tv Washington Journal 09062018 CSPAN September 6, 2018 6:59am-10:00am EDT
c-span. c-span. org or the free c-span radio app. here is what we're covering c-spany live on the network. the house will continue work on allowing small scale exports. moreme court will take questions from the committee. is 9:30 a.m. eastern. can watch that herring until noon eastern when the senate work on judicial nominations. we'll bring you the entire court confir makes hearing with judge kavanaugh on >> the washington journal for
september 6. president trump's nominee for the supreme court goes under a round of questioning. watch for that a 9:30 this morning on c-span3. you can see yesterday's questioning. our first segment, we want to hear from you about the anonymous new york times op-ed from someone claiming to be senior trump administration official laying out a case on why that person and others have a laid out a "quiet resistance" in the administration to " frustrate parts of his agenda and worst inclinations."
202-748-8000,it's republicans 202-748-8001 and independents 202-748-8002. the op-ed, which was written anonymously appears in the pages of the new york times and online. resistance: --he in the trump administration." the author says ours is not the popular resistance of the left. we want to administration to succeed and think many of its policies have already made america safer and more prosperous. we believe our first duty is to this country and the president continues to act in a manner detrimental to the health of our republic. the author goes on to say the mood of the problem is the president's amorality. anyone who works with the nose is not worth any -- does not use
any discernible principles. he was elected as her public in, he shows little affinity for ideals espoused. idealst he evokes these that work out right. yes it goes on to say in addition to his massmarketing notion that the press is the enemy of the people, president trump's impulses are anti-trade and antidemocratic. the author goes on from there. , writtenas anonymously. we want to get your thoughts on it. 202-748-8000 for democrats, republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. first on twitter just post on twitter or on our facebook page. president commenting on this op-ed and his thoughts on its authorship.
here's what he had to say. >> nobody has ever done in less than a two-year period what we have done. when you tell me about some anonymous source of any administration, probably who is failing and probably here for the wrong reasons. the new york times is failing. if i weren't here i believe the new york times would probably not even exist. [applause] and someday when i'm not president which hopefully will be about six and a half years from now. the new york times, cnn and all of these phony media outlets will be out of business. they will be out of business because there will be nothing to write and there be nothing of interest. nobody has done what this administration has done. i agree it is different from an agenda which is much different than ours and it's not your agenda. borders, it isn
about letting people flee into our country, it is about a disaster and crime for our country. and don't like donald trump i don't like them because they are very sons people. remember this also about the new york times. when i won, they were forced to apologize to the subscribers. ,hey wrote a letter of apology it was the first time anybody has ever done it because they covered the election incorrectly. if the failing new york times has an anonymous editorial, meaning got less, a gutless editorial. we are doing a great job. the poll numbers are through the roof. our poll numbers are great and guess what, no one will come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we've done. we will start with carl in chicago, democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you doing, pedro.
some months ago, one of my previous calls i had described the problem with donald trump is is this individual is being in a moral person. i don't think being death we understand. being -- we understand. is totally an abnormal individual. people might not recognize this because we don't consider people in these, but donald trump has no sense of anything. .o values, no principles he doesn't even know right from wrong, the true from -- the truth from not the truth. he's mentally deficient. that thel, the fact piece was written anonymously, does that do anything for you? isler: what it does for me
is is our government should be run like this. i know there will be supporters of his, but at what point you ask yourself when am i going to look at the possibility of these things that people are saying. op-ed, you have all the stuff described in woodward's book. we have heard all the stories. host: we will leave it there. this is the independent line, david, hello. caller: thank you for bringing up this topic. i read the op-ed very closely and one key late motif that's missing is immigration which makes me think this is a misdirection. ,t is somebody who wrote it their immigration issues very often and administration. i'm thinking it might be kristen nielsen.
yesterday when the camera panned the room where trump was speaking in the cabinet room, it's him is like she didn't want to be scanned by the camera. like she wants to crawl away. chief of staff chad wolfe is an open borders part of the former caucus. it makes me wonder if it's someone who deals with immigration quite a bit who deliberately omitted it in the op-ed. host: gotcha. the republican line from virginia, hello. caller: good morning. i now reside in georgia and i live in a black town and i love it. so i am not a racist, let's start that from the beginning. host: what does that have to do with the op-ed we are talking about? caller: well because. they tried to pin him as this and that. anything to bring him down. as far as they're being someone within the administration working there that doesn't like
donald trump doesn't stand for what he stands for shouldn't be there in the first place. second of all, i don't even believe it because when you don't say we are sources -- source is when you are making such an accusation as this making it sound like donald trump does not know what he is doing, he is probably the smartest president we've ever had because he is brought people to the table and no one else has been able to do. nobody wants to give them credit. they better wake up. host: some of the reaction of of twitter. the vice president's communications director saying the vice president puts his name on the op-ed's, the new york times should be a shame's -- should be ashamed for the gutless op-ed. our offices above such amateur act. the associated press reporting mike pompeo denies writing the anonymous new york times opinion piece about thwarting president
trump. this is some of the reactions of twitter. on the phone lines if you want to give us a call or social media sites. maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. it is funny listening to the last lady talking telling america is the smartest president ever. let me have arrest. -- let me have a rest. ,he person needs to come out come to america and be a hero for everybody. day of what the president is doing. host: so you agree with the author, the points the author is trying to make? caller: yes. but that person needs to come out.
he is doing the right thing for the country. he should not be scared. the majority of the country is behind him. we know the president is wrong. that's why he put him there. we are going to show in november by voting. this president is no good for america. host: let's go to north carolina. independent line. caller: good morning. just a couple of quick points. i've been trying to be quite pragmatic about this president. personally if someone doesn't want to say who they are , i'm kind of concerned. edward snowden also said he would do it does was doing
things for the good of the people. second, i'm quite concerned about the timing. if this person was appointed and they been doing this for a while , they kind of knew what they were getting into. and we are a month and a half or so away from the midterm elections, that is kind of suspect. , if the president is exhibiting these tendencies as the author states, evidently that tension between his tendencies in the people he has appointed an office must be working. 4% plus gdp growth, great coming up theple chronically unemployed. those numbers are moving. all these numbers are fantastic.
and the money supply is opening up quite a bit. even though the interest rates are going up a little bit. we have seen growth in wages. host: jack is next in oklahoma. republican line. i'm one of those people counted out in the middle of america and were you guys are missing our views is we know how to discern people. when trump threw his hat in the ring, i said that can be our next president and i never changed my vote, i said no matter what happened with the he hasroom talk because been rich his whole life. every building you want to be the best. he never wanted nothing to
mark's image. host: with all of that with the op-ed, what do you think of that? caller: i think trump is an honest president. host: but the op-ed that was published, what do you think about the thoughts of this anonymous author? i think it's a disgruntled someone who didn't want trump to become president and want hillary to become president who is still mad about the election. didn't want to be president because he needed it, he didn't come here to rip off money. he has more money than him and his family could ever spend. host: that is jack in oklahoma. democrathode island saying the anonymous senior official in the ministration, think you for your words, they will be much more powerful if
you came out and identified yourself. there are millions of americans will hold you up as a hero. one saying anonymous official from the presence own a cabinet considered invoking the 25th amendment, a massive statement to that. the op-ed takes into consideration this saying this is in the work of the so-called deep state, it's the worth death work of the steady-state. -- the work of the steady-state. ofre were many whispers invoking the 25th amendment which was started complex process of removing the president. no one wants to precipitate a constitutional crisis. we will do a weekend can to steer the administration of the right direction until one way or another it is over. is not whatoncern mr. trump is done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation of allowed him to do to us. we have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped disability. the 25th amendment says whenever the vice president and majority
of the principal officers of the executive department or such other body of congress may by law. at the senate and speaker house of representatives their written declaration the president is unable to discharge the powers and duty of his office, the vice president shall assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. philadelphia, milton, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my main point is this author, whoever it is, they should've came out. i see them as a patriot. someone is trying to look out for our country and sending us warning signs that something is seriously wrong with president trump. he has the nuclear football. tantrums, he can get us into an all-out war. that should concern every single american. i don't understand. even bob corker says is like an adult day care there.
,t -- this erratic behavior forget if you're a democrat or republican or independent, if it doesn't concern you, for leaders to be with him say he's not quite there. wake up america. host: did you read the op-ed? caller: i read parts of it off and on. host: what struck you most about the op-ed from the parts you read? caller: the parts that concern me is the fact that the guy, i don't know who it is. but the parts is is is pretty much about three erratic behavior. and that concerns me. host: greg in illinois, independent line. i think all of us need to step back before we get too excited in talking about the 25th amendment.
people are getting a frenzy. take the stance that this is an anonymous letter which usually goes back, this could be the letter written by me. who knows? who knows it came from the white house? host: you don't trust that it came from the white house? caller: i don't think this is a letter from the white house. i think it's an outside, another to getd another hoax everybody excited and talking the page front and it's just silly that everybody takes so serious. my local paper would not accept an anonymous source for an op-ed. i didn't know papers did that. verify there's no way to that their letters or where they
came from. host: there is a story in the new york times this morning that highlights the thinking of the editor in publishing this piece. rare for's exceedingly the time to grant anonymity to a writer in his op-ed pages and the paper did cite only a handful of previous cases. materialhe in death was important enough for the public interest to merit an exception. clearlya strongly written piece by someone who was staking out what we felt was a very principled position the desert and aaron. the story -- and bank airing -- an airing. it was clear the writer wanted and an enemy but we didn't grant anything until we read it and we were confident they were who they said we were to they said they were. david from, who was a speechwriter in the george bush
administration has a piece in the atlantic on this op-ed posted. he writes saying what the author government throw the to do more terminal. -- carol. -- carol. -- peril. what happens the next time a staffer seeks to dissuade the president from purging the justice department to shut down robert mueller's investigation? the office the times op-ed as it was little the president that advicere -- those offer do not have the president's best interests at heart and are in fact actively subverting his best interest. you will grow more defiant, more reckless, more anti-constitutional and more dangerous. greg in illinois, go ahead. jim in florida, republican line. it is typical for the
new york times to reply to an anonymous article to try to prevent this president from getting through his agenda, but they are failing. people ran fornd the presidency, he knocked them all out. i respect him. he is a winner. he says he's a winner and he is. host: did you read the op-ed for yourself? caller: i listened to it on the news. on c-span this morning. host: what did you think about some of the content? what struck you as things you disagree with or have questions? caller: the fact that they have a cobol and are trying to steer him in the right direction. there is no way they're going to do that. he is what take his own direction and the direction it is good for the country. the tariffs are good.
nobody tackle them before. the economy is good. it is so stupid. how can they just keep knocking this man when he is accomplishing so much? what is the reason for it. host: the president tallying his conference on twitter, starting with one word tweet with a question mark that says treason. the so-called senior ministry official release this or was it the new york times failing source. if the gutless anonymous person does exist, the times must for national security work with death, turn them over at once. ,- national security reasons must turn them over at once. susan in new york, hello. caller: good morning. i believe this person, kudos to them.
