has been really embraced by embers of both parties and the house and the senate in terms of think we have over 60 members of congress who are quote unquote problem solvers, equal republicans and democrats who say in the same old of when ronald reagan and tip o'neill worked together or bill clinton and newt gingrich a governingas to be we ent to the individuals send to washington whether the president, members of senate or house. a very long and serious process of work to
identify the issues where there ground.ommon hey will culminate with the 1787 conference which will bring business and labor leaders house, , members of the governors, to look at what are the agenda items that people check their ideology or philosophy but look at things they can collaborate on that is good for america. ohn: i want to go back to the points about the media and how it has become fragmented. in an essay you wrotor university you posed several questions and one where does ed me is the responsibility lie for our current state of political ineptitude. it is not strictly our political leaders. jed: back to what i consider to e the ethical or moral foundation of democracy why it
is the form of government we want, it is trying to embody the human being as somebody who can self-legislating, autonomous and free. but that means a community has together to find common ground to not, as you say, i'm i'm not pretend conservative or don't have the opinions. civil discourse here it is polite we are not having disconsiders. if we are not having discourse here real disagreements are aired and ajude -- ais jude then it is not discourse. it is banter. that as some of the moral foundation of where of the people, by the people, for the people. where is the responsibility of to people not to listen their own gerrymandered station or blog or what have you.
to be concerned. hearing from ting the journalists the desire for and many y and truth people say if it agrees with me agrees withnd if it me it is objective. how can we go beyond that to i need to that recognize that even though i disagree with you at some away probably el share many values of security, prosperity, education for our children. ou express them in different ways but how can we talk, at what level from sharing an means anding of what it to be citizens of the united tates, talking about not great breakthroughs but small steps toward better understanding and trying to make progress on many of the hard issues we face.
we are going to agree did disagree it doesn't work. plausible then we have to -- and i will go back to tech space in terms of media. and his generation twitter facebook and snapchat and analogs for are contemporary public affairs and proliferation of gives us activity online you being fed information based on your friends, your network, or her you are liberal conservative. a lot of that leads to d a system in which legislatures, mark zuckerberg and the entire are insulating ourselves we extract
appear extricate ourselves building and nsus new mechanisms in terms of civic education and how these organizations, these websites in new cular are adopting rules of the road and right now they are giving the impression my only are we significant advertising people and fracturing the country but there's no possibility for unit. doing an event yet and the do you see civil discourse could be foreseeable in the near future. 50% to 65% said no. i think that there's a huge void of the media's bring togetherto the fact checkers and those who of a new wave of journalists and journalism designed to fix problems. john: how has -- we were talking about gerrymandering but how has
social media challenged your actually helped it? fitzwateruote with mr. that blogs make journalists out of 300 million people. hadas: i think there with be dissertations written on the 2016 election. social media is really person how we do reporting. i see twitter as my news alert, how i my publicize my reporting how i readers. with but i would like to ask the audience how many of you are on twitter? if you will notice the front is which is a little older on twitter. the back part not as much. heard donald trump will
remarks how lewd many learned watching cnn the first time? nobody. how many of you learned about it on facebook? how many on twitter? how many learned on snapchat? how many from texting a friend. online to you went thought itico.com and that. one of you. just to show you that nobody what we bout it from normally consider as traditional media. later.robably saw it the gerrymandering of news does matter but fewer and fewer are to like choosing and going breitbart.com or huffington post. you look at the personal of page.c it is front more and more are coming through
facebook, twitter and people who have big followings who will post a link. ellen goes on tv or posts a ews story you more likely to see it versus if it went on a story and nobody talked about it. it is important because speaks to the echo chamber news o ou choose what outlet feed into your feed. affects things because sometimes editors will write know it because they will get more pickup on social media. journalists where fight with editors. ot because of the substance of the story. on the flip side of that social made my life more difficult because not only is it streaming, if i want to get anything done i have to turn it off because there's something new and some
people will go on social media miss a world d which had changing event and started, became a thing and by the time they lands and now that there is wi-fi in is sky you can never escape and the invitationry old from -- the vitriol is astounding. i don't know if you have seen i'm jewish and born n israel and some people have posted pictures of me with bullet hole in my head and jew photos of my d face on bodies of holocaust victims. that and you are trying to tdo your job and goin booed at and journalists are getting to be and some are ety escorted by police or secret service back it cars and a lot is because of social media and what gets built up in a media where i'm sure you have seen what happened
to leslie jones from "s.n.l." people to leave social media. it both makes our lives better and reporting easier but way more difficult because we are trying to reach all of all of our stories and we have to sometimes do that through the prism of social media. callum: i learned about the on the d tape "washington post" mobile app. way.hat out of the as far as the social media twitter i find for me is a useful news gathering tool. but i'm generally disappointed twitter's ability to improve discourse between the press or maybe trust between the press ers.read ers and maybe the 140 character style on twitter
really frankly tends to be a one street. i'm disseminating my own stories nd my colleagues' work and sometimes like yesterday student me cornell reached out to on twitter and said can i ask you some questions and we offline chat and it as direct messaging and more expanse seuive forum. bun of the hopes of twitter is we are more engaging with bhakack that weet will improve but i have not to be the case. to be ar: there appears backlash. npr removed its comment session. since we are in the nate studio the -- knight studio and the with others tion have imparted on extraordinary improve the comment
sections on week sites so they discussion civil that we all prize. hat work is ongoing but there really are no clear answers at how those in terms of values are going to be adopted. and i will just point out in facebook, they unleashed the monetization of effect through when watch a video on youtube there's often an advertisement click that feature will commence and ad buys monetization of on facebook leaves the most stories often to be those absolutist and sometimes factual anti-clinton not and anti-trump propaganda. there's been an abdication of ethical sort civic participation the part of facebook and
twitter, which is really irresponsible. john: switching gears a little i want to remind folks we will get in a ience questions moment. we have two staffers with mics and ou can raise your hand they will come to you. let me get to you guys -- and i have a switch -- talk about what you think the of this campaign will be voters?irst-time how many do we have in the audience? part of the room. ask them, too. what do you think the effect overall. bill: i can't imagine if you are a first-time voter this is the you feel more proud in participating in our democracy. vote injust urge you to this election, recognize that
elections will be as ugly as this. there will be policy orient the talk about at different viewpoints and different viewpoints based where individuals want to take the country. i think that this one is a of that.t devoid and i will just kind of tweak a does thet and see what incivility mean and what does it ean when all the shooting is done and the election is over and we have to go back. job as a lobbyist and work for 200 of the biggest they allin america and are, or almost all of them are run can born and multinational american based companies and they want to see investment and more competitive america. risk award dynamic for congress doesn't work for
compromise and solution. c.e.o.'s ort is the every individual that works for their who want to see children or grandchildren do etter they are hungry for the solutions that members of congress are incented to not provide so the rick award to media it relates and incivility is as a republican to compromise with democratic in the way that ronald reagan would have side i will take a half loaf today and to get the other half next week. each member of congress who can go on media his afternoon and talk about how they were instrumental in blowing up the compromise that good for been america. that is part of this that is ing incivility certainly as forefront during an mastern time but when we
beyond the election time my hope s that all of you that have been disappointed with the lack around the future of america stay involved. because we are going to have opportunities, i think, to bring people together and maybe have center take the tage for a little paste -- piece of time. john: jed, you touched on some earlier.tudents jed: i think this election cycle difference is the policy difference and that is the reason people are voting this election cycle that is not and i will legitimate way of determining one's vote. t is not unheard of it past presidential cycles we are not having policy asking we should be having. repeated for most of my adult life. ut we are certainly not having it this time.
so i think it becomes a question temperament of permit and that becomes the basis of the vote. next.ry about what is if this is somewhat like a crisis oment sometimes lookts allow a deep inward and way of doing things ifferently where a radical center asserts itself in a particular way. few ve headlines the past disturbance against the people against paul ryan who these letting down the rank and file of the republican party and not supporting donald trump if you have that following subsequent to the election i don't know what that means. don't know, frankly, if donald the is an anomaly to
nature of our political that will become normalized. worries me. john: do you want to say something? e will take questions but normalizing political violence not on this stage. alexander: you have the revolution and civil war and kkk lynchings. we have been progressing and we in terms regressing of donald trump's endorsement of violence f political which is transcending insendsary behavior that icite allows a sitting congressman to plus'm going to pick up my kept if my -- my musket if my wins.nt the musical hamilton popularized and we know burr about the caning, the new complications gs
to whether civility is rampant respect to trol but millennials the reason this is recent t is the most harvard university of public the y clinton has retaken lead in a more substantial way in 2008 and 2012 and i think it is because millennials look at themselves and see the kinds vision by the democrats and donald trump is in a engaging disownership of a modern american society. you. we want to hear from if anyone has a question please raise your hand. first question. we are live on c-span so go ahead. from d.c. first-time voter and a lot
of my friends say they are not going to vote because they don't vote for either because they don't have their interests at heart. negative u think the effect of young voters has on the election? is s: despite what alex citing even if the support is great are amongst millennials, out is not big enough that can severely affect the vote. your friends don't believe either candidate that can -- they should still vote to right especially ecause for many years in this country women and minority were not allowed to vote so is worth it and this is every pays attention to presidential election it gets a lot of attention but if you don't like the way your the way your r roads are paved or you think there is too much trash in the or teachers should be
paid more you should vote because you need to vote for the local elections. the people on city council and state legislators have more you think. they are the people more likely to affect your every day life. the president of the united states cannot issue a bill that earlier so chool up kids can have breakfast early. that.she can't control the school superintendent or city council or state that.lators control so you can leave the becomox blink if you want. right? john: yes. in.r you can write yourself just to go there. don't vote for whoever is president. voting say you don't like either with you but donald trump a little more even because theyke him want to see what happens if he becomes president. snicker but that is
fine. vote. important ost more than who you vote for sometimes. john: go ahead. anonymous. to remain a student from capital city. like to not use millennial because it is really unnecessary. serious.eople keep it not electing either candidate is because most people are wondering how did he even place e in the first because of, yes, donald trump was presented first as a joke you ought to notice that going to come to a
man who speaks his mind and that issue is just. people rally up. john: can we get a question from you? >> i would like to ask how do this upcoming election i feel like the next year is point o shift into this of meaningless like the next to be ars are going -- rly meaningless because >> i think secretary clinton has to be a national healer and she's demonstrated of the debates her capacity to tolerate intolerance intolerance. donald trump's capacity to not ate intolerance is something she will stand for. so, this question of how she has to heal
divisions within her own party as the republicans have to do. there is no magic bullet in erms of executing domestic policy that would enable her to cross party lines while some giving a bone to the sanders voters but i dispute the fact you have to like the for.n you are voting you go oprah and what she said about being likeable enough and the voter heard that in new hampshire when president obama made that comment in 2008 you can vote on the character,emperament, poli policy. like is not a strong enough word conviction in a our democracy. bill: as someone who thinks a lot about how we can put from a to move forward legislati legislative perspective i think
political whatof i will call pent-up demand for discussions r around making investments in merica and bridges in r and ports and upgrading america is a job creation opportunity that mirrored up with making merican workers better skilled and better prepared for all of the dislocation that has taken place because of globalization automation.gy and and there are people on the hi l hill, a lot of people, which is part of the reason no label will provide an important backstop and backdrop for thinking kinds of at are those things where we can move forw d forward. the last at we saw eight years one of the most important people in the obama in making deals was joe biden and the reason he was such an important person was because he was very well regarded by his senate
where he spent so much time. secretary clinton spend a lot of is well he senate and regarded. tim kaine is a well thought of person. i'm not suggesting that is the the election will go but if that is the way it goes there and making ities some big deals that can help when people are helped they are going to believe n the institutions more and that is important. john: a question in the front. franklin pierce university. what do you believe young people civility and g more of a policy argument back discourse and political discourse post-election and currently?
