tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 14, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
ext week and whether the sanctions against russia are working. as always, we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: hillary clinton made it official yesterday. the former secretary of state asked you for your vote in 2016 before a crowd of 5000 on new york's roosevelt island. the former senator who represented the state for eight years without equality for all. welcome on the sunday, june 14 2015. republicans dial in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000.
independents, (202) 745-8002. you can also send us a tweet or find us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan, or send us an e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org. in first major speech, candidate thousand two spread prosperity. here is what hillary clinton had to say yesterday on income inequality. [video clip] mrs. clinton: you see
corporations making record profits with ceos making becker pay, but your paychecks have barely barged, -- barely budged. you see the top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of americas kindergarten teachers combined and often paying a lower tax rate. you have to wonder. when does my hard work pay off? when does my family get ahead? when? i say now. [cheering] prosperity can't be just for ceos and hedge fund managers. democracy can't be just for billionaires and corporations.
prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain too. you brought our country back, now it is our time, your time, to secure the gains and move ahead. you know what? america can't succeed unless you succeed. [applause] that is why i am running for president of the united states. [cheering] [applause] host: hillary clinton n yorks roosevelt island -- new york's roosevelt island yesterday. a crowd that amounted to about 5000 announcing that she is officially in the race. here is how the republican national committee responded to
her evidence on saturday. they called it a relaunch and said that her announcement speech was talk full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric, and ideas from the past that have led to a sluggish economy, leaving too many americans behind. next year, americans will reject the failed policies of the past and elect a republican president. we turn to your calls for your thoughts on this. we turn to make in tennessee. caller: thank you for the call. first of all, let's go back to a little history of the clintons. they said that character doesn't matter. when you elect bill clinton, you get two-for-one. now, we have a crime cabal with these people. the hypocrisy and hilarity is amazing. let's go back and think about this. there was waco.
there was benghazi. she is nothing but the wicked witch of waco, where innocent americans are slaughtered. she caused the unnecessary theft of our troops. and in benghazi, i call her the bloody -- host: all right. ivan in michigan. democrat. caller: good morning. in all reality, i do think that hillary clinton is our parties only chance to regain the presidency. obviously, some people in the party think that bernie sanders would be a benefit, but hillary clinton has the chance of turning some red states blue. we have seen that in early polls. i feel that our party should focus, unlike the republicans on keeping the primary as small as they can so that the party is
not all split up in different directions, and we don't lose votes to some green party or independent party candidates. host: why do think bernie sanders is a better fit, as you put it? caller: personally, i feel that bernie sanders has better policies. personally, i tend to leadan more to his socialist policies and views. i think that he is more honest as a candidate. i will vote for hillary, which i'm 99% that she will be our candidate in the national elections in 2016. host: do you feel energized by her? will you get out and campaign for her? will you donate money to her campaign? caller: absolutely. i am a recurring democratic party member and i donated to
the obama campaign. i will donate to the clinton campaign if she doesn't up winning the primary. i have done a lot of campaigning with the online phone bank, canvassing, rallies, etc. yes, i will absolutely support hillary. she is 100% better than having a republican in the oval office. host: let me ask you this. did you follow the trade debate and the house last week? trade promotion fast-track for the president. caller: somewhat. a little bit. i did not follow it to the extent that you did. host: are you opposed to these trade deals that the president is negotiating? caller: i feel that the president is trying to get more in the middle of the aisle, and reach out to republicans more. that is not a bad thing.
since they don't want to reach out to us and work with us, he is trying to work with them. he does not have another election to run, he could just focus on trying to continue to progress the country and make the country better and recover. i have no issue with our president reaching across the aisle, since they don't want to reach across to us. host: the reason i bring that up is because the liberal website "huffington post" -- this is their banner this morning. "mum on tradie." martin o'malley and bernie sanders have come out against trade promotion authority and the ending trade deals. they think that she should also be more clear on where she stands on the trade deals. she says that she wants to wait and see what the details are. carol in minneapolis. a democrat.
what did you think of her not the? do you plan to vote for her? caller: yes. i just love her. i found her to be the warmest, nicest person. the republicans spent $80 million throwing accusations at the clintons. all they proved was that monica linsky -- throwing everything but the kitchen sink at her. i hope she wins. host: lester, also a democrat in tuscaloosa, alabama. caller: how are you doing this point? host: good morning. caller: i'm listening to all these republicans calling in with nothing to talk about trying to bash this lady. we know, most of america knows
it is time to put a lady in the white house. mrs. clinton is the most experienced out of all the 20 republicans that we've got. i don't understand these republicans running around talking about the past. i can recall when mr. clinton was in the white house in the past, american prosperity was at an all-time high. since republicans have been in office, they have not done anything but spend money. i remember the bush's. where are they at? spending all her money in the gopher and the soldiers don't -- in the gulf war, and the soldiers don't have the equipment they need. but miss clinton in the white house, and we will see the prosperity that we need. host: what do you want to hear from her on the situation in iraq? caller: this mess in iraq is ridiculous. i wish that war was ended tomorrow.
host: do you want to hear her say that? if she is in office, she will remove all the military advisers that are there, the additional 450 that obama plans to send. caller: that is a catch-22. the war itself is a mess. i don't know how we will get out of it. i don't want to spend a lot of money, when we need to be spending this money in the united states. host: john in philadelphia, ever public -- a republican. what is your reaction to hillary clinton entering the race yesterday? caller: i am definitely for hillary. i was a democrat all my life. two years ago, i changed to republican to vote them out. the only thing i miss is that i can't get in the primary. i look at it like this. who ever has been on the ballot for the last time -- whoever is running against the new guy, i vote the new guy in to get the
old guy out. now, when it comes to election for president, i will have the opportunity to vote for hillary. that is where i'm going. republicans are lost. they don't what they're doing. they just keep throwing more trash at everything. benghazi. the normal america does not even know what benghazi is until they brought this up. this is terrorists that we are dealing with. we should get away from all these other countries that we have no interest in. i don't know what our interests are. i do. we want to stick our nose in everything. we should end all the stuff, save some money, and start working towards our country. all of this outsourcing has to go. all the stuff republicans want, got to go. host: have you heard from
helical that she will do what you are saying? caller: i would hope she would do what we all want her to do. stand up for americans finally. shut some doors. open some doors. these republicans, we have to get them out of the house in congress. they are blocking everything. host: i will move on to brad, a republican in michigan. good morning. what do you think, project bad -- brad? caller: the last thing we need is another democrat in office. our first black president is a disaster. now we want to put a woman in charge. she will be a star for the first couple of years, i will people out of the way, and she will mess things up. the liberalism is ridiculous. host: all right.
hillary clinton yesterday at her of a in new york talked about republican opposition. here is what she had to say. [video clip] mrs. clinton: there may be some new voices in the presidential republican choir. [laughter] but, they are all singing the same old song. a song called, "yesterday." [applause] you know the one. "all our troubles look as though they are here to stay, and we need a place to hide away." they believe in yesterday. you are lucky i did not try singing that. [laughter]
these republicans trip over themselves, promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations, without regard for how that will make income inequality even worse. we have heard this tune before. we know how it turns out. ask any of these candidates about climate change, one of the defining threats of our time and they will say, i am not a scientist. well, then why don't they start listening to those who are. [applause] [cheering] they pledge to wipe out tougher rules on wall street, rather than reining in the banks that are still too risky, in a case that can only be considered mass
amnesia. they want to take away health insurance from more than 16 million americans without any credible alternative. they shame and blame women rather than respect our right to make our own -- host: hillary clinton yesterday on new york's roosevelt island. she represented the state for eight years. talking to a crowd of 5000 and mentioning their, indirectly some of the new voices in the republican party including marco rubio from florida. he released a video after hillary clinton's event yesterday. here is what he had to say. [video clip] marco rubio: yesterday is over.
we are never going back. the americans are proud of our history, but our country has always been about the future. before us is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the history of america. we cannot do that without going back to the leaders of the past. we must change the decisions that we are making by changing the people who are making them. [applause] host: presidential campaign of
marco rubio putting out that video in reaction to what hillary clinton had to say in new york yesterday. "the nation," the liberal magazine has this on their website. this is from john nichols. he writes this. the speech on roosevelt island was short on populist statistics. -- specifics. she seemed to recognize this, actually telling the crowd at one point, in the coming weeks, i will propose specific. if this was the actual campaign announcement, that would be expected, but clinton announced two months ago. she has been criticized for refusing to take clear stance on
hot button economic issues. and for instance, if she is seeking a $15 an hour living wage, she needs to specify specifics. matt, what do you think? caller: in lieu of coming out on the specifics of policies, it would be a good thing for her to have a modern iteration of the economy is stupid, such as that it is the disparity that is stupid. host: what does that mean? do you agree with the nation that she needs to be more specific? caller: i don't think that people are interested in the nuts and bolts. in my opinion, it would help to use the past as a good
megaphone. it has worked before. the economy is stupid. so catchy. he had the longest period of economic expansion in history. if she can transfer that to inequality it will resonate, and she will get a lot of voters. host: you are an independent. are you leaning towards the right now? caller: i think it is a tossup. i think immigration or inequality are going to be -- it is an issue driven presidential system. last time it was health care. it is a tossup. i think inequality will appeal to most voters. she needs to encapsulate that in a meaningful way. host: let me ask you about the republican field. any contenders there that you are thinking you could vote for? caller: i think jeb bush is the only candidate in the race democrat or republican, who can
get immigration done. we need immigration. it is a tossup. i think the immigration thing long-term is absolutely essential. she could win if she could get the inequality argument boiled down, regardless of the ultimate policy connotations. host: tune into c-span3 tomorrow because we will have coverage of jeb bush's official announcement. he too will make official tomorrow in miami. that is at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. that is c-span 3, c-span radio and c-spann.org. from "the miami herald" this morning -- jeb bush, miami made. if you want to learn more about him and his can see. on the front page of "the new
york times" this morning is a lengthy piece about jeb bush's shaky start to the 2016 bit. he had a plan for the last six months as an unannounced president that he would raise tens of millions of dollars distinguish himself from his brother's controversial presidency, and establish himself as the republican to be for his party's nomination. this is how the other 2016 contenders reacted to
hillary's announcement on saturday. rand paul tweeted out, hillary clinton's attacks on liberty and the constitution maker unfit to serve as president. mike huckabee, former government of arkansas says, the american people deserve a president who speaks with them and works with them, hillary clinton is not it. rick perry says, americans want results, not rhetoric. joe and arizona. what do you think? caller: i tend to agree with what a lot of the republicans are saying about hillary. i like the bush's, but i think jeb bush really has an uphill climb, considering the past, when it comes to his brother. we have already had to push's -- bush's, maybe a third one is not
a good idea. i do agree that someone should emerge from the pack with positive experience. a governor especially. i think a governor, somebody who has had experience dealing with how governments run, and is capable. something like a judge hastings for instance, who has a terrific record. host: let me ask you, do you think john kasich could beat hillary clinton in a matchup? caller: i think it is very possible. i do not think hillary clinton is inevitable. i do not think her presidency is inevitable. i think once they get into the actual campaign, she has a lot of questions to answer. like one person said yesterday one of the candidate said yesterday, i have answered more
questions in two hours than she has in the last two months. i don't think -- i think the republicans are in a position to exploit a very bad record as secretary of state. i think she is going to lose the military vote completely because of her insistence on the bank of the incident that the whole thing was caused right a video. we know that she knew that was not the case. we know that she did not do what was necessary to provide security in our consulate in benghazi. we also know that she got up in front of america, along with the president of the united states and blamed it on a video. those kinds of things can come back to haunt her. i don't think her presidency is inevitable by any stretch of the imagination. host: let me show you the "washington post" headline from
friday. mitt romney gives a brutal powerpoint critique of obama's foreign-policy. republicans gathered in utah to court mitt romney. mitt romney presenting to the republican crowd as he said, mistake after mistake of president obama's presidency. next came the slides about hillary clinton. first, he showed about of the globe, colored in all the country she visited, then he mocked her. he said it she may mistake after mistake. dan and alabama. a democrat. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. what do you think of hillary clinton running for president? caller: i think it is a good thing.
