tv 2016 Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta CSPAN December 10, 2017 4:43pm-6:00pm EST
>> "lush and congenital," live every daily news and policy issues that impact here. coming up, and conversation about the major issues facing the nation. and then how much is the mueller investigation costing taxpayers, and how does it compare to other investigations? andrea nobles of the washington shines -- the washington times joins us/ -- up, we hear more about the 2016 election with former hillary clinton residential campaign chair john podesta. he talked about some of the reasons mrs. clinton lost a donald trump. he also responds to allegations made by former interim chair donna brazile about the primary process being rigged in hillary clinton's favor. from duke university in north
carolina, this is one hour and 15 minutes. you came to hear my friend, john podesta, who for decades now has been one of the leading political figures in the country. he served at the highest level in the clinton administration, clinton white house, and again in the obama administration as counselor in the white house and then he was the head of hillary for president campaign, he makes ad that mean risotto. don't ask me how i found that out. mr. podesta: you don't bake risotto. [laughter] mr. feaver: but john, welcome. so john, what we want to talk about tonight is, how did we get here? what kind of answer would you get? where are we and how did we get here? mr. podesta: you probably expect
me to say the russians stole the election and were a heck of a match. >> right? [indiscernible] mr. podesta: i think the country was in a place of transition. iy was in a place of transition. of a was a lot of rise sort of popular sentiment. thats born from the fact since i served in the obama white house, but since i left the clinton white house, that wages for working people hadn't got up, the wages got stuck. certain places are doing great. a lot of places where left out and left behind. trump,te trump, donald tapped into that, ran a vigorous campaign and tried to tap into the anger that was out there and
was able to turn in of votes and in in three states we expected to win, wisconsin, michigan, at pennsylvania, that gave him the presidency. hillary clinton got 3 million more votes nationally than he -- but he wasas able to, i think, run a campaign of anger. not really a campaign of hope. complete it was a rejection of what president obama had done for eight years. and it worked, i guess, is the bottom line. think that he -- she would have made the president and she ran a phenomenal race, but he won. so where we are is with a person who i think really breaks come
practically -- particularly -- particularly on domestic affairs, he is broken from a long tradition of 13 presidents that accepted the mantle of local leadership. globallt a -- leadership. and he built a standing in the world that was built around a structure and valleys system that said that we are going to try to build a safer, more secure world around alliances and we will restrain some of our powers of doing. he is pursuing a different strategy, one of populism, but also nationalism. and i think the world is trying to figure out where the message is right now. how did they elect him and what is he doing going forward?
what is his strategy? >> let's dig into the past part and will get into the present part. when you were surveying the field of republican challengers, i'm thinking now 2015 or even 2014, who did you think was the most formidable foe and where did trump rank in that list of people? mr. podesta: i said this to him once and he wanted me to say it publicly but i wouldn't do it. i probably thought the person who matched up best against her was john kasich. was coming into the race as the successful governor of ohio, has a personality that is appealing to people, and both had some depth. and he proved to be a more to the lastn a way
man standing, in a sense. i guess ted cruz was officially, but -- i thought trump was a serious candidate early on and i think we took him more seriously than the republican field took him in the early days. sports of him in metaphors as a left-handed boxer. you're not sure what you are going to get any new he was going to pick things up in a way that was unpredictable and that has proved to be true, in the primaries and general election. and he was willing to say and do anything. and i guess the moment i thought that this guy has staying power -- even asle to despicable as i thought the comment was, he's able to rise
or live in a gravity free world down,nothing pulls him was when he did the crack about john mccain and said -- >> december 2 dozen 15, right? right, where he says i don't like losers, i like winners, i don't like people who get caught. for any normal politician, that's a career and her. right? i thought for the first six hours, that was going to be a career and her for him. he stuck with it. his people rallied to him. i don't know what they found to be likable about that, but they liked it -- >> mccain was popular with mainstream republicans. he lost in two dozen eight when
he shouldn't have lost. you are right. from that point on, you were taking him seriously? -- bydesta: we thought the late fall, going into the start of our real primary of the i think that most top people in the campaign thought this was likely to come down to a fight between crews and trump -- cruz and trump and we probably thought cruz would win that and that mainstream zublicans would rally for cru even though nobody liked him, in order to stop trump. but that didn't happen. >> during this time, you had your own donnybrook within the democratic party. did you anticipate that would be as hard for hillary clinton to win?
mr. podesta: i think we thought that senator sanders was a very serious candidate. i worked for insurgent candidates and got my start in politics. i've done this for a really long time, started in 68 working for mccarthy. 1968 working for mccarthy. >> he started in knox college. your reference are from the beginning. mr. podesta: absolutely. animal activist, let's put it that way. know, -- it was clear that bernie, in the democratic insurgentstem, and who had a loyal, strong following, can be a credible candidate. but i think we always felt like we had the right path to victory
and we saw it. i was talking to students earlier. our coalition was bigger than his coalition and that proved to be true. there is a lot of revisionism going on right now, but hillary got 3.7 million more votes than ominated in the primaries. in new york.st win largerwant -- she won in territories. but hisome primaries, strength was in the caucus states and where the most committed activists tend to dominate the process in those caucus states. know, morel had, you
than 400 pledged delegate lead on him. we didn't win this campaign by going to the superdelegates. i think we won it fair and square and that's because she had a very broad appeal and she committed, strong following the we are willing to come out and help her, as well. >> from the other side of the aisle, it was odd to think that after eight years where democrats controlled the white house, that they might hand the nomination to someone who is a socialist whose critique of obama was that he wasn't on the left enough after eight years of power. from the other side of the aisle, that looked off. these suggest there was great -- weakness or something inside the democratic side? mr. podesta: i think it was
running in the same stream, ,hich is -- senator sanders there are definitely different than donald trumps, but he had accommodation -- a combination of traditional, more liberal white voters. and then he had, he did better in the same demographic, i would as, that i was describing the key conversion for trump, which were working-class white voters in the industrial midwest. we got our fair share of those, but i think that he was driving at the same issues that trump played out on.
which was the system is rigged, it is rigged to get you, your lives are not getting better, your wages are going up. socialism, much more activist intervention than what president obama was promising is the answer to that solution. hillary was making a different argument, which is that obama inherited a complete and total mess, the biggest recession since the great depression and worked his way out of that and build an economy that was finally producing jobs and by 2016, was probably starting to reduce some real which growth for individuals and while she had ideas that went well beyond what obama proposed on the economy, that's sticking with a progressive path that was more had been,here obama where clinton was, perhaps in
the 1990's, building at an economy and trying to concentrate on job creation, which is growing was the right answer to the country's problems. >> so do you think there was anything sanders could have done differently that would have changed the outcome? if he had said i didn't care about those dam emails, with he have changed the trajectory of the democratic process? mr. podesta: i doubt it. you can't do counterfactual's, i think. i don't think so. >> we do do them in but will science. -- in political science. mr. podesta: if he tried, he did that, i think at the end of the day, that was, in some ways, he was trying to run a campaign that was both authentic to him and was a little bit different. i think he got credit for saying that, actually.
i don't think it hurt him. he came back to him at the end, he might regret it. time the new york primary happened, which was the third weekend of april, i think, the elector was over. he gets fighting through the california primary, but the popular vote and the delegate vote was done. i think had he gone after her on that, it would not have fit his personality. i think he would've had a hard time executing the attack. and i don't think he would have won many democratic votes. i don't think people, by that time, it was an old new story and people have resulted in their own minds that this was important or it wasn't.
and it was a mistake and i think most democratic voters were willing to move on and didn't think it was that big of a deal. >> so you know the critiques from the book that suggests maybe the race was over before the fix was in. that maybe mr. perez in her maybent -- mischaracterized her argument -- what would be your response to her argument and if not her argument, the largest sentiment among his followers that feel the fix was in? i think that the truth is senator sanders was able to compete rigorously -- in a challenge that have been preset before either one of them got into the race and he lost.
incident thatular donna points to is the memorandum of understanding, which notes, which was about the joint fundraising agreement, to raise money for the general election, not the primaries. gn endedsanders' campai up executing a agreement with the dnc. they just didn't raise any money for it. i think that was probably the right decision for them because we were trying to get ready for the general election. he was still behind, he was trying to use all his resources to see if he could somehow overcome secretary clinton's lead and i think that the truth is, we wrote money for the dnc purposely, lawfully, consistently with what previous democratic nominees had done to
be used in the general election. that,w looking back on donna says that indicated the fix was in and i have to say, having worked with her from the time she took over for debbie wasserman schultz in november, i never heard that complaint. and i saw her a lot. i actually haven't read the book, so i'm going by what-see her say on tv and what i've read is set in the book. sanders had a very fair shot at this. how manylain about debates there were, but we added debates at his request and we complained about the fact they hacked our data file at the dnc. i don't really want to refight the 2016 primary. i think he had a fair shot to
compete inside the party and he's not even running for reelection as a democrat, so the fact that the party was open enough, maybe the republican party was open enough to let trump and, the democratic party was open enough to let him compete fairly. is theetary clinton nominee and you are heading into the general election. , at that point, having looked at the dumpster fire that had been the republican primary, did you start measuring for drapes and say, these guys are spending hundreds of millions of dollars killing each other and just alienating everybody. time for us to move into the oval office. mr. podesta: no. trump theo keep consolidated republican vote.
you are well aware of the fact that we did substantial outreach and critically found fertile ground in the national security committee and were able to get leading republicans to endorse business leaders, others, who came out and campaign for her, put their name on the line for her in an attempt to try to keep from consolidating the vote. if we did consolidate the republican vote, the country is split and it is a combative election. able -- that moved back-and-forth and forth, but he was able to do that. we thought we had a leak. we thought we had a lead all along and by election day we were going to win.
but we argued that this was a -- heht and that he was had one significant talent. you see it playing out today. he controls the tempo of the game. manages to set -- and i think the, with all due respect to my woulds in the press, he turn the water and they would all jump on the trunk. said, i haven't looked at my twitter account, so he has probably done it this morning to the afternoon, from matt lauer to somebody else, but he did that threat the public and desk throughout the republican primaries. even through all the hits he took through access hollywood,
losing three debates, he's able to change the conversation by basically being outrageous. talent that i's a think he honed, not just in his days doing real estate in new york, but particularly in his transition into the television world. was for the cable television a challenge. democrats and capitol hill are finally get a challenge literally as we speak, a challenge to decide, are you going to react to it? or are you not? can you get airtime by going outrage he'stever just come up with? or do you have to kind of get
into challenging -- particularly in the race itself? we knew that was a dilemma. i'm not sure we ever quite solved it. debatesgood about the and the public polling would indicate that she dominated the debates and won the debates, but that was consolidated airtime with a were both on stage together. , that waswas done done a few weeks before the toction, then he was able reestablish tempo of the election. made due much has been to forensics on the election. about the -- i joked hacking, the russians, all that. >> we are going to get to that. mr. podesta: we are?
i do think that have an effect. it kind of each the way that you underneath. you don't fully sense it because it's not bubbling up to the mainstream or it -- mainstream. thing that was the reversal of fortune for us, which was the fbi director's decision to reopen that email case. that definitely cut the race in the last week. builtok, you have to be to be able to do that. like i said, we got more votes, but we didn't win. >> do you think that it's possible that candidate trumps tactics had not worked well if he was running against anyone other than secretary clinton, who had such high negative already and -- mr. podesta: she came out of the state department with 60% job
approval. >> as secretary. butpodesta: as secretary, there is another whole chapter on how tough it is for a woman to be a successful candidate for chief executive. appliedd that's by the media and by the public to someone -- i talked to sheryl sandberg about this early in the campaign. .here's -- it's interesting when you want the top executive job, people question your motives of why you want it. for a woman. it must be a that good, pure motive if you're a man. but for a woman, the question about it.
embraced thiss time, in 2016, a little bit less that she wasnotion running to be the first woman president of the united states. but the hurdles are pretty high to do that. >> the reason i press you on that point is that the exit polls suggest a lot of the votes against -- loads for trump were really against clinton. that he consolidated the republican vote not because a lot of people like him or his character, but they really were afraid if she won, in particular the votes in the midwest he was able to click in those three states, where those kinds of people. that,desta: i think
again, you're asking me to speculate whether to -- if you were to substitute senator sanders for secretary clinton, it's a different coalition and different set of problems. if you substitute joe biden, who scranton, for us in campaigned for us many times in scranton. could they have done a little bit better in some of those places? yes, but they could have done worse in other places. i think she is a strong candidate and has tremendous talent. i think she ran a race with commitment and with dignity. the answer ifrom expect you to give, which was, i wouldn't click on that link where is there a moment you say, i wish we could have done this or not done that?
say, maybe if we had done more of this, it might have turned out differently. regret is what i'm asking. that if ia: i think , and thered the tape are people that would argue with me on this, i think we should have published the emails the day the new york times published that she used a private server. at that time, we had a copy of them. >> the clinton emails? mr. podesta: the clinton in else, yes. >> and take the issue off the table. 13 months of trying to straighten through was this all about. and what you would have seen is a hard-working, intelligent,
, and somebodyed who got a lot done as secretary of state. >> did you propose that at the time? mr. podesta: the counterargument was that the state department requested the emails there were now the state department's emails. i'm not sure what the state department would have done if we just published them. it would have been bold and aggressive. >> let's talk about the other emails. can you tell us what happened dripow significant that from the wikileaks turned out to be? some people might not know the story. just give the reader's digest version. mr. podesta: it's long and painful. bit of a comedy of errors. but there is a phishing email
that came from a russian intelligence service that came to my gmail account through a succession of people who had access to my gmail account, check to see whether it was real. i think there are a variety of stories on this, but the cyber security guy said it was real and they clicked on the link. my females were stolen. stolen -- mys were stolen.ere >> did you think there was something wrong right away? mr. podesta: the dnc was hacked first and there were some documents that seem to come from private emails. myself, and vesper marshall, whose in else were also hacked, and a couple of other individuals in the campaign that
looked like something might have happened. but the full extent of that we didn't know until october 6 when they started publishing all of the contents of my females. -- of my emails. i think i'm a pretty boring person. >> good chef. good chef. mr. podesta: i think the content of my emails was more gossipy. like playing around with the gossip more than what was particularly meaningful. there was no smoking gun killer us.l that hurt but i think that people completed my females with her emails and kept the email thing doubling -- bubbling until the end of the campaign when comey reopened the investigation of
her emails in an unprecedented way, i would add, and was criticized by both republicans and democrats for doing that. and then a week later said nevermind. but the damage had been done by then. i think it was the other active measure by the russians that hurt us more. majorwas, there were propagators of fake news. and major pushers of fake news in social media. -- what you are seeing now unpacked in public hearings with facebook and google and twitter is the extreme measures they went to take, some of which, much of which was related sometimes with real email,
sometimes not, but they created a steady stream of fake news that was being helped -- being pumped through the media and particularly through facebook. and they were extremely active on that. >> what do you think is the reason? mr. podesta: i think there are doing that -- i've come to the conclusion that the 17 intelligence agencies who came to the conclusion were right. wanted to hurt her and help him. i think what again as an exercise -- what began as an ambassador former tonight,nia, with us he was well aware of the fact that they had been operating largely in an active fashion in
eastern europe and the baltics and other places. campaigns have been on the receiving end of the intelligence gathering operations, both mccain and obama campaigns were hacked into does nate by the chinese -- in 2008 by the chinese and what was unique was they moved into the western context. they repeated that in france and to some lesser extent, the german election. in catalonia, in spain, in brexit, they have now actively engaged in the electoral process and western european countries and the united states. what is different between the russians and the chinese, the chinese wanted to know what mccain was going to do on china
policy. that was an intelligence gathering operation. maybe they could figure out the people, they have other motives. what the russians did was to weaponize the hacks to influence the election. began as anrobably effort really to undermine peoples faith in the electoral a context inove to which they were actively trying to damage hillary clinton. >> do you think the obama a ministration could have handled that in a different way, a better way? do you blame them for not publicizing that more forcefully? mr. podesta: i think what they ended up doing -- i think they had a difficult problem. they didn't want to be perceived influencing the election in a partisan way.
i think that was discussed and on their minds. i know that in retrospect. decided, i think, to confront, delete obama confronted -- particularly obama theyonted putin, and attacked the state motor systems to push him back and back him off and trying to interfere with the actual conducting of the vote on election day. >> in your judgment, they did not? mr. podesta: i think in my judgment, i have no evidence. what that was all about, whether that was dissent in the country or they were trying to gather something or whether they were cover to use that as a for more sophisticated voter
communication. i don't know. maybe the scientology midi or bob mueller well figure that out. but i don't think they interfere with the vote on election day. which i the context in think obama confronted putin at the meeting in china. that was really what i think they were obsessing about. i think that gave a little bit of a pass to all this other activity, the propaganda, the interference, the active measures that i mentioned. --hink our experience meant the french media were more prepared for it and the french law is such that they couldn't really report it because when they finally released -- they
mostly got reported on u.s. sites. because france has a law that has a dark period for the media that has 72 hours before the campaign, they can't report on do matters. >> could you have done better to advertise this is happening and discredit some of that stuff? mr. podesta: i think we were screaming from the rooftops about what was going on. media, i'm critical of the media. they like to gossip a lot better than they cover. after the election, they were scrambling to win pulitzer prizes for trying to figure out what happened, but i think they were not on the ball. for reporting how significant this was during the election.
that's that. we were really in campaign tactics here. think a different take away from my perspective, i don't think i will ever get asked to do this again, so it's probably earned wisdom that is not particularly useless. again, i was talking about this with the students earlier. -- we spend a lot of money on social media, so the truck. our social -- so did trump. our social media strategy was to go to our core supporters, get them revved up, talk to their neighbors, etc. we didn't do a lot of persuasion on social media. we left that to television. that left us naked to the
onslaught of what was coming at us in the final days of the campaign. >> so my last campaign tactic question was, jake sullivan was reported to have written a memo or raise a question in the last week, are going to wisconsin enough or michigan enough or these sections of pennsylvania enough? did he actually write that memo and asked that question? mr. podesta: he didn't need to write a memo is is and clinton was yelling about that. for everybody to hear. i think threeve to take the strategies differently. we were ever confident in wisconsin. we had complete field
organization. more than what president obama had in 2012 in wisconsin. inbacked off our advertising retrospective. votes. by 10,000 pennsylvania. we threw everything we had at pennsylvania. including travel in those places where trump did well. biden was there. president clinton was there. hillary was there. couldot know what more we have done in pennsylvania. president clinton, i think, was saying wet voice for
are slipping with these white, working-class voters. we need to get more. he is a great politician. he was actively observing what was going on. i do not think it was for lack of trying. we just did not convert them. peter: at what point did you think you have lost? mr. podesta: we went into election day thinking we were going to win. the -- so did everybody else. werehe polls indicated we going to win. were tight.stakes
we all wisconsin was in better shape than it turned out to be. we knew the battleground was michigan, pennsylvania and florida. we thought we had a shot at arizona. we ended up winning nevada and colorado, which was close. it was well into the night. we competed heavily in north carolina but we thought that was a stress state for us. win it.ht we could the governor got over the finish line. in thosere difficult
states. the first time i got nervous was with the florida results got in and we lost by about a point. it was the late-breaking vote in florida that won the vote for trump. ourere trying to rerun analytics and hold on to the hope there were votes that were out. i went to the center and told people to wait until tomorrow. in trouble but we felt we had an outside chance to pull those states back.
peter: is that the hardest speech you have ever given, that wait here and don't panic? mr. podesta: yes. peter: president trump -- an easy question and a hard question. is there an area where he has lived down to your expectations? and is there an area where we where you thought he is better than we thought. thatodesta: i would say our argument at the end was that he was temperamentally unfit and unqualified to be president.
we convinced about 50% of the american public that that was true. unfortunately some people held that believe and still voted for him. even general kelly has not been able to get his son away -- his phone away from him. the temperamental part is true. he has lowered the standards of the united states in the world. he has the most plutocratic administration and is pursuing the most plutocratic policies we have seen ever. there is no counterpart to what bill ising and this tax no exception. that is on the right side. theve him credit for saving
choice and is doing a good job. ny is unusual to have so ma officers in such senior level positions in government. i think they are a stabilizing force for the government and i think they are serving with honor as they have throughout their careers. --this mayhopes for sound unusual --i had more hopes for secretary tillerson. i think the state department is underperforming. i am not sure he still has a
table.t the grown-up's thes hollowing out department. ton the person he brought in organize it quit after three months. peter: tillerson described that as the opening bid. mr. podesta: 31% cut in the entire sphere of soft power. openinga pretty big bid. toptill only have 10 of the 44 slots filled at the state
department. we have the accident of the odus of thex senior group of diplomats. nikki haley is doing a good job at the u.s. u.n. once mcmaster replaced flynn, that stabilize to the national security team -- that stabilize d the national security team. peter: what has he done that you most disagree with? paris? decision thathis his first priority was to destroy the affordable care act.
the public pushed back on that. they got defeated and are trying to unravel it in other places. pulling out of paris has to be s een in a context in which the overall policy is in total denial of the science and the fact that climate change is real. culmination of trying away fromam nasa earth science to the mars mission and away from noah. to appoint scott pruitt to head the epa. to pull the clean power plan. the decisionol of
to embrace ignorance at the expense of future planning. it is actually galvanized the other in a way and political actors --governor brown and governor cuomo -- and set of state and local actors, mayors, governors and average citizens. we philanthropic side to say are still in this. this is an actual problem. we have to get on with it. ist is where the economy inevitably going. all we are doing is this inesting -- dis-investing
the future. the craziest thing was the executive order pulling back obama's order saying you cannot build federal buildings inside a floodplain a week before the houston floods. a vivid example. my friendbate with from the bush administration that we are doing too much or not enough but at least they excessive arithmetic. this is a administration that rejects that. peter: i have many friends who are avid trump supporters and their argument is the supreme court. he takes a good supreme court justice and is likely to get
another chance. the matters a lot to significant portion of his base. the second pillar of the argument is the system has failed too many americans for too long. democraticed a president and a celebrated republican president and before that a celebrated democratic president. 24 years where things got worse. breakded someone to jams.f the log rebuild because the basic organizations of america
are strong but you need someone arereak things that stuck. mr. podesta: i find that excuse my critique of tillerson that he is trying to cobwebs. the i said the reason president hadp got elected is people .hat anger and fear not just in the u.s. merkel cannot get her government together in germany. of the wayniqueness
the french government works that you have macron come out of a runoff election. you see the public -- part of it is the inability to control the migrant flow. there is a palpable anger that t he system is rigged and that it is not working for working people. is aayed to that but he hypocrite because he does not govern.
if he believed all that, and was not just saying that, then you probably could've started with infrastructure. you could've put people to work and bring the country together. to make investments of the country need to do to move the country forward. i don't think he is governing with that in mindh. mind.th that in he is governing from an authoritarian perspective than what you would say is someone concerned about working people. he is having a- profound effect down ballet as well.
i teach at georgetown was a republican judge who was lamenting some of the picks made. 36-year-old guy in alabama who is a speech writer who has ever been in a courtroom to be the district judge in alabama. which my conservative friends think is a liberal interest organization, took the unanimous i'm a disqualified status. he is married to the chief of the white house counsel. i guess that makes him qualified
to the chief of a district court in alabama. i do not know how alabama politics work. he will have a profound effect biggestt i think his of fact -- effect will be the way he treats the rule of law in this country. the tactic of what about ism. t me.t look a investigate hillary. investigate your opponent. the complete disrespect showed in first trying to influence jim
comey to drop the investigation firing juimn and comey as a result. he has no respect for the boundary of what a president should do in terms of respect for the rule of law. it will have a profound effect on our country. ask your conservative friends about that. peter: we will move to audience questions and while they go to primaried?ll he be will he be the republican nominee in 2020? mr. podesta: i mentioned john kasich.
--i do not know that you can beat him in the primary. he has historically low approval ratings for a first-year president but he has a solid base of support. he has been consistently under 40 in the averages of the polls but the idea that he 35 doesn't seem to be on the horizon. it would be tough to beat him in the primary but it is going to be tough to be reelected if you have low job growth rate. here. let's start shout and we will hear you.
>> thank you for being here. you talked a lot about trump come in his administration, ump, and -- tr administration, clinton, could you talk about your personal humility, the disclosed -- perso nal email links, uranium one being a client of the podesta group, why your brother left the podesta group after criminal inquiry. mr. podesta: this is how the alt-right does fake news. it is personally painful
because a lot of this is really total bull -- putamily and i have been through this pizza gate b.s., which has been totally debunked. talkingany you are about is based in boston. a company i totally disclosed. i have no relationship with the for 15a group years. you have a lot of company on the internet and on twitter. so have at it. peter: people say they're all to be --people say there has
to be some fire with all that smoke. you are saying the russian arels, alt-right trolls created out of? mr. podesta: i'm proud of my public career. i have never been accused of ethical violations. people can do what they want to do. on alexbe propagated jones and these other sites, but it is not true. >> does it worry you that bob mueller is investigating your brother for his ties to paul manafort? mr. podesta: i am not my brother. does it worry me? it is painful. ther many years in
results, unraveled as a pof the fact he was under investigation. he made a mistake getting into business with rick gates, who was paul manafort's partner at the time. the other person caught up in this loop was ben weber. anddifference is that them my brother registered under the act, did noture disguise they had this is goinghip and muller to do what he is going to do. it has been a painful episode. >> thank you for coming, mr. podesta and thank you for soderating thi
conversation. wereemocratic primaries fixed on an institutional level and you said those claims were largely revisionist and unfounded. could you address the claim that she had leaked debate questions to the clinton campaign prior, are those unfounded? mr. podesta: she can speak to that. thetruth is that this is town hall debate that was in flint. -- had said --the amount sa the email said a person who is aboutto ask a question having been affected by the
lead in the water in flint. so be ready for that. she probably shouldn't have done that, but do you think we were ready for someone saying i 've been exposed to the lead in the water and i am worried for my children. have not read the book but i do not think that is a capital offense. hase talked about how trump been able to manipulate the press and i'm wondering, has the from therned anything 2016 election? mr. podesta: i think the press in real-time challenges mis-
statements and untruths more vigorously than in the course of the election. debate.ll go to still go to the bait. they do not know how to give it context. they challenge him more quickly when they say something that is more factually wrong. sayssarah huckabee sanders something that is factually wrong from the podium, the newsroom does not take that much anymore.
they are challenging the falsehood in real-time more than they did in the campaign. >> he talked a lot about trump's tendency to recognize the frustration that happened within a sector of his voting base. i am curious about this concept of giving people believe in your ability to attack the other side without providing material benefit, which i think is something he does very well. how do you see the trajectory of democrats approaching this transition in the 2018 and 2020 elections? how can they recognize that those frustrations without falling into the same kind of attack rhetoric? mr. podesta: i think it is very again, if you look back at what happened earlier this month in virginia in
a positive-- having message that you will address those problems is critical. and having a narrative and story that you get it and your priority is going to be to address those messages -- if you i think if you look at hillary's announcement, she was right in space. i think to some extent, a combination of our campaign tendency to focus on program rather than story and her tendency to do that, too. and which her husband was exceedingly good at, being run story rather than on program, think peoplethat i
should take into the 2018 elections. it is not really the palm card with whatever the message people on capitol hill have come up the 10 point plan. really, you have to have a story about how you're going to improve people's lives. cost. emotional about the as i said, think he has given workemocrats plenty to with on hypocrisy, but they cannot just be critical of trump. they have to put forth other messages. >> i was wondering come i think we can all agree racial identity was a large factor in the 2016 election cycle. how do you think democrats and progressives can respond to racial identity politics in an effective manner?
think in the end of the day, i still believe this is a problem that is going to solve itself. that the country is changing. the embrace of diversity is a strength, not up clinical weakness. construct ality to place at the table for everyone is an important. abouthe argument expanding the circle of opportunity, dealing with the legacy of racism in this country not a winning issue. there is a different dynamic but it is race-based also in the questions about resolving immigration problems in this country but i think the
fundamentals apply. people belong. we are a country that can build a hopeful huge are based on diversity that america has always been. there is a long history. he have to fight that out on the ground and you cannot ignore -- or the fact that the country is still, you know, you need a bigger share, particularly of the white working class vote but not at the expense of not addressing racial issues at the other side. you have to do both at once and i think build a bigger, broader coalition. and asknter the table you to ask the last question. as you heard, i have reince priebus coming on monday. what question should i ask them? mr. podesta: did you ever try to tell the president that he could not use his telephone?
>> ok. only remains for me to thank you and thank all of you for coming. thank you for coming monday for rights priebus and thanks the phillips family for their if. [applause] fatherght, goldstar repulses immigration from pakistan to the united states in his book, "an american family." he's interviewed by california congressman jimmy panetta. >> this is a common trait. things are really common in authoritarian mentalities and the audience can draw the
conclusion. what is they don't like free press, because free press criticizes them. the second thing is rule of law. they do not think judges. they do not like rule of law. has given me such a perspective of not having any civil liberties to having all these dignities. i will tellfurther you what a moment it was when i went to take the old of citizenship -- oath of citizenship. i wish every american would read the oath of citizenship. it speaks to the hopefulness, the dignities enshrined in the constitution and the bill of rights. >> watch afterwards tonight on c-span2's book tv. c-span, for history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a
public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> here on c-span newsmakers is next with republican senator pat kansas. of that is followed by president trump at a rally in pensacola, florida. at 8:00, our conversation with attorney and former supreme court clerk tiffany right. -- wright. greta: this week on "newsmakers," we're joined by the chair of the agriculture committee, senator pat roberts, republican of kansas, and on studio with us, we have a congressional reporter with the "wall street journal" and the editor with agripulse.