tv Washington Journal 06052018 CSPAN June 5, 2018 6:59am-10:07am EDT
10:15 eastern. in the afternoon, a congressional panel investigates sexual abuse of athletes. former usa gymnastics president steve penny and former michigan state university president will be on capitol hill. watch that at 3 p.m. eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television company. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. announcer: coming up on "washington journal, former white house general counsel of the clinton administration discusses the latest in the mueller investigation and author d'saouzaaker dinesh
talks about his pardon from president trump. and today is primary day in a number of states and we will get a preview of some of the races. ♪ is sur y, which nation states across the will hold primaries, which could factor into how the november elections play out. the possibility of the threat of democrats getting shut out of pickup opportunities. stay close to c-span for results of those primaries. this is the "washington journal" for june 5. we want to get your thoughts on the supreme court decision on the baker who would not create a cake for a gay wedding. we want to hear from you on what you think the decision means on
a issues, civil rights, free speech, and religious freedom. it is 202-748-8000 for republicans --202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. post on our twitter feed @cspanwj if you want to and if you want to post on our facebook page, c-span.org -- facebook.com/cspan. we will start with david savage, i will show you the headline. supreme court rules for christian cake baker, but voices support for gay rights, too. how do those things play out equally? guest: you would not think it was possible. court had thise case and the question was, did the christian baker have a right
as a matter of free exercise of religion not to bake a cake, wedding cake for a same-sex couple. justice kennedwas the key in this case. he has bn a supporter of gay .ights and of religious liberty the court ended up deciding in a very narrow way. the court did not say people like mr. phillips, other store owners have of religious freedom right not to cooperate, work with gay customers. the court said mr. phillips was treated unfairly in this case because when the colorado commission heard his case, one or two of the commissioners made anti-religious comments. the court said mr. phillips was badly treated, subjected to hostility and therefore he wins his case. much of kennedy's opinion went on to say we stand behind laws
-- state laws that say businesses may not discriminate against people, including days -- gays because of their sexual orientation. they managed to voice support for religious liberty and gay rights. guest: concessions -- host: dissensions came from -- were there nuances and opinions and how the supporters felt about it? guest: justice thomas did not sign the opinion. i think he did not want to be part of the support for gay rights. he said the court should have decided as a free speech issue. just discourse it would have gone further on a free speech gor would have gone further on a free speech issue. -- agreed with the this
principle of mistreatment, but also support gay rights. way tound a narrow decide so that you could get both jusces on the left and right to agree. usually we hear about supreme court cases being served as precedent for future cases on similar issues, but the larger issues of civil rights or free speech or religious freedom, how does this possibly play out into future cases that deal with those topics? guest: that is a very hard question to answer. usually when the court decide the case, they set some precedent for some principle ilplay out in future ses. i amot sure if the very same case happens again today in colorado or elsewhere, that this case would tell us anything about how it will be decided because they did not set a broad principle. saying's opinion ends by
we are going to wait for future cases to elaborate further on this principle. they really left open the big question goi forward as to other store owners or there is a case involving a florist from washington state who has a similar claim pending. i think it is very unclear how they will decide the next cake e.case that poses a similar groups thate supported both sides claimed victory yesterday, what did you here from them? guest: that is a pretty good assessment. a lot of the gay rights groups were breathing a sigh of relief because they thought they might lose and the court might say there is this free speech or religious right so they were heartened by the fact of the court spoke up for and were standing behind gay rights. i think a lot of groups were and theyhe baker won
probably would've liked t court to go further, but they were pleased in this case the court recognized the religious liberty claim. joining us tovage talk about the case and the larger implications about this decision. thank you for joining us. guest: good to speak with you. host: your thoughts on this case , the decision and the larger issues at play. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 you can post on twitter and facebook as well. from todd, you are first up. tell us whounk caller: i think it's a business is open to the public in general. if it is just a cake and not lewd or obscene, they should just make the cake.