republicans have no idea what is going gone. they're throwing innuendos after a new windows about this woman. they don't have anything good to say. they should put a politic in place, with their candidates they need something to say about the overall picture going on around the world, instead of rhetoric. if you have a plan, show a plan. i am supporting hillary with everything i've got. i will be campaigning for her. host: do you plan to continue to her campaign? caller: yes, i do. host: what have you heard from her politics wise that you like? caller: policy wise, she is talking the inequalities and doing everything that she has done all her life. she has shown that issue after issue, she has worked on those issues. i've following that. everyone can improve on what they are trying to do and what they want to do.
the republicans need to come up with issues not -- benghazi benghazi, she didn't try to do that. if any one of the 16 come up with something, they need to come up with something that will stick and is not about innuendos. host: "the new york times" their story about hillary clinton's announcement yesterday.
bernie sanders pointedly criticized hillary clinton for not taking position on the controversial trade bill. by the way, hillary clinton left new york yesterday, and went right away to iowa to campaign there. then, she will go on to new hampshire and some other early primary states. randy and wisconsin, a
republican. tell us your thoughts on this. what do you think? caller: i tell you. where did hillary get all those people vetted and paid to go to her rally yesterday. i do not think there were that many people behind her. greta, a question, can you name two or three things that hillary clinton has done as senator from new york or secretary of state? can you name anything that she has done? she has not done anything, other than run around and make money for her and her husband, and the deal that they've got -- the charity, or whatever. all they do is rip people off. is that what we want? i think we have had enough of the clintons. host: let me ask you. governor scott walker from your state is looking at running in 2016. do you like him? do you think he should run? caller: sure, i like him.
he would make a great president. host: what did he do in wisconsin that you like? caller: my taxes have gone way down. he has put the tax money for the school system's back in the counties that you are from instead of my taxes from a small town going to the general fund that goes to is an and milwaukee . it is staying more in our area now when before, it went all over the state. we support our own schools in our area, and the same way in milwaukee, madison, and the bigger school districts. that is only fair. host: what you think about what he did with unions in your state? caller: being a union member, it is good and bad. unions have to get out of politics. unions are for the people. we have to have them. they are for health and safety.
paying your dues and putting them into a political view of somebody you don't agree with is not right. that is what it is. i think it is time that unions either wake up or there will be no unions. that would be sad. host: you are a union member? caller: yes. host: what union? caller: uaw. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i worked at the auto industry. host: what were your wages like? do you think the union helps you get a better wage? caller: yes. they negotiated the wage. they got as health benefits. they did a lot of good things, the unions did but they are getting into the political scene, and i don't think that is right. they should take care of us, the rank-and-file, more. host: that was randy in wisconsin, republican, and union
you know, i would vote for her but my first choice is bernie sanders. he has a track record of working for the poor and middle class. everything he says is the truth. i don't know if i can trust hillary clinton, but i definitely would vote her in before i voted in a republican. you look at the last republican we had, and they are warlocks. being a vietnam veteran, we don't need no more wars. people are sick of it. host: let me ask you about the trust issue. why don't you trust -- you said you are not sure if you trust
her, why not? caller: she doesn't have the track record that bernie does. i think she will do a lot better for the people overall if she is elected, if they don't pick bernie. senator sanders has been doing this for a long time. being mayor, that is where he really took root. he does not have to spend a lot of money. people will understand who he is. he is a person that you can trust as president. i really hope that he can overcome hillary's money, but i don't know. host: we will go to another mark
in south carolina, a republican. you are on their. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think hillary is an excellent choice for the democrats. when you have a liberal voting block, we have to give them something easy to vote for. we have to give them something easy to pick. now, they just have to pick the woman. that makes it so much easier for them. this whole thing -- it is the giveaway crowd. next, it will be a mexican. that will be easy for them to pick. host: we will move on to david in massachusetts. good morning to you. caller: i would go for hillary
for president. if you look at it, when bill clinton was in office, who actually ran the white house? it was hillary. everything that was put on the table, hillary was there to back them up -- back him up and do it. that is why there should be a woman president, instead of somebody who doesn't know what they're doing. host: barry and pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania. good morning. you're on the air. caller: good morning. gretchen, i want to remind everyone, if you go on youtube and watch the old fdr speeches he has one where he says, "i believe -- " her speech sounds so similar to
that, it is scary. host: she was hoping to, on rose island and the four freedoms far, that is what she was trying to -- the imagery she was trying to reflect is fdr's movement. caller: right. i think it is a shame that people judge her for being a woman, and barack for being black. i think barack was an excellent president, he just couldn't get things done. i don't think you should a build the banks out. hillary, if people look back, she wanted the single-payer health coverage. everybody shut her down. now nobody likes obamacare. that is one good thing. my problem with hillary is that she is wall street. bernie sanders is main street.
i did not so for bill the second time. i floated in -- i voted for ross perot because there went for nafta. i disagreed with that, and look what happened. brady understands that i wages have been stagnant for three decades since the reagan era. hillary does not understand that, and that is my problem with her. host: here is "politico" -- five takeaways from the clinton relaunch rally. one big one, this is hillary being hillary. it writes, the democratic party is moving to the left fast, and she know she has to go with it. she doesn't really mind that obama's third term talk at all -- at herafter all.
she touted the president as a fighter, like her. nobody expected her to talk about e-mails are the foundation, but she hardly even mentioned being secretary of state. and the fact that she is 57 years old, deal with it. she would be 69 when she takes over the presidency in 2000 17. the most popular lines were about social issues, lgbt marriage issues and women's rights. wade, you are on. caller: i just want a to say that we don't need any more bush's or clinton's. we need bernie sanders. host: let's hear a little bit
more from hilly good and yesterday in new york. here is the former secretary of state talking about not being a quitter. [video clip] mrs. clinton: i am looking for a great debate amongst republicans, democrats, and independents. i'm not running to be present for those americans who already agree with me. i want to be present for all americans. along the way, i will let you in on the secret. i will not get everything right. lord knows, i have made my share of mistakes. it is no shortage of people pointing them out. and i certainly have not won every battle i have fought, but leadership means perseverance and hard choices. you have to push through the setbacks and disappointments and keep at it. i think you know by now that i have been called many things by many people.
quitter is not one of them. [cheering] like so much else in my life, i got this for my mother. when i was a girl, she never let me back down from any bully or barrier. in her later years mom lived with us, and she was still teaching me the same lessons. i would come home from a hard day at the senate or state department, sit down with her at the small table in our breakfast nook, and let everything for out. she would remind me why we keep fighting even when the opposition is fears. i can still hear her saying, life is not what happens to you it is about what you do with what happens to you. get that out there. [applause] host: hillary clinton in new york yesterday, launching
officially her bid for the white house. we'll take a couple more calls and your thoughts on this. i do want to show you some more headlines from the papers this morning. u.s. poised to put heavy machinery in eastern europe. it is a message to russia. we will talk about this later on the show, what do the data always think about the aggression they are seeing from resident gluten -- president putin. and, from "washington post" -- pentagon wary of putting u.s. advisors on iraqi frontlines. the pentagon consistently has been say to the president that there are not a lot of good options, and they don't think that putting more on the ground there is worth american blood. that is from the pentagon. "washington post" editorial this morning -- misplaced priorities.
they believe that president obama should be focused on disjoined islamic state, not limiting u.s. engagement. another one from "the washington post." the obama administration has moved six yemeni detainees from guantanamo bay to oman. that is in the papers this morning as well. danny and south carolina republican. good morning to you. what did you think of what hillary clinton had to say yesterday and the republican field so far? caller: the only thing that i heard basically that she had to say is that she will support gay marriage, and will give out more handouts. i am trying to figure out why so many democratic voters support buyers -- liars and people who
be around the truth and say prove it. you have to prove it sometimes. sometimes cooks get away with doing things wrong -- sometimes crooks get away with doing things wrong. as republicans, we kind of know how to say sorry, forgive me i've made a mistake. i have not heard a democrat in eight years say i'm sorry. host: we will move on to al rtie in new york. good morning. caller: hey greta, these terms that republicans and conservatives throw out as liberals -- we are progressive. we are not in denial of evolution.
bernie sanders, hillary clinton, either one would be fine with me. let me tell you something. the republicans have a star also, i believe it is rand paul host:. host:host: the will take a quick break with two reporters following the candidates coming up. first, the house oversight and government reform chairman jason chasffetz is our guest on "newsmakers" this morning. take a look at what he told us. [video clip] rep. chaffetz: it is clear, we should have seen this before. there are nefarious actors across the world, trying to infiltrate our i.t. infrastructure. there have been multiple reports out there warning, telling them
that they have to be sure that these things are encrypted. they did not do that. there are literally millions and millions of records with highly sensitive information that is out there. on tuesday, we will have a hearing. right now, the office of personnel management is being very resistant to attending. i'm prepared to issue a subpoena, if need be, to get them there. i think public employees need to hear about this. it may be the single biggest breach of data that our government has had. >> what is the early information that you are getting. obviously, there is a lack of security but did they not follow i.t. recommendations? are the hackers using things that we were not aware of? rep. chaffetz: there are obviously very sophisticated. there are basic things, basic cleanliness things, that were not implemented.
government watchdog groups came in and looked at this, and we do hope to hear from them. they issued the warning, and multiple times, and i don't think our government took it seriously enough. the worry is that somewhere between four months and a year, these hackers were in their surfing, being able to extract information, the most sensitive information that we have about personnel records, social security numbers, we are worried about health records. i didn't know who has security clearances, and to what degree. you can understand, if it is someone like china, they have a very vested interest in understanding who the target should be. host: you can watch the entire "newsmakers" program today at 10:00.
now, we're joined by two political followers. we will start with josh kraushaar, editor with "national journal," here in the studio with us. in new york, celeste katz with "new york daily news." i will begin with you. you brought the event yesterday. what was it like? guest: it was very sunny and hot. certainly, there was an enthusiasm. they were trying to of oak a lot of symbolism by holding the event at the four freedoms park , named after fdr. and, getting people excited about the launch. they came out with a campaign video about two months ago. this was the ramp-up. they were trying to give the people the official balloons and streamers kind of presentation there. also for secretary clinton to
lay out her rationale for why she thinks she should be the president. host: do you talk to any the people there? what did they tell you? what was the reaction to what she had to say? guest: a lot of people were impressed, but some people i spoke to said they felt pleased that she had not rushed. obviously, she has a democratic primary to go through. they were interested in the things she had to say about lgbt issues, and so on. marriage issues. equal pay for women. immigration, that was an important one to people that we spoke to. a lot of people liked the message that they heard. of course, is a will go out to roosevelt island, stand in the sun, and wait for hours to see her, they would generally be the people who would be impressed with what she has to say. host: and a crowd of nearly 5000 motivated to do so.