it around and n say what can institutions do to elp develop that skill set within students who are recently rolls.e vote ing iere have been a few plugs so will get one in. at franklin pierce university director of be the withr for civic life along many other centers around the ountry and to build capacity within students 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds, to be able engage difficult conversations with people they disagree with to ground and productively move a set of issues forward. colleague is in audience semester last t fall she brought a group of to talk about er school shootings.
about random gun violence in educational institutions. nd the result of this conversation moderated, tructured, set of guidelines that she had been working with whatnts on for the course, they recognized that franklin pierce didn't have the policy it should have or the possibility policy it should have given the circumstances of an active shooter on campus. for that reason and other reasons this is we are having workshops and we are figuring out what needs to be done. goes it a couple of points. it is not -- the presidential exciting and gets publicity but there are ways of citizen active throughout the year and i want to address the question of how here. we got here through a primary turnout in abysmal some ways because i vote every
four years because that's when it counts. that's not when counts. what can we does an institutions theducation to try to build capaciti capacities? >> i'm a graduate of franklin pierce university. about love to hear more maybe the connection of this cho effect that you mentioned that we are all engaged in of hearing our own opinions. may be a lackoned of understanding of that history, n between the the boston tea party and the protests on wall street. a father who y spent his adult life studying american history and all the way age of 91 without a twitter account or facebook and ot owning a computer all the way until last year. but through reading the newspaper and watching public and a couple others as able to really always have
relevant current conversations all the time with all of us of different ages because of his deep layered understanding of american history. a little conversation about that. allum: to me a lot of it comes down to a personal responsibility to seek out news ones you know the ill just reenfirst your -- reenforce your world view which s difficult to do but it is so easy to just get comfortable sources. exchange by meal and complaining how come the washington post" never covers x, y and z negative story about clinton. and i decided he would -- but he
pleasant but upset with our coverage. leg thought i will pull his and wrote back and said do you online? prints or because in print talk to your cutting bout why he is the stories out of your online r and if it is disable the clinton blocking software. of a sent him a list dozen or so stories that addressed the topics he said we taught he ed and i would not respond or be angry him.se i had poked and instead he wrote back and he was like wow, thank you. missed these. usually just read fill in the blank but the point was that here i thought i was messing but he was serious and hat is sometimes i fall into the trap of assuming that people don't necessarily mean what they
saying. when they say you never cover such and such i assume you know true, you are just venting but in this case he was serious like he genuinely because he will probably been told by breitbart or that we are totally ignoring these stories and he was unaware that we were pointed them and when i it out he was happy to find out about it. i wish i could have that type of constructive conversation with every one our readers. that more ofi hope us would take the attitude that he did which is to be willing to assess information from sources they don't normally rely on. alexander: that is an important earn the requisite is nessestness and that earness whether it is back yard barbecues they used to have back to were not going
the districts every weekends but estness is the foundation on which we can have society. so, the way this is most what you were saying about your father and american historian we have the marlon fits water's presence. this is a husband of cards the most cynical, violent way. yearn for the west wing lection because i know marlon as a speechwriter to two s presidents aplz that was my formal education and profile in not cowardess and high and not the s sewer. john: we will leave it at that. we have run out of time. i want to thank our panel for the fascinating conversation and
chris daly in the south carolina race.h district and midnight north carolina give's debate between republican governor pat mccrory and emocrat roy cooper and liberal taken lawn cecil. monday night live republican rand paul and james gray for kentucky. until election day watch key debates from house senate and he c-span aces on t networks. history unfolds daily. >> as the nation elects a new its dent will america have first fern born first ladies since louisa adams or a former as first gentleman? learn more about the influence f america's presidential spouses from c-span's first lady
now available in paper back. it gives readers a look into the impact of every first lady. biographyganon to the series and leading first ladies historians. spouses presidential an ar kaoeufrps from their lives. published byr back public affairs at your favorite e-book.ller and >> next a look at state of u.s. relations and kwhr the next president should be more engaged with the country vladimir paouutiputin. t includes officials from the george w. bushed a obama administrations and who issed by the mccain institute. is an hour and 20 minutes.
>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. on a you for coming slightly rainy evening. trust me.furniture, i want to welcome you to the and next in our issues.on foreign coils i have the honor of serving as executive director of the mccain institute. we were founded in 2012. legacy of service to our country senator mccain and the family going back and i'm pleased to see some navy uniforms in the audience. we focus on promoting character
learn and fashion ourselves as a do tank more than tank. nk we would like to figure out what we can accomplish it go out we to promote character different learn. human rights. and global urity governance but we love a good debate. we structure a series of these. i think we have done over 20 on foreign policy questions that the united states needs to address. a debate ago we did about russia and the question at hat time was is it time for containment. given the discussion that we have had throughout the course campaign sidential about russia it seems like a more pertinent question is, u.s. presidential election, is it time to reengage with russia. the topic of tonight's debate. before we move on let me do a housekeeping items. you can learn more about the
newin state by going to our website which is w wfrpb wfrww. institute.org. you can do that from your chair in se we have wi-fi here auditorium. it is usn 001 and the password is there. with that you can log o and we encourage you to tweet and actively participate in our event this evening. mi debate.g is nd each twitter handle for the participants is inside the program. we are delighted to have c-span with us and greetings to all the there. we are also live webcasting this archives keep these and put them on line on our website and youtube channels and we try to produce a shorter version so if you were not here
you ht and want to go back can get the short version that aretallizes the points that made. we have an excellent panel of and e to debate this topic we follow standard organized advertiseme time debate rules. we will have four minute opening from one side and a four minute from the other side. two minutes it repwutd and two rebut and turn to questions. as the moderator i will start with some of the questions and time it each side two means each to address the questions and then we'll to you the me audience so be thinking of whether you would like to throw in the debate. you do don't make long statements. focus on a question we can give debaters and hear their take. onight to argue the case that it is time to reengage with russia after the presidential a friends and e former colleague tom graham.
u.s. foreign service in the in moscow and even and mid 1990's, before that, late 1980's as and again ahanging, tour in moscow was helping the .s. government understand what the system was that was being created that with run russia and later went on to work as i id for the counselor of the nationaldepartment and security council where he is kiconsist rector at consisting jerry associates. he has associate editor of the national interest and runs their russia program within that center. side no, er opposite t is not a good idea to be
reengaging russia right now we have another friend and former senior e david kramer director of democracy and human ights at mccain institute and formerly president of freedom house and former assistant 125estate deputy assistant secretary of state for russia and ukraine. the david this evening is eputy director of a center at atlantic council and senior fellow born in ukraine and got in the united states and likewise arguing the case the time to ot reason gauge with russia. to kick us off i will pose the question, is it time after the u.s. presidential election for engaengage tates to re with russia. i go it tom graham it start us. and thank you to the mccain institute for hosting
the event. paul and i and i think the grad it be here. ukraine ion of the crisis was the end of an era. effort to integrate russia as a free market failed.cy has developing a new approach should be one of the priorities for the next administration. bear in mind three points. is -- the worlds today world today is radically years nt from the one 25 ago. the global balance of power shifting from europe to asia. technologies are defusing power and changing the way societies interact. in our interconnected world it combination even in with allies to isolate another major power. second, russia may be in a of stagnation d but for any purpose trying to
for policy making they will remain a significant power. a world class diplomatic core and its nuclear arsenal and ast resources and location in the heart of eurasia makes it a ajor player an issue of importance to the united states middle east and east asia and arctic. third, russia opposes the united mosts across a broad front notesably europe and asia -- and ly in europe asia middle east. it is undermining the principles seeking to order and rally countries against u.s. leadership. ignore tashese challenges. that said dealing with tra transnation such as onal issues strategic balance, proliferation
weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism will e considerably more difficult if we do not engage russia. moreover, in moreover, in east asia, it makes no sense to drive russia into china, strategic competitor. finally, as a new world order emerges on the current turbulence, we need to include russia in a way that is consistent with our long-term interests and values. these circumstances, we cannot contain or isolate russia, nor is it in our interest to do so. likewise, we cannot build a partnership, nor is it in our interest to try. we can construct the balance of competition and cooperation to best advance america's national interests. what then should be the first steps of the new american administration? the immediate task is twofold,
to ensure the current competition and the middle east and europe does not spiral out of control and keep the relationship from becoming an adversarial one in which the primary goal of each side is to thwart the other. the first step is to open the channels of communication so we avoid misunderstandings amid uncontrollable crises. second, we need to tone down the rhetoric. it does not help us achieve our goals. third, we need to have contacts with moscow, have a senior official to send a coherent message to moscow. finally, the last thing we need to do is think of russia in a global context. the crisis in syria is connected to the crisis in ukraine and
europe, and what we do with russia and europe will have consequences for what russia does with china which have consequences for us and east asia. in an interconnected world, we need to engage russia and keep in mind the proper balance between cooperation and competition. amb. volker: thank you very much. ran a few seconds of her, so we will do the next speakers. mr. kramer: thanks so much, and thanks to all of you for coming. what kind of regime with our colleagues have us engage with? it is important to look at the record. let me describe the past 70 plus years that russia has been wooed by vladimir putin. it sure neither our values and or interests. putin became prime minister in 1999 and then president amidst the backdrop of mysterious bombings that killed nearly 300
people. he used brutal indiscriminate force against those living in chechnya, sounds familiar today with what russia is doing in syria. he launched the worst crackdown of human rights in russia since the breakup of the soviet union, including an environment in which government critics and activists are thrown in jail, harassed, and even killed. hunting down, even in the west, like alexander litvinenko. his best export to the west is corruption. a cyber attack against estonia in 2000 seven, against you grain in 2014, kidnapped and estonian intelligence officer in 2014, the day after president obama visited poland. he failed to live up to any of the sarkozy cease-fire plans that were brought up. 2014, ukraine. next, crimea. he has failed to live up to a single condition under an
agreement that was put forward. bears responsibility for the shootdown of mh17, which killed 298 people. he launched a brutal military campaign in syria, in which the targets were not isis but any opposition to assad. deliberately targets hospitals, aid convoys, civilian centers and aleppo, causing unprecedented death and suffering amounting to war crimes. he has no regard to international law or following through on goodwill negotiations, including the cease-fire the u.s. and russia strike on syria. russia has violated the inf treaty, positioning missiles, threatening the use of nuclear weapon against states, including those that would host missile-defense sites. engaging in military muscle flexing, including the dangers buzzing of nato ships and aircraft.