i think that is different to being asked to sponsor or cater an event. host: the baker in this case said part of the issue came from and the expensive ability being made into this cake. what do you think of that argument? caller: what if someone is racist and say i don't want to serve to black people because it is against my religion? ,f it is open to the public according to the civil rights act, you have to host: serve them. host:lancaster, ohio, jenny on the republice.good morning. your thoughts on this decision? caller: my thoughts is i think it is really stupid they even bothered to deal with this. i am heterosl, do i have rights? it doesn't seem like i do. my daughter is gay and married to a woman. they seeto havep their shoulder. if they want to be gay, that is
fine. in the meantime, china is going to h submarines in the ocean and countries do not like our country. host: to the point of the case's decision, why do you think it was even, in your words "stupid" for the court to take it up? caller: they did not really say anything. they said they both have rights. what is going to happen in the future like that man you were talking it -- talking to? did they really resolve anything? no, that is just a waste of time. host: that is jenny from ohio. richard rogers on twitter saying the baker -- they ducked the issue by saying the baker was unfairly treated. if you want to make thoughts on twitter, you can do so there and on our facebook feed as well. woodbridge, virginia, joyce, you
are up next on independent line. caller: hi, pedro. c-spanry happy to be on today. i glad the courts ruled in favor of the baker. thethindisagree with is people who bring these charges to put racism anblack people's problems with the gay community because it is two totally different things. black people have nothing to do with bringing in dana's -- gayness and most blacks are conservative all over the world. host: the decision itself and what it did for the baker and larger issues, what do you think about that? caller: i think it was the right ruling. the bigger issue is the baker should not be forced to do
something he feels in his heart is wrong. he should not be forced to do that. i think the court did write with that. i am sorry they could not come out and be more precise in precedente this is a many people that are trying gaynessthe gain us -- on everybody. host: you think the court should of made a more broad decision than the narrow one they took? caller: i think they should have made a broader decision because this coury supposedly based on the founding fathers trying to follow by the principles and by this country deviating, we have pushed ourselves into secondary, third place in the world and who knows how far we will slide backward because we
have made something that wrong, lawful now. at theack phillips center of this case being the owner of masterpieceake shop, that cakehop at the cter of the case has an op-ed this morning about the decision by the court saying "as a cake artist, i have always been willing to serve anyone who walks through my doors. that does not mean i make any cake requested of me. as a matter of conscience, i am obliged to decline, but i offer those customers any thing else in my shop. people don't have to share my belief to support my freedom, they just need to agree the decision should be mine to make, not the government's to make for me. if the government can force me to celebrate events and express views that violate my conscience, they can do it to anyone. i can see the sun once again,
the supreme court affirmhegove y religious beliefs. it welcomed me back from the house -- outskirts as the -- where the state had pushed me for the moment." you can read more of those thoughts today. that is jack phillips, the owner of masterpiece cake shop. at is e topic of the next minuteor so, the decision by the spring court. you can talk about the decision or maybe the larger issues when it comes to free speech and religious freedom. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independent, 202-748-8002. republican line, phil is next in connecticut. caller: i cannot believe this got as far as it did. we are talking about bing a cake. was this guy the only baker in the state of colorado these -- the same-sex couple could go to?
bakery.other it is not the only game in town. host: you don't think the larger issue at play did not warrant a decision or the supreme court considering this? caller: there are no ons.si twgu want to get married and the baker did not want to make them a cake. theou go all the way to supreme court over wedding cake. that is just the frosting on the cake, pardon the expression. host: independent line, patricia, libertyville, illinois. caller: good morning. as always, you are looking sharp . i am appalled by the decision of the supreme court. i do not understand their ruling at all. i do not understand how the impacted of the baker the clear-cut violation of the civil and
constitutional rights. not uerstand the distinction between this matter and the matter of a baker who into order a cake and theuco man is a bloody racist and declines to make the cake. what is the distinction? what is the difference, i would like to know? i would presume the persons on the supreme court are more than educated enoh to parse out an answer to that question and i believe what they have done is take the ey way out and i am appalled. these people are supposed to have the intellectual wherewithal to make a good and strong decision in support of the constitution of america. what they have done in making this decision is they are sliding as backward and forward into tyranny and i am bloody well appalled. host: you heard from jack
couple asked jack phillips to make the cake for them on the -- for them. a smallcraig s rally and here is a bit from what he had to say. [video clip] to us.do is still open we brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told we do not serve your kind here. we will continue fighting until no one -- thank you. a tweetat is a bit from sent out with a link to the video. , it is see that yourself available when you go to the
denver post website. moats line, in new york. caller: how are you doing? habit of going on the information we only want to hear. the man said he would have sold them any cake, he said he would not make the cake. he wanted them to make it pertaining to somebody's genitalia. heaid, s am not going to do that. what happened when he went to court, the lower court did not handle icoy. that is why it went to the supreme court. if the lower court had done what they wanted to do, it would not have went to the supreme cou. it had to be a serious issue as far as them making that decision. because we want to go on that gay part, he did not want to do
.t because they were gay it was not that, it was the fact they wanted them to do it specifically on the cake. host: that said, what did you think about the high court's decision? caller: the high court tried to play the mdle. againstd, we are not gays. they are trying to play the middle of the road and i think their decision -- that is like me going to the court and the evidence against me was not handled correctly. host: do you think playing the middle is the right way to go o you think that resolves thissue or does it produce new problems down the road? caller: it definitely produces new problems down the road because it will be another case that -- they already have them, that they have to listen to coming up anyway. it is going to be another one that will be more defined of how
they have to deal with these cases when there are peoe that have serious issues. these are serious issues and this racial thing is going to come up again because we never dealt with it back in the 1600s. this whole racial thing. we continue to deal with this because weuse ef actually handle what we need to be handling in this case. -- tyrone is tryon new york. donna says -- is being hypocritical. he would not like to be turned away from a service or product because of his religion. decided by the court set precedent in some way. this one sets the wrong one. by the way, the supreme court does not have cameras, but they do issue an audio version of the arguments.