josh kraushaar, what does this mean for hillary clinton go guest: -- what does this mean for hillary clinton? guest: this was a relaunch. it was a very popular speech. it was one in which shee portrayed herself as a fighter. talking about how she would fi ght for the economy. it was a very liberal speech one that was playing a lot more to hurt base, and not the middle . she was definitely playing to her base, trying to win over some of the liberal bernie sanders competitors. she certainly believes that going to the base, the more active part of the party, is the path to the presidency. host: what does this mean for her relationship with the media? she has been on a listening tour
. a lot of criticism that she has not answered many questions from the media. guest: she will have another chance to do so. we will see how her strategy dealing with the media, or even questions from voters, will change at all. i thought she did a good job articulating her can see, but she needs to start taking questions from the press. there were a lot of issues that she did not touch, including the trade deal. also, foreign policy. she barely talks about her record as secretary of state hardly addressed at all. host: celeste katz, she talks about, as josh said very populist things. income inequality, trying to reach out to the republican base there. what was the reaction from those who feel that they represent the
liberal base more than she does? the bernie sanders, martin o'malley, and etc., but also bill de blasio, the new york mayor. guest: he has tried to put himself out there as a thought leader on the liberal side of the spectrum. he has really held out on hillary clinton a while, saying that he wanted to push her on these issues of an income inequality raise. she certainly has a lot of marquee support already. she and the mayor have a professional relationship going back a while, to win he managed her campaign for u.s. senate back in 2000. there is some history there. i think that one of the things that she tried to do, to play to
be liberal base, you will get some people who say she does not go far enough. at the same time, she has to think long-term. there is life after the primary. she was trying to lay out a series of planks in her platform that we be appealing to not only her base, but average americans who might be on the fence who may be not given the earliest not yet on who they will vote for for president. host: was new york city mayor bill de blasio there? was he at the event? guest: no, he did not attend the event. this is part of -- he has been very supportive of her on other issues. he says that he appreciates what she's has to say on criminal justice reform and massacres rich in. he says that she has some great ideas on that.
maybe on some other hot button issues. on the signature issue of his what he calls income inequality, he has really been a hold out. you're left to wonder, or the viewers are left to wonder, is that because he is really concerned that she has not detailed what she will do about it? or, is it because he gets a little extra time in the spotlight, being the guy who holds out for hillary clinton. host: let's get the viewers involved. ceilings in north carolina, you are on the air. caller: good morning. how are you on this beautiful morning? host: good morning. caller: please allow me a little bit of time. i have two quick issues that deals with this. the first one is the legend scandal against the clintons. a scandal is defined as shameful acts that brings up race --
brings disgrace. which alleged scandal has been proven against ms. hillary? the second question is that it has been widely publicized in the polls that hillary is seen as untrustworthy and dishonest because of the alleged scandals. my question is -- has this been asked of the republicans? last of all, for all those who serve and protect this great country of ours, because i met fort bragg, north carolina -- to you and your families, godspeed. guest: there are a lot of controversies swirling out there. reporting on the clinton e-mail server, what happened on the night of the benghazi attacks and a whole slew of others. taken together, they have certainly heard clinton's trustworthiness. one of the reason that they had
is relaunch was that her favorability numbers have gone under number. host: -- got underwater. it is strictly connected to the swirl of controversies out there. she will have to have a more compelling answer. we have the select committee that will be investigating benghazi. i think how politically potent these questions will be is how much they cover. if there is a smoking gun or an e-mail that questions what she said in the past, certainly that will be a big political hit. if there's nothing there with much significance, i think she can weather the political storm. guest: she is certainly in a very strong position now. i think the issue of whether she is speaking to the press, or addressing some of these questions about her track record goes back to what everyone calls the classic rose garden strategy. why look for trouble if you
don't have to. as josh said, she has been experiencing some wobbles and her poll numbers. that is an issue. i think when she goes out on the trail -- she is in iowa today and in new hampshire tomorrow -- and gets on the ground with people, that will be one way for her to connect and show, yes, i am trustworthy and interested in listening to your concerns, as opposed to just getting to the white house. at the same time, the questions that the average voter might have might be different from the questions that we ask as the press. it will be a very different scenario when she finally stands up and takes all questions. host: here is some reaction on twitter. one viewer says that she is not perfect, but hillary 2016 will be better than any republican as
potus. also, robert says, she bashed the top 1%, the clintons are the top 1%. and, suki says, really hard to have an opinion, if you are a rational did not address trade in her speech yesterday and that is the banner on the front page of the liberal huffington post website. we will go to brett in las vegas, and independent. good morning, brett. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is interesting you just read those twitters. that was on my mind that i expected her to appear as she did, very polished, staying out of trouble, the usual. but to have such -- her silence on this trade issue is deafening
and i was deeply disappointed in that. if any journalists there would like to comment on that, that would be great. my opinion was i was very disappointed she did not address that. guest: a lot of people are disappointed she has not. i think it goes back to what we talked about before. she is not an elected official at this point who is accountable. she just became a declared candidate a couple of months ago and is not in the same position as someone who is currently in office and has to take those questions. now that she has officially done a relaunch and it's really encouraging people to get involved in her candidacy, she will have to take that question and every day she waits, it will be more difficult for her to justify why she is holding back.
host: josh kraushaar when the obama administration began negotiating the transpacific partnership trade deal, she called it the gold standard. guest: the fact she does not have a position is downright laughable. she has been on his -- on record as a supporter of free trade and the fact that she is not saying any think about it is almost going to great lengths to avoid commenting on it. that is how divisive the issue is in the democratic party. it is not a new issue. the fact that she is not out there and she has been avoiding the press and not talking about the issue dividing her own party, she may not have a tough fight with bernie sanders and martin o'malley and others in the primary, but a lot of issues are dividing the party. guest: the more she does not talk about it, does that hurt her in the polls when it comes to trust and her favorite abilities? guest: it underscores how
divided liberals have become. in the long haul, polls show the support of the free trade agreement among the american public is a winning general election issue. the fact she is worried about her left plank is a worrisome sign for hillary clinton. host: roger in ohio. democrat. caller: get on tv or c-span or whatever and start talking about, you know, she doesn't get this, she hasn't said that, come on, let's be real now. the whole article benghazi something else, publicly cut the funding. come on.
let's be troops for. all you people do is get on tv and lie. host: what is the lie? be more specific. caller: benghazi. you kept that going for 10 months, two years, about what? nothing. all that money got wasted. people need jobs, instead of pouring about benghazi. we lost some people, that was a shame. host: let me remind roger and our viewers who our guests are. heather conley and josh kraushaar. i think roger was referring to put -- to republicans. new york, good morning. caller: i agree with your guests'view of hillary that her lack of trust is due to her lack
of transparency. why won't she turned over her server if she has nothing to hide? there is not a shred of evidence . also i would like to know why the clinton foundation does not reveal how much actually goes to charity and how much goes to administration. all of these things and her lack of answering any questions in detail, i feel disqualifies her to be candidate for president. host: when she starts facing reporters more often on the campaign trail, these are questions reporters will ask. do we know what their strategy is? the clinton camp for managing questions from the media? guest: i do not think it will
necessarily be a free-for-all. there are some events we cover where you can just walk up to the candidate and basically ask any question you want. some candidates are seeking out coverage more than others. in some of these cases, you will get a sort of calibrated approach to the media. you may not get her standing and answering questions from anybody who shows up, which, you know, is not only possibly perilous for her in terms of what we might ask, but then you could get protesters and weirdos and opposition people getting in on that. they will probably do a series of sitdown spare they have to pay attention to local press in iowa. they have to make sure they get access. we help -- we hope we in new york will get action as well.
there may be an advisor who says we may -- we do not need to talk about that today p need to talk about jobs or women's issues or immigration. host: josh kraushaar, what are your thoughts? guest: i do not want to get questions that might involve a gaffe and get broadcast. on the other hand, trying to protect her from the press has hurt her overall image. it is a catch-22 for them. it makes sense we are over a year before the general election to this at the time, if you're going to make a mistake in the rusty, this is the time to get out there. if she shows from the beginning she is more acceptable than she has been in the past, it will hurt her later on when the heat is on and a lot more is at stake paired i do not think it did her any good politically, this notion that she was hiding from reporters and voters. i think she will be a little more open but do not expect a free-for-all. host: illinois, susan, a
democrat there. caller: i think she is trustworthy. i trust her. i like that she is folksy and older. i prefer an older president. it is ok that she is a socialist. i do not agree with one of your last colors. they brought up benghazi. if i hear anymore about benghazi i think i will explode. that was a fake story they made up anyway. that guy should not call the president a bully. it looks really bad if you live in america. i believe this medical marijuana helps some people, i think hillary should, you know, you might as well just let people do it because people are doing it anyway. oh riley wrong. you cannot get addicted to it if you give your child marijuana, i think that is great. host: a lot of issues there.
with -- let's begin with trust issues. she says she trusts her and she likes that she is older. guest: and i think the experience part of the equation is the one the clinton folks are betting on the most, especially if republicans nominate someone like scott walker marco rubio. rubio has been playing up that clinton is a candidate of yesterday. clinton turned that around a little bit and talked about how experience matters and talked about her long history. she did not run away from hers -- her path. -- past. she is not afraid of running on her past and her record. she is more than willing to have her experience against a younger challenger. host: utah, independent. caller: thank you. please to to be on c-span. talking about hillary clinton i
am disappointed over the years the media handling the clintons in general. people can have their opinions about the clinton white house and rightfully so. i certainly did not like a few things that happened there. i think the media overall, and i have been agreeing with katz much more than the gentleman. it seems like what got to someone is immensely high with the media and if they do not get a story instead of not going with the story i think the overall ratings of hillary clinton going down relate directly to the media criticizing her for not feeding them, literally. hand feeding them so they can get their stories. host: let's take that.
guest: i think it is a real issue and certainly there have been a lot of media on media types of stories, about access and what it means for how she will approach this campaign compared to the last one. but at some point, we have to have access to the candidate and i do not just mean hillary clinton. i mean all of the candidates. there are questions that need to be asked and need to be asked again, with follow-ups and press. this is on behalf of people who have to make a decision. not every voter in america can walk up to hillary renton or marco rubio and say, i would personally like to know what you think about issue x, y, and z. you get out there and make your own decision spared if we do not have that access, if it is possible -- constantly going through surrogates, it is very hard for us to explain to people where the candidate really
stands so the candidate can hopefully make good decisions based on solid information. host: more twitter reaction. -- host: i want to take that last tweet. susan also said if i hear anything more about benghazi. did it backfire for republicans or do the hits continue to help them and heard hillary clinton? guest: it certainly could backfire. investigations helped the clinton family to a significant degree. what makes this different is the fact that the e-mails have
raised suspicions about whether she is being fully truthful and her comments about benghazi. the fact that benghazi was losing its potency, it has raised a lot of skepticism, a lot of independent-minded people have questions about why she did not have her e-mail and has a separate homebrew server. that has cost her political trouble. host: patrick, a republican. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. good morning. thank god for c-span. host: you have got to turn down that tv and talk through your phone. olivia in birmingham, alabama, a democrat. caller: good morning.
as a black woman, i am so sick and tired of people calling in and saying obama got elected because of his race. that we voted for color. i'm finished with that part. as far as hillary is concerned i think she did a great job yesterday. she made a very good point all the republicans talk about -- dogging the president. mitt romney a straight loser. get over it. barack obama has been for two second terms. get over it.