this person is our deep throat. people whohere are are inside assuring us that they are looking out for the interests of the american people and for this country. that is true patriotism. not what donald trump talks about. he has real nerve to say that the times would be done if he were no longer president. the times existed long before the came into power, it will exist long after he goes out of power. and i have to say that there is probably nothing that surprised me in this article in this op-ed because you had a sense of trunk from the beginning, you saw all of this. he is out for himself. host: what do you think about
the fact that it was anonymous. does that matter or does it? caller: i don't think it matters because i believe that if -- whoever this person is came out and said who they were, they will end up being kicked out of the white house and then cannot work for the good of this country. host: that is susan in hartsdale. other reaction up twitter. says america has one duly elected president, anybody serving at his pleasure should do so faithfully. when the field and can no longer, they should resign and speak in their own name so the country can evaluate their insights with a full understanding of where they are coming from. other reactions there off twitter says his op-ed from our twitter feed actually, this is michael saying the anonymous nyt op-ed drive the discussion on what media likes to do. the new york times leads with this, the washington post split with it in woodward's book look like a full-court press. rick says the op-ed
confirms what we knew about the president. it sadly of the 20th amendment to save the nation from is unfit president. a heroic thing to do for the opposition in the white house is come forward and declare. oklahoma,ext in independent line. probably think is bought despot woodward is the author of the piece if there is an author at all. this is just a continuation of the coup against president trump that began before he even became president. ,he fbi and state department obama's white house, they were all investigating him and doing all this weirdness and it was just a continuation. host: what do you think about the charges is op-ed makes and
how he execute the office of the presidency? caller: i think it is all it bunch of foolishness and whoever is taking paper up his desk needs to be adjudicated. the revelations of bob woodward book earlier this week. a couple of things happening on capitol hill aside from what's going on with the op-ed, this is within congress about replacements for senator mccain. saying -- tapping jon kyl to replace the late senator john mccain. arizona governor doug ducey will send it reliable conservative voice for at least of the end of the year. he is appointed another personal mentor who is 18 years experience in the senate. he rejoined after nearly six years away. it will not retain his seniority in the u.s. senate. integrityeacon of highly regarded by people on
both sides of the aisle and able to work across party lines to get results." governor ducey going on to say there is a reason he was considered one of the best senators in the country because he was. that was going on as far as the replacement of senator mccain. when it comes with positioning congress, the chairmanship that he served on the senate armed services committee now has to be changed. that is senator jim in half. is been the base the last five months and now he is going to officially lead it. mitch mcconnell announced that in half of oklahoma will be the new chairman of the committee on wednesday, formally recognized him as the chop desktop voice on defense policy issues. california's next, republican line. caller: i like your suits today. i think the op-ed is disgusting and it makes me sick. i think the author who wrote it
is a coward. we don't know who the author is because the anonymous. he could've been some creative writer who puts himself in a position of the white house and writes about what you think cc. nobody knows who that was. it's a disgrace on behalf of journalism to the new york times to publish something like this where people think it's real, we don't know that someone was actually in the administration. about the president, i can't stand politicians because i don't trust them. this president can and he said here's what i'm going to do and he did it. i appreciate that. i appreciate he was going to do things and said he was going to do. that's as good as it gets. missouri, independent line. these colors are so interesting. i'm a news junkie and i agree
with lindsey graham. zero togoing to matter the people in the country when it comes time to vote. callers and the two the one who said that bob woodward probably wrote this himself, that the possibility. the thing that bothers me about this is the timing of it. groupk this is sort of a opportunity during these hearings which i think are to disgrace the president. he is immune to these things. i don't like some of the things he says. i'm an independent, i used to be a republican but i got disenchanted several years ago. but i like the things he does. and that's the important thing.
disenchanted with the news media. where we can't trust anybody anymore. it is very disheartening. host: that is carla from missouri giving us are thinking on this. yesterday andaled we will get your thoughts on it for a couple more minutes. yesterday, a lot of hearings taking place. the hearing for brett kavanaugh and the senate judiciary hearing. you can see that on c-span.org. another route will take place today at 9:30. also monitor it on c-span.org in our radio app. the senate also holding a hearing featuring the heads of social media companies talking about foreign influences, talking about the heads of
facebook and twitter. part is hearings in the chamber, , there is the chamber a little bit of a little bit of it back and forth between senator marco rubio of marco rubio and a host of a show called info wars alex jones and not testify at the hearing with social media executives but he sat there. alex jones was kicked up of many platforms because of the views he takes. that's the story. here's the back-and-forth that took place outside the hearing between the senator marco rubio and alex jones. >> my broader concern is that what we are trying to do in terms of preventing foreign interference in our elections, that technology could be used by authoritarian governments to argue we want to do the same thing against people in our country operate for them. this be the something like the truth. , selling instability would be supporting democracy. >> the democrats are doing what
you said china does. now, it's facebook important for them not to comply with any efforts to go after freedom of speech >>. what about the democrats >> versus conservatives. republicans are acting like it isn't happening. thank god trump is. there's no purge of conservatives? the shadow banning. >> is the advices -- bias in social media. >> i think the bigger bias against freedom of expression. everybody -- >> you said i don't exist. >> is that a heckler? >> he is saying i don't exist. >> i don't read your website. >> he placed on. google,u think facebook, do they need to be regulated. >> marco rubio is a snake. a rat boy here. >> i swear to god i don't know
who you are. >> he knows who info wars is. that's why the d platforming didn't work. >> don't touch me again. >> i just have to nicely. >> i don't know who you are. >> oh he will be me up? >> i didn't say that. >> you're not going to silence me. host: some of the back-and-forth that took place yesterday in the halls of the senate with these hearings going on. this op-ed for the next double minutes. democrats like him things for waiting period >> thank you c-span. i would like to say, the op-ed has a name. said he sees the spirit, he said i am. the op-ed than its
contents, what you mean -- what you think? caller: it speaks for itself. host: what you mean? caller: if there is no name on their comments as i am. host: it is an anonymous peace. does that matter? caller: it is not anonymous. the name im stands for god. host: ok. we will go to keep, democrats line. , what wet is clear have to stop doing is looking at these as one off. over a to look at it pattern of behavior. the woodward book comes out. esteemedis our most journalist. you don't accept that? fine. then you don't like free media and you don't like journalism. and that is ok. host: to the op-ed itself, what
do you think of that? caller: i just said it. host: you talk about the woodward book. it is time to put aside partisan and invoke the 25th. the 25th is written for this very purpose. so if we are not going to use an amendment that was written for this situation, but let's get rid of the 25th. host: so you think that that suggestion should be taken off an op-ed even though we don't know who the offer -- author is? caller: yes because it's not a one-off. we have contemporary reports and we have watched, we have watched nonrational behavior. so you can see it as a one but it's not a one-off. host: that his teeth in chicago.
the less common as far as this section is concerned when it comes to that op-ed. a couple of things will be talking about during the course of our program. it was that hearing for the presidents supreme court nominee , brett kavanaugh who was joining us. joining us to talk about some of the back-and-forth that came back with the senators on the topic. program we will be joined by politicos nancy scola. she would talk about that hearing that feature the soldier media executives. conflictays about california influence and possible regulation of these. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪
>> sunday night on "afterwards." book "hown on his schools work." he is interviewed by the former chancellor of the district of columbia public schools. >> i don't know if voters make the connection between what politicians do and what happens in school. how do we draw that line more clearly? >> we need voters to understand, if we want to pay our teachers better, if we want to reduce drop rates, and what mccall's called more affordable, we have to get there by challenging and holding accountable our elected officials. that we put in office. on book sunday night tv.
>> they want to feel important, they want to understand what's going on. my worry is that they are intimidated and so they become the mouse in the classroom and show they don't have those dinnertable conversations. therefore they feel they can't throw their ideas out. helping, -- let's have a karaoke contest and they will go on and on. and you know what, let's have a contest to talk about the issues. i think when we make it relevant , they enjoy it, they engage in they learn. onsaturday 10:00 eastern c-span. media middle of high school civics teachers who participated in the c-span classroom annual educators conference. saturday 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span.org or on the free c-span radio app.
>> washington journal continues. host: dass covers the supreme court the wall street journal. talking about that first day confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh. then for joining us. what did he come yesterday? -- he accomplish yesterday? guest: he got to a competent presentation of himself as a competent and articulate judge who says the right thing. and declines to say the right things. the maid, but is still alive at. what he has is the votes, almost certainly to be confirmed. for judge kavanaugh and for supporters, is a question of avoiding a catastrophic mistake that could change the map of the confirmation vote. bethe extent that he had to able to walk out of the hearing room on his own two legs, yet, that. it didn't make any kind of climate that cataclysmic errors that would somehow put doubt in the minds of one or more republican senators. i can't see that.
on the democratic side with a looking to talk about or reveal couple of biases do they have against nominee? they are naturally disinclined to support any conservative republican candidate proposed by president trump. they really have objection to this one. not because of personality or coaching or his widely recognized genial personality and great teaching skills and so forth. it is not about that. they don't like him because they've never liked him. he is a very well known quantity in washington, it the democrats are learned about him pursuing president clinton the 90's. he then was a president bush's side during a very contentious hearing. the point looking back it seems like years of great harmony -- they seem like years of great harmony and shared purpose.
by comparison. at the time they were very bitterly disputed and democrats viewed him essentially republican operative. that's what a stalled his nomination to the d.c. circuit judge three years. that's why 10 years ago you a democratic senators writing him asking. when he comes back now after compiling a very conservative record on the d.c. circuit judge, there is nothing in his background that they like. so they were there to put him on the record, dodging on issues they care about. you can see yesterday's proceedings it c-span.org. what's that on c-span3. it got asked our guest questions about what happened yesterday and what we learned about brett kavanaugh, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans and independents 202-748-8002. one of the topic a government complicated -- different
senators was the idea of presidential power. dimensione is a new for a confirmation hearing because presidential power questions of, before. congress is interested in those questions on the separation of power trade it tends to become an institutional prerogative. in other words, how much leeway does the executive branch have to stray from what we want them to do that we passed some bill. to deal with that political science level. here however, a lot of those questions were much more visceral and they from the public inside as well. questions were if this president is convicted of a crime comic any part of himself or pardons up before it is convicted of a a trade can you offer pardon for a favorable testimony for a witness against them. these questions are hot boiler novel questions that were very
specific to the 45th president, not the kind that might come up as extreme hypotheticals in a law school class. much more there frontlines of every democrat and at least some republicans. host: this is judge kavanaugh with senator kamala harris on these related topics. with watch a bit and get your thoughts. senator harris: have you ever discussed special counsel bob mueller or his investigation with anyone? judge kavanaugh: it's in the news every day. senator harris: have you discussed it with anyone? judge kavanaugh: other judges i know. senator harris: have you discussed it with anyone at the law firm founded by mark tasso with, president trump's personal lawyer? be sure about your answer.
kavanaugh: i'm not remembering, but if you have something you want -- senator harris: are you certain you have an? -- haven't? by law firm founded president trump's personal lawyer. have you had any conversation about the robert mueller his investigation with anyone at that firm? yes or no. there avanaugh is person you are talking about? senator harris: after i'd -- i don't -- i think you need to know you talked with. judge kavanaugh: i don't -- i am not remembering, but i am happy to be refreshed or if you want to tell me who you are thinking of. senator harris: are you saying with all you remember, you have
impeccable memory, you have impeccable memory, human speaking from us eight hours and more to this committee about all sorts of things you remember, how can you not remember whether or not you had a conversation about robert mueller or the investigation with anyone at the law firm. the investigation is ongoing on for so long. : i'm trying to think of i know anybody who works at the firm. senator harris: that's not my question. the question is have you had a conversation with anyone about the investigation. judge kavanaugh: i would like to know the person you are thinking of. judd dust senator harris: i think you are thinking of someone and don't want to tell us. host: talk a little bit about that exchange. this scene, which was kind of a jolt to us sitting there after all those hours, it
seemed like a death some sort of a scene from a tv lawyer show or something. this was not a typical? death at a confirmation hearing and i don't know what senator harris was getting at. other than the fact that she was a prosecutor in california. she was the state attorney general said she knows how to pose questions like that. certainly the insinuation was that he is some kind of questionable contact with the contact is with the lawyer representing the president as he is being investigated. what she was getting at, i can't say. it was certainly a very strange moment and i'm hoping she or the judge or someone will clarify what precisely they think was or was not going on there. host: one thing before we take calls in several democratic senators said yesterday was access to documents. could you clarify how much time they had to look in these documents even in light of the new and the came out and what
about their arguments as far as not enough time? guest: it is very hard to evaluate was right and who's wrong with the democrats and republicans accusing each other of breaking the rules are violating the traditions or so forth when it comes to judicial nominations. we can say this. since the 80's, the majority and minority have agreed on the scope of a document request considering a candidate who has worked in the executive branch and then jointly sent a letter to the national archives laying out what they want. this nomination was the first one, at least since that time that there was no such agreement in the death of the republican chairman chuck grassley designed his own document request that was much more limited what the democrats wanted that to the national archives and according to democrats discouraging archives from responding to democrats request for additional material. what are the additional materials?
three years of records related as --tt kavanaugh's work secretary to george w. bush, the person who is the last set of eyes to view materials that will go to the president before the president himself sees it. those records chairman grassley didn't even ask for. the democrats think they are essential. republican say who cares. he was just a messenger boy for letters. the democrats also aren't happy because the documents they did get from the associate counsel president bush were all selected first by president bush's own lawyer, who also works for the white house officials at the white house counsel. they don't trust him as the impartial of what can and cannot be released. they cannot complain much of what they did get there not a complainare and they
that the trump white house on asserted that 100,000 pages of records cannot be released, asserting that they fall under privilege, democrats don't dispute that. and the day before the hearing, labor day, and additional 42,000 pages of material was released by president bush's lawyer and they saved the document dump come out in reader the pages. they need more time. what is the rush, you didn't see any problem leaving the court shortstaffed for a year. merrick garlic wouldn't get a hearing, what is the rush right here? that is the complaint. it made a lot of procedural objections and took over on the first day with a surprisingly well organized for democrats display of procedural objections. ,hey knew they would lose them
they're one vote short on this committee as they are in the senate. but they certainly made it clear they are unified on this issue. host: our first call is from virginia, brian, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's clearly the tactics of the nominee that he is an appointee to reinforce -- the supreme court to legitimize criminal conduct of our president is a can't be prosecuted, you can't be death confidential,re executive privilege. when you're talking about the business, none of that should be confidential. the supreme court without him on their overturned the conviction of the governor of virginia who got prosecuted for corruption
saying that he has a right to be corrupt. which free money and sigrid money is free speech. all guards across the world can on spend endless money influencing our decision-makers which is undue influence. host: gotcha. areas i thinkthe we hear is brett kavanaugh's view of separation of powers and that the constitutional principle that is about checks and balances. they have their own reserved as then youority becoming a tyrant. what does brett kavanaugh believe about separation of powers? we have some ideas because he has written about it and talked about it and he has seen extreme
exercises of it on both sides working trying to undermine the presidency and argue that they are very minimal executive powers. and then on the opposite side wanted to see the presidential powers at their maximum. what does he really think about it and how would he act on a case if there was a clash between president bush -- president trump and the prosecutor, he is not getting in the congress. he has not said exactly how he would come down on that. he has made recommendations to congress on his side suggesting policy was really bad for the presidency to have a criminal or civil investigations when he could be hunting down osama bin laden and he regretted the fact that president clinton had to deal with the lawsuit
about sexual harassment allegations and so forth when you should have been fighting to know osama bin laden. that was advice, any claims against the president can wait till is out of office. similar provisions affect members the military. ,oes he think the constitution that he had said and we don't know. thinkats suspect he will it sure does and republican say why are we even talking about it , he is such an accomplished lawyer. host: wesley in maryland, you're next. caller: i think he will make a good judge. but i have a comment about kennedy. court ande supreme the congress allowed kennedy purging himself because he interjected feeling in the constitution which is not in the
constitution. the constitution states that you cannot discriminate against a person because of your religious beliefs and when he injected ,eelings into the constitution that allow those people to be discriminated against and that's not right. and he should be charged with perjury. and the supreme court and congress should be put on notice by jeff sessions for letting him do that. of the issues that typically would come up in a confirmation hearing that we haven't spent a lot of time discussing this time is the intersection between religion and government. one of the real areas of conflict lately has been gay rights and gay marriage. justice kennedy did write the opinion several years ago that held that same-sex couples have the same rights to marry that opposite sex couples do and the
supreme court has dealt with the aftermath of that, essentially dealing with religious objectors to gay marriage or to homosexuality and so forth. one of the cases they heard in this past term involved a baker who didn't want to sell a cake to a same-sex couple that was getting married in colorado. colorado prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. the supreme court did not give us a definitive answer, but the opinion from justice kennedy while ruling for the baker on a technical matter suggested strongly that while he was on the court at least, equal treatment for same-sex couples would be required. will it under a just kavanaugh? we don't know and typically
don't be a question of great interest to the senators to at least get some kind of clue about what his thinking was at this time. is no time for etobicoke is a lot of talk about them president trump pardons. host: somebody in a position as walking fine line between revealing their thinking but not too much. how do you think he did on a tightrope? guest: he varied. it's interesting. in some areas is willing to be pipe -- quite forthright about his views and a number of important precedents. some are controversial and delivered. other times it would be improper to say anything and one he was extremely cagey which was under really questioned by republican senator flake of arizona about if you had a resident who tried to essentially subvert
government apparatus for his own personal political aims, was there anything to stop him and the debt senator flake meant president trump when you tweet on monday that the attorney general that mucked everything locked -- up by admitting to republican congress into getting charged with crimes before the midterm election in jeopardizing the republican majority which is a rather candid expression of his concern. quite unusual. and what can you do if you have a president who is doing things and brett kavanaugh basically said you are on your own. he specifieddies were congressional ones such as congress could hold money for something, refused to confirm
somebody. none of those remedies he specifically listed in fall the judiciary or the justice system. so that was area he would not go. on the other hand he said he supports and agrees with brown v. board of education which in 1954 and at school segregation and called the finest moment in supreme court history. many will -- many would agree although at the time it was controversial and a lot of southern politicians called judicial activism and judges reading their own feelings in the constitution and so forth. today is become a seminal moment in american history. host: jack is next. caller: good morning. this is really no big deal. you have a gentleman who is conservative, a brilliant fellow
who is replacing a moderate conservative. a moderate conservative that he is going to be confirmed. --,this fanfare is strictly the man will get confirmed. anywhere from 51 to 54 votes. onebig fight is the next where ruth bader ginsburg or some other older justice has to retire or sent to the promised land. that will be the big one because them president trump is going to nominate i believe either barrettlee or amy coney and if they nominate her, they will go crazy because people all over the town are anti-catholic bigots. they even do it to kavanaugh. he's a strong catholic. host: thank you. directi think a more contact is the upcoming midterm
election. right now the democratic party, democrats in congress essentially don't view president trump as a fully legitimate leader. you had senator blumenthal repeatedly referring to the president as an unindicted co-conspirator which essentially he is based on the guilty plea accepted by the court in michael cohen's trial or prosecution involving his hush money payments to women who alleged affairs of the president. theme is quite clear and i think for the democrats, the fact the kavanaugh's likely to be confirmed still doesn't take painting their goal of what they think is the illegitimacy of as president and
decisions and what they view as a grave risk to the country through the form they have and that's one thing they get. they get to talk a lot and make their case. that is what they are trying to do with the for him the tradition gives host: this is sandra. alexandria, virginia. you are on, go ahead. i oppose the selection for the supreme court judge. we don't have an association that goes into each county court or general district or circle court to audit. an example would be the change the address for divorces. we don't have that from county to state horse date across all states. on top of that, i remember reading an article in the aboutgton post when --
the deaths of one of the senators. and in that newspaper they were also discussing that the department of justice was not actually-- it wasn't taking cases to court. yearused to have 6000 in a and then they reduced that to 4000 a year. host: how does this directly applied to brett kavanaugh? caller: it applies a lot. law,people in courts and we don't have the culture. host: we got you there. brett kavanaugh actually has ruled in favor of at least an allegedere
employment discrimination mae, he sided with merrick garland. this is an appointment for the supreme court of the united states and not a state court so those issues about family law and divorce and registries -- those are state law matters that rarely reach the supreme court. the supreme court is a final appeals court. the function is to resolve major questions of constitutional or statutory law to provide a uniform law across the united states. pennsylvania. caller: i have a question for your guest. , the primaryourt job is to take a complaint -- a law, going through the supreme court. going through the constitution
to see if it is legal. guest: sometimes in the case, a can'twill say, well, you do this because the law under which you are acting is not constitutional. something the supreme court evaluates. but most of what they do does not involve the constitution of the law. it has to do whether a law being passed was carried out or a constitutional provision that is being properly followed. like a search warrant properly issued or under circumstances with a police allowed to stop a car. so we can come up. those cases get a lot of attention. but that is not most of what they do. you have a follow-up?
caller: know. thank you for the information. mark oh -- host: mark is next. caller: thank you for c-span. i oppose the supreme court nominee. they haven't provided 102,000 hisments pertaining to political work with george w. bush. she helped him with torture. with a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. i consider those things illegal. whether or not they happened, it is obvious. they happened and kavanaugh was there. so what are they hiding? why can't we get all of the documents for somebody who will make our laws for 30 years? i am opposed. and this president put in neil gorsuch already. merrick garland wasn't even allowed a vote by mitch
mcconnell. so the whole thing is out of order. the whole system. it is crazy. guest: well, one question is, what with people expect to find if they got to see even more records. would they be shocked to find that he has conservative policy views and was strategic in figuring out how the bush administration could accomplish them? no one would be surprised by that. that isn't a secret. that is who he is. so the real question is, what theresome expect to find that would change the view of any of the senators voting on his confirmation. and unless it is something such declaration of his lifelong commitment to overrule roe v. wade -- which might affect one of the republican collins, ah as
pro-choice republican, it is hard to imagine what one might find there to change the vote outcome. .o there is that and let's say democrats exceed in derailing the domination. the next question that i've the political groups on their side, who on trump's list do you like better? who would be a better choice brettour perspective from kavanaugh? is there someone else on your list who would be really great? they don't have an answer because they don't like anyone. if they do actually kill the nomination, it would be the dog that catches the car. now what? what do you do? so those are questions to ask and in some ways, lindsey graham taking thecarolina,
role of the grand political truth teller at these tellings of the cuts through the hyperbole and gets to brass tacks and he has voted for both of obama's nominees and he told us he has cried -- he has credibility because of that. they were professionally qualified and ethical people but look at democrats who say, pick judges, win more elections. and one can't dispute that. had they had the presidency or ,aken over the senate in 2016 it wouldn't be an issue at all. kavanaught professionally qualified to do the job? does he have the skills? you bet. is he the person that democrats want? absolutely not.
but what can they do about it? does,s what politics intersecting with law. in some areas they are different fields. in others they are indistinguishable. when does a political victory justify this? and i have heard that some democrats have said, look. they expect to lose but they haven't given up all hope. they expect he will be confirmed used ast is able to be a platform to get enough voters on their side concerned and they end up retaking the house of representatives, maybe that isn't a bad consolation prize. big picture look from the grand political struggle and the country, that is a factor. so it really has nothing to do with confirming judges at all that it could be a consequence.
that one of the things came up was that the turkish society foundation developed a list to give to the president the list, is on that unusual? guest: for some type of influence know but for this level of influence, yes. trump essentially outsource this area. in order to solidify his support from the right, which was doubtful since he wasn't really known as a great political that,st anchor prior to he simply said that i know you care a lot about judges, i will let the experts of the conservative movement pick them for me. and that is what they did. a network society as of conservative lawyers that really has groomed a lot of the
in the political and legal rights in the in the polid legal rights in the country. the heritage foundation was founded in the 1970's and is a conservative think tank. beenhe president has consistent and kept his word that he would follow their guidance in picking someone. the democrats view that as sinister. that the president outsource a court sensibility to groups that have their own agenda. theblicans say that it is most transparent process in history because the president said exactly how he would do this and who would be in charge and publish the names of specific people prior to the election and added more after his election. and stayed completely to form. so it is either the most secretive or the most transparent, i think it depends on which side of the aisle you
sit. bravin is here, this is josh. i would like to make a small correction. the federal society isn't a group of conservative lawyers or -- it is a group of originalist lawyers. as opposed to conservative lawyers. but that is beside the point. i do support brett kavanaugh, his nomination. i think he has -- in a bygone era he would have had massive bipartisan support in the senate in a less political and fractional lysed day. he would've had 99 or 98 votes. unfortunately those days are past. but i think your guest had
totioned that he didn't want inject emotion into his opinions. .ppropriately he doesn't want to act as a keeper legislator from the bench. in so many of these cases -- and i would say that even though i agree with the ultimate outcome of the decision kennedy passed, i would say that those issues are more appropriately talked with in the legislature. host: thank you. appreciate it. guest: what the caller said about another era where someone bye kavanaugh, if nominated a republican president whose legitimacy was widely accepted would sail through, that may be
true. but i would ask, how many votes would justice merrick garland have gotten? from the democrats point of view , to suddenly say, oh, wire and we like the old days, when there was less controversy about a nomination, they would say merrick garland, merrick garland, and oh, have a told you about merrick garland who you wouldn't even beat with. yesterday, senator cruz talked about how many votes judge merrick and judge garland were in alignment with. this is a finger-pointing thing where each party will say, you guys destroyed our great tradition of civil agreement. long ago. host: mary is next from massachusetts.
caller: of course, i oppose kavanaugh -- i'm sorry -- nomination. the only justice out of many way ofs who stood in the a helpless teenager, a pregnant teenager, who was jailed for trying to get into the country when she was pregnant. she wanted to end the pregnancy. she was only 16 or 17 years old. and he was the only justice who thised her getting abortion. he mentioned the abortion on demand. that he was going to put a stop to that. kidhe has no compassion for coming from a foreign country, although. he really didn't care what happened to her.
and that marks him as a fanatic. and it doesn't belong on the supreme court. guest: this case to come up several times at the hearing on wednesday. the issue was exactly that. femaleant 17-year-old immigrant, she wanted an abortion. and the trump administration officials who had custody of her were completely against abortion and felt it was wrong. and stood there -- and stay but they could to dissuade her from getting the abortion. the case got to the d.c. circuit judge it is true that the the defense by justice kavanaugh argued that there should be a trying to findor some kind of guardian for the minor to oversee her transport to the abortion clinic.
he was in the minority there. he was not the only judge in the d.c. circuit judge took that position. and in his opinion, he said thated -- he's adjusted they make allowances for regulations and recognize a state interest in protecting a potential life. he stressed those aspects of the for -- court precedents he said he was following the precedent. i don't think that we can say because one judge is in the defense he is automatically wrong or automatically right. judges wouldn't say that themselves. and it is true that when he looked at the issues and what whattakes were and interests the law had been intended to advance, he used a protection of a potential life
in the reported damage to the minor herself that the abortion .ight cause so that is true. but i don't see reason to not it isim at his word that what he thought the law required. host: mike in ohio. caller: i wanted to thank the caller for being on. i hear a lot of people calling where they want him to be a social worker or a congressman but that is not his job to do those things. his job is to interpret the law and admit it fairly and unbiased lee. so i'm not understanding how he could change things like roe v. wade or same-sex marriage. those things are spoken in the
law. it will be almost impossible for brett kavanaugh to do that. host: the larger issues? guest: he wouldn't get anything on those topics but i do think this is a key point to make. those questions of same-sex marriage or abortion rights have been decided on a national basis by the supreme court. and it takes the entity to change the outcomes -- the supreme court. if there are four other justices , it will take him casesotes to overrule
that liberals don't care for. citizens united. so the supreme court can always overrule itself if it feels that a prior decision was wrong and various factors are met to change the law in that area. not close atare all. -- i agree with the collar that i think the court would be reluctant to completely overrule its decision. -- itr caller mentioned would be disruptive at this it would i can see allow religious objectors greatly way. abortion rights, that area could be in for a significant change kavanaugh came onto the court and other conservatives continue along the past that
.hey have marked host: one more call from texas. caller: i don't have much of an opinion on the guy that watching up, he harris tear have looks to me -- he looks to me like a deer in the headlights. that is a pathetic he looked. , did you dot anything with the law for representing trump, regarding the legal problems trump has? and he stammered and stuttered for five minutes. couldn't figure out the answer. tell me who you may have talked to? he even looks down the senators to get some senators to jump in. the guy is a crook.
he has been talking with these people. around guys want to sit and talk about justice but these guys are paid off. host: what is the history from your perspective of covering these things, what does the isond day of question -- there a tone or something we can take away for what we may expect? tend toecond day does have some of the ergo out of the balloon. -- senators, was one of the things they want to good soundthis is a bite or video clip. so they may repeat the same sorts of questions hoping to elicit some sort of other question. one moment that may play better on tv or video in the future. as far as the way that making a character judgment is based on how he or any one else looks like on tv, i hope that isn't in
my case that it may give you a clue as to why they don't like cameras in the supreme court. jess bravin, thank you for your perspective. at 9:30 is the second round of questioning and you can see that on c-span 3, monitor that on c-span.org and on our radio mobile app. coming up, we talked to nancy scola, talking about a lot of topics and the potential regulation coming into play for these platforms. she joins us next on "washington journal." ♪ a,sunday night on q and talking about the book "uncensored."
and growing up in a troubled home. >> my phone starts to ring and i had a sense that it wouldn't be good. i don't know what it was but i knew it wouldn't be good. i answered the phone, she spoke and was very calm. very calm. saying that child protective services was there. please come home as soon as you can and i knew from the tone in her voice that i was wondering if i would live to see the next day. that is what was going through my mind. if she has a moment alone with me, and i make it through whatever happens and i get home and talk to them, lord knows what she's going to do. c-span'sy would on
"q&a." the c-span bus is traveling across the country on the 50 capital store visiting all 50 state capitals. this summer, the bus left the mainland and traveled to alaska and hawaii. go to des moines, iowa. we have the iowa senate president. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, it was created as a public service by american cable television companies and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite divider.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: this is nancy scola, the technology reporter for politico. there is a picture of two people appearing at these hearings -- tell viewers about who was on capitol hill and why they were there? guest: sheryl sandberg, the chief operating officer of race book testified on election security and the use of platforms by foreign adversaries in the u.s. election process. she was joined by the ceo of twitter, jack dorsey. jack then travel to the other side of capitol hill to the house for the energy and commerce committee where he testified so low on the idea that twitter may be biased. host: what is the significance that you had the ceos of these platforms to talk about these issues?
guest: it has been a long time coming. the companies are in the spotlight for they didn't do enough in the election by russia. in their own definition they were slow to take action in that. a lot of their testimony was acknowledging they were slow to act. so it is significant to have them with push and pull. jack dorsey's first testimony and he has been the ceo for quite some time. so to have him up there answering questions was significant. google was also invited. the decline to send a representative. which lawmakers did not enjoy. host: what did they resolve to
do because of that? is a rolling process by their own admission. one of the things they have done is to hire humans and work on technology to determine fraudulent accounts. i have figured out ways to detect signs that accounts are not coming from people they want to have on the platform and thwarting them when they try to register to use the platform. they put a lot of attention into that. and they have also done more for transparency. one of the complaints was that ads would be placed on the sites pay for theng who add. those are additional steps they've taken. they have resisted the idea of having regulation around that sort of transparency but they are eager to take those steps voluntarily.
so they don't have to be regulated. what is their thinking on that currently? guest: we are in a push and pull phase that washington goes through. police yourself or we will step in. and we are seeing conservatives theyepublicans say that will not take a hands-off approach. host: calling in to join us on of discussion on the ceos facebook and twitter. if you would like to ask a ,uestion, it is (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent voters. you could also post a comment on our facebook page. interference piece done, jack dorsey went to the house to talk about another
issue? guest: there has been a complaint raised by conservatives with the the last month which has ramped up in recent weeks because trump has embraced the issue. an idea that social media platforms are making decisions about what content to allow and what advertisements to allow. that they are biased against conservatives. there is a debate about whether there -- about whether this is intentional or not intentional. in some ways, companies operate in a black box. they wanted to bring folks into testify. response?what was the adamant that the company is not intentionally biased. that the i got -- that the ideology and no way relates to the platform. as theyacknowledge that
process huge quantities of tweets and advertisements every day that some of the decisions they might make might have the using the platform. one of the examples that has come up recently is the idea that there was a search function on twitter that when you typed in members of congress' name, some of them didn't auto populate. to more dramatically affect by conservatives. and jack dorsey testified that they had been experiment in with using a new signal to determine how to break people in the function. it was based on the quality of the followers of the users. unintentionally discriminate against conservative voices. he testified that when things are brought to our attention, with the unintentional effects, they addressed quickly. companies are pretty on that they don't want to lose the
conservative users. so they are pretty adamant that intentionally.s host: did they sway critics on the panel? guest: i think so. it was only jack dorsey testified alone. i think he handled himself well. and members seemed pretty responsive to him personally. think he has proven that he has no intention of discriminating godless of what personal ideology would be -- informationng regardless of what his personal ideology would be. some said that it would not spare -- that it was not fair for him to be there without other platforms. the committee argued that twitter has become such a platform -- the first argument
is that we are open to having all the companies testify. but twitter is assumed such a central role in the political conversations for the country, because the president uses it frequently to profess his opinion, so that there is a need to focus on the platform and how it is operating. host: one of the topics that came up with the idea of shadow accounts. what are they? guest: it is a term for some of the decisions made about how the , taking is interactive a step back that there is so much content so they cannot promote everyone. the very meant is that in those decisions, like the search functionality -- it can make it harder to find accounts. shadow banning includes that and that if you click on a hashtag,
in some cases, accounts aren't appearing so there is that conversation that their argument is that they have to manage the content in some way. i can'ttives say that know that you are not seeing my tweets. that i'm hidden. host: (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002 independent voters. it was during that conversation went jack dorsey had a conversation with greg walden. here's the exchange. >> in one example of many, important conservatives representatives have come to us and say they were not shown in the automatically populated drop-down searches on twitter. correct? than 300 the more active twitter users, why did
this only happened to certain accounts? in other words, what did the algorithm take into account that led to prominent conservatives including members of the u.s. house of representatives not being included in auto search populations? >> thank you for the question. we use hundreds of signals to determine and decide what to show and what to down break or potentially, what to filter. in this particular case, we were using a signal of the behavior of the people following accounts. , upon didn't believe further consideration and seeing the impact -- which was about 600,000 accounts, a pretty broad base, that it was ultimately fair so we did decide to correct that. wasn't decided that it fair to use this signal for filtering in general. so we decided to correct that within the search as well. one, important for us to,
able to experiment freely with these signals. and to have the freedom to be able to inject them and remove them. we going tonly way learn. we will make mistakes along the way. and the way we want to be judged is by making sure we recognize those and then we correct them. responsek about his and his style in approaching the legislators? guest: he is very deliberate and very thoughtful. came by the political world headquarters for an interview at to sit down with our editorial team before his interview. thought aboutly these issues. he presents himself in that way and he speaks of very deliberately. has been some commentary about his appearance.
fair or not. scraggly beard. one of the members of the committee said, i don't know what the ceo of twitter should look like but it is not that. and he said, yes, i agree. host: they have staffers that handle the legislature and what happened on capitol hill directly. guest: yes. and it is different in the ways the different companies approach washington. a d.c. officeave that is loosely tethered to the main headquarters. twitter has operated in that way recently toe worked integrate their washington team more into the corporate leadership team which seems to be coming across in the successful way they have approach washington in recent
months. host: nancy scola joins us. we start with alan. go ahead. caller: how are you? callingis alan and i'm partly because the lady had the claim by conservatives that the media discriminates against them. make theted to following statement. vidal made a comment that to me has always been most constructive and helpful. in it, the comment went like this. he said, in europe, what we in america called a liberal, in europe is called a conservative. america's what we at word in europe recalled a fascist. and i have long thought this was
helpful. contextualizes the difference. in i think a lot of the old america called themselves conservatives are really crypto fascist swell a lot of the people who call themselves liberals are really pretty moderately conservative. host: how does that direct itself to social media use? way it i think the directs itself to social media that it has unfortunately been lost sight of my a lot of people on social media. i think it all was one of the most instructive people who could teach us a lot. the most recent complaints -- trump has picked up this idea that social media and online forms are biased
against conservatives and him. one of the arguments he points to recently is that when he searches google news for stories about trump, they are largely negative. google's response and the response of many others say they are pulling from mainstream media sources that run headlines that are negative. the read on the president is often very negative. and the president argues, you should be pulling from sources that are not mainstream but are more supportive of me. past, google has never had to wrestle with that. because they said that if we take a snapshot of the mainstream media, we take a snapshot of what people are saying online. we are at the point where more broadly in the country, we are not agreeing on sets of facts or thinking about the world.
so google newly has to wrestle with that. now there's a debate about whether this impacts the world at large. new jersey, days is next. caller: when twitter and facebook -- when they offered the initial public offering, i think they traded at $42 and then they dropped down to $20 and now they have gone up to wherever they are now and they are little bit less. yesterday i pulled about $250,000 out of twitter and facebook. i don't like the politics. that is all there is to it. guest: jack dorsey was careful to say he is a registered the employeeut base is more left-leaning. that is something companies have to wrestle with. and whether that matters to
americans. twitter and facebook, they have said they need to take steps to clean up platforms. because it may well affect their stock prices. wall street has not responded to this overwhelmingly positively it is a have said that hit they are willing to take in the short term. host: from virginia beach, julia is next. caller: my question is that these people in congress think are -- the millennials -- naive about algorithms. but they know a lot more about what is going on than we do. so if twitter was to go up there and tell politicians what is millennials like the freedom and everything they do. and the gentleman who just
called about europe never grew up in europe. he has no idea how the communist and socialist were. i remember being in school and we had to shut our schools down because they burned the school buses. so the gentleman has no idea. guest: one of the things -- again, maybe this is a superficial observation but jack dorsey is now 42-year-old. even mark zuckerberg is now a full grown adult. the caller mentioned millennials. in a way, there was a handoff approach because they were young people figuring things out. now they fully entered the era when they are expected to be responsible for the decisions they make and that is some of the treatment they are seeing for them now is that a chance to experiment and innovate and people do need a little bit of freedom to experiment but now
your health accountable. so i think the approach that the company is have has shifted. ok, we need to grow up a little bit and engage with this political process. host: so the question that legislators pose, do you get a sense that they get the nuance did thel media -- how nature of the questions reflect that? at least a subtle knowledge of what is going on? guest: the immediate feedback on twitter is -- oh my gosh, these questions are rudimentary. they don't reflect the fact that understand.ongress yesterday, we didn't hear that. we are now seeing members of congress refine questions on that. that have been questions where we see committees get deeply involved in this that maybe have more expertise.
the senate committee has done a lot of work on the social media front so they have developed a way of talking about these positions that we didn't see previously. the: there was a story in alice news recently about a group of conservatives inside facebook complaining to their leadership about the diversity of voices that facebook expresses. guest: you certainly hear this. there's a push to diversify the companies. they have been overly ail and overly white. companies do have a response to that. there hasn't been a follow-up response that ok, the companies are also overly liberal and left-leaning. so there is a push to include ideological diversity. the criteria they used to think about holding their employee base. it hasn't gained a ton of traction but you do hear people who in washington may be thought of as moderates, they don't feel
free expressing their opinion. it is certainly a sentiment that is building. host: nancy scola is joining us for this discussion. indiana is next on the republican line. go ahead. caller: they were filtering by followers, of the what is the quality follower? guest: i would like to know as well. they don't divulge many details. that jack dorsey did testify on that yesterday. that they were using follower folksy to determine the -- it is on my to do list to dig into that. host: matt from virginia. hello. i am a teacher.
part of my job is to teach our students information literacy and sources and what are legitimate sources. and i feel like if you look at younger generations understand about information literacy, they are able to navigate social media and use it and understand what is information and what is entertainment. 2006, i started to notice that a lot of my elder family were starting to share things on you to or social media that were completely false and i would have to constantly send on articles and that ways to show them they were just passing on false information from social media and i feel like we have to do a better job of giving people who didn't get the opportunity to
get information literacy because they were born well after -- born well before it was presented -- we have to give them ways to understand what is true and false on the internet. guest: that is something that has come up. i think there is an idea that -- i am risking getting in trouble here -- but some generations when they got on facebook or social media -- they felt free to share things, not necessarily knowing if it was true. because was true. because with a playground, not real life. what i think some of the debates around social media and the 2016 election and the use of russian adversaries, it was very easy to spread information on the platform because americans were pretty willing to share it. these book in particular has taken steps to address what people say is fake news or disinformation. early on in the efforts, they tried to label things using
third-party fact checkers, saying that this isn't true but they found that people were then more willing to share. so they have switched up the approach of it now. dissentingtach views. so if there is an article that isn't true, they provide a fact check or third-party information says hey, this is another way of thinking about this. host: let's hear from sheryl sandberg yesterday. again, the whole hearing is available online at c-span.org but she talked about platform members on fighting foreign interference. >> we are focused on the upcoming u.s. midterms and collections around the world. our efforts in recent elections from germany to italy and mexico , to the alabama senate elections show us that the investments we make our yielding results. that we cannot stop
interference by ourselves. we are working with outside experts in the industry and partners and government -- including law enforcement -- to share information about threats. we are getting better at finding and stopping opponents. from financially motivated troll intellectually led attacks. we don't always know the motive so we will continue working closely with law enforcement. host: can you reflect on that last point. working with law enforcement? guest: yes. they were slow in paying attention but one of the quieter arguments they made is, why is facebook supposed to be the one controlling the platforms for foreign interference?
then the something that national security world needs to put more effort into and take response ability for? it is been almost two years since the election day and a lot of effort has been put into building security efforts worldwide. so they can share information about threats. he could share information about what they see on their platforms with intelligence to be shared back to other companies. so companies made the point that they need more help. and it shouldn't be up to facebook to determine whether it as a threat.iran they shouldn't be responsible for figuring out how to canter -- how to counter that. from this is mary pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a a sick question. it isn't conspiracy. i am republican. i do believe there was for influence. i guess i am an older guy and
i'm not big into social media but i do good on there. i've never been able to see examples are the actual verbiage for what was actually taking place on these websites so i would know how i was influenced or what was given to me that was false or -- i've never seen it presented on the news anywhere. is there somewhere we could vote to actually see that? where was posted that -- these are the fake news. the postingsl of by russia or whomever? so we could see them? to actually look at them? guest: the good news is that if you didn't get a news email from twitter saying you were influenced to folks that you weren't. they said, these are things you may have looked at that were planted by russians. facebook is also presented opportunities to login if you
think you having gauged with any kind of russian place content in any way. it is probably an unsatisfying answer but the senate intelligence community posted a number of examples of the advertisements. and politico, we did as well that were released by the company showing the information on the platform. host: jeff sessions inserted himself into the larger discussion on social media. what is his interest? guest: that the department of justice released a short statement saying that after watching the initial senate hearing on election interference that they watch the hearing closely and that they were announcing that jeff sessions was going to be meeting with a number of state attorney general's to discuss social media companies. for issues raised about competition in the sector and the idea that they might the
stifling free speech. that sent us scrambling to figure out what they meant. clear how thatly may apply to these companies and how it could be used to answer speech questions. so we are still trying to figure out what that meeting means, scheduled for september 25. the cynical reporters take is that this is an issue that trump has embraced this. and that the department of justice may be interested in looking into it for that reason. to thehis question justice department and they said that no, jeff sessions has had a and interest in this topic they are following through on that. the timing of releasing this in between the two hearings, referencing the first hearing, it certainly made it feel like there was a strategic approach to getting the highest profile for this announcement that we are digging into that.
host: here is matthew from tennessee. it seems like somewhat of a farce because these are social media platforms. they are not news agencies. there are not held to the same accountability. and they should be because it is a to the user to do their own research and verify information they're getting. the company has targeted algorithms for advertising. for service material that better enrich the in user experience. that is the purpose and goal. it's how they run their business. it is really the platforms responsibility to constantly monitor everything that each individual user is doing. it is the viewer themselves that is responsible to research material. something seems off with the
need to expand the viewing platform in order to get correct answers. here: one of the dynamics is that part of the reason the company don't have responsibility, for policing what happens on the platform proactively as a function of u.s. law. it is delivered. the communications decency act. section 230 creates a limited .iability for companies the idea would be that companies like facebook couldn't grow in the way that they did if they had to review every single piece of content that went up there. some steps that companies have onen now to put their hand what appears on the platform raises concerns among advocates in the tech industry that it might open them up to the possibility of rescinding some of the limited liability. so they would be more responsible. and that is something that the
tech industry is worried about. because they can't operate the companies they operate if they don't have the limited liability. it was raised yesterday that twitter has a section raised called moments. a curated set of tweets around particular events. you not actinge as a news publisher if you have for use in to what is happening on the platform and curating curated content because that is one of the functions in the news industry performs. host: with this round of hearing, will it satisfy members of congress? or do they want your more from each platform about the issues that were raised yesterday on the content side or the influence side? guest: this seems to be the end of the senate intelligence committee. there has been talk that we need flu -- we need new legislation.
we may have a social media component. and the other question of bias on the platform, i think sessions inserting himself into the debate yesterday said that this is a going anywhere anytime soon. caller: i am jimmy. i believe that social media censorship could be a slippery slope. i believe that people should be a lot to say what they want. and thern in woodstock air was thick with hepatitis flying around. i swear. host: michael. why does she think every thing is so biased with social media leaning towards democrats and millennials? and what is the real data versus
what is actually in the demographics? only 20% of millennials actually vote? data?t is the real world is there a big payoff at the end of this? guest: you raise and adjusting point. the idea of data. we don't know. we don't know the volume of tweets on the platform, if they lead any particular way or if there discriminated against by companies. we just don't know. and that was a little bit of the frustration yesterday. of shadow banning of accounts and the search functionality. the question was raised, how many democratic members were affected and they didn't have the information at hand because it is very difficult to know the answers to those questions. because we don't have the data.
host: we saw protesters being escorted all day out of the kavanaugh hearing. protests in the house hearings. can you give us an idea? guest: i don't entirely known the attention of them. but it was a day of yelling in capitol hill. the biggest excitement on that front in the house and senate was that alex young -- from info wars -- branded as a right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory minded -- he put himself in to both of these hearings and got attention for that. he has been removed from twitter recently in a temporary ban and he wanted to confront jack dorsey. he didn't get the confrontation. he did have a little run-in with marco rubio in the hallway. host: there was also excitement when a protester appeared in the
house hearing. here is a bit of that. -- ecognizes that >> [indiscernible] >> order in the hearing room or you will be asked to leave. ma'am. please take a seat or we will have to have you -- we will have to. >> please help us mr. president before it is too late because jack dorsey is trying to influence the election and sway the election. >> i can't understand her. $20, five have. , 40. have 45, the cap. up to it have now 75. $80, 95, 90.
two and a quarter. to have, 300, 3 and a quarter. three-and-a-half, 375, 400. four and a half, by the have. i yield back. [applause] long has a past as a professional auctioneer. those it is one instances. what you think the public as far as those attending, what you think we got out of those hearings? guest: some new information they put on record about how these platforms work. what the things that was for twitter, the nomination hearing for judge kavanaugh was happening in the same time so that brought attention away. we have a time to gauge the reaction to these so we will be picking up on some of that
today. host: zach from pennsylvania, democrat line. the thing i'm worried about is a lot of these social media companies are showing so many ads to the point where some people could see them as ad companies disguise is also media platforms. what i'm wondering is should we make it so they have to regulate the ads they put on more or not? tost: that has been a push make the advertisers more clearly labeled as advertising, more clearly labeled where they are coming from. the companies have been resistant to actually regulating on that front. .hat's one of the areas what must us voluntarily's is to add disclaimers entry ads in a serious and systematic fashion than they have in the past and the reason for that is there try to stave of regulation. they think if they do enough on
their own they won't get regulated by congress and the reason they are nervous about being regulated is is a number of reasons. death as they make their their reluctant to let dog's mother hands in a particular part of the platform very host: california, republican line you are the last call. caller: good morning. it's funny i'm always lately the last call. i would like to talk about russian influence on her elections. oversight andhad chuck schumer had oversight on the iranian one -- uranium one deal. we are not talking about that at all. alex jones, that's who i learned that he had oversight. god bless alex jones and god bless the first amendment. people of the united states are being a sham. you heard this guy auctioning off during this last thing because he is so used to being
influence by all the from social media and stuff. we need to get sessions out of there. guest: one of the complications that these companies find themselves in, you said god bless alex jones, people obviously have a very strong opinion on the other side thinking is pretty troubling. the companies are in a position of making decisions. should he be allowed on the platform. dozens if not hundreds of thousands of other voices the allowed on the platform. jack dorsey said i think it's dangerous for twitter and him to be the arbiter of truth on the internet. some of the challenges we are wrestling with his anytime you make decisions about content, they are pretty likely to anger some folks in this country. certainly not something they want to get into too deeply but they are seeing a lot of pressure to take control in managing. host: nancy is the senior technology reporter for politico.
politico.com is where you can find her writing. thank you for your time. for the remainder of the time of our program, we go back to the question that we started about. the anonymous new york times piece, an anonymous person saying they are the quiet resistance within the trump administration. if you want to comment on that, democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8001, independents 202-748-8002. we will take calls when we come back. ♪ >> kids are kids everywhere. they want to feel important and they want to understand what's going on in the world. >> my wary as they are intimidated and so they become a mouse in the classroom and feel they don't have those dinnertable conversations. therefore they feel they can't throw their ideas out.
let's have a karaoke contest in class because they know the songs. i'm like let's have a contest and talk about the issues in the songs. i think when we make it relevant , they enjoy it, they engage and learn. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, meet the middle and high school civics teachers who participate in the c-span classroom annual educators conference. saturday 10 a clock a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or on the free c-span radio app. >> sunday night on "afterwards. former obama administration education secretary on his book "how schools work." he is interviewed by the former chancellor of the district of columbia schools. >> i do know voters make the connection between what voter --
politicians do and what happens in school. how do we draw that line a little more clearly? >> we need voters to understand if we want more access to pre-k, who want to pay teachers better, everyone to reduce drop-off rates, we have to get there by challenging and holding accountable officials who we put in office. >> watch "afterwards sunday night on "book tv. washington journal continues. no person names to this op-ed in the new york times this morning. the quiet resistance and seven trump administration. this person writes president trump is facing a test unlike any face by a modern american leader. it is not just the special counsel looms larger the country is divided over his leadership or that even his party might well lose the house to an opposition hell-bent on his downfall. the dilemma, which is not fully
grasp is that many of senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda, his work, inclinations. i would know, i am one of them. that is an anonymous piece. we want to get your thoughts on the peace and assertions made by the author. 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, independents 202-748-8002. on twitter you can post at c-span wj. you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. to bethor goes on to say clear, hours is not the popular resistance of the left. we want the administration to succeed and i think many policies have made america safer and more prosperous. we believe our first duty to this country and the president to continues to act in a manner detrimental to the health of our republic. more of your thoughts on that.
you can call later or if you want to post on social media. in the meantime, the president responding to this op-ed from yesterday, here is some of that from the white house. >> nobody has ever done in less , what weo-year period have done. when you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration, probably who is failing and probably here for all the wrong reasons. and the new york times is failing. i believe theere, new york times probably wouldn't even exist. [applause] >> and someday when i am not president which hopefully will be in about six and a half years. the new york times, cnn and all of these phony media outlets will be out of business folks. they will be out of business because there will be nothing to write and nothing of interest. nobody has done what this administration has done and i
agree, it is different from an agenda which is much different than ours and it's not your agenda. that i can tell you. it's about open borders, letting people flee into our country, it is about a disaster and crime for our country. they don't like donald trump and i don't like them because they are very dishonest people. remember this about the new york times. , they were forced to apologize to the subscribers. they wrote a letter of apology, it was the first time anybody has ever done it because they covered the election incorrectly. so if the failing new york times ,as an anonymous editorial meaning got less. a gutless editorial. we are doing a great job. the poll numbers are through the roof. our poll numbers are great and guess what, no one will come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we have done. georgia is up first from
florida, republican line. i don't believe it is true at all. i think it's also the new york times is putting out for advertising for their own because why would anyone say that they are doing this, it is such a subversive action, why would they tell everybody, especially in the trump administration? they say they like the trump administration and what they are doing, they just don't like the way he says it. for to are going to look and that theut hand biting the -- it's cutting up the nose to spite their face. i don't understand it. i really think it is nothing but a falsehood. host: one of the assertions from the peace is the problem -- is
orality.idents ami rob is next from new york, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for the discussion. what i know this more than anything is the amount of influence that something like this article portray's. whether it is real or not, it's not really the question. it is the way that it does it. some of the quick things i can mention is it starts off with president trump and continues on the article saying trump and mr. trump. you see republican is capitalized, but president is not. these are little things that as you read, i happened to pick them up consciously in a look for things like that, but these are things that affect you. interview of things.
so are think we have to look at where these things come from and how they get there. anonymous is a strange way to put something out there. because ofou saying the style of peace, you question whether it is really someone from within the administration? caller: it could be anything. but what it is is that it's obvious it is done for a purpose host: -- purpose. us hishat is rob giving take on the piece. democrats line from highland, california, go ahead. caller: good morning. i don't believe it's a manufactured article, i believe there is someone in the white house that is anonymously taking his job or her job seriously and is very afraid like all of us
sitting on the sidelines of what he will do next. he is under investigation, under a lot of pressure and i have never in my life thought the -- thought america would allow someone like him when he refused to show his taxes, we don't know he is bought and paid for by russia to give to the situation where everything he does and all these investigations, if it was anyone else i think he would are to be out, but republicans are not doing their job and host: before you leave, do you accept the peace at face value even though it is anonymous? caller: i do at face value. i believe it's another republican. i think it's somebody in there who believes in the republican just too fare is to the right and out of control probably because of all the pressure that he is enduring because of all these scandals.
doug, washington, d.c., republican line. caller: this article may be very legitimate, but the whole point of it is the fact that the president's and leaders of the past millennia have been advised by numerous amount of people, the president may be the commander-in-chief but doesn't actively command the armies. he doesn't actively dictate our health care system. there are people you points for that. this person may be an advisor to him, they may be an important part of his inner circle, blood in the cabinet doesn't help a president avoid his worst inclinations? it seems the person is doing their job along with other cabinet members. the only difference is they got their feelings hurt one way or another. i personally think it is someone who was -- is an advisor who got
upset and someone who decided to know out because they writing the new york times article leads to a book and they can make a lot of money and they don't want to deal with the stress of being in the administration what's longer. host: do you think it rings true, do you think it rings false or some of the claims the piece makes? caller: i think it rings true in its background. i believe there is a bias. the person seem spurned. they seem upset by one thing or the other that the president did to them and anyone with a negative attitude towards a person or subject will have a negative bias and i believe that the bias is betrayed in the the bias outfit like the new york times which is not been a friend of the president. host: becky, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. ok with what the silent resistance to and are
protecting our democracy against this lunatic. i am ok with the patriots showing and the lady from california that -- host: why are you ok with the format this is done? caller: because they are protecting their job and they insight intoe an their and they know how to maneuver around as president and they feel very patriotic and they want to protect our democracy. it has nothing to do with , i'm just or democrat very grateful for them. i want them to keep doing their job and they want them to give -- be protected. host: marguerite in georgia, republican line. that democrat was so
wrong. it is the republican establishment that has been after this president ever since and i guess you can't blame them because the easy way of life has been changed. on speaker ryan. i think he is the guy. that pointed this out. host: even though the piece says whoever wrote it is an administration official, a senior official name administration. well, i consider a speaker pretty important. host: that is marguerite in .eorgia calling in again
the op-ed released in the new york times, that's our topic for the remainder of our time and if you want to call it is 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, independents 202-748-8002. you can post on the social media platforms, we will show you other stories in news in the papers today as we continue on. in the weeks leading up to the november elections, we are going to highlight certain races throughout the country. we start the texas senate race. joining us on skype to give us a sense of where it is is patrick of the texas tribune, the political reporter. good morning. >> thanks for having me. host: tell us about the texas senate race and why it is gaining so much attention. your republican ted cruz taking his second term and faces a very spirited and well-funded challenge from a congressman from el paso.
i think especially in recent months this race has gained so much attention because of the amount of money that o rourke is raising. he is an online fundraising machine. he is outraised ted cruz for all but one quarter, one fundraising period since he got in the race. the numbers have gotten bigger since then and the advantage bigger since then. another factor is how hard he is working. he has visited all 254 counties in texas. some of those places several times already and is running a very spirited campaign in going to all those counties and going to those places. some places neglected by democrats in the past and holding town halls and showing up which is a key part of his campaign. i think the money and amount of travel you are seeing from the democratic challenger here is moving this race in a competitive direction and i think through that, he has been able to turn himself into an
underdog after being what i would describe as a long shot from the out that. there is still a steep hill to climb in texas, but i think he is doing the work you need to do to become a fighting champ. caller: what is the current poll -- host: what is the current polling suggesting? >> the public polling you suggest you tightening race. a recent poll showed the advantages only anywhere from maybe two to four, maybe six points. if you average the polling, maybe in the high single digits. there are legitimate complaints about some of these polls being of only registered voters, which in texas, there is an important distinction between registered voters and likely voters. traditionally in texas, it's a state that has struggled with turnout and more so than other states. you are less unlikely to see a different pool of voters when you switch from register to likely. in any case, a two-point race among registered voters in public polling this close to
election day in texas is remarkable and even if you add a crack debtto that to correct for whatever problems there are with the methodology, it's remarkable we are talking of a single-digit statewide race in texas at this stage in the game. host: how has senator cruz countered against a rourke? the traditional playbook as rolling him to liberal for texas. things like gun control for example and talking about how he has the issues border security and immigration and i think ted cruz as far as the strategy is concerned is focusing on a lot of issues that will rev up the republican base in texas. these are issues that i think there's a lot of intensity within the republican electorate in texas and it makes a lot of sense because he has spoken very
openly about the fact that he things complacency is his biggest challenge in this case. among of republican voters. he is focusing on some issues that i think are really designed to try and re-create the enthusiasm we are seeing on the democratic side, but on the republican side. that's why you're are seeing them focus on things like gun control, border security, o'rourke's comments addressing support for impeaching the president, things that will fire up the republican base. host: we will show a couple of ads. ads is over aurora taking an , this is based of a weekend rally in el paso. >> we are in our 34th day of 34 days on the road straight across grateful, so happy to be back in el paso. the city in which i was raised.
[applause] the city where i met amy on a blind date. , i probably took her over to have a drink in the kentucky bar. things have worked out, we are about to celebrate 13 years of marriage. >> we are raising three extreme area children. all of whom are being educated at the same amazing public school that i got to go to as a kid. , i coming back to el paso always feel this way. so proud of this community. , ofroud of those students those amazing public school educators and teachers in the classroom, the counselors and therapists, vice principals and
principles. the bus drivers, those who work in the cafeteria, the janitors and custodial staff who clean up . this community, making the most of the fact that we are one of, if not the largest binational community anywhere in the world. as far as the approach of this ad, him speaking to a crowd , not necessarily a tailored or manufactured at, what do you think? >> it is in line with what the campaign style has sought to be from the beginning which is this raw peopletic, centric campaign that is focused very much on his travel throughout texas. every ad or digital or tv ad so far has basically been the livestream footage from his campaign stop stitched together into a compilation showing the places he has been. does contrasthere
thereto cruise is pretty obvious which is that he has not been as visible in the state as some folks would like him to be. he ran for president for a healthy chunk of his first term and so that implicit contract does contrast there. rourke doesn't turn it into an attack, but i think that goes without saying in some cases. host: here is ted -- ted cruz's ad. >> he is showing up across texas sharing his wit. >> his wisdom. >> what the -- are these guys doing. >> and his character. if he shows up in your town, keep the kids at home. he is showing the -- up. a decidedly different approach. >> it is, trying to be funny there, little more lighthearted than the previous ad we saw.
i think if you look at some of the digital ad like that, they are trying to pull the this is night deficit is serious person who could be a serious represent of of the people from texas and that he is something of a lightweight either when it comes or maybe on actual substance or policy. i think that the message they're trying to convey there. i think that's one of the more lighthearted approach is to it. some of the outside forces backing both of these candidates up in the next few weeks? >> on the cruise side there are two super pac's already in the race. once formed by former crew strategist and then you have the national group that took a big gamble on him in 2012 at first and helped him have that huge victory in the 2012 primary in texas and so they are coming back to the table and they said they will spend seven figures
going against o'rourke and educating texas voters about him. so you're a have those two super pac's actively involved. on the o'rourke side he is try to swear off outside support. there haven't been a lot of groups that have come in for him yet. obviously at the end of the day taking control of some of those groups do despite what he said. host: we highlighted texas senate race. thanks for your time. back to your calls on his op-ed in the new york times. richard from tennessee, independent line. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning everyone in america. it is great to be able to speak your voice. as far as the op-ed with the new york times, you can't take much credence in someone who is not willing to stand straight up in a camera in public and willing to speak their mind. that's free speech. evidently they are afraid of their losing their job and afraid of going to jail.
evidently they are afraid of being made a man or woman standing up to the people and saying i know this, this is me. i said this. when you're not willing to do this, you can't take much credence in that person or the individuals or the corporation of which they work for. so the new york times, you have to do better than that. tell me who it is and maybe i can trust and what you are saying. here is what america better think about. whoight years, 15 years, was the next businessman it's going to run this country because the politicians have been bawled out and donald trump is proving that. host: let's hear from elektra in new york, democrats line. caller: hello. there is nothing in that op-ed piece that surprised me. this president is unhinged. the technical term is a psychopath. i have a little trouble with the anonymity. but it was absolutely necessary. that this be said.
i'm surprised that it surprised anybody. we have heard these idiot things from the president's mouth. he is unhinged. and had to be said. as far as the anonymity is concerned, your level of concern? caller: it troubles me. host: do you think it is authentic then? caller: i do. i absolutely do. i think it's a person that is very concerned about humanity. host: let's go to cold springs, republican line. caller: hello. i'm disappointed. his whole op-ed issue seems pathetic to me. coward and he should've identified himself on new year's.
and bias in the president. as well as many of your callers. because it is a lunatic. -- they said it's that she is a lunatic. -- that he is a lunatic. you look at his record, he has done more for this country than most other presidents and speaks his mind, we he is not reading up a script. -- he is not reading off of a script like other politicians do. i respect him. he's one of most successful and you thinker he has no intellectual ability is beyond the pale. host: that is lewis in new york. just after 9:30 eastern standard time, the second day of questioning by senators. if you want to watch that you
can go to c-span3. in the chamber of the senate chairman chuck grassley, a protests taking place. supposedly of those protesting brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court by president trump. we will let you listen to a little bit of it. >> we all have rights. >> it is very funny. >> it is very funny. >> that the party that calls themselves. >> the cart -- the party that call themselves. >> that the party of freedom is on the verge of stealing all of our reproductive freedoms. >> all of our reproductive freedoms. >> with this nomination. >> with this nomination. >> might check. >> mic check. >> i have a story. senator chuck grassley's the chairman of the senate
judiciary committee heading up that hearing featuring the confirmation hearing for brett kavanaugh. ,s you look at that clip california, democrats line, you're next. caller: thank you for having me. i love c-span. i have been listening to the callers and there is nothing new here, republicans are going to support the president a matter what anyone says. it is nothing new like that one caller said. there is nothing new. this op-ed summarizes all the things that have come out. i could have written it based on reading some books about the president. he is unhinged is the one caller said. the president, if you watch him speak in front of the country, it is embarrassing. he has so limited in what he can say, he can only talk about a very limited range of things.
host: but the op-ed itself, do you take it for face value even though it is anonymous? caller: i do. anybody can look at what it is saying and say that is true, that is true. the president is very confused. amoral.age, he is go to carmine -- this is caroline in new york, democrats line. caller: thank you so much c-span. it is an awesome thing that you do. i was calling to say all this attention on the anonymous op-ed , i think it is based on the fact that the republican congressman and women won't step up to the plate and do what they need to do. these people in the white house are left with this crazy man
trying to run the country and it is not fair to them. i think the blame for this whole thing needs to go on the republican party that has been elected are ready. host: when it comes to the op-ed itself, what struck you most about it specifically? i think the fact that there is an inside group trying to protect the country from a , it washas been elected a mistake to elect him and now they're faced with this and having to deal with it. host: let's go to carmine in new york, republican line. caller: good morning. i love c-span. first of all, whoever wrote this op-ed, this person was not elected. to stop the operation of our government by thwarting the will of the president and by extension, the will of the american people who elected him,
i feel is not only dangerous, but you legal. .'ve -- but illegal i wish you become it was lower income out into the light and i think it would been handled much better. host: do you agree with any of the content of the op-ed? honest,i'm going to be i do not like the way he represents our president. i'm not sure what else to say. my only feeling is if this is true, i think we need to know it in a clearer fashion. in newhat is carmine york giving his thoughts on his ined that appeared online the new york times. 202-748-8000 democrats, 202-748-8001 republicans. 202-748-8002 independents. this one from washington post, how house republicans deal with the upcoming november elections.
one writing the interviews with a dozen vulnerable gop incumbents who returned to washington after a fight just after recess largely revealed -- after a recess largely revealed a democratic party leaving -- link to let the leave them with a good step with voters. quote -- "i think they know me and that makes a difference." a republican from michigan who was seeking reelection from a democratic challenger who has outraised him by nearly $1 million. he says that my saving grace. they go on to say the rosy outlook was echoed wednesday by top gop leaders in a closed-door meeting of republicans and reporters afterwards. "it's results versus resistance." toin mccarthy seeking contrast the low unemployment rate and republican tax cuts a liberal insurgents the inside the democratic party that unseated a 10 term incumbent. new york times,
president obama expected to make a return to support democrats leading up to the november election saying this is his first public event of the midterm election will take place in orange county, california, a traditional conservative leaning part of california where republicans are a risk of losing several house seats. democrats fromin districts that hillary clinton carried in 2016. a place to carry -- campaign for richard cordray, a bank regulator. republicans have held that had total control of the state governments since the 2010 election. mr. obama helped encourage mr. cordray is death irvine, california is next on her independent line. caller: hello? host: this is carol from irvine, i'm sorry, go ahead. caller: about the op-ed peas?
host: yes. caller: i am relieved to see the piece and to me it is like somebody finally saying the emperor has his clothes. it's something up and waiting to see for a year, if anybody watches the president and what's going on in the country with their eyes open, it gets confirmed every single day that what this says is true. you can tell in the president is speaking on his own behalf and when he is speaking -- when he has been reined in. he reads it over and over again. you can tell he is uncomfortable with it versus when he is speaking extemporaneously and is comfortable with what he is saying. i think the reason the person that they -- they didn't come out is that he want to keep helping the country.
this conversation this morning makes the thing about a few days ago. lawyer had tos come out and apologize for being andnonymous source for cnn some false reporting that had gone down there. myries like that just erode faith and news articles about anonymous sources. joins us from ohio. republican line. caller: i'm calling about the op-ed. think this is nothing but a from the new york times on president trump. it could be anybody. it could be a republican, democrat, it could be just about
anybody in this world. why does the new york times publish an anonymous article? i can't understand why they would do such a thing. host: was anything in the op-ed, is there anything you believe gore didn't believe or to do not believe it overall or some parts of it? i believe none of it. deborah in connecticut, independent line. in reference to the op-ed piece, i'm going to open on a short quote in the bible, it is never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. they should stay anonymous and we have seen what happens to people who stand up and say something off-the-cuff out of a
motion, it doesn't really avail much and they end up being silenced. so it is not really very wise to death for the call is to say they should be a man and stand up. that's just not being wise. never let your enemy know what you are doing. you can accomplish more if you stay quiet. get all your evidence together, get people who are going to be on your side until you have enough strength to actually come change, eithera he's going to be removed from office or at least at the very least not have him reelected. host: the wall street journal reporting about the latest information on trade deficits. paul kiernan and paul viera reporting the commerce department said the deficits of the first seven months of the year hit 337.9 billion, that is up 22 billion from a year earlier to its eyes level in a decade.
a strong domestic economy is boosting imports while exports are jostled by u.s. trade confrontation and slowing growth abroad. republican line, carlos is next from florida. believe then't op-ed. whoever is doing it, that is treason. if you're leaking information for the white house, that is treason and you go to jail for a long time. your listeners are very intelligent, you notice every time donald trump does something great or huge, the left always has to bring something up anonymous, anonymous this or that. now that the director came out that in the last six years, this is the lowest unemployment in 60 years, that something great, summoned to grin about, they have to join monkeywrench. that's all i have to say. host: independent line, clarence from ohio.
-- i'm sorry, north carolina. caller: i just wanted to make a comment. about all these people calling about donald trump. on a black man at voted for donald trump and a want to say something. a lot of people call him crazy, he doesn't know what he's doing. for the last five or six months we had, there was both have a lot of -- debt and all of a sudden this man runs debt and they call it crazy and the economy has picked up. more women and latinos are working than ever. but we call this man crazy. if he is crazy getting all this, god bless him and let's get crazy busy doing a better job in they have had. clarify, this op-ed, you don't believe it or do you? caller: it don't matter what
they say because they will say negative things. whether i believe it or not. they are gutless for one thing and if they believe that way, leave the man alone. he's done a good job. it's not what they say he's doing. thejob is getting done and jobs keep growing, although want to know is if he's doing the job. host: gotcha. christopher saying this, -- written by me was or my japanese patently false. al is in ohio -- or might get beauty is patently false. -- my deputy is patently false. caller: i ran into the same thing with quite a few people talking about it. things seem to be going a little
better than the have in the last act in eight years. to the op-ed that was published, what do you think about that? democrats, new york times, cbs, abc, they have all been getting on trump for two years now. it is like you guys are calling wolf. you called wolf too many times and nobody believes this garbage anymore. anonymous, come on. the new york times is liberal, everybody knows that. trump open my eyes up to a lot of things like the insiders. wait until the second term. i hope he enjoys another eight years or four years. for eight years we had nothing. reuters reporting that kim jong-un has given his first timeline for denuclearization. any for the end of donald
trump's first term. prompting thanks for the president to said they would get it done together. andand the south korean -- the south korean president will meet in pyongyang for a third summit discussing practical measures towards denuclearization. according to national security adviser who said a day after meeting kim, the summit to provide new talks over denuclearization between north korea and the united dates after the president canceled a visit by the secretary of state mike pompeo last month, citing a lack of progress. that is in reuters. turning to the wall street journal, mike pompeo in pakistan talking about relations there saying those guys just as besides didn't reach agreements -- two sides didn't reach an agreement but tom pao said there would be more discussions as he boarded a flight -- mike pompeo said there would be more
discussions as he boarded a flight. he said if we can build confidence and trust, that is the focus. --hington is long provided said pakistan provided st. george the afghan taliban and other groups. i believe the new york times. i think trump is putting it in people's heads that the media is lying and they are not. they would not print this without knowing the author and verifying it. and it scares me that congress will not do anything about it to protect america. host: why trust a piece with no author behind it or lease the name of an author behind it? caller: i think you have to know that this person is probably leaving and they are trying to protect this. they are warning us. the new york times has 100%
credibility, i don't know anything they have done that is .rong we are in trouble in america and people better get on that and realize we are in trouble. we have a crazy man in our white house. i am sad to say that, but we do. host: edward's next from new york, independent line. sayer: i just wanted to that i think it is quite cowardly for this person, anonymous person to go to the new york times and pen this article. if you really truly care about the american public, make yourself known, voice your opinion, i personally think it might've been paid up by the new york times because the new york times since day one has tried to bring down donald trump. thank you. c-span3, day two of
specific questions from senators on the judiciary committee for the president's nominee for the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. john cornyn of texas currently giving his thoughts. 20 minutes of questioning by the senators today and then another set of them for outsiders tomorrow. all of this available on our website at the span.org if you don't have the ability to catch it now. you can watch on c-span 2, on our radio app. a lot of ways to monitor the hearing in the content and questions asked. all of that is available to you. north carolina, dorothy is next. democrats line. i would like to say i don't believe half or most the people have even read the op-ed. the op-ed stated specific things in there that we all know is true. one of them about russia. said theyp-ed person
had to push to get those sanctions and finds out of their , they said they had to push him. trueow that has to be because trump never wanted to do anything against russia. we know, that op-ed i believe is true. a lot of people getting in here talking about everything else but that. i'm going to say this and make a suggestion. you will need a have a panel that has where our economy was when obama was in there, when he left and where he was when trump came in and where it has gone because when you had that graph on there, it showed a huge drop in unemployment when obama was in office. it showed about a little teeny bit of an inch where trump is. ,o if you put that together even the stock market, they weren't going down when trump came in and unemployment wasn't moved at all. host: we recently had a panel on this topic not too long ago. , will refer you to the website
you can look at the economy cross-dressing just contrasting. you can -- economy contrasting from administrations. this person writes take foreign and privatepublic president trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators such as putin and north korea's leader and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that like-mindedllies nations. a student observers noted though the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like russia are called out and punish accordingly. georgia is next where james is. democrats line. caller: i'm on the republican line. host: go ahead. caller: i'm a black man on the republican line that voted for president trump. , he used toas in always use the mantra, that's
just not who we are, which means he would always try to change office instead of running the country. he was trying to change us who we wanted to be. the new york times has picked up that same mantra. trying to tell us who we are and what is best for us. the problem that i'm having with all of this, people voted for president trump. do whaty need to do is obama said, stop whining and beat us in 2020. all these people calling in talking, they don't seem to just e we didn't want hillary, we didn't want another four years of obama. so we voted for this man. this man is doing a good job and they don't like it. so when you do stuff, you are going against the electorate host: that voted for this man. gotcha.
this is in the new york times this morning. on the hunt for illegal voters. u.s. subpoenas voter data in north carolina. writing the unfilled grand jury subpoenas were sent to state elections board in the 44 county election boards of eastern north carolina. it became widely known after mark elias, a voting rights a lawyer ally to the democratic party mentioned them on twitter. the major scope and investigation remain shrouded in mystery. of group appeared to be part sunday into crackdown on unauthorized voting by noncitizens. the subpoenas issued on friday found that 19 noncitizens in north carolina had been charged with casting legal votes in the 2016 election. those indictments arose from an investigation by newly created federal task force focused on document and benefits fraud in the eastern district of north carolina where 44 counties are.
tennessee, you are on our independent line. caller: i disagree with everything president trump is trying to do because he is not doing anything to benefit the country. he is working for the rich, not doing anything for the poor, he has given all the money to the opera rational lines, he is cutting my social security and medicare. host: before you go down the road, the op-ed, what do you think? caller: i think everything in there is true. host: did you read it? caller: yes i did. host: what parts of it do you find or at least which parts struck out to you? that he is completely destroying the united states of america. allies, we areur losing our medical, we are losing everything and nothing has worked for this country to keep it going. we need young blood, get them
crazy folks out of democrats and republicans and start some new blood. host: let's go to kentucky, republican line. i want to call and say i worked for the federal government for 15 years and you would be amazed at what kind of .s somebody will say in other words, don't expect this man or female, whoever it is that reported to the new york times, i don't believe anything they said. for one thing they don't say who they are. i really don't believe it. as for trump -- host: as far as the op-ed itself, none of the ring true to you in your opinion? caller: no. how they can exaggerate
things. i had my own problems. things would get so exaggerated. er telling thespap truth. i've had the occasions over the years to be privy to when i was at an event, a little airplane crash and it got reported wrong and my father was a firefighter on the scene when it began. i use that is the example of don't believe everything you read. if this person can say anything. i have seen it happen so much when i worked for the government. host: ok. websitey beast on their goes back to the inauguration of president trump, particularly the crowd size. this is the story posted on the website. u.s. government photographer edited the official pictures of
president trump's inauguration to look bigger followed by personal intervention by the president. the detail is revealed in the inspector general reports release of the guardian newspaper following a freedom of information request. the photographer said he edited them to make them more symmetrical by crossing of the sky, cropping out the bottom with the crowd ended, adding "he did so to show there was a morbid crowd." -- was more of a crowd." official quote had specifically -- not specifically asked him to crop the photo to show more of a crowd. that is on the daily beast. from richard in massachusetts, democrats line. caller: hello. as far as the op-ed page is concerned from the times which is probably one of the great newspapers on the planet, they
would never have printed this unless they had factual evidence regarding the person who wrote official high senior in the trump administration, which is close to him and i think they did a wonderful great service to all of us because we are on a spiral that is extremely dangerous. the president is out of control. host: but he did that under an anonymous, are you ok with that? caller: absolutely ok with that. eventually will all come out. this individual whether it's male or female will be revealed and i think it's amazing listening summing -- to some of the callers. all you have to do is look at this guy's track record since he took office and he can't tell the truth about anything. host: ok. that is richard in massachusetts. democrats line.