this one goingack to last december. if you go to our website, c-span.org, we have archives of supreme court cases, this being one of them. to show you a bit of the argument, this is the solicitor general presented his argument before the court and he talked about the case of the cake maker , if it rose to the threshold of protected speech. >> ihe problem for my friends on the other side is they think the question does not matter. they would compel an african-american sculptor to sculpt a product for a klan service. >> they involve speech, which means there's an ability to boycott. >> i think what it boils down to is a narrow category of services that cross the threshold int protected speech and i think it is a relatively narrow character -- category. i don't think you could force the african-american sculptor to sculpt the cross for the clan
service just because he would did -- he would do it -- incouldhe baker put a sign his window "we do not bake cakes for gay weddings." >> i think he could say he does not make custom-made wedding cakes for gay weddings. >> you would not consider that an aront to the gay community? >> i would not minimize the dignity interest, but on the other side, too. host: but here from catherine in maryland, democrats line. what do you think about the decision from the supreme court in this case? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. court dide supme correct judgment only because wouldker had said that he bake the cake, he just would not
addition theylar wanted. since it was not an individual contract, i think he had that option. i do feel in these future cases, they do have to err on the side of civil rights, so they would have to err on the side of the they walk into any business that is open to the public, the general public and they refuse to do business. people are also acting as if this is some win on the part of christianity. i think the supreme court made the judgment, if the baker had been any other religion and made the same judgment that he did
not want to do something on the basis that he did, i think the supreme court would have judged it the same way. i don't think it is a win for christianity, although i was brought up a christian, i feel it is just a proper judgment on the law. there is also one thing i have to say. and i find that every time i listen to different trump and thenald issues i hear people bring up black has done this and so on, the things these people are bringing up, these justo push their agenda. when it came to the black person
having their proper rights, givenpeople have not black people their proper rights even now. host: that is catherine in billy, maryland. from herndon, virginia, independent line. caller: i was thinking about this in a different way. in respect to the cake maker in colorado bringing up his christianity, to such a point that seemed to be the center of all his argument rather than the law and treating everyone equally. in the future, we have a lot of religions in this country now because of our asian communities such as hindu and buddhist and sikh and we have the jewish population and they do not believe in the chrisan belief fundamentally. it is completely different and i would think the artwork they would want done on a cake or
something like that in a wedding would be completely contradictory to whatever a christian would want on a cake. host: you are saying this decision offers precedent i future cases that could involve those groups you describe? caller: yes, and i think what the woman said prior about the legal situation here, i find it appalling. more than appalling because it opens a door to so many problems becauses reallsad this could have been handled without the religious aspect. i am just appalled. host: that is susan in herndon, virginia, giving her thoughts. continue if you are on the phone lines. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 continue calling and if you are on the line, stay a few minutes
as we go over other news. , this is themp philadelphia inquirer, saying on monday he abruptly rescinded an invitation to host the eagles at , citing theuse "smaller delegation" planning to attend, stoking national debate by insisting plars stand for the national anthem. that celebration was canceled fewer than 24 hours before the team was scheduled to visit. the president said "the philadelphia eagles aren't able celebrate tomorrow. they disagree with their president because he insists they probably stand for that national anthem hand on heart in honor of the great men and women of our military and our country." he followed up saying "we will probably play the national anthem and other wonderful music celebrating our country. the united states and the -- marine band and the army chorus
honoring america, nfl, no escaping to locker rooms." the reactionw chrom the yoofhiladelphia saying these are players who stand up for the causes they believe in and contribute in meaningful ways to their community. they represent the diversity of our nation in which that we are free to express our opinions and this in finding them from the white only proves our president is not a true patriot, but a fragile egomaniac obsessed with crowd size. " it also one of the players tori smith saying, "starting with meone he lies, here are some facts. not many people were going to go and no one refused to go because the president insists folks stand for the anthem. the president continues to spread the players -- narrative that players are anti-military." lines available as