let me say this about the media. you are just glossing over it. [indiscernible] you all need to do your job. host: let's talking about the republican field. tomorrow, the latest republican will jump in. jeb bush will be announcing his road to the white house bid in miami 3:00 p.m. easter time. we will have coverage on c-span3. let's preview the republican field and the jeb bush announcement yesterday. what kind of campaign will he run and does he tailor it against hillary clinton? host:guest: i think all the republicans have largely focused on hillary clinton as public enemy number one. the summit in new hampshire, that is what -- she is the person everybody is talking about. they may take a few dates at people here and there, but i
think people like jeb bush will have to lay out his rationale for his candidacy and his platform. he will have to differentiate himself from his father and his brother without putting them under the bus. they are his family and he has not disavowed them in any way. but he has to be his own man and explain why he is the right guy to get out there and beat hillary clinton. obviously, to wind up that thought, a lot of people are out there saying, the last thing this country needs is another bush versus another clinton. both of them will have to face this challenge of explaining why they bring something new and needed to the arena. guest: a very important announcement for bush of than clinton's was over the weekend and most of the republican presidential candidates announced. jeb bush has had a tough couple of months since he decided to
announce his exploratory committee. his polling has slipped and he has not given a clear justification for his candidacy. marco rubio and scott walker have gotten momentum as they look to provide sharper and more direct contrast with hillary clinton. jeb bush will really have to make a justification for what he is running on, what are the policy ideas. something to expect from his speech monday. i think he needs to show a little more charisma. he is always better in a one-on-one setting or with an intellectual group of people. he has done that effectively but he has not had that connection, he has never been a terrific campaigner. this is a real test to show he could get that energy and excitement back. host: when he announces
tomorrow, what changes for his campaign? guest: most important way, he cannot coordinate with his super pac. the amount of money you will be able to raise, a lot of it has been through the super pac that has the ability to raise unlimited amount of donations from supporters. once his campaign begins, his campaign cannot coordinate with the super pac. mike murphy will be the head of the super pac and it will be an ahead -- a separate sphere. the super pac will play a big role getting his message out there. mike murphy is close with jeb bush but ultimately, that will hamper activities taking place at this point. host: what are the money totals right now? how much will he announced he has versus hillary clinton? guest: when you add up all the committees you will likely get close to an hundred million dollars. a sizable sum of money, more than hillary clinton at this point in the game.
there have been reports that the fundraiser has not come quite as well as their high expectations previously. the $100 million figure may not solely be within the super pac itself but if you add up the campaign and other associated committees, it is likely he will get close to the $100 million mark. host: you were talking earlier about jeb bush, he has these challenges distancing himself. he has stumbled a little bit on the campaign trail so far. he has not been officially announced candidate here than there is news of him shaking up his campaign at this early start of his bid. guest: there have been a couple there. they had some people that did not work out with the campaign the guy doing the social media for them comes to mind. arguably, it is better if you
were retold something, to do it early on rather than switch horses in the middle of the campaign so people like me and josh jump all over you and say you know, this campaign has lost its bearings, and so on, and they do not know what they are doing. but he will have to explain how he has the experience, why he is different than the other candidates. a lot of people think jeb bush is to moderate to be a good republican president. they have issues with his positions on immigration and common core education standards. he goes around the country and talk to voters and people seem to really get stuck on those issues. i will be a big hurdle for him to overcome just to get past that part of the argument so he can sell people on his ideas about jobs or about foreign policy and security. host: on twitter --
host: al in new york independent peer you are on the air. caller: you guys sure are long-winded. a couple of quick issues. one is the trust factor. they are politicians. it takes eternal vigilance to trust them. number two i know hillary sucks a lot of window -- out of the room when she walks in. i have nothing against her. i will vote for her, but i want to hear how she will reign in fact that it will cost us $2 billion to elect a president. we should be embarrassed about that. put it back, public funding for these elections. second of all, i just recently
retired. i am 65 plus-year-old. a white male. i do not see any people around here that represent me. my segment of the vote. she is pigeonholing the game lesbian thing, the women thing which is fine. i am open-minded enough american to say, hey, you know, everybody deserves an equal chance. but, i want me to be represented there, too. host: white male vote. guest: no matter who the republicans nominate, it will always gender gap, but you look at early polls, hillary clinton pulls very favorably with women, white included. it is going to be an election where she will play to her base. it is clear she is playing to her coalition. some people think it is
polarizing and some people think it is a good strategy. it is clear she will try to get hispanics and asian-americans in her corner to the same levels obama was able to do in 2012. do not expect that to change. the message yesterday is likely going to continue. host: a lot of newspapers saying she is playing up her gender. unlike 2008. now she is talking about her gender and talking a lot about women's issues. guest: she is going past even just talking about her gender. she talked about her age and says she may not be the youngest candidate in the race but she will be the first female president if she wins. she is talking about dying her hair. she is talking about the mistakes she made in the past. it all fits into this paradigm of her being out there and saying i am ready for my
coronation. they're really trying to avoid that. it is a more intimate approach, a more humble approach. she is talking about her family and her mom and what her mom that there is owned to. -- her own view. it is to make her seem less strident, a word sometimes people use with female politicians, fairly or not. she cannot look to soft. she cannot get too far away from the president without undermining part of her own track record. it is a real tight rope back for her. host: a republican, you're next. caller: good morning, c-span peer if all those out here who think benghazi is a witch hunt, let me remind you september 14, 2012.
hillary looked -- dead in the eye while she was standing beside her son's often, and told her not that she was going to get the terrorists who killed her son, but she was -- after american citizen in those countries, exercising his first amendment rights. we see this from the left, they are trying to silence people in this country. john kerry started this the day after. scott walker's recall election. and the geller -- host: josh kraushaar talk about the benghazi investigation. guest: it is going to be a big political theater. the exact timeline, that is why these e-mails are of such
significance. if she says something at the funeral that is against what she knew the time, that is what republicans are trying to dig into. there is no evidence of that at this moment, but there is also a lot of smoke. that is why republicans are really gung ho about the investigation. like i have been saying, the ultimate political task will be whether any e-mail comes outcome whether there is any hard evidence that portrays clinton as not being fully truthful. we have not seen it at this point. host: arizona, republican, hi there. caller: a lot of this whole discussion is a bunch of nonsense. no one will get within 100 yards of hillary if they want to ask a tough question, including you. this trade agreement is nonsense. you have not read it or you have no idea what it says. they will not let anyone near it.
this is like obamacare. you have to vote for it so you can find that what is in it. they have proven time and time again you cannot get -- let them get away with stuff like that. guest: a lot of members of congress do not read every word of every legislation. that was used against president obama's health care law. the caller talks with a lot of liberal democrats and conservative republicans are talking about. they do not trust members of congress and i do not trust administration and there is a lot of anxiety and skepticism out there and that feeds a lot of this polarization and gridlock they get in capitol hill. host: for viewers who brought up benghazi on twitter and your calls and those of you interested in finding more out about the investigation newsmakers will add -- will air in about an hour and a half. we talked to jason, the
oversight committee chair, a republican in utah, and he talked on the benghazi investigation in that interview. henry in michigan, a democrat. caller: first of all, greta, i would like to bring up a point one interview you did last week with cory gardner. corey was excoriating the president on not having a strategy in the middle east. as the conversation went on, you asked him, what would be your strategy? corey said, i would get a coalition of other countries to go in from saudi arabia and turkey, and he gave the same strategy the president is using right now and you did not say wait a minute, isn't that the
president's's strategy right now that they are implying? you did not do that. i want to piggyback off a fairly -- fellow democrat caller who is talking about the whites is -- white supremacist terrorist that called in from south carolina. i tell you, he was talking about why democrats are so focused on voting for people who are for minorities and women in these different sects. it is easy to vote for people like that. i would not vote for people who are misogynistic, homophobic, i do not want to be associated with it like that. i do not believe republicans represent the future of america a diverse population. i'm not happy as a democrat that
hillary clinton is steamrolling her way. i would like to see joe biden peer it we should not be having a primary and i think the democrats have never really supported our president and been on his team the way they should we should be extolling the virtues of what the obama administration has done. they did not do it in the midterms and that is why we lost the midterms. they never supported the president even on our side and that joe biden would be the perfect candidate, democrats are make a big mistake, i think. we should make joe biden our candidate, stamp of approval, and go ahead and take the country where we need to go. host: all right, henry. celeste katz, what do you think of what you heard there? the vice president? guest: there is a biden movement , whether or not he will get into the race, i mean, it is not
on the immediate horizon, i would say. to the point of what the color was just talking about, there definitely is a segment of the electorate out there that is not happy with the choices they have, whether on the democratic side or on the republican side. a lot of people, i think, just feel frustrated that the people they have to choose from are not really speaking for them and there is a hope maybe at the last minute someone will jump in and present new ideas that really resonate with them. but that is something hillary clinton will have to win people over on the left base of the party without alienating independents and moderates that she will need to win the general election. host: stewart, an independent. you are on the airport we lost him. move on to richard, good morning care where you calling from?
caller: i am calling from a angle in north wales. how are you doing today? host: good, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you, indeed. two points i would like to ask you relating to hillary clinton and candidacy for the president. from an international perspective, i would like to know more her position on the middle east peace process especially because of the fact there has been no -- her daughter chelsea, is actually married to one of those directly involved in the middle east peace process. whether or not there will be any assurances the table talk will not influence her position in the oval office. host: we will bring that up. it is hillary talking enough
about her efforts in the middle east peace process what she was secretary of state? what is she saying? about the iraq situation as well, as a caller brought up. guest: it is notable had little she is talking about national security and the speech. foreign policy and national security is the republican top issue and democrats, it is a secondary issue. that will define the campaign. i do not think the peace process is on the top of the republican with an obama has taken it on to the back earner. but the notion the republicans are just worried about the growth of isis and the collapse of libya iraq, and syria, and hillary did not mention that at all in her 45 minute speech shows a disconnect between the parties. we'll do not often see foreign policy presidential elections but it could be one of those based on the polling. the clinton administration has said they think this is a secondary issue for their voters. national security is certainly a vulnerability of hers.
host: let's talk about the republican field as well and the strategy overall in the campaign. i have a straw poll that has been canceled. where are republicans going and campaigning right now? what sort of strategy, it used to be put your efforts into iowa first in the new hampshire. guest: right. that was the traditional, go to iowa, that would be the momentum and give you an early sense of popularity and strength with the republican base, then you move on to new hampshire, then you move south to florida. pete in south carolina, people spending time in nevada now. but i think the game is changing a little bit. the fact that the straw poll has been dismantled for lack of interest suggests that people do not want what they consider to be a false test.
it may be a commentary or a calculation about iowa's role in setting benchmarks and primary politics. that may be a consideration. or maybe it is, you know, a bigger picture issue about whether you could go into depend on success in big states like new york, florida, and california, and not worry as much about iowa and new hampshire. always a gamble but some people are looking at that. host: josh kraushaar, are all the candidates doing that strategy, or what do you think? guest: the interesting thing we learned from 2012 is the debates have a bit -- a huge impact internationally. there are fewer opportunities and more candidates for those opportunities that make an impact on the debates. early states are still of critical importance and i think jeb bush, rubio, walker, does not win iowa on hampshire or
south carolina and does not too well at least in one of those three early states, it will be problematic for those campaigns. jeb bush has high expectations. new hampshire is a place where he will put a lot of chips on the table. it is hard for rubio to going to florida, going head to head with jeb bush in the crucial primary in march. and walker, iowa is his base right now. if he does not finish in first i think that could hurt campaign and other states going forward. host: what are you seeing from another potential contender chris christie, the governor of new jersey. guest: he is focusing on new hampshire as the state that could provide his political comeback. he offers echoes of john mccain in 2008. his own version of straight talk express, where it fits his personality and style. a more conservative tone when it
comes to entitlement reform national security policy, and educational reform. the problem with him is, bridgegate is still not over. the bridge lanes. that will be dogging him and it will probably be in the news going into the 2016 presidential election. with a field so deep with a lot of alternative to someone like yours christy, it is hard to get over the back is that scandal provides. host: is he looking at it and seriously considering a bid? will he run? guest: he is seriously looking at a bid. helping his presidential aspirations, a surefire sign he is getting closer to an announcement. host: democrat, max, you're on the air. caller: i hear all these people talking about this and i am a world war ii veteran.
the only one i find that i like it all right now is bernie sanders. the main thing i never hear clinton talk about and one thing i was completely against bill clinton over is signing that free trade. i will never get over him signing the free trade. i believed hillary might do the same thing. i will never vote for her. i love everything bernie sanders says. maybe i'm getting too old or something. i am almost 90. host: ok. the challenge of bernie sanders to hillary clinton? guest: there is a lot of stuff going on in terms of pressure on hillary clinton, pushing her further to the left. elizabeth warren, bill de blasio, bernie sanders however
he is describing himself, that really want to say she cannot forget these liberal policies who have gotten her where she is today. politically. people have given her money or held signs that her campaign. people working on raising the minimum wage and things like that they want her to remember where she came from. the general movement in the campaign will be a little more toward the center in the -- in the general election. people do not want that to come too soon. people want to hear from each candidate for or five times to make sure they are not changing the story and that they are actually committed to doing the things they promised to do in the primary even when they get
to the general. host: good morning, republican. caller: i have a couple of comments. first of all, i need -- i do not trust anything hillary says. she is insincere and full of empty promises, just like obama was. if she really had nothing to hide, why didn't she turn over the server? second of all, everyone saying benghazi was fake, apparently they did not see the interview from this ei on the tv tw to go. born three months before the attack happened, all the way up to a week before the attack. people really need to do their homework and need to make sure they're up-to-date on what is really going on. that is to much my comment. host: we will move on to mike in
illinois, an independent. caller: after watching her on tv yesterday, her one-liners with her hair color, stuff people do not really care about. i also noticed she reads everything. i'm wondering if she had a health problem after her accident, but she reads everything. if c-span past votes for each of the candidates and the same 12 questions and write down the -- right down the answers, it would be a great help for listeners. host: those details are yet known. none of these candidates have laid out specifically what they will do. guest: and you would not expect.
you usually would not get the nitty-gritty details. a lot of supporters have been asking for that. this was mentioned earlier but it was striking how different this launch was compared to 2008. people were trying to put her as a tougher and more centrist candidate and they did not want to play up that she will be the first woman president. they are playing that up now. the 2000 a campaign with many obama advisers that have joined the campaign in 2016. host: talk: a more about who is behind the bid in 2016. guest: you do not have quite the same crew as you did last time. you know, people walking around, people who are familiar, but you
have people who will allow, it is not a softness, but a more accessible candidate, accessible to the public. they are not trying to not deny the fact that she is older, but their china to co-opt some of the criticisms that will be raised against her. as the caller was earlier asking questions about her age and health, they are trying to get out ahead of that sort of thing. they are crafting a different strategy. some people think it is a little too generic. you see the speech described as something any candidate for senate or congress could have given and not a presidential speech. as josh also pointed out, i think a speech like that is not where you will get dollars and cents figures about how much she wants to raise the minimum wage.
it is a broad brush. host: to new york, a democrat, you are our last. go ahead. caller: i am proud of hillary and what she said yesterday's beautiful. i want to tell her to keep on fighting for the democratic party. host: all right. let's hear from both of our reporters on what they're watching next for 2016. guest: the big question is whether jeb bush can get question -- traction. they get a bump in the poll. walker has an announcement, he certainly has momentum from his speeches. can jeb bush get that bounce or is there a fundamental disconnect between a lot of fundamental voters between ideology. the speech will allow him to launch his own candidacy differentiate himself from his brother and his dad. it could be very successful and we could rethink the bush
campaign. if he continues to lead behind expectations, it would be a tough sign for the bush campaign going forward. a real big risk going forward. host: celeste, go ahead. what are you looking for? guest: i will be in new hampshire and hillary clinton and jeb bush as they make their way. big declarations hillary with her event this weekend and jeb bush coming in after his announcement in miami. and will they change the way they interact with the press and the public? will they be able to convince people that they have a fresh rationale for getting to the white house, or whether it is the same old, same old. host: celeste katz, a political correspondent with "new york daily news" and josh kraushaar
thank you. we will talk to heather conley about efforts to change president putin behavior. coming up. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> direction -- director of clinical -- on the advances of heart surgery and the understanding of heart health. classes is a valve onto this catheter now being positioned into the diseased valve and it will be deployed here in just a second with the blue and being
deflated and a new valve will be inserted inside the old calcified stenotic valve. you can see the delivery system is being withdrawn and then the wire will wait -- will be withdrawn. what we have seen in this pictorial display is replacement of a diseased aortic fouls in a manner that does not require open-heart surgery. we are trying to become smarter about predicting who will get disease, smarter as to identifying the most effective way to continue, and the smartest way to follow up. we are currently in an area where we are trying to harness the promise of the human genome research project that has now been in existence for more than a decade, with all that can be german by the giants of the
industry, like google, for example, and information about sociology and geography demographics, where you live, what is your likelihood to get diabetes on the basis of your educational background, and what is your likelihood of developing something like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain part of the city where you have less access to the right kind of food, or even the right kind of instructions about sodium consumption, little things like that that could have enormous impact on population health. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and day. host: we are joined by heather conley, here to talk about russia. it is on the front page of the new york times this morning.
the headline is, "the u.s. placed to put heavy weaponry in europe. what is happening? what does this mean? guest: this means we have been increasing our posture in the baltic states in poland for over a year and that was a mess of reinsurance -- reassurance to our nato allies. russia has increased its aggression in eastern ukraine. the conflict has not stopped or defend a thing, it has accelerated. this is an important step forward. it needs to be approved. this decision has to be approved by the secretary of defense carter, and the white house has to agree. but this is not going away. we will have to be there for the long term. it is really going from a short.
last march after russia and crime area -- crimea to get to stabilize in the ukraine, the u.s. deployed a company of u.s. soldiers are baltic state. they enhanced our posture in poland and romania. that was an immediate message of, we will reassure you races are coming. a year and a half later, the crisis continued. it is really a cost issue. we do not have equipment in central europe. should we keep it there? we are exercising more and rotating forces very in some ways, this is a cost measure that makes sense. this will be a long -- a longer-term issue. host: the proposal, if approved will represent the first time in the cold war that the united states stationed the military equipment in eastern europe that had once been a part of the sphere of influence.
russia's annexation of crimea area the war in eastern ukraine has caused alarm in nato capitals. guest: the three baltic states joined in 2004. the alliance had not done the consistency -- contingency planning. they had never put any posture in these countries. we did not think we had to. there was not a threat. the annexation of crimea had completely changed security environment. we have to respond and ensure and send a clear message to president clinton that ukraine is outside the fence and they are not a nato member. you cannot go across a nato men -- member. it sends a clear message. host: specifically, what will they do in these european countries to send that message? guest: a really increased tempo of military exercises.
today, there is a maritime exercise in the baltic sea. some headlines today suggest that a few days ago, the russian aircraft buzzed u.s. warships in the baltic state getting incredibly close. this is dangerous and tensions are hyperion we have to practice. we're doing a lot of nato exercising, and really increasing our ability to do there were an emergency, if something happened, that we could deploy u.s. and nato forces very quickly, working with the host country to make sure we do not see any stability in death stability crossing. host: if this is approved having weaponry in east europe, why would we do that? you said it is an issue of cost. guest: it is absolutely efficiency. several years ago, the united
states withdrew most of its heavy equipment from europe. again, the fight was not in europe. the security dynamic was not there. it was afghanistan, iraq. a training of u.s. forces as they deployed to afghanistan and iraq. that has now completely changed. we need heavy equipment, and we have to return that equipment back. we never position equipment in poland and romania. it was in germany, western europe where it was still a legacy from the cold war. we have to have a new posture in europe. this pre-positioning of u.s. military equipment is a step in that direction. host: the fact that they are even considering it race -- raises the question, are the sanctions working in russia? guest: that is a great question. yes, sanctions are having an impact. a much more significant impact
on the value of the russian ruble, and president putin's's calculations, but over the last several weeks, the russian economy has sort of stabilize as the energy prices have stabilized. much lower than they will be able to sustain. and there have been workarounds with these sanctions. not all countries follow the sanctions to her turkey does not follow the eu member states. i think president putin, ok, i take a hit. i think i can manage through it. of course, president obama and western leaders think these sanctions will change the behavior. we have seen no evidence of that change. host: has europe done enough on that front of sanctioning? the president has said to european leaders that you need to do more when it comes to sanctions? guest: it is hard. it is easier for the u.s. to sanction russia because it is
not that robust. europe, it is very important. energy, export commodities. the european economy for the last five years has struggled and it is struggling right now. greece, we are on the precipice of a greek exit from the eurozone. this impacts europe the most fear they have the greatest stake, but they have held pretty firm. we have at least a strong sense the european sanctions will continue through the end of the year. that is positive but we are taking little steps. this is not the long-term. host: we're talking about whether sanctions against russia are working with heather conley. let's listen to what president obama had to say when he was in europe last week at the g7 conference. here is what he had to say about the sanctions. president obama: we will continue to provide economic support and technical assistance the ukraine needs as it moves
ahead on critical reforms to transform its economy and strengthen its democracy. as we have seen again in recent days, russian forces continue to operate in eastern ukraine, and territorial integrity. this is not the second year in a row the g7 has met without russia, another example of russia's is isolation. every member of the g7 continues to make sanctions against russia for its aggression against ukraine. the ruble is down inflation is up in the russian central-bank has lost more than 100 billion dollars in reserves. russian banks and firms are virtually locked out of the international markets. russian energy companies are struggling to import the technologies they need for complex energy rochester russian defense firms have been cut off.
russia's actions in the ukraine are hurting russia and hurting the russian people. here at the g7 we agreed that even as we will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, thanks against russia will remain in place so long as russia continues to violate its obligations under the agreements. our european partners reaffirmed they will maintain sanctions until disagreements are fully implemented, which means extending sanctions beyond july. the g7 is making it clear that it is necessary to impose additional sanctions against russia. host: president obama at the now g7 summit and not the g-8 anymore. guest: resolve continues. the united states wants to remain strongly unified with europe. that is the right approach. the problem is europe is not going to be increasingly willing
to exact pain on themselves to enhance the sanctions. that is where the u.s. leadership comes in. we will have to push european partners to take more short-term against the backdrop of a very weak european economy and i would differ with the president yes indeed the impact of the sessions was there, but president putin is not stepping back. what you heard from the g7 is, they will consider more sanctions as the cease-fire agreement, which has not been much of a cease-fire agreement from the beginning, is absolutely collapsing and there will be nothing to hide behind as the escalation of violence occurs in the eastern ukraine. i think it was as steady as you go. i think it will require enhanced sanctions and more security. putin has not been isolated.
he just days after the g7, he was in rome meeting with the italian prime minister. european leaders have been going to moscow and meeting with him. secretary kerry hattaway the meeting with president clinton in sochi a few weeks ago. that is not isolation. think as long as president putin base he can survive host: let's hear from tom in humble texas. thomas, go ahead with their question or comment. caller: are we still importing and exporting weed to russia? guest: i missed the first part. host: i'm not sure. guest: on afghanistan question -- an interesting point. this was very much part of the 2009 u.s.-russia reset where after russia had invaded georgia in 2008, our relations were in terrible state.
president obama comes into office and they initiate a new policy position toward russia. afghanistan was a very important part of that. this is where we share a great deal of interest with moscow because russia does not want that instability in at dennis dan to cross into central asia. a lot of the open -- a lot of them opm crosses asia and they don't want that instability. we were working collaboratively on afghanistan but afghanistan has really haunting memories for russia. soviet union invaded afghanistan in 1979 and got bogged down. the economy began to the road and energy prices dropped. it sort of feels like, is russia implementing another sort of failed invasion, economic crisis? it proceeded a decade later, the collapse of the soviet union. this is the question for analysts -- is russia now taking
a step as it did in 1979 innovating a country and getting bogged down? we will see. -- in invading a country and getting bogged down? we will see. host: how are they reacting to that? guest: this has been an interesting methodology of president putin. it is complete domination of information and he is presenting a version of alternate reality if you will that it russia is encircled by the blast ukrainians are killing ethnic russian children in ukraine and we must protect them -- if we were exposed to this dramatic news, public opinion would be very strong and we must do this. it is artificially supportive but we may have no alternative. they don't know the truth and this is why -- these fact sheets going, no, this is the way the world is.
you know, we really have little inability to penetrate those russian media markets and meanwhile, the russian controlled the russian information and strategic medications against the west and it is unbelievable. any time you write an article you will get attacked by russian bloggers. there was a great article in the "new york times" recently about they had these industries and russian analysts are trolls and trying to spread the information. it is a sophisticated campaign and we are playing cap and not doing an effective job. host: it sounds like the president puts a lot of resources into that. guest: he understands it's as political survival. he can have an alternative political narrative that suggests why is the russian economy not doing well? well, in large measure because in the last 15 years, the russian economy has not diversified or used benefits of high energy prices to create an innovation economy.
if anything, they use energy resources and they have wasted an opportunity. now you add sanctions, now you add the drop of energy prices -- putin cannot labor an outgrowth to the russian paper so he is delivering fear, war nationalism, russian chauvinism and how long the russian people will agree to that -- right now, they are showing resolve and they support that this is the right thing to do. we will see how long it lasts. host: kim, you are next in texas. a democrat. go ahead, kim. caller: hi, good morning to you all. what i wanted to comment on is the middle east and all about russia, too. i think that we should not put military over there at all. i think we need to focus on education. just like you gave a halt recitation of our entire military background. there's anybody ever pay attention that we are not paying attention to looking at the long run?
and even though obama has not acted as much, that has been good because you will always talk about vacuum and space you know well, we removed a vacuum -- well, exactly. the vacuum and the people start fighting and you have to teach them the way we have to live it. they cannot want to live a better life. if we put military action over there, we kill their people, they grow resentful, and this goes on. it's just a continuous circus. it's a circle. host: let's talk about this. is the united states threatening military action by going forward with this step that "the new york times" reports on by putting heavy weaponry in eastern europe as a message to russia? guest: to the caller's concerns, let's be clear. we always want the military toolbox to be used as a last result. we always went strong diplomatic tools, strong life sanctions and
economic tolls to be used first. this is the last result and failure in some ways when you resort to military options. here is the thing -- we have instability, obviously, in the middle east, russia, asia, and this is an issue where it impacts the global economy, it impacts jobs. you have instability and you need to have a very careful calibration of the foreign security policy and not to be exposed and we are going to battle every conflict. we cannot, obviously. for those areas where international order is being challenged when country and state actors and nonstate actors like the islamic state challenge the international system, this is where the u.s., with our allies, have to take the stand. we don't want to resort to military violence, but also, we cannot allow state and nonstate actors to challenge
international legal order and to threaten the u.s. homeland. look -- we have to have a balanced approach. i think president obama is clearly saying as well as other u.s. presidents, we cannot be strong abroad if you are not strong at home economically. it is an important message. host: in new york, independent collar, you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. about these issues here. i just wanted to disagree completely with this lady. the u.s. [indiscernible] the u.s. government wants us to believe that russia is try to get out of this crisis is false. they're trying to force the president of ukraine to leave -- the fascists are the ones who need a pool in the ukraine.
if you go back to the videotapes, the french were there. they were there every time urging [indiscernible] the u.s. -- i know you want us to believe the russians are trying to use in ukraine and eastern europe, my goodness. go back and look at the videos. host: all right, we will have heather conley respond. guest: that is the perfect example of a great supporter of russian theory and propaganda. the theory goes that russia has been humiliated by the west and nato encroaching on its borders threatens it, that the ukrainian government was not elected. it was created by the west and run by fascists and, you know
this is a narrative that has to be countered. it is interesting to go back. the west, europe and the united states, has been working hard prior to this crisis to integrate russia into the west. that is why there was the g-8 and russia was invited to join the industrial democracy. why russia joined the world trade organization, why we signed armed control agreements. and while he wanted there economy to be successful. unfortunately, president putin chose a different approach when russian forces entered crimea annexed crimea and now causing instability in eastern ukraine. russia troops are involved about, it's neighborhood is fought with conflict. we have to respond to this threat. this is for native of defensive measure and not offensive.
we have to be clear -- we do not change borders by force. germany did that in the 1930's and it caused the second world war. we have to be very clear, states cannot change borders i force. host: a headline in "the washington post" focusing on a new research center poll. nato countries wary of using force to defend against russia. if russia got into a series of military conflict with a neighboring country, that is our nato ally, do you think our country should use military force to defend the country? united states, 56%. united kingdom 46%. germany, 38%. guest: germany has a very divided public opinion. for the last 25 years at the collapse of the soviet union, we have tried to integrate russia into the west. yes, lots of, i'm sure, we did not make the right cause, lots of laws to that policy, but we
tried. what we seem to forget is that russia and the russian government was also going toward that level of engagement, that modernization. something changed and president putin returned to the kremlin in 2012. i think the largest demonstrations within russia and the fall 2011 in december of 2011 was the biggest change. i was too uncomfortable for mr. putin. there was actually a russian democratic movement. now, you had the murder in february. there is no russian opposition to speak of. the clampdown has been great but mr. putin feared that not nato that democracy and openness coming to russia. a successful democratic market -oriented ukraine is existential to mr. putin because he cannot have a different model on his border. it does not surprise me. look, no one wants to go to war. no one wants military conflict. we all think we should not be where we are but unfortunately
mr. putin has brought us there. germany has historically's with russia, the greatest economic ties, it is a society really struggling with its own evolution of leadership. my goodness, germany now leads economically and politically and now in the security posture that is a great change. i think germans from east germany have spoken to mr. putin already 50 times and she is trying but she understands that there is not much to work with with president putin's current policies. host: we will move onto tommy in arlington, virginia. a democrat. hi, tommy. caller: yes, i hope you give me enough time to really speak to this issue. i don't know what this lady's background is academically, but she does not sound like a scholar, with all due respect. she does not tell the american people what the consequences of war or any kind of
confrontation, military confrontation with russia will be. she is exploiting to the american audience because the american people, as soon as they want, a world war fair. in a nutshell, she has been rambling on about russia negatively without any tangible force of what russia has done to destabilize the west or western europe as she claims. consistently cut -- host: let's give her a chance to respond. guest: i certainly agree that informed public opinion is good -- inform public policy. we can't understand when you read the headlines of "the new york times" via what did sending military equivalent of the balkan states, absolutely, you have to be informed. war, obviously, the concept of war and returning to europe is
just a horrific idea. what we want to do is make sure by deterring any thoughts of aggression, we prevent war. what we have been seeing over the last year is russian military actions definitely probing the alliance they have. russian aircraft has violated the air sovereignty over sweden and finland and non-nato members , i hasten to add, in the region. maritime, snap military exercises, this is a very dangerous game, but we want to prevent war and by preventing more, we have to send a strong message of deterrence so mr. putin does not think about crossing a nato border. we do have an alliance of 28 european members and canada and the united states. we have a solid treaty commitment to protect and defend those allies. the american people also need to understand that that solemn
commitment, as much as a european colleagues like germans and understand, this is an important alliance commitment and wide that is important. i cannot agree with you more -- and informed public opinion makes informed public pot -- policy. host: your back real quick question mark guest: i began -- your background real quick? guest: my first job, i was sent to russia to distribute humanitarian aid immediately after the collapse of the soviet union. i was sent to st. petersburg russia, where we distributed humanitarian aid and then i worked on the u.s. assistance to all the former soviet states. after graduate school and some other positions, i return to the state department where i looked after u.s. bilateral relations with the nordic-baltic states and central europe during the historic decision to enlarge nato to the baltic states. i began my career helping the russian people and nothing makes me more sad that we are where we
are with russia today. we have never thought that i could be where we are. host: heather conley served as the deputy assistant state for european affairs in 2001 until 2005. katerina in alexandria, a republican. alexandria, virginia. go ahead. caller: i'm glad to see heather conley on the tv today even though i stand by everything she is saying with u.s. propaganda and pointed view, i did not listen to the show from the start, so i can't speak about other callers. but the one i heard just recently in the past several callers, i am glad to hear that the public is finally realizing that that is what is happening and they are not just fully taking in everything they are hearing about the situation with russia and ukraine. it is interesting to hear that heather conley referred to as
ukraine as democratic, well, if you are following their news and everything that is happening in that country, you realize that they are far away from it. host: katerina, i want to and at that point and have heather conley jump in because what is going on inside the ukraine and you can government? here is a headline, visiting ukraine leaders aim at kunz -- guest: in 2004 this -- the so-called revolution which pushed out popular pushing not of the government and pro-western government, but you know that government failed to make the necessary reforms which in some ways brought the former president tenneco bridge to power and cost the second revolution which was the year of my don -- the second revolution
in the beginning of 2014. he was forced to make a choice -- would ukraine have to come within russia's economic union or could ukraine joined the european union trade agreement? he was under enormous pressure by the kremlin and decided that he would turn his country toward russia. ukrainian people were not supportive of that and they had a popular uprising. the president fled, a new government was collected and a new parliament has been elected. it is very difficult to execute reforms. basically to change the entire system economically, judicially, legislatively while you are prosecuting a war. but i will to you for those of us that worked with the ukrainian government for the last 20 years, this is the last chance. ukrainian leaders have to take the most difficult decisions
which is stopping corruption to change its system. it is fine to say, i want to go toward the west. they have to understand that and that means changing their ways of doing business literally and figuratively. the reforms will be incredibly painful. ukraine is financially on the brink of collapse. its foreign currency reserves are extremely low. obviously, the war has damaged its economy profoundly, so the stakes are incredibly high. ukrainian prime minister was here in washington last week with ukrainian finance minister and they need to have a lifeline right now financially in order to do these reforms. i will be very honest, there are some doubts that they are going to be able to reform their system. we have no doubt that is what they want to do, but whether they can do it and quite frankly, this state could not be higher. they know that.
making the laws, and the corruption enhancing the independence of their energy tough, tough stuff are you are fighting a war. host: new york, charlie, and independent. hi there, charlie, you are next. caller: hi, mrs. heather conley represents a bug report of the west. the imperialist part. the west that goes to other countries and steals governments they want, bully people, kill people, they have caused harm to the american people with our economy, they take most of our tax dollars and programs from developing over here that make american people lives better. this is something that eisenhower warned us about in 1960. this is a military and industrial complex and she is taking the old road that has caused so much problems in the world and with american people. we need to change her course and make sure she does not feed us. guest: look, we all want to
grain the peace dividend. we would like to see were international security is strong where we can focus our energy and our resources on creating a robust american economy, absolutely. that is the world we wish it is. it is not the world as it is. the u.s. does, with its partners -- and this is what i want to underscore -- our european partners are also making important contributions to their own defense. they need to do more but we are not doing this alone. we are doing this in partnership with the financial burden of providing finance whether that be in europe, partners in the your middle east, allies in asia. this is not the u.s. doing it alone. yes, the u.s. has to maintain a presence internationally. this helps strengthen american exports, strengthen the american
economy. we can't do that if there is fiscal instability. it impacts us because we are a globalized economy. host: how about this headline from abc -- britain pulls out after russia and china crack -- britain pulls out spies from hostile countries after russia china crack snowden files. they cited unnamed officials at david cameron's office because of -- after russia was able to decrypt more than one million files. edward snowden had gotten access to. guest: this is the continuing and incredibly dramatic impact of the snowden revelation. i can tell you because i am the european analyst the damage this has done in europe to our allies and partners. the embarrassment it has caused with u.s.-german relations. we talked about really important issues, but i think beyond the privacy issue that we talk about
here and obviously the reflection of the change and patriot act, the security ramifications here -- some of our most sensitive and classified information has gotten into the hands of countries that were suppressed harm. this is a continuation of that fallout. people's lives are at risk but there have not been lives lost because of these revelations and i think mr. snowden lights to return this as a privacy issue. the national security implications of this are profound. this is yet another example of that. we cannot defend ourselves if our methods and our sources are compromised. host: we have about 10 minutes left with heather conley. let's go at cannes this in idaho. a democrat. hi, there. you are on the air. caller: [indiscernible]
russia is going back to the old ways. [indiscernible] they don't want change. just like they do with china. [indiscernible] i just don't see your putting much effort into the preservation of their own area. [indiscernible] there is only so much we can do. host: we will take that point candace. guest: thank you for your service. let me begin by that. this is not the cold war. we are not going to return to the cold war. number one, there is not going to be this u.s. military buildup
that we had in europe during the cold war. it is not the regional theater we need to be engaged in. middle east europe must do more. we are encouraging it to do more. i'm encouraging that there are substantial increases in defense spending and baltic and the poland states. even germany has increased its spending. is it fast enough? no. is it what we need? no. but we are turning in the right direction. i would say -- we don't have to ideological background of the cold war, so it is not communism versus the west, but there is an ideological component to this and it is exactly what i said earlier about having ukraine as democratic and free and market oriented on the border of russia that is going in a very different direction. that is where it is
ideologically. mr. putin has been very clear that he is going to take this country in a different direction. reducing any elements and he what -- releasing any elements of democracy and he wants to isolate himself. we are presenting a different model based on our values and that doesn't sort of bring us back to the cold war. this was about western guys, do we fight for those bios, defendant or say, no, it is ok -- annex and other territory eat more countries in your neighborhood, that's ok? it's not ok. there will be dire ramifications on the russian economy as we have seen but it also requires the west to respond. we don't want to go here and that is why you are seeing a good presidency. we don't want to go into war but we have to take careful measured defense steps to take -- to prevent that war. host: when the ukrainian leadership was in the united states last week, you had petro
poroshenko writing in the "wall street journal" an editorial saying, ukraine once you go to direction you are talking about. why choose "the wall street journal?" is it not only a political move to act for the united states to support ukraine politically but also "wall street journal" audience saying invest in us? guest: i can't say why he selected "the wall street journal" but it comes when the finance minister is here and they have to restructure their debt. there is certainly a great deal of hedge funds that have a big stake in how the debt negotiations go, so it could be a message to the markets. again, what the west is trying to do is do it as cheaply as possible. the u.s. extended $2 billion in
loan guarantee for financial and technical assistance. it will not be enough. we are at this moment of transition where we are really going to go and help ukraine survive this or are we trying to do the minimal and help for the best? what the president needs is the west to go all out and really help him help his country economically. again, there are doubts whether the commitment at all levels of the craning government and regionally, whether their commitment is as equal to seeing that transformation that ukrainian economy needs desperately. host: this issue of russia unlikely what to do is likely to carry over into the next presidency. jeb bush will announce officially tomorrow and headline in "washington times" recently as he began a three nation tour called for isolation of resident putin and support for the russian people. david in oceanside, california. republican. hi, david. you are on the air. caller: i like this heather conley's thoughts regarding a
recent article saying mr. putin has identified and embraced stalin. also, just by fact of their name has displayed the red star and is also seeming to be supported of stalin. i would like to get her thoughts on that. guest: thank you great question. yes, history is back. president putin has relieved hold on russia -- in some ways, russia's greatest moments and that was the second world war or in russia, the great patriotic war. in absolute fairness, the calculation berries, but upwards of 20 million -- the calculation varies, but upwards of 20 million russians perished with their involvement and support of our allies in world war ii was instrumental in defeating nazi germany. it is also a memory of obviously
great sacrifice but great, great victory. those memories, again, the memories of war and deprivation and ultimate victory are the themes president putin is pulling on right now because the russian people are about to go through some deprivation they have not seen in the last few years whether middle class was growing and the economy was doing very well. he is preparing them for the greater economic to come. stalin has been rehabilitated certainly. it is sort of selectively. stalin during the early days of the cold war was taking very important steps and obviously confronting the west, but he was also building the soviet economy and these massive structures and mr. putin would like to build the russian economy and not integrated with the west that build it with the russian likes
and pulling on stylistic -- stalininstic practices. crimea and tartar's were deported by stalin in extraordinary tragedy and we see , again, this tragedy unfolding and crimean's and our's are being denied ethnic minority their rights. it is very loaded, but history -- the narrative of history is being used so much and distorted, so mr. putin says that the 1956 with prospering in 1968, that was because the west was encroaching. rethinking history, rephrasing history to meet mr. putin's narrative today. though west have different stories, but trust me, this is a battle of the historical narrative and it is really --
the coming is distorting what is an incredible sacrifice by the russian people but they are using it in a very incorrect way today. host: one more call. we will go to bill. an independent. hi, bill. caller: hey, good morning. i've got two things i'd like to ask or comment about. one is -- it was reported that hillary when she was secretary of state, the women were not paid the same as men in the same job and yesterday, during her speech she was all for that. and then there is kind of a laughing matter of what she presented to the russians is actually not the reset button. the reset button is much smaller. [laughter] guest: & that i can't answer the first question, but the second is a funny story at the time.
when the obama administration launched its reset policy with russia, secretary clinton presented russian prime minister with this yellow button and it had what is supposed to be the russian word for reset. it was not the correct russian word and that brought a lot of commentary from russia. just because it is the political season, i agree that there is going to be a lot of discussion during the campaign about russia and the u.s. policy toward russia. you did have governor bush traveling to germany, poland and estonia last week. there is going to be a big difference and that smiley picture actor with secretary clinton and prime minister will be a question of, that was the wrong choice to reset because the reset has now given us, in some ways, we have transitioned into a destabilizing period.
host: "the washington times" had a position -- had clinton's position on russia troubling to right and left. at a meeting earlier this year with london, he said she felt a european leader was being too would be about challenging mr. putin. guest: i think secretary clinton and even in the last remaining months as secretary of state had some very top words for the kremlin. -- very tough words for the common, particularly on democracy and the crackdown later. my sense is she actually is a strong proponent of a strong u.s. military. to be more robust, her supportive decision on libya in 2011, her position on helping restraint opposition in the early days of syria certainly suggest that. i think there is a comment --
the common understanding that regardless of outcome in the fall of 2016, we are going to have someone in the white house who does have a more hawkish perceptive about russia. i think that will send a different message to president putin that you know, the u.s. will stand with its allies and the send democracy and freedom in europe. host: heather conley we appreciate the conversation this morning. our viewers can learn more if they go to the senate for strategic and international studies where heather conley is the senior vice president for studies there. guest: thank you. host: with hillary clinton officially wanting her bid in new york on resident island, she will -- we will return to that conversation with all of you here for the remaining part of today's "washington journal could go there on the phone lines and you can start dialing in now. we will pick up the conversation right after this rate. ♪ -- right after this break.
♪ >> monday night on "the communicators," research found austin meyer daniel and democratic representative from georgia hank johnson to talk about technology issues and patent legislation before congress. >> 97% of the people that are sued by packet have to settle because they don't have the $3 million to defend themselves. 97% settle and they pay an average of $300,000 to the people suing them. when they pay that settlement, they are under an nda, a nondisclosure agreement which is a contract that says, they are never allowed to tell anybody what happened to them. >> part of this is we are really excited to have legislation on the topic and we are going to
talk to as many commerce minister possible to discuss issues and what is the best way to help entrepreneurs defend their project but more poorly be able to run their business. any of these demand that letters that exist with the company like ours. [indiscernible] >> we are concerned with [indiscernible] it makes it difficult for them to use and enforce their property rights. [indiscernible] >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back on this sunday, june 14. we are returning to our conversation where we began this morning and that is hillary clinton's official launch into
the 2016 presidential bid. what are your thoughts? she gave a speech to a crowd of 5000 in new york on roosevelt island yesterday. she talked about many different issues. "washington post" their headline on the event clinton, democracy not just for billionaires. clinton was an advocate for children and families of pledges to get people on a fair bargain on a range of issues, including how taxes are levied, emigration manage, and she took shots at her would be republican rivals and the very wealthy -- a group of which clinton is a member on on which she will count to help fund the campaign that aims to raise more than one billion dollars. here is hillary clinton on the issue of income inequality. hillary clinton: you see corporations making record profits with ceos making record pay, but your paychecks have barely budged. while many of you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet,
you see the top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of america's kindergarten teachers combined and often paying a lower tax rate. so, you have to wonder -- when does my hard work pay off? when does my family get ahead? when? i say, now. [applause] prosperity cannot be just for ceos and hedge fund managers. democracy cannot just be for billionaires and corporations. [applause] prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain, too. you brought our country back.
now it is time, your time, to secure the gains and move ahead. and you know what? america cannot succeed unless you succeed. [applause] that is why i am running for president of the united states. [applause] host: hillary clinton yesterday in new york at the park named for president roosevelt franklin d roosevelt. invoking some of his message there for a crowd of thousands in her home state of new york. one of her home states. she represented the home -- the state for eight years. what are your thoughts on a 2016 bid? steve, republican. you are up first. caller: a list of reasons not to
vote for hillary clinton are too numerous but i do want to suggest a candidate that is a very viable candidate for the democratic party which is mark warner. he is a very successful congressmen, he has been a good senator and he hasn't gone too far to the left and he is a businessman that understands how to start -- in other words, he actually knows what he is talking about. host: steve, you are republican -- did you vote for senator warner question mark caller: actually, yes, i did. the point is that he is somebody that will do no harm. i mean, like, if you like baltimore, vote for martin o'malley. if you like benghazi, vote for hillary clinton. it is just so, so amazing and almost 5000 people -- whenever i went to --
host: a rally question mark -- a rally? caller: yeah, oh a rally for romney and ryan, 20,000 people showed up and nobody got a check. i did not get my check. host: all right, steve. here are how people reacted from the republican national committee putting out a statement that hillary clinton's announcement speech was chock full of hypocritical attacks partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past that have led to a sluggish economy eating too many americans behind. next year, americans will reject the failed policies of the past and elect a republican president. gregory, an independent in north carolina -- what you think about hillary clinton's bid? would you vote for her? caller: yes, i could vote for her but i prefer bernie sanders. he hits all of the issues straight in the line but if i am allowed urban vernacular,
hillary has got the juice. [laughter] but, ummm, also like dr. stein, i don't agree with everything she has to say. the caller who called prior talking about joe biden -- you know? there is so much to say about their -- this stuff, there really is and i'm not going to -- but the main point is -- it she said anything about the trade agreement which i am against, the pipeline and definitely against the patriot act, it would be a wrap hands down, but i am still listening. host: ok, gregory, she did not say anything on trade. a banner on the website was nothing on trade. let's hear from gregory -- weight, let's hear from dan in
california, a republican. caller: i just wanted to say that this sounds like such a broken record with just listening to hillary what you guys had on, talking about corporations and money. we all know that bush and clinton -- they just have such a machine connected with those money and corporations. i just think it's discouraging that we are going to have another broken record with clinton and bush. that's what it looks like right now. i hope it doesn't. i hope someone else comes up because i think power should be shared. i think bush and clinton's have had way too much power and they are kind of the same. they are for open borders, amnesty, all the wars, iraq wars, afghanistan wars, war in syria. i just hope the american people see through that and say, hey let's share some power. let's not have the same families.
we are going to get the same results. host: dan, you and others may be interested in jeb bush's official announcement tomorrow, monday in miami on c-span3 at 3:00 p.m. eastern time and it is part of our "road to the white house" coverage. it will be on c-span3, c-span radio and6 houthid www.c-span.org. you will go to rachel, democrat in south toward it. caller: hi, how are you? host: good morning. caller: i would like to know how hillary clinton became secretary of state? what she not a lawyer for walmart? host: ok johnny in chicago, and independent. caller: hi, there. good morning to anyone listening. i am independent, 76 years old
retired, thank god -- they god i did not grow up in this area. whoever is listening to your show disparage anyone that has money -- let me tell you one thing. i would take ms. clinton over anything they put up there on the stage because they are just like any and everything else. this republican governor in chicago is just like the rest. he is cutting taxes on the poor people and limiting the program. i want to thank you very much for accepting my call and you are doing a wonderful job. thank you again. host: james is a republican in dakota -- and north dakota, you are on the air, james. caller: good to morgan -- good morning. i wonder how the americans are going to vote -- go, i forgot. we are assimilated.
we are not a group, we are individuals. typical. one of the things i noticed in the speech was i wanted to make my point about the gender pay gap which everybody cheers when they hear about this and of course, the other thing was her biography about how she read or she tutored little mexican kids while their families were out in the fields. i just fell out of my chair laughing on that one. i have always noticed -- have you ever noticed with white liberals who live in places like georgetown or vermont or back in bucks county, pennsylvania, where i came from, they live in the widest places. no diversity but they love diversity but their kids do not go to school with round people or black people but they love to posture and striped and talk about how they are going to protect the little round people and black people. i don't know why black people
aren't insulted when these rich, white liberals who would not in one million years live anywhere near north baltimore are west philly -- they always talk about protecting you. it is paternalistic and materialistic of the white liberal and they feel superior to you. they have to to protect you. i don't. i have worked with native americans and indians. i worked in pennsylvania with costa rica and scum all kinds of people. i don't think the coast and -- the costa rica and's have got to be taking care of. i don't think the black man has the be aching care of because i have had contact with them. can i say something about the gender pay gap? host: real trick. caller: 70 -- host: real quick. caller: $.70 on the dollar's pretty damn good. also, men do very, very dangerous, high-paying, risky jobs in the oil fields of north
dakota to roofing, to fishing boats -- they laid their lives on the line. they invest their capital differently than women and that's why they get paid differently. men and women are apples and oranges. what about the death cap? 5000 men a year get killed on the job to maintain the infrastructure. host: i'm going to jump in to get other voices. william in new jersey. a democrat. caller: good morning. yeah, the last caller, not to put everyone in categories but you know, i followed hillary and i follow all jeb bush, the bushes, politics on my life and you know, hillary, from college as a candidate, she has always maintained her interest in bringing up all people. not black and brown, but all
people. there is a thing to insult people. there are many whites in the same category, so the gentleman who just spoke -- i can't even comment on it. it would take me forever because you can't seem to get into that kind of mindset. i wanted to also just briefly say about russia -- the gentleman would not be able to talk like that in russia and we don't have programs like this in russia. that was so ridiculous, but i used to be -- i am very conservative but i also feel that to bring this nation, we have to consider all people. wages are not where it is that, we have to bring up salary.
people -- corporations are people, too, and part of the corporations are the people. host: all right, while in illinois. independent. hi lyle. caller: hi, i love your shows. at some point, integrity has to matter and seeing hillary up there with bill. it turns my stomach. the disrespect they showed to the office of the governed ship in arkansas for some of the behavior and some of the things that build it in office while he was president. leaving the white house with some of the rings they did with taking furniture that did not belong to them out of the white house. there is a lack of integrity with these people. it literally turns my stomach and to think of them back in the white house representing this country -- i'm sorry. it is pathetic on some level. host: you are independent. who would you vote for on the republican side? caller: i would vote for john
kasich. i think he is the one individual that has the experience and he appears at to be an authentic individual with integrity that deserves a chance. forget bush and marco and all these kind of guys. i think john kasich is going to be the next president and should be. host: national, new jersey. democrat. caller: good morning. i not a huge fan of hillary, but here is the problem -- the last time the republicans held all three branches 2006 they pass the transportation exemption bill and this allowed lawyer -- employers to take overtime pay away from people who generally work 60-70 hours a week. working class take another republican attack. the other thing is -- they scare me. the whole thing with obama sending military to evade taxes death panels people tunneling
under walmarts -- that whole thing is scary, so i'm going to go ahead and vote for hillary. thank you. host: a couple of front-page stories to share with the on -- from "the washington post/" one in five women say they were piloted. 20% of young women who attended college during the past four years say they were sexually assaulted, this according to "the washington post" poll. the circle of victims on campuses is probably even larger. any others endured attempted attacks or suspected someone violated them while they were unable to consent. some say they were coursed into sex and verbal threats or promises. in all, the poll found 25% of young women and 7% of young men say they suffered unwanted sexual incidents in college. this is a very lengthy piece on the front page of "the washington post" this morning. the situation on iraq, a voice for restraint in iraq is coming from the military. the military is urging president obama not to boost the u.s. role
in that country. the pentagon's tone has shifted after the fall in ramadi with not a lot of good choices and a reluctance to several more combats in which america's political leaders are far from committed and iraqis have shown a limited will to fight. we are talking about hillary clinton for the remainder of today's "washington journal." she launched her bid yesterday in new york. chris in manchester, u.k.. what do you think about our american political system and hillary clinton? caller: i would just like to say comments on democracy when she has never recognized self-determination with usa founding sensible that they are based upon. she has never mentioned that once. host: all right, paul, also in the u.k. paul, go ahead. caller: hello? host: good morning, you are on
the air. what you make of hillary clinton? caller: [indiscernible] the united states begins to look like a monarchy. host: paul think it looks like a monarchy. caller: i sincerely believe that because surely you want changes. somebody like rand paul for the republicans are joe biden. you've got to get change. you got to constantly have -- it is just changing from one to the other. it would be nice to see a change. host: ok, that is called from the u.k. with his outside perspective. "the new york times" with their story about hillary clinton's of that yesterday in new york. as is clinton specified policies that she would push for including universal pre-got --
and a garden -- prekindergarten incentives for companies that provide profit-sharing to employees. she also spoke of rewriting the tax code. reward hard work and home rather than corporations dashing overseas. new orleans, independent. caller: i would buy to make a comment about what the guy named gregory called in five minutes ago talking about african-americans, latinos don't need to be rescued by politics. he may have explained it in a way that people did not get, but i understand where he is coming from. being from new orleans louisiana, we have a lot of democrats that are shutting down programs for so-called minority communities, swimming pools, whatever, housing. people believe they deserve these things from these politicians but communities need to come together and paper these on their own. i don't believe that no
politician, no matter who is up there, can make us better people. you hear democrats saying, we help people, support people. they are not poor. they go home and wine and dine and go to parties and everything while poor people sit at home and go through the same thing every day. host: ok, clinton. jeb bush -- "new york times" this wing has a lengthy piece about jeb bush's campaign and how he has shake -- has had to shake up his staff and refine his tone for the run for the white house. he will begin his candidacy with about 200 house members committed to him. not all of them publicly according to bush advisors. mr. bush does not have a single public endorsement in the senate where for republicans are running for president, but supporters say a handful of establishment-aligned senators are privately supported. but many republican voters have maker that they oppose mr. bush is relatively centrist positions
on overhauling immigration and education. by standing his ground, rather than opening himself to the flip-flopping charges that his aides and 10 to him that mr. walker mr. bush has imperiled his prospects in the dominant it -- dominated iowa caucuses which begins the process. let's hear in michigan independent. hi, charles. caller: hi, greta. i have a comment -- i worked in the oil industry for years. i purchased my dream home after i retired and my property taxes and household insurance has gone up 15% in six years. now, using the role of 72, a 28 years, my mortgage payment will be doubled. i got disabled, my retirement income went down, and in 28 years, i guess they are going to take my house with all my equity because i have a 30 year mortgage. host: charles, the common is on hillary clinton making official
yesterday. caller: yeah, well, i say that hillary clinton and republicans don't give a damn about any middle-class or lower income person. all they care about is the rich. host: scott in new york. an independent, you are last. caller: good morning. ms. clinton i don't think has ever spent -- i was at the new orleans mission for two weeks and i could preach to people because you what people at the top that don't have a clue about humans. humans it is like everybody is afraid to say we are humans. host: i think you made your point. we will leave it there for now. "washington journal" will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. take a look and are so tomorrow. we will take up the week ahead on capitol hill and then later
we will talk to nathaniel popper who is author of digital bitcoin and the future of digital currency. that is tomorrow on "washington journal>" we will hear from you done with more phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. thank you for watching today. enjoy the rest of your sunday. ♪ >> here on c-span this morning newsmakers is next with republican congressman jason chaffetz. john roth testifies and oversight committee on tsa operations following an internal investigation that found several security breaches at works. -- at airports.
a hearing on alleged retaliation on federal whistleblowers. host: our guest on newsmakers is comes in jason chaffetz. since the start of this congress he is taken over the gavel of the house of government and oversight committee. he is our guest for the next half hour. our reporters questioning him stephen dina and and matt fuller. stephen, we will start with you. stephen: we are learning more details about this. i was wondering what the latest you have heard. if heard it might have expanded to millions more former employees. what is your take on it at this point? is this a willful negligence, bad management, a goof or an act of god disaster that is