hacking of e-mails and an attempt to discredit, if not influence, the u.s. elections. cheats in international sporting events, demonizes the west, and denies -- trampling on basic principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. how many more neighbors does putin have to invade? how many more syrians have to be killed? how much worse does the crackdown inside russia have to get before we say enough? how long before those that advocate for a strategy would realize it would be futile and possibly dangerous? ms. polyakova: and what he describes is a pattern, a pattern of complete disregard or
international law, which russia signs and then willingly breaks, a sign of no respect for the sovereignty of independent states, and a brutal disregard for basic human rights. this pattern clearly shows is that russia is not a trustworthy partner. many administrations, both republican and democratic, have tried to engage with russia and have failed. that is because russia is playing a game of smoke and mirrors. just this week in the "financial times," in an interview, it said that russia is ready to turn a new page. then the deputy foreign minister of russia said that the next four years will be very difficult and no change will come. we have seen this movie before, smoke and mirrors. let's not fall for it again. amb. volker: thank you. what i detect a two differences. one of them is tone about how we
look at russia. the other is tactical, which is russia is a problem, they are against us, and that is why we need to engage them, versus engaging them that way will only encourage worse of behavior in the future. paul? mr. saunders: let me say several things in response to david and alina. russia is an authoritarian country. we should not have illusions about that. at the same time, we should not have a that the united states deals regularly with a number of other authoritarian countries. china would be one, certainly saudi arabia would be another. a number of them actually are is of the united states. we find a way to deal with those
governments, because we believe that the united states has important interests at stake and we do not have another choice. relatedly, you know, and the united states has a meaningful impact on russia's domestic governments during a policy-relevant timeframe -- i would argue not. we do not know how quickly the russian political system may evolve or if it will at all. we have the russia that we have. we need to deal with the russia that we have. now, the united states and russia have different interests in a number of areas. it is not easy to deal with partners who have different interests. there is an issue of trust, absolutely. but look, we successfully got rid of most of syria's chemical weapons without actually trusting each other.
i certainly feel that that was an accomplishment. we do not actually need to trust russia in order to be able to accomplish things with russia. what we needed to be able to do is to understand how russia defines its interests and to structure our engagement with russia in a way that creates realistic incentives and penalties that can shape russian conduct in ways that we believe reflect our interests. amb. volker: david, alina, back to you. ms. polyakova: we are not calling for complete isolationism and a cutoff of relations. even during the cold war when we faced a much greater adversary with the soviet union, we had diplomatic relations and avenues of cooperation. i think we can still find those areas of cooperation with russia, and we should. perhaps in the arctic. perhaps nonproliferation. diplomacy only works when you know that your partner on the
other side of the table will abide with the agreement that you reach. russia can take steps to show they can be a trustworthy partner. the door is not closed in any way. again, it is not about complete polarization or isolationism. russia could take these steps. for example, they could abide by the minsk agreement by pulling soldiers out of eastern ukraine. it could give crimea to ukraine. it could stop ruthlessly murdering civilians in syria. it could stop threatening the world with a nuclear war. it is not us the needs to tone the rhetoric down. it is russia. it could do all those things, but the point is that it chooses not to. amb. volker: let me pose a few
questions. first back to tom and paul. paul gave an example about engaging russia -- well, it got rid of syrian chemical weapons. i think a lot of us looking at syria would say, but yeah, the used other chemical weapons against assembly only in populations, and the borders have gotten worse. so can you give me examples of when engaging russia and how that engagement worked, give examples of when it has produced a good result. mr. graham: how much time do i have, two minutes? look, it is an interest of time. in the bush administration, afghanistan, first three month's against al qaeda and the taliban, we had superb cooperation with the russians. it was instrumental in our
ability to get to kabul and overthrow the taliban and al qaeda. if you look at nonproliferation, again during the bush administration, we signed a number of agreements with russia on how to secure a nuclear facility, not only in russia but globally. we put together a global partnership to combat nuclear terrorism, which now has four or five dozen members. it still plays a vital role in securing our interests and russia's interests. people will argue, but we have done a number of issues with russia on the strategic balance. i think that is an accomplishment for the obama administration. we did that with russia because our interests overlap, not necessarily because we trust each other. we put in a monitoring mechanism to monitor where we do not have sufficient trust. the iran do is something that is controversial, but the two countries can together with four other countries to put together
something that put off development of weapons in iran for at least 10 years, if not longer. so when our interests align, there are many things of the united states and russia can do together that are advantageous to us. if we cut off engagement or say you only follow this set of rules, we are going to form our own interests, we are not going to get what we need in order to make ourselves secure, make our allies secure, and advance prosperity around the globe. amb. volker: go ahead. mr. kramer: i agree, both the bush administration and the obama administration came into office eager and interested to work with russia. tom cited a number of accomplishments that were done. yet, at the end of the bush administration, u.s.-russian relations were at the worst state's is the end of the war. obama comes in, and here we are with his administration winding down and we are in and even
worst state with a relations with russia. what is the, denominator? vladimir putin. i understand that we do not want to demonize putin, but lets her member that putin's interests do not always coincide with what should be russia's national interests. his number one interest is staying in power. his his second interest is staying in power. his third interest is, guess what, staying in power. he will do whatever is necessary, including making of the myth that the west is trying to overthrow him. he got spooked, and he had to drum up this notion that we are trying to overthrow his regime when, in reality, we are not. mr. graham: the first clinton administration also started trying to cooperate with russia. when they left office, relations were at the worst state since the breakup of the soviet union. it is not simply putin.
i think there is a larger problem of how we deal with russia that we have not come to terms with. thinking that somehow you simply remove putin and things get better, that this is a personal issue, that it is about putin and his desires, we will never come to a type of engagement or type of relationship that is going to advance american interests. mr. saunders: let me add one point to what tom said. i think we have become accustomed over the last 20 years to a form of engagement with other countries in which we tell them what we want them to
do and they do it. in the immediate aftermath of the cold war, it was understandable why that would work. russia was a profamily weak country, dependent on the united states and the west, the imf world bank, for money to give the economy afloat and to keep the political system is stable. hat is not the case anymore. we cannot realistically hope to work with russia in a manner that imposes our preferences. it has to be a back-and-forth. that is the way that international diplomacy has worked. that is the purpose of international diplomacy. amb. volker: let me give the other team a chance. mr. kramer: quickly, we do not have a putin regime problem. yes, it is not just one individual. but it is a regime.
it has corrupted the whole political elite, to a larger extent. i would not say we have problems with russians. we have a lot in common with russians. a lot has been done through exchanges. we do have a problem with the leader of the country that demonizes the west, belittles us, and threatens our allies. that is the problem. similarly, it is not a lack of communication. how many times has john kerry met with sergei lavrov? if we were to sanction someone, i would sanction the pilot of kerry's plane so he cannot go to moscow anymore. chancellor merkel, how many meetings has she had with putin? the problem is in the kremlin. amb. volker: let me ask you, david and alina, what is the alternative universe you want to
create? tom and paul are making the case that we have a lot of interests, may not like everything russia does, but we should talk to them. we have a list of things that russia to play a role in. what is the alternative? ms. polyakova: the alternative is that we have some sort of tough or policy towards russia. there has to be consequences for what it has done in the international order, for its invasion of sovereign countries, mass murder of civilians in syria. that type of policy would include ramping up sanctions, which are already in place, reinvesting in our relationships with allies, standing up to russia's human rights abuses, and investigating its best export to the west, which is
corruption. it is not about telling them what to do, our way or the highway. that is not what this is. but the point is that the russian people and people of any country should have the choice as to the path their country takes. containment has worked before, and it can work again. mr. kramer: and i will just add, i think it is critically important that we bolster russia's neighbors, that we support democratic, economic security development in all of these countries, whether they are nato members with article five guarantees, which i think puts them on a different level, or aspiring countries. having countries in this gray zone, like ukraine and georgia, it is incredibly dangerous.
so what i think we would argue is we try to erase this gray zone, make it clear that they are welcome to join our institution, and i think the other side would argue we should focus on u.s.-russian relations at the expense of that. amb. volker: lets here. mr. saunders: look, i do not want a gray zone either. the problem is that we ourselves created this gray zone, the cousin we declared at the nato summit in 2008 that ukraine and georgia would become members of nato at some unspecified future time, when it was quite clear that there were serious differences within the nato alliance about making that happen. so we, ourselves, created a situation and which there was a strong incentive for russia to take advantage of that gray
zone. now it was their decision to do it. it was not our responsibility that they chose to do it. but we created that situation. i think we have to be honest with ourselves about that. mr. graham: the only point i would make is that russia is in the gray zone, so the question is, what do we do at this point to create the opportunities for the types of space you are talking about in ukraine and georgia? i think finding a way that you can take this or minimize the geopolitical complication and engage with other countries is vitally important. that is the challenge today. it is not wishing that we did not have gray zone spirit we have got them. ms. polyakova: let's be clear here, we did not create the gray zone. that is absolutely not true. you have to remember what nato is and what the eu is. these are voluntary
organizations that countries must petition to join and must meet certain requirements. nobody was strong arming these countries into joining the nato or even the eu. they feel threatened by russia, and they seek to join the institution because they feel threatened. they feel their security is at risk. so the assertion that we, the west, the u.s., is creating grey zones is not true, it is russia that seeks to create gray zones because it seeks a buffer zone to protect itself from what it sees as a threat. that perception is also a false one. mr. kramer: picking up on that point, paul, ukraine and georgia applied for membership action plan, and we supported it. as we know, m.a.p. was not offered. so the language was a
compromise, a pretty forward leaning compromise. it was ukraine's and georgia's choice, their right to determine their future in orientation with the institutions. in contrast, russia leaves countries no choice but to join the eurasian economic union. they literally hold a gun to their heads. there is a huge difference between the way we treat those countries and russia does. mr. saunders: i think there are two separate issues here. look, it is the right of ukraine or georgia or anybody else to decide that they want to be an ally of the united states or an ally of nato. it is the right of the united states, specifically under our constitution, something assigned to the u.s. senate, to decide whether or not we want a
particular country to be our ally. those are two separate decisions. so i fully respect the aspiration of the governments of ukraine, georgia, or anyone else to be an american ally. but it is our decision on the bases of our assessment, of our interests, whether or not we want a particular government to be our ally or not. secondly in this particular case, we created actually the worst of both worlds, because we made a commitment that these governments would become members of nato in a situation with which it was very apparent, for the reason you acknowledged, because there were disagreements, that it was not going to happen any time soon. so we created a situation in which, from moscow's perspective, there was a danger
that in the future ukraine would become a member of nato, which they viewed as very threatening, but it is not now. mr. kramer: so would you rivers the decades-old policy of nato to close the door on aspiring states and assign these countries to a russian experiment? mr. saunders: i am not saying we should close the door on anyone or assign someone to a russian sphere of influence. i am saying it is our decision as to who is our ally. i do not want to outsource to other governments decision about who gets to be an ally of the united states and when. amb. volker: let's pause for a second.
paul, you are saying we created the gray zone to it we said they could be members of nato, and we do not follow through. they aspire to that and russia does not like it, and it is a limbo. underneath that, i would argue that it is a question as to whether russia has a legitimate say or voice as to what these countries ought to do. the only reason it is an issue, the only reason nato's allies are uncomfortable with this is because of their relationship with russia. so it is kind of giving russia and offensive to say, yeah, you get to decide what these countries do. mr. saunders: i would argue that it is not for us to say whether russia has a veto which is exercised. neither ukraine or georgia is a
member of nato. neither one is likely to make any progress towards becoming a member of nato in any politically relevant timeframe. that has been pushed very far into the future. so if you ask me, what would i want, i would want a situation in which russia's concerns are discussed in some kind of a mechanism that allows for the united states and its allies to address them through diplomacy and other kinds of interactions, rather than russia taking unilateral steps, which from our perspective are much more counterproductive. amb. volker: tom, do you want to jump in on this? that russia should get together and talk about the fate of other countries? mr. saunders: that is not what i am talking about.
mr. graham: we talk with other countries all the time to we talk with european allies about the state of russia. we talked to ukrainians about the state of russia. and so on. the issue here is, what are you trying to achieve, and how do you best achieve it? whether we agree that russia has legitimate interests or not, the russians have told us for the past 25 years that ukraine is a redline for them. they would react. they reacted. we were not prepared to deal with that reaction. that is for policymaking. we need to understand what the other side is doing, how they think about how they might react, and that needs to be factored into your policy.
if we want to bring ukraine into the west, we do not have to achieve that today or tomorrow, but we need to have a real plan that takes into account russia's attitude and possible reactions and put that in place. and eventually get there over time. in 2014, we undertook a set of actions. we were unprepared for russian we were unprepared for russian response. we got a russian response, and we were caught flat-footed. that is for policymaking. that is what we need to we need to engage russia and have a better idea of what they are really thinking about, whether capabilities are, and fashioning a policy that gets us where we want to get. if not tomorrow, over time. mr. saunders: and it has been bad for us but also bad for ukraine, because we are in a situation where we made this commitment we are not likely to
follow through on anytime soon. at the same time, ukraine has had crimea taken away, has been subject to this very brutal conflict. it has not worked well for either -- amb. volker: alina, david, this is an interesting point. mr. kramer: it might be nice, might be even right to say, yes, if georgia or ukraine wants to be a member of nato, but if we cannot follow through and our allies do not have the stamina to follow through and we know that russia is going to react, in this case dismembering ukraine, isn't that getting sort of not being productive? it was looking to sign an association agreement with the eu. nobody was talking about ukraine and nato in 2013. yanukovych had a note of or no joining nato policy. what bugged putin was a sudden epiphany that having ukraine sign this deal would be bad for russia after saying publicly, on the record, he did not care if the eu signed deals with
neighbors. he never viewed, up until 2013, eu deals with media or georgia as a threat. he has viewed nato differently. so it was a change on putin's part, not a change on our part. ukraine and georgia wanted to sign these agreements. we did not press them into doing it. it was a choice of ukraine and georgia and moldoval, not something we forced on them. ms. polyakova: in ukraine at the time in 2013 before the revolution, there was very low support for joining nato among the population. now the situation has changed dramatically exactly because of russian aggression against ukraine and the takeover of crimea. mr. saunders: of the germans and others are even less inclined to support that. ukraine joining nato. so perhaps there is much greater
interest in ukraine, but there is much less interest in -- ms. polyakova: actually, the point i am making is that putin was in a better situation with ukraine before he invaded it. there was almost no support for nato and there was very split support for the eu. negotiations were going on for quite some time under yanukovych. so placing the blame on the invasion of ukraine and the annexation of crimea on the west, on the united states -- mr. saunders: i am not doing that. ms. polyakova: that is what is in your argument. mr. saunders: i do not think so. i said in my first statement that it was a decision of the russian leadership to respond to that manner. amb. volker: let's look forward. today, russia occupies -- mr. saunders: you can see the past so much easier.
[laughter] amb. volker: russia occupies parts of georgia and has annexed crimea, and it is still actively involved militarily in these places. it does take away territorial integrity and sovereignty of these countries. what should be the goal of the united states? what should our objective be? mr. graham: the first question you have to ask is what time period you're looking at. in broad terms, our strategic objective would be to restore territorial integrity. question is, how do you get there and in what time frame? what sequence of steps have the best chance of getting us there? amb. volker: so you say we should restore territorial integrity given the framing. tell us your pathway. mr. graham: you cannot put it in the limited context of ukraine. the problem we have with russia is you cannot solve the issue of
isolation. everything is linked to russia. syria is linked to ukraine. europe is linked to what they are doing in east asia. so we need a holistic, comprehensive approach to russia. we have to decide how we're going to deal with russia and various parts of the world, where we need to cooperate, where we need to push back. how do we incentivize them to do things that we want? how do we create disincentives for them not to do things that
we do not want them to do? it is a very complex problem. the problem in dealing with the ukraine issue is we isolate it inside of ukraine. so what are we going to do on ukraine? you get all these questions, and it never works. we need to think about this holistically. where you would want to be, i think, on ukraine is where you remove it from geopolitical competition, you have the russian forces out, ukraine itself is undertaking the types the reforms it needs to be a viable independent state over time. we need to diffuse it in some way. i do not think piling on sanctions gets us there at this point. holistic and diffusing the tensions so you have space to work out the types of long-term solutions you are looking for. amb. volker: are you advocating that we should also adopt
linkage across issues? mr. graham: linkage is a reality. but we think about the impacts. it is a fact of life. we need to think of all these things in their interconnectedness. the real challenge to policymaking is coming up with that balance of competition and cooperation that best advances our interests globally, not necessarily on any specific issue at any specific time. we think out of our time horizon, five or 10 years, where we want to be and how we want to structure the relationship with russia. ms. polyakova: very quickly, i agree with you about ukraine. that is the end goal we should be aiming to affect. however, i do think the sanctions can work. the problem is our sanctions and response to ukraine and syria has been very weak. you are right that the way we act in various global theaters affects how our allies and our
enemies perceive us. i think the message we have been sending with a relatively weak sanctions response and the tools that we use against iran that were effective in the negotiating table, but the way we have acted in syria, leaving a vacuum open for russia to engage and engage in a brutal war sends a message to the russian leadership that the u.s. is not willing to be a global leader in the world. i would pose to you that the way we change the situation, that we change the calculus, we start reacting to russian action and start setting the agenda is by taking a stronger leadership role in the world. putin, what we know about him,
is going to respect a strong u.s. and be willing to come to the table with a strong u.s. leader much more willingly than he is willing to come to the table with what he perceives to be a weak country. mr. kramer: sanctions have had an impact. he said piling on the sanctions -- we have not imposed a single sanction on russia. there have been sanctions related to crimea, but we have not been piling on sanctions. to me, that is a mistake. what we have done is had a conversation with the europeans -- will they collet existing sanctions? not, will re-ramp up sanctions against russia? the deal should be simple -- russia, get out of ukraine. respect the territorial integrity. we even offered -- mh17 was an opportunity to pull the plug. he wants to destabilize ukraine's of that we lose interest, and ukraine is unstable. that is not in russia's
interest, to have a destabilized ukraine on its border. amb. volker: i have a question on syria, and then i will go to the guests. on syria, we have a civil war. we have an isis stronghold. we have a regime that has killed a lot of its own people and that is out of control. russia has come in militarily. they argue that they going after terrorists inside syria, and they include the opposition to assad, and that they need to reestablish security as the first priority, and the way to do that is to work with the government. that is kind of a russian argument. it is unsavory for those of us who would like to see a better outcome, but there is an element
to which what russia is doing is aimed at tackling a real problem. i want to ask first tom and paul to comment on that. how would you explain russia's actions and what we should do about syria in relationship to russia? mr. graham: look, russia intervened in syria to protect its national interests and protect the regime that they have had long-standing relationships with. two, there argument has a certain level of plausibility, if you remove the assad regime, the most likely replacement at this time is a bunch of really bad guys. so we're going to support this regime, bolster it, and then we're going to try to work for some sort of political transition that will keep this
regime in power in some way but allows to focus the attention on attacking the real nasty people, al-nusras and isis, over time, not necessarily immediately. you can understand that from moscow's standpoint. for us, what are we trying to achieve, over what period of time, and what resources are the american people prepared to achieve them? russia is prepared. they are on the ground. there is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in aleppo at this point. but i do not see where we have many better options than trying to deal with the russians to at least create humanitarian corridors.
do you want to put a lot of troops on the ground? ask the american public to do that? it is a difficult situation. we have bad alternatives, but you have to work with what you have the raid have to understand what the russian interests are and see whether you can fashion something that stops the bloodshed in and around aleppo at this point. it is on a political track where there is some possibility of political transition. i think we need to drop as a condition or even what you think as a final goal, assad has to go. that is something you can work out later on. the real challenge now is to get into a political negotiation where you have at least the opportunity of coming to some
sort of resolution of the crisis that stops the bloodshed, stops the flow of migrants into europe, and focuses the real activity against the terrorists. amb. volker: what about the argument that russia is just duping us? that we meet and have a talk, meanwhile, they are bombing aleppo and helping assad create this humanitarian catastrophe, and they are doing it for different reasons, attacking the people we are arming that are trying to get their position established. what about that? mr. graham: we think of al qaeda and isis as the epitome of terrorists. russia would argue that anybody fighting a legitimate government
using means of terrorists are a terrorist group and you cannot separate them. the argument about al-nusra, it is a terrorist organization, but they are intertwined with the so-called moderate opposition. we have promised to separate the moderate opposition from al-nusra. have we done it? no. can we do that? no, because we do not really control the situation on the ground. they will continue to attack. i understand what they are
coming from. i do not think we have to like that, but that is the reality. you have to deal with that reality the best you can under these circumstances, again, with resources that you are prepared to go to the american people and ask for in order to do that. amb. volker: david and alina, give us your analysis. mr. kramer: when it comes to syria, both russia and the united states deserve blame and responsibility, but for different reasons. the united states, the decision not to do anything, to save
thousands of lives, and leaving a void that putin came in and filled. and not following through on the threat that if assad used chemical weapons. assad has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands, and russia came to his rescue, intervening military and, keeping assad in power. further blame on the russian side, the decision to target innocent civilians, hospitals, civilian centers. remember the contrast after we hit, accidentally, syrian forces. we admitted it the day it happened. russia, two days later, syrian planes with russian support hit a humanitarian convoy, and they still deny any responsibility. we are talking about countries that have very different interests.
i do not see how you bring these together and i think they are completely incompatible. how many times -- russia is not interested in going after the same people that we are interested in. ms. polyakova: and let's not forget who left the negotiating table on the syria cease-fire. after multiple meetings, multiple conversations, multilateral support, it was russia who broke off the negotiations and continued an attack on aleppo. it is not about the definition of terrorism being different. it is about the fact that russia specifically targets civilian targets and does not seem to care. this is not in line with our values in the u.s., our basic understanding of human rights, and this is not something we can fight from the ground. mr. kramer: putin does not give a damn about human life. chechnya, cutting off orphans, and what he is doing in syria is consistent. mr. graham: blame, blame, blame, but you have not saved a human life in syria. mr. kramer: i would like to carve out a safe zone. mr. graham: how are you prepared?
there are no good options now, i agree, tom. but i would argue a military conflict with russia sort of borders among the worst options at this point. >> look, we may have a military conflict whether we want it or not. if they keep buzzing our planes and our ships, an accident or something intentional is going to happen before too long. >> and do you want to say a word here? >> if i may, i think the real tragedy of this situation is that things that could have been possible in the past are no longer possible now. >> right. >> and that really has foreclosed a lot of our opportunities. and look, let's be realistic. when you have a civil war, how do you get a negotiated solution to a civil war? you need all of the parties, simultaneously, to be strong enough that they're comfortable negotiating. but we -- weak enough that they might lose if they don't. that's a very narrow band to be in. you need everybody in that space at the same time. and i just don't see a situation that's going to get us to that place. largely for the reasons that tom has described which i think david actually would agree with. >> ok. thank you, all of you. the question from the audience, please stand and please introduce yourself. >> thank you very much first of all and thank you very much for a lively and very good discussion. today, a lot of time has been spent discussing ukraine, georgia, syria and other parts of the world. but it seems to me that the time has come to talk about the things that in europe, here in
the u.s., so my question is to paul and tom, which -- what does your -- what russia should do by the united states for you to change your attitude of engagement to at least containment and i would say maybe self-defense? >> please pass the microphone to the right. and the question is again, is there a breaking point to what you're suggesting? >> you know, i think there's certainly a breaking point. let me be clear about what we're talking about here. we're not talking about kind of unconditionally engaging with russia. we're not talking about giving away things to russia. we're talking about defining
american national interests. and then defining a strategy that we think will be the most effective way to satisfy those interests with respect to russia. so what we're talking about is about the united states of america. i want to make that very clear. secondly, look, i'm entirely supportive of being quite firm in dealing with moscow. the question is when, on what issue, and with what goal? and is it a goal realistically that you can achieve through the means that you have chosen to pursue the goal? i would argue that it's not a good idea to set unachievable goals and then fail to accomplish them. that makes us look ridiculous. and it puts us in a much weaker position to deal with russia.
we're in a much stronger position to deal with russia when we define clearly what we want. we define what the consequences are if it doesn't happen. and we define what we want and what we're prepared to do about it in realistic ways that they will realistically have an opportunity to live up to. and that we will realistically enforce if they don't. and that's the problem -- >> let me just pause there. because i think that's exactly what david and alena would say if i'm not mistaken. you just have a more expansive view as to what that ought to be. >> yeah. and i think we would argue -- i'm not sure how much more we need to take the approach that we've argued. as i said at the beginning, how many more countries does russia have to invade before we adopt the line that we're arguing? how many more people does it
have to kill? i think assigning blame is important. i think accountability is important. and i think you have to look at -- what russia has already done in order to determine trends and patterns and then figure out how to handle it from there. >> and i would just add to that that we have offered many -- not off ramps but areas of cooperation particularly on syria. we offered -- the administration offered negotiation on the cease-fire to share intelligence information. against the desires of senior military officials in the u.s. government. and russia turned that down, right? so we have given them ways that we could seek political resolutions and find a real sustainable peace potentially in the middle east. and russia has refused to take us up on that offer. >> just a quick point of agreement with paul. president obama in his state of
the union speech in january of 2015 bragged about how the u.s. led the isolation of russia. four months later as secretary of state flew to sochi and was effusive in his praise for putin and his willingness to meet with him. that i agree is ridiculous. >> go ahead. yeah. >> we didn't isolate russia and you can't isolate russia. >> i didn't say we didn't. but the president bragged that he did. >> but you're talking about containing russia. and isolating russia. and that's great if you could do it. but china won't let you isolate russia. india won't let you isolate russia. >> it's not about isolationism. >> it's not about containment. the problem we have is we have this focus on europe and what you're going to do in order to prevent russia from doing things that we don't like in europe. but the policies that you're proposing will intentionally weaken russia. and going to drive russia a. weakened russia into china's embrace. china is taking advantage of a weakened russia at this point. russia, it doesn't have an option in europe. and china is a strategic
competitor. if we're looking at our interests over the next 10, 15, 20 years, east asia is extremely important. now, all i'm arguing is that you need to take what you're proposing in europe and think about what the consequences are in east asia. and you got to be able to mitigate those in some way. and we continue to take this policy and -- and isolation, and we create perhaps a better deal in europe while we create a larger problem for ourselves throughout asia. that is not good strategy. >> thank you. and i think we got your point. in the front row here, your question. >> my name is carla dee. i have a question for paul and also for david. obviously we're going to have a new administration. mr. trump has already said if he is going -- if he is elected, he will go and meet with putin before the inauguration. if you were advising either one of mr. trump or mrs. clinton, and you were the last person to talk to them before they went into the room with putin, what was the one thing you would say to them if they can only accomplish one thing, just one, what is it that they should say to putin in their very first meeting? >> well, i think the first thing i would say would be i wouldn't encourage a president-elect of whichever party to have that meeting before coming into
office. i'm not sure that that is really a good idea. >> that wasn't -- >> no, i understand. that's the first thing. and i think that for my point of view, the most important thing in this relationship right now is not to try to envision all of the great things that we could cooperate on in the future. we don't have a relationship to sustain new cooperation. i think that's -- it's very clear. there are a lot of obstacles to that. what we need to do now to my mind as a matter of highest priority in this relationship is to try to prevent it from getting worse. because if it gets worse, there are some really grave risks to the united states. and i was a teenager in the 1980's. i remember what it was like
growing up in the early 1980's. that was a time when people really thought about the risk of nuclear war and it was part of your daily life. it's not something that people think about today. i don't want to live in a world where americans have to think about that. so i think we need to avoid just try to have some kind of engagement that will try to prevent it from getting worse. >> david, your response to the same question. >> first, i agree. don't go. but if you're going to go, deliver the following message -- get out of ukraine and respect your neighbors' sovereignty and territorial integrity and stop bombing in syria and stop cracking down on the human rights of your own people and lastly don't give any gag gifts. \[laughter] >> do you think putin will do any of those things after our
president-elect -- >> if he does you have a much better relationship with the united states. if you don't, sanctions will stay in place and get ramped up. and you will not have a productive relationship with the united states over the next four years. >> ok. can we go to the woman in the back here who's been waiting. >> russia political activist and victim of putin's regime, so my question is not about international relations but about russian domestic policies. whether the united states is going to deal somehow with human rights relations in russia, with russian leaders in russia or with the world, whether the united states going to deal somehow with the upcoming nuclear war with the united states? because that's right now on the discussion in russian -- dependent from kremlin media. thank you for your answers. >> protecting human rights -- look, there's no question that as we said earlier, what putin does is not in the national
interests of the russian people as a whole. what putin has established is a system of repression, censorship, and brutal, brutal oppression. russia as you well know. and there has to be consequences. the kremlin murdered through polonium poisoning a critic of the regime in a western country, in england, right? it continues to do so. yet we just let it happen. despite overwhelming evidence that this happened and potentially a direct order of putin himself. so again, what kind of country are we dealing with, right? we're not dealing with a trustworthy, diplomatic partner. we're not dealing with a leader who cares about human life. and we're not dealing with somebody who cares about ever seeing democracy or any sort of freedom in his own country. and there has to be some consequences for this. along the lines of what we've
outlined. >> let me broaden the question a little bit, though. because from a u.s. policy maker point of view, first, i don't have anyone here on the stage who's going to disagree that putin has an awful regime and that he abuses human rights and killed people and this is awful. the question for the policymaker is how much does that impact your decision making about how you engage russia on issues of national interests to the united states? and that's what i want to ask alena and david to follow up on, ok? >> in a slightly different way. the question is do you care about human rights in russia? how do you create a situation where it gets better? and this is a real conundrum for us. >> your mic. >> mic. >> is it on? >> face this way a little bit. >> face this way. >> is it on?
>> face this way a little bit. >> face this way. yeah. this is a real conundrum for the united states. how does this work? our ability, act successfully inside russia, is limited. we don't understand how russia works. we don't understand the complexity of the society. much of what we have tried to do out of very good intentions over the past 25 years has been counterproductive. that's one. two, i think it's a fact, historical fact that the room for human rights, democracy building, in russia, for development of these ideas and the spread of these ideas is better when u.s.-russian relations are better. you go back to the soviet period as well, for example, of that. and so we've got on one hand a people -- a group that wants to promote and thinks human rights are valuable, as we do, and wants to do all these nasty things that are going to worsen our relations with russia. what is putin's reaction going to be? is he going to say thank you?
i now see the light. i'm going to open up and allow a free press and real debate in this country. what he is going to do is what he has done over the past four years. he's going to crack down. now, there's a policy question of how we should do that. there's a moral question for all of us. the people who defend human rights in russia are heroes. but they go out and they risk their lives every day to get it done. the people sitting on this stage who are going to try to help you are not risking a damn thing. and our responsibility here is to try and create a situation that is most conducive to getting done what you want done. so i would argue the pressure doesn't get us there. now, if you're talking about the national interest, you got -- again, you got to take it altogether. >> and -- >> so tom, why is it that human rights activists and people on the opposition supported the magnitsy act and why do they look to the united states for moral support and hope that we
will stand by our principles and our values? sure, i couldn't do half of what you and your compatriots do. but the least i can do is to be a voice for you others to try to bring about some sense of accountability for gross human rights abuses, not let rotten people and the russian officialdom come to the united states, send their kids here to study, invest in whatever properties they want. it is -- it is not a right to come to the united states. it is a privilege. and if you abuse human rights in russia, you shouldn't set foot on u.s. oil. and it is critically important that the united states stands by its values and its principles. we've done it for decades if not centuries and to abandon russians like you, at the greatest time of need, would i think be an abomination. >> very quickly.
paul, you were saying you grew up in the 1980's and remember living with the threat of nuclear war. i grew up in the 1980's on the other side in the soviet union. and i remember living with that threat as well. but one thing was profoundly different. the difference was that the -- nobody believed in the soviet system at that time. there was widespread cynicism and why was that the case? the system corrupted internally before it fell apart from the top, because the u.s. stood up for its values. we invested in our public policy. -- diplomacy. we invested in securing the information space. we had a brand, blue jeans, and all these things, popular culture, that this is what everybody in the soviet union were looking for, right? this is what my family was looking for when we came to the united states. and to follow up on david, this is where -- it is in our values and our democracy and our liberal views. and we need to get back to that as well. >> to respond very briefly to
that, that policy took 30 to 40 years to work. and during the period while we waited for it to work, we regularly engaged with the soviet government on a variety of different issues. >> ok. we have way more questions in the audience than we will ever be able to handle. >> and i have a flight to catch. >> well, we'll see about that. [laughter] >> but i will ask the audience members, just to do us the privilege of keep it brief if can you so we can get back and get another question or two in before we have to wrap up. >> i am from a media group from latvia. so the relationship between baltic states and the russian federation directly depends on the relationship between the united states and the russian federation. and it is not good at the moment. and right now, latvia and the baltic states or latvia in particular loses hundreds of
millions of dollars in economic sanctions. and in effect, the baltic state became a target from a military point of view for russia rockets. >> so question. >> the question is -- is what benefit would a regular latvian citizen get out of de-engagement with russia? >> that's to you, david and alena. >> what's the benefit to the citizens of the baltic states if the u.s. takes a much harsher line like you're suggesting? >> for a baltic citizen you have article five guarantees. i am not complacent about baltic security. but latvia, estonia, lithuania are in a much better position than ukraine, georgia, moldova and other countries that are not members of nato. so if you follow our recommendation, you will still have article five security guarantees. that doesn't change at all. i actually think putin does respect article five security guarantees and that's why i don't think a military move against your country is likely. >> and again, we're not arguing
for isolationism. containment, isolationism are not the same thing. even if you may want to, they're simply not. and not about de-engagement. and in fact, the baltic states of themselves consistently asking for permanent battalions and troops to be stationed within estonia, lithuania, latvia for a reason. so it's not that -- again, the baltics are being strong-armed and bullied into -- into having permanent troops on their land. , yourthat they are asking government is asking for it all the time. in washington, d.c. and i think that -- the fact that nato actually works. >> can we take another question from the audience? and there's another gentlemen who's been waiting. >> after the u.s. election and time to reengage i see where the red line is drawn there, so my question is directed at sanctions. and i guess my question is in terms of reengagement on one side, would you lift certain
sanctions? youon the other side, would more having seen the sanctions' effect on cuba since 1960, i wonder what additional sanctions might be added that would impact on russia? >> would more sanctions really make a difference? tom and paul? do you want to start with that? >> i'll start with that. i think we don't need more sanctions at this point. i think we need a policy now or an agreement now that will ease sanctions in return for certain steps by russia. i think the problem that we're in now is we've got the sanctions at least as they refer to the -- to full implementation of the minsk agreement. that will not happen soon and more sanctions will not make the russians change their behavior. but in easing of sanctions and linked to specific steps, again, within a broader overall policy toward russia, has a chance of getting us where we want in both ukraine, and a broader
relationship with russia. >> i don't think -- i don't think that's the answer here. first of all, there are more sanctions that we can impose. financial sanctions, a broader swath of the russian financial sector, those are the ones that are going to hurt in the long term as russia faces its own economic decline. and easing sanctions are tied to concessions. it's not going to work. and let me quote -- not me, but the prime minister of georgia, who just recently said, russia never appreciates when you concede or make a step forward or compromise. they always take it for granted. and georgia knows this very well. so if we start talking about weakening sanctions, rather than adding sanctions, when russia violates on a daily basis the minsk agreement, we're sending the wrong message. >> ok. we have another question. in the back there. >> hi. ben perkins. my question is how do countries that are not directly engaged in what the u.s. and russia doing, how do they view this sort of
stalemate that we've had? because it is not really any movement in the last three years and my worry is that people like the chinese look at this and we just look like morons and that's my question. >> david and alena, let me turn to you first. phrase thei will question this way. other countries are getting on with business. isn't that leaving us out? and isn't an approach where we say we're containing but we're really just keeping ourselves out actually going to help russia make the problem worse? >> it depends on which countries we're talking about. i don't think a lot of countries like the idea that the united states and russia are in a state of relations that we are right now. i don't like the fact that we're in the state of relations we are in right now. but i think a lot of countries want the united states to show
spine and solidarity with countries that are coming under attack and threat. for china, tom mentioned about driving russia into china's hands. you know, i've been hearing that for a long time. i don't buy it. there's so much distrust between the two. and that would be the end of putin, i think, if russia became part of china, inc. so i don't -- i don't really worry that we're going to cause all these problems elsewhere in the world. of course it would be nice if we got along. i wish the red sox were in the world series but that didn't happen, either. [laughter] >> let me just respond very quickly to david. the russians are selling weapons systems to the chinese that they were never prepared to sell in the past. they're selling them much more advanced technology including , the s-400 missiles that we have in syria. that's something that they were never willing to sell before. that has real consequences for the united states. and actually particularly for our young naval officers.
if china has those systems. it makes a difference. secondly, hitler and stalin didn't trust each other. and germany and the soviet union could not have any kind of long-term sustained alliance. for two years, from 1939 to 1941, they kind of cooperated. and it created a lot of problems for other people. >> ok. we're going to start moving to our final phase here which is a rapid fire set of recommendations. so if -- as we have an earlier question, one minute or less, just give us your one policy recommendation, what do you think the united states should do right now? and let's start with tom. >> already done it. open the panel up to communication. [laughter] >> and then i think you take a holistic look at russia policy.
and at russia and the questions are, what do we want to achieve? what do we absolutely have to have on any given issue? what is russia's role? what role do we want russia to play? and how do we construct a policy that gets us to where we want russia to be? >> very good. paul? >> i'm very concerned about the breakdown in military to military communication, the impact that that can have in a crisis situation. i take that is where i would like to start so that if we get into a bad situation, we've got a channel to try to deescalate before it gets worse. >> very interesting. david. >> i would make it clear that pressure on russia will be ramped up if it doesn't get out of ukraine, if it does not respect its neighbors' sovereignty and territorial integrity. if it doesn't stop what it's doing in syria. but if russia were to change on these things the united states is prepared to partner with russia on a range of issues.
but until putin changes the behavior, and the track record is very long of bad behavior, there are no bright prospect s between the u.s. and russia. >> alena, you have the final word. >> just to go back to what i opened with there are many , things that russia could do and putin could do to prove their trustworthiness. as long as he chooses not to do them, in regard to ukraine, in regard to syria, then i think our policy has to be what it is now. and i think we should ramp up sanctions. i think we should have sanctions related to what russia has done in syria specifically. there is no way forward. if we start giving concessions. that's a slippery slope. >> there a good thank you. , if there's one takeaway we can all come away from here, this is complicated and hard. [laughter] >> our next president whoever he or she may be is going to have to deal with this. and we certainly hope to do it the best way possible.
join me in thanking our debaters. [applause] >> please tell your friends and colleagues about the mccain institute, about our mccain institute debates and check us out online at mccaininstitute.org and we'll see you at our next event. thank you. unfoldsn, where history daily. created byspan was america's public television companies and -- cable television copies and is brought to you today by your local cable and satellite provider. >> joining us is the kagan institute director -- 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. host: matthew rojansky, thank you for joining us this morning. matthew: 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 military muscles. there were new designs for missiles, ships that were headed to syria, dividing nuclear shelters. what's behind these developments? matthew: broadly speaking, the u.s. russia relationship hasn't been this dysfunctional for several decades. host: decades? matthew: that is 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 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 transition 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 and 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 have gone through different cycles. there are times we cooperate on certain low hanging fruit, for example, afghanistan, counterterrorism, counter narcotics, things like that. by by and 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? one of the problems 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 until today americans by , large something about russia that much. either as 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 is essential. it is 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 inside is likely to be looking 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 r e ak oth a the. higher tn ytnglsyo ghbeoi, withhi,
tiamic wh the midd east to pay attention ts rinow. this creates an inntive for the russians to raisth temperature. these high risk maneuvers we have been saying russian , aircraft and nato airaft ships and in the baltic region, over the skies of syria. the russians are looking to raise the temperature, to get americanto pay attention. and and that has not happened yet. host: it hadn't happened until this election cycle, where it seems like russia is figuring prominently in american minds. do you feel that u.s. perspective or sentiment towards russia has shifted during this campaign?al matthew: it 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 is playing with fire. with domestic policies. it's playing with fire, because it has increased attention on russia. more americans are thinking about russia than were two years ago. are any of those americans talking 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 backfired. host: let's turn to the lines. we're going back to traditional lines for this segment. democrats, call (202) 748-8000. republicans, call (202) 748-8001. independents, call (202) 748-8002. you can also
tweet. also send a michael is on the independent line. good morning. caller: 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. i do not understand what we gain by being antagonistic towards vladimir putin. it makes absolutely no sense to me. i think we have been incredibly naive and the way we deal with the russians. just because they collapsed, 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 vladimir putin. i wouldn't want him running anything in my life, but by the same token, he's a foreign
president or leader, whatever. and he is looking out for his his people's interests, at least some of them. so i do not understand why we have pursued a naive policy for decades regarding russia. host: matthew rojansky. matthew: michael, thank you for the comment. i have said it publicly, i think the u.s. russia policy is not working. it is 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, 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
, none of it 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 is, 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. and a lot of people jump off on this very inapt analogy, talking about how dangerous, how scary the russians are. here is the problem. even if you agree with that, and i do not. but 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
obsess with vladimir putin. not to be preoccupied with whether russia is good, bad, or lookfferent club but to for the balance of interests on our side, which includes 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 that balance of interest favors cooperation in ways that benefit us, but that the russians will also see a benefit in. right now unfortunately, the , balance is clearly favoring conflict. that is the problem with our policy. host: what is russia's ultimate goal? -- knowable? matthew: 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. i sort of 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 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 country. we think it is possible. i know for a fact of the russians by a assume that that is not possible. and that it is never possible. for them, the immediate goal is to defeat isis. to 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 on the line. what is your thought? caller: my thoughts are cons cerning this matter. and it is the manufactured perception of fear and some of the things you are hitting on come in terms of common interest with wretched, such as -- with russia, such as food production and the regeneration of forests, farmland, and the reduction of pollution. all of these things can be addressed. russia, for instance, is not a monsanto and a lot of
americans are not. yet, these issues are not discussed. it is up to the leadership and governance of ukraine, which is undermined, in the first place, by things going on on either side of both of those countries. so i would like you to adjust some of the more organic things. and the issue of ending cannabis prohibition in our lifetime. maybe that will never happen. matthew: look i'm 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. global it has to do with climate issues or trafficking or
counterterrorism. why we not cooperating on those areas? the answer is simple. from the russian perspective, all issues in the relationship are linked. if the united states is sanctioning russia over ukraine, the u.s. has decided that their intervention in ukraine goes against the rules -- the response of the united states has been punitive measures in hopes of changing russia's behavior. it has not worked so far. but the russian response is to say, you do not get to compartmentalize and say, we want your help over here on all these issues where we agree. meanwhile, you will get whacked with isolation on ukraine. withholdssians say, we leverage on all these issues, including nuclear.
and not only will we withhold cooperation, we will try to scare you back to the table. the typical american political response to that is, we will not be bullied. that is why you hear from most candidates, get tough with russia. the problem with that response is, there is not a toughness solution, there is no military solution. there is no specifics to that. so what is the policy? i think what we need to have come a new conversation in washington and in this country on what would be a rational approach to some of the macro challenges, the challenges we share with the russians, but also specifically what would be a balance of interests in approaching russia, because they will continue to raise the risk level and the temperature. and saying we will be tough is a road to conflict. host: gary from virginia calling. go ahead.
caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i think our adversarial relationship with russia goes back to when yugoslavia came back from under the pact umbrella and we refused to support those professors, offered engineers that to run yugoslavia. and instead, we went ahead and supported every independent, whether it was croatia or bosnian group, that expressed interest in becoming independent. thosef we had supported doctors, lawyers, the people who will --he 1984 syria sarajevo olympics, it was a spit in their eye. yugoslavia was a good country
and we let it get fretted away. matthew: gary, i talked a little bit earlier about the domestic and political dimon like -- political dynamic that led to the breakdown in the it's 1990's. important to point out, and you give us a good opportunity to do that, there was simultaneously a geopolitical dynamic. we heard a lot of -- a lot about yugoslavia. the perception of that is true, even if the purpose was to provide security for countries that wanted it and a qualified. at the same time trust between , the russians and the americans was completely obliterated by in story of the war yugoslavia, starting with bosnia which was successful in terms of the cooperation. but when it came to kosovo in 1999, this is when most of it --
serbia was waging a war against the croatian army in the south of serbia and in the coastal region. and the west in the guise of nato decided to intervene militarily to stop what we argued was going to be a genocide. the russian position was different. they said it was an illegitimate military intervention and it was aggression against a sovereign state and you do not have u.s. security approval -- united nations security approval. 1999, vladimir putin is coming into the presidency and it was a formative moment in the 20th century and to begin with conflict over a fundamental question of european security. it is not shocking that a decade later the russians go into crimea and they use the kosovo argument. they said, there is about to be a genocide against russian
speakers in ukraine because of the revolution and it is anti-russian and pro-ukrainian nationalist. so you can disagree with the argument, but the problem is we have this kind of presidents of bending the rules for the sake of stopping humanitarian disasters. so we have a fundamental difference of perspective on and it has been around for two decades. host: you mentioned politicians have taken this particularly well. the response to raising the stakes against russia and we will be tough on russia. we now have a situation where the republican presidential nominee, donald trump has expressed admiration for vladimir p attempted how is it food -- vladimir putin. how is it viewed in russia, do you think?
and how do you believe russia is behind the wikileaks release of e-mails? matthew: not only is the voting and tabulation system so distributed and diverse that it be almost impossible logistically. but as i said earlier, unpredictable results. in many ways, the russian intervention has probably wear down did more to the clinton campaign's benefit. for certainly to anti-russian candidates in down ballot races saying, look at me, i will be tough on russia. i think it is a backfire. by the way, it has also mobilized a lot of the american voters, particularly one million -- particularly of ukrainian descent, in the midwest, who may have been sympathetic to the track position -- donald trump
position, they will not support him over the ukraine and russia issue. beyond that quite frankly, i doubt that the russians even expect or think a trump victory would be a benefit for them. i think what they're are looking to do, more than anything is demonstrate that american politics and democracy is not sacred. and that we go to europe africa, , the middle east and latin america and are pontificating about how great our institutions are, you should have elections like us, balance of power like we do, and they say, your politics are just as corrupt as ours. so whether there is concrete evidence or not that they are behind wikileaks, there is no question they are using it to support their rhetoric to knock it down the american democracy a few pegs. host: we will hear from lewis on the democratic line. go ahead.
caller: yes, i have a comment about the people who are absolutely uninformed. i would like to tell them that the new yorker has small articles about trump and hillary clinton. on october 24, they should get that issue. then they will be a little more informed. lot that i dor a not know how to vote because i cannot get the information. the second thing i would like to say is i subscribe to a magazine called "the week." today, it came out with an
russia about a man in that said, i am warning america that they should vote for trump, and if they don't, we are going to go into the third world war. of course, i just dismissed that as something that was ridiculous , but i thought i would mention it. host: lewis from kentucky. matthew: you know, lewis, first of all you do not need to go to the magazine, "the week," there are plenty of magazines and newspapers that have carried this 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 if they can discredit the american democracy in the process. so the question is why is this happening now? and why does it receive such a high degree of intervention in american 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 negotiatedere we
with the russians. my hope would be, 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 that will favor cooperation. we are there -- we are not there right now. unfortunately, we are right now on a path of conflict. host: we have time for only a few more callers to speak with matthew. alan is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i have a few questions. can you hear me? host: we can hear you great. it in the will take thought process. 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. moved our missiles away. these are the nuclear capable technologies. maybe you can comment on that. turkey was apparently going to let -- this is the second question -- going to let, possibly, that the turkish president was going to allow access to weapons. i do not know how that would work, because it was nato weapons. that was question number two. and third question is iran. iran and russia have very -- have been very connected, especially with syria. iran is trying to be the power broker. there is the potential for horizontal proliferation. egypt are alsod
concerned about the situation. can comment.if you i know you do not have much time. thank you. matthew: those are great questions. let me -- i have written about a lot of this stuff, so try to google and try to find some more answers. but let me answer as best as i can. the missile defense versus the deterrent dynamic is absolutely critical. the russians have been complaining about this since the bush administration. the reason it matters is to send defense and offense in the world of nuclear is indispensable. it means your adversary does not have the ability to deter. the challenge of the missile defense system that the united
states has deployed in poland, romania, and elsewhere, our argument is this is about rogue threats from the persian gulf, russians say, i do not believe you. you could change the warheads on them. even still, you could increase the number and completely negate so that would be a destabilizing situation. we have to increase the number of 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 conflict is driven much less by the conflict in the middle east. the u.s. russian part of this is an outgrowth of the conflict we have with russia in europe and the bilateral security relationship between washington and moscow. supporting iran
and lebanon and etc., improving the relations with turkey and israel, it is basically trying to raise the temperature for the united states in a region that it knows is of vital importance to us. it increases the bargaining position at the detriment of the united states. ultimately this will not be solved in the middle east, it will be solved in europe. host: thank you for joining us. matthew: thank you. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal live every day with policies that impact you. coming up on sunday morning, we look at the integrity of the election process and accessibility to polling places on election day with the democracy project director at the bipartisan policy center. and the atlantic's american future writers project, on the recent report on immigration and
migrant communities in the u.s. and how the current political debate is affecting these communities and the immigration issue over all. -nd and coulter joins us - ann coulter joins us to talk about her latest book. about donald trump's rise to become the nominee. c-span's washington journal is live sunday morning. join the discussion. wordsby kennedy's last when he got off the stage, was, on to chicago. he was due to meet with a very powerful mayor, richard daley. his son, bill daley, chief of staff for barack obama tells me that his father would have endorsed bobby kennedy for president during that trip. >> sunday night, author and former boston globe reporter
larry tye discusses his book about bobby kennedy. nixon,he beat richard america would have been a different place. some of the issues we are revisiting today, racial discord,international might be a little bit different if we had tried to address them 50 years ago. >> sunday night on c-span's q & a. >> in this week's address, vice president joe biden discusses progress of the project moonshot and their role in cancer treatment. and representative john radcliffe discusses the republican alternative to the health care law. hello,esident biden: everybody. this is joe biden. i am laying out how far we have
come with the cancer project, moonshine. we are laying out a real vision for where we need to go in the future. to do in five years what would otherwise take 10 years, to inject urgency in the fight against cancer, and reimagine the system. nixonresident nexen -- declared the war on cancer, he had no army, and no clear strategy. after 45 years of progress, funding research and training scientists, we now have an army. tools, tools, powerful and at moonshot we may have a clear shot for the road ahead. it matters because there is a consensus now that we are at a point with medicine and technology, we can offer new promise. incannot play by the rules
1971, we did not have this working for us. there is much more we can do. five years ago, using the immune system to kill cancer cells or protecting healthy ones, was not taken seriously. now it is and we can offer new hope. decades of research have accumulated data, but it is not shared and it is hard to understand and can be inaccessible. but now we are in a position to break down the silos and share it, because we have a capacity with computer capabilities to take millions of pieces of data and analyze it. we can do a million cancellations per second now. and moonshot reflects what my wife and i believe, helping thousands of patients and advocates, researchers and philanthropists, and even heads of state from all over the world -- it is about prevention
efforts, expanding access to care, forging international commitments to fight cancer. this way, there is a report released from the cancer task force. reimagining the fight against the disease. it touches almost every corner of the government. , to be involved in radiation therapy for cancer patients, when radiation used to deal with after the tumor was taken out -- do you expect nasa to be involved? nobody knows more about radiation than nasa, whose scientists are constantly using it to protect astronauts in space. , -- what beonshot used in nasa to help cancer patients. here is another example. right now, 4% of all adult diagnosed with cancer never get
general and clinical trials. these clinical trials save lives. most patients -- outside of the medical centers do not know where to go. it is a problem for drug companies. they cannot do as many research trials, because they cannot find enough patience to generate research and find breakthroughs. now, thanks to the work of the presidential innovation fellows, the top minds working at the white house, you can go to trial.cancer.gov and type in words like breast cancer, a zip code, your age and you will be able to find a list of trials being done in your area, to become part of them. real things are happening that did not happen before. and the private sector is also reimagining what they can do and what it should do. months, public and private sector commitment
have been made by companies like microsoft and amazon. offered their supercomputer to partner with the department of defense and at the ba -- va. now veterans diagnosed with cancer can get his or her cancer genome done immediately. and then they will research on known therapies in the world to target that particular cancer. they are doing it to the patient and with the doctor. doing we are already these now. and moonshot is about all of us doing our part. gov to learn.serve. how you can volunteer to help loved ones and friends and neighbors in the fight against cancer. we need to be willing to postpone as well. for the loved ones we have lost and the ones we can still save.
thanks and have a great weekend. we have to protect our troops. rep. ratcliffe: 22%, that is how much more the average obamacare plan will cost next year. that is an average. for many families, it will be much more. in pennsylvania, the average increase will be 53%. 63% for tennessee. in arizona, the average increase will be 116%. that translates to hundreds of dollars out of your pocket each and every month. this is money could be saving for your child's college education. to put food on the table and pay bills. in texas, the obama administration has just approved rate increases for health care plans and that will go up as much as 70%. if you try switching a plan to avoid the premiums skyrocketing,
you need tohat find a new doctor or hospital. and if you are receiving treatment from doctors for years, it is easier said than done to abandon that relationship and start from scratch. the reality is, you are stuck paying higher premiums. if you do decide to switch coverage -- here is how i can illustrate it. this is 10 times the number of customers using the exchange -- insurance companies to choose from. isyou can see, obamacare more than just a pile of broken promises, it is the worst overall. with higher costs and fewer choices, it is -- government. with more uncertainty than peace of mind. but there is a better way. republicans are trying to repeal
obamacare. is a nation of millions of people and it makes no sense. [inaudible] rep. ratcliffe: we want you to choose the plan that will best fit your needs. give small businesses more leverage to negotiate rates. and find health insurance that can be sold across state lines. this plan is part of the agenda we call a better way. you can get all the details by going to better.gop. of liberty, is without the consent of the government. it is a better way, taken on
poverty, taken on the sluggish economy. and it takes on the government. all of the overreach, all of the abuse, all of the arrogance coming out of washington dc. this scorns of the separation of powers needed to stop the bureaucrats from steamrolling hard-working americans with regulations. we can tackle the issues head on. instead of the usual finger-pointing, we can take a positive approach for the problems we face. we can be open and transparent and have a government that honors the constitution and works for the people. -- we can hope have hope and get our country back on track. it really is a better way. >> c-span brings you more
debates this week from key u.s. house and senate and governor's races. tonight on c-span, the pennsylvania senate debate between pat toomey and katie mcginty. 11:00 with the south carolina fourth district race. and at midnight on c-span, the north carolina governor's debate between roy cooper and -- cecil. and on monday night, live on c-span, rand paul and a democrat jim gray debate for the kentucky senate seat. now until election day, watch key debates from the house, senate and governor's races and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. is phoenix, arizona.
a look inside the convention center where republican nominee donald trump is holding a campaign rally today. it is one of several events he has scheduled throughout the weekend with a less than two weeks to go until election day. pulling shows a tight race between hillary clinton and donald trump in arizona. things toait for get started, here is more on the state and its role in the election. >> donald trump in arizona this weekend and hillary clinton returning to the state next week. dan nowicki is following all of this, thank you for being with us. dan: thank you for having me. host: what is going on in this state? why has it become purple? dan: arizona is acting like a swing state, which was not expected by most people. and it is really due to donald trump. i think the consensus around
here is if any other republican candidates for the nomination had won it, we would not be having this conversation. but given donald trump's unique character, he has made arizona competitive for the first time in 20 years. host: the former republican governor has been an advocate for donald trump, so what kind of organization does he have on the ground and what kind does the republican party have in arizona? dan: the trump campaign itself has very little in for structure and ground game. but it doesmembers, not compare to the democrats that have over 100 workers in arizona. 32 or so offices across the state. in terms of the campaign infrastructure, donald trump does not have any. apparently, he is content to make just personal appearances and rely on the media that the
appearances generate. seventh time as a presidential candidate in arizona. so he will make the case one more time, so far he has not been able to nail down the state. host: what about the former --, does she have organizational help for donald trump? dan: for those who still like her, i do not think she is as influential as she was. she has been out of office. sames supported by the republican party that loves donald trump, which is the very strong anti-illegal immigration wing, the type of republicans that support building a wall. that is not all for the republicans. for those republicans that take the chamber of commerce approach, maybe a little bit
more sophisticated view of immigration and how it interacts with the 21st century economy here, obviously people like john mccain, who supports comprehensive immigration reform. those types of people are may be less likely to be influenced by jan buer. back inllary clinton arizona next week. as you point out in your story, her husband winning arizona in 1996 when he was challenged by republican bob dole. and then you go back to 1948, harry truman, the other democrat to win the state. traditional red state credit which makes it surprising -- red state. which makes it surprising that hillary clinton is in it this year. so donald trump, his rhetoric has offended a grass -- fast moving constituency here.
his playboy lifestyle has turned off a lot of religious conservatives, especially mormons, another big segment of the gop coalition in arizona. there has been a lot of attention paid to the mormons and their views of donald trump but there are a lot of mormons in arizona as well. jeff is a mormon and has not endorsed donald trump and mitt romney has been critical of donald trump as well. i think a lot of mormon republicans look to them for direction on some of these issues. >> let me ask you about two other issues. how much has the clinton in arizona spending and what impact has the senate race had on the national race? >> the clinton campaign recently poured $2 million more.
they have got a pretty aggressive ground game. they have had several "get out the vote" rallies including michelle obama and bernie sanders. they are all out for winning arizona. as i mentioned earlier, donald trump has not been putting that kind of money into arizona. the senate race is interesting. everyone knows donald trump and mccain have been feuding. while donald trump has been struggling in arizona, and has clinton, and the with -- and has been neck and neck with clinton but john mccain has leads of 10-12 points. there seems to be some ballot splitting going on. people are separating the races in their own minds apparently.
the democratic attempts to tie donald trump to john mccain has not been working. >> this has to be terrific for you as a political reporter in arizona during this election. >> it is unprecedented in arizona in decades. i mentioned donald trump will be here are seven times, hillary clinton is coming. mike pence has been here three times, once with donald trump. it has been one after another with big-name political events here. >> we will look for your work online. dan nowicki joining us from phoenix. thank you for being with us. phoenix live now to the convention center in arizona for a donald trump rally as our road to the white house coverage continues here on c-span. some introductory remarks getting started.
of the the chairman donald trump campaign in arizona. pleasure to welcome you here today to this exciting event. it was just 16 months ago that donald trump distended down an escalator at trump tower and started not just a campaign but a movement. that has brought millions of americans into the political process. set a recordat has for the number of voters in a republican primary. movement that will root out government corruption, drain the swamp, and change the course of american history. [cheering]
>> last july, last july, we saw the beginnings of this movement right here in phoenix when donald trump held his first massive rally of his campaign. then, we have seen millions of americans attend rallies and events throughout the country and become inspired with his message of putting america first. as we gather here today, there in less than 250 hours left this campaign. it is hard to believe. the polls and momentum are clearly on our side. >> [cheering] >> but time is very short. if you can help this historic
campaign to elect donald trump, we need you. there are many ways to help. donald trump volunteers are making over 100,000 calls a day here in arizona. we would love for you to join us. you can call from many republican victory offices across the state. yellowr our team in a shirt. or if you prefer, you can go to trumptalk.com.- you can also put a sign in your front yard. there is nothing better than an endorsement from a yard sign. we are heading towards distributing 60,000 yard signs in the state. that is a record for a presidential campaign in arizona. they are going very fast so if
you do not have one, please take one before you go home today. but the most important thing you can do right now is vote. turn in your ballots as soon as possible if you are an early voter and if you vote on , show upday as i do early and make sure that your family and friends do the same. in a only onces since 1948 has a democrat won arizona. and thanks to all of you, that is not going to happen this year. let us get out the vote and have a great victory party the night of november 8. finally, i'm going to leave you with this. 10 in 83. just 10 days until we elect president trump.
-- 83 days until donald trump and mike pence take the , barack obamae waves goodbye, gets on a helicopter and never occupies the white house again. that will be a great day in american history. youn, i want to say thank for your support of the donald trump campaign, thank you for being here today, and let us elect donald trump as next president of the united states. thank you. [chanting "trump"] standing, you are not would you please stand, remove your hats or the prayer, pledge,
singing the national anthem. she is only 13 years old. she was really nervous. sing,en you started to there was a remarkable spirit that came here. i don't want to get emotional but i have to tell you, when you work hard to defend yourself against a person that has no interest in protecting us, you do everything you possibly can, where you are working long days and long hours. i have six kids and a beautiful wife at home and i have not her. much time with i want to stop hillary clinton and a elect donald j. trump as president. [applause] it when you were singing, gave a boost of energy to everyone. you saw what happened with the e-mails and that the fbi has reopened this.
what more evidence do we need to show the rest of america that hillary clinton is only in every herself and that she is a criminal. [cheering] "lock her up"] you saw the newsbreak on obamacare and how taking lifes been away from america. you are trying to make ends meet and pay your bills and i will tell you, in my lifetime, and i am only 44, and everyone has a different experience but the presidentie that any
has ever told the citizens of this country is when the words were uttered -- the affordable health care act. he lied to us. he said you could keep your doctor and your insurance. hearing stories -- we are going to bring out some families that have been personally impacted like many of you with this shallow promise and the greatest lie. i want to introduce the macleod family. i want you to hear their story. their story is the real story. not the story that the media is into theing or pushing back pocket. this is a real story of americans like you. [applause] thank you, mr. graham. my name is michael mccord. when i received the phone call last night to come here and speak today, i jumped at the chance.
first, i want to tell you a little bit about myself. pennsylvaniafrom 11 years ago because arizona was growing and booming at the time. i was a paramedic. i turned into a teacher when i moved here to arizona. and then i turned into an executive director of a charter school in the east valley. with a staff of teachers under me. my new role is going to be as a county treasurer. grandparents -- my great grandparents came to this country for the american dream. they wanted a better life for their children, their grandchildren, and what we have been fed is the american lie. we were promised by obamacare more people insured. a lie. we were promised lower cost. a lie. we were promised no debts. a lie.
we were promised a obamacare would be affordable. the biggest lie of them all. my rates have effectively doubled because of obamacare. i am sure many of you out there are suffering the same thing. let us talk about it in real numbers because i am the new treasurer and i have employees that are suffering. my employees get a stipend for their insurance. so here is what happens. i give them their paychecks. ani give them their paychecks. an average teacher starts at $35,000 a year but you can insert any position into that. that is about $1300 take-home pay. if i am paying $800 a month for insurance after taxes, i have taxes and to pay my my mortgage. this will cripple small
businesses and large businesses alike but that's because they are going to pass it on to us the consumer. leadership takes responsibility even when it fails. our current administration will not do that. my philosophy in life is simple. there is no failure, there is feedback. what our current administration, secretary clinton, they want to blame and develop -- and deflect. from the real issues facing the american people and that is the devastating cost of obamacare. i can tell you that as a parent, i do not want my child rowing up in the world of hillary clinton. -- growing up in the world of hillary clinton in a system of lying, cheating, and deceiving. i was taught as a small child that hard work and dedication is how you get ahead, not government handouts. on november the
eighth, we must elect donald j. trump as our next president of the united states. i, unlike all of you, i am an unapologetic american. let us make america great again. thank you. >> i would like to introduce david cook who is running for the state legislature. cook: i am happy to be here with my wife diana and my son and daughter. the story i am here to tell you today is about the abomination of obamacare. farmers and ranchers -- we are small business people and we work hard for the state of arizona. oft is good for the state arizona will be good for the
united states of america. i promise you that, right now. our health care costs as a small forness independent rancher our family with a $15,000 deductible ran $800 for every three months. for -- as soon as obamacare was passed, we lost our health care because we could not afford the $1500 for the same $15,000 deductible. we lost our health care. obamacare has been an abomination. do you agree? as a father, i have taught my kids all of their lives, if you tell the truth, you never have to remember a story. we need someone that knows the truth in the white house and we need him elected on november 8. god bless you all and thank you for being here.
mr. graham: real stories, real americans. again, the idea is that we all support each other. we work hard. make the choice ourselves. here is a remarkable thing -- what -- when our economy is doing great, when people have a chance to be innovative and creative, we succeed and these other things take care of each other. it does not have to be the government mandating what we have to do, it needs to be as leaning on each other as we the people. they have to remember --who is in charge? the government or we the people? one of the greatest guys i get to introduce him all over the place -- i will give you some clues. here we are -- in the county. and we have a guy that has been attacked by george soros, the
progressive left, he is -- they are trying to take him down. looking around here, if you have not voted, i want you to inundate the system with your votes. get out now and make it happen. anyone the way to keep from funny business and that is to vote en masse. i want to introduce you to the toughest sheriff in the world. >> thank you. this is my seventh time. by ournth time to stand next president.
ago, here in phoenix, i stood by donald trump and i stand why him until the end. -- and i stand by him until the end. i have been involved in other campaigns, people running for president, mitt romney -- i was his honorary chairman. hold on. george bush. i was his honorary chairman. for the first time. and i say that because something told me when i stood by donald trump, he was special. he is a winner. vision or maybe
should i say common sense also which is very important. and i will never forget when i first introduced him i said a couple of things -- we were born on the same day, not the same day, june 14. andi said one more thing -- it stands in my mind. you are all standing. that i got aay standing ovation but i sure got the cheers. and i said -- there is a silent majority out there and that was 16 months ago. think of that.
and a lot of people are going to be shocked at the silent majority. believe me. i am not going to get into the illegal immigration but i will tell you the vision. on the illegal immigration problem, the drug problem, the terrorism problem. he has been speaking out. even the hillary problem that is coming up now -- he talked about that a couple of years ago. so he is amazing. amazing. -- he willresident turn this country around. am -- i do not want to but iup my wife again
have to say this because i get very angry about how they go after him and women don't like him and i can go on and on. i am going to tell you something. my wife was diagnosed with cancer during that campaign. she is a big supporter of him. i told him, he picked up the phone five straight times he comes here and he calls my wife. he did not have to hook me. i was hooked from day one. so i will never forget him for that. if you think he does not have a heart, there is something wrong. this think the people of country ought to really tell the truth instead of the garbage that a lot of people that talk thet -- i am not saying people, i am saying the politicians. and the media. -- another thing
[booing] arpaio: i love the media. ros -- thatorge saurav'o guy. he is going after donald trump and is a big supporter of hillary clinton. now, he is going after me. and i will tell you, he has put to try to get me out of office. why is he after me? i am just a sheriff. that you gon ask is to 10 neighbors, 10 anybody and you get them to vote for donald
trump. you have got to get them out. you have to get the republicans out. you and again -- thank i will see you again with donald. once he becomes president, i know he is never going to forget arizona. he will be back and i hope to see him as president. thank you very much. >> [cheering] "trump"] mr. graham: who is going to vote for sheriff arpaio? who is going to vote for sheriff joe? thank you. again, we have a great lineup.