well as social media. frank in myrtle beach south carolina, you are next. 7-2 andthe decision was christiity rights, it was sta more of the way he was treated at the local state level, it seems like. the country was founded on christian principles and the fact that some 66% of the people in this country were opposed to gay marriage and obama -- if he had come out his first four years for gay marriage, he would not have been reelected. you notice he did not come out for gay marriage until he was reelected. host: you are saying the decision should have gone broader in terms of religious freedom? caller: yes, i do. the fact is, these shootings that have been taking place in school, how many of these kids
have been to church? have been in a church? you would be appalled that these kids that have never been introduced to a church. as a child, i was required to go to church every sunday and tell i was 13 years old and my father came to me and said, you can choose, if you want to go to church on sunday, you don't have to go to church. host: i get you on that point, to the decision it self, been ae been -- have problem to extend this decision to the broader aspects of religious freedom, do you think? caller: i think you should have a religious freedom. they could have went somewhere else to make that case. the problem is, in this country people are getting away from what made this country a christian country. let's hear from michael in pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you god for c-span paris
to the earlier gentleman had an interesting comment. we did not have school shootings when children were taught that kill. though shalt not the issue that has been avoided is this marriage license in general, why do we have one? i think the government being involved in marriage licenses itself is a restriction on our freedoof religion. host: that aside, to the decision of yesterday, what do you think about the decision and -- larger applications implications? he has a business that anybody can come in and buy and also performs contracts, making a case he is the filling a contract. he has a right to offer a
contract to anyone they want or cannot offer a contract. you cannot get a guy to work on a house and say you have to do this. he can say, this is the kind of thing i do andnk t ihit is a big issue that was avoided in yesterday's decision. host: that is michael in pennsylvania. let's hear from russell in south carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that president obama actually came thebefore his election, so gentleman that came out after he was reelected was incorrect and it is funny they always want to make it about obama. i don't understand why a lot of trump supporters always have a what about-ism about obama. we are almost two years into the trump residency and they always want to say what about obama. host: they decision yesterday,
your thoughts about that. caller: isn't it funny a cake maker can request not to bake a cake, but football players are andired to face the flag stand for a country that is shooting their brethren down in the street? host: the decision from legislators came in on the republican side. senator ted cruz of texas saying the supreme court decision upholding a colorado baker's constitutional right to live according to his faith is a major victory for religious liberty. the government should never discriminate against religious faith. mark meadows of north carolina, s decisioncotu underscored one of the
foundational principles, the government must never discriminate against an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs." "supreme court upheld the first amendment and sided with the baker. " decisionord saying the affirms the free exercise of religion is more than freedom of worship, it is the right to live of faith and in a free society, -- respect diverse views. a lot of reaction coming from a lot of places. it is 202-748-8001 for republicans purred democrats, -- democrats. -- it is 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. caller: my opinion might
surprise you, but our founding fathers wanted to limit the power of government. i don't agree with what they are doing in colorado, but i respect their right to do it. we need to allow the states to dictate their own policies and laws. want toe in colorado pass these kind of laws, that is fine. if americans don't like the law, they can move to another state. that is a one-size-fits-all that is too big. we cannot go anywhere else because if we lose freedom here, we have lost it everywhere. host: one of the issues that came up yesterday was the actions of the colorado civil rights commission, which eventually led to bringing in the supreme court. what do you make about their behavior and the role they play in this? caller: i think it is important,
but that is not my business. i don't live in colorado. the people in colorado decide that. people in california do not need to be subservient to trump. our country was founded on individual states. politicalonly one entity prior to the civil war opposed to slavery. the federal government supported slavery along with the southern states. i wanted to show you a little bit of reaction from the the supreme court argued that you can find on our website at c-span.org. this is justice kennedy questioning the solicitor general about the comments that were made by commissioner on the colorado civil rights commission . this is part of the argument
heard last december and you can see it on our website. here is a portion. [video clip] >> the commissioner says freedom of religion used to jtify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric. there were no further proceedings in which the commission this about. >> do you disavow or disapprove? >> i would not have counseled my client -- i do. i need to make clear that that commissioner was referring to the previous decision of the commission, which is that no matter how strongly held a belief, it is not an exception to a generally applicable antidiscrimination law. the assertion that what is engaging in his speech is enough to overcome that law, you will familysituation where a portrait artist can say i will photograph any family, but not when -- insuppose we thought that
significant part at least one member of the commission faced the commissioner's decision on hostility tof reli, could your judgment then stand? >> i do not think that one statement by the commissioner -- >> suppose we thought there was a significant aspect of hostility to religion in this case, would your judgment stand? >> if there was evidence the entire proceeding was begun bee an intent to single out religious people, absotely, that would be a problem. host: that for argument available at our website, c-span.org. they don't have video within the court, so that is the best way we can show it, audio with the pictures of the people involved. you can see how the justices
questions on a lot of different sides, people who supported jack phillips, people who supported the couple, that is available at c-span.org. let's go to the little theater, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. although we should treat all ople wh respect, religious liberty is guaranteed by the constitution, gay rights or not. i also believe if the baker was asked to make a cake with a genitalia on it, would he haveefused also? caller: thank you for taking my call. discrimination is discrimination is discrimination whether or not you are black or gay or female or malor whaver and the baker is open to the public. serve thes job, to
public. if he felt he could not do that honestly against whatever religious belief he had, then he should be a personal baker for personal weddings. host: some of the arguments presented that the baker offered other cakes in the store, just not to create a cake. >>ll oering dierings to the public. he is offering his talent to the public, but refused based on his religious beliefs. when you are working for the public, your rigion has to take a backseat. serving the public. if you feel you cannot do this and put all of your beliefs behind you in order to rvthe public, then you should not be serving the public. decision think this will affect other types of decisions involving religious peleork various fferen industries? caller: yes, because you can say i can help this man because he is jewish, i can't help this man because he is buddhist, i can help this man because he is arab
and i don't feel that ing him would go against my religious beliefs, so i can't do it. host: a couple of tweets from democregistors. right americans have the to live free from the indignity of discrimination. u.s. be open to a the masterpiece take ruling highlights the immediate need for passage of the equality act." this is about individuals having the right to love whoever they choose free from discrimination. from colorado saying we can and must provide lgbtq people with a clear protectants from discrimination. nobody should have their dignity or basic rights put on trial, just as nobody should have to walk into a store and wonder if they should be denied service.
rob wittman ryan saying "we do not need a court ruling to stand up for discrimination against our lgbtq friends, neighbors and our neighbors, brothers and sisters anyway. " "while the supreme court ruled inorf the cake shop, the court also underscored the quality of -- the quality of lgbtq people. it is important we have a five this message and fight for full of quality open to all. there is an op-ed in the new york times by an opinion writer and a professor of english at columbia. "we need an equal rights amendment. the only thing that will truly enshrined equal protection for all americans including lgbtq people is an amend constitution. call it the dignity amendment. 'the quality of rights under the -- itould not be abridged
would make clear the we in we thpeopleeans everybody. ' it would not a leave the differences between men and wome eliminate child support or force states to pay for abortion. if some of these sound familiar, they are among the kunhardt's conservatives have -- in spite of this barrage of information, the e.r.a. once given up for dead has continued to make progress as of last month, it is only one state short. jenniferhe opinion of finney boylan inhe new y times this morning. let's go to mike in kentucky. excuse me. democrats line. caller: i would like to make a comment that if you want to refuse the right to serve somebody, you should have to
post it on your door so you save people free from the embarrassment of being refused service and that is all you have to say and you have a nice day. host: david in jackson, mississippi, independent line. caller: thank you. i agree completely with the woman who called from new york earlier. i would add this comes awfully -- they establishing are saying the christian overlies sexuality. i wouldust emphasize -- thank you. york, republican line, you are next. caller: i just want to note up front that not every case gets taken up by the u.s. supreme
court. i think they get tens of thousands of petitions to hear cases. we will continue to litigate this cake case. is kind of lost and what is next? we are starting with bakers and we go to florists and then people doing murals, artists of all kind? how far will this go and why did they choose to take this case, are they can a every case involving artistic expression? there are so many more important issues we could be arguing about, capital punishment, they did take that case on gerrymandering, the immigration issue will still be litigated. host: one of the issues they take cases is because of uncertainty in the lower court. are you thinking this should of stayed within the lower court? caller: i think probably it is
going to end up having to stay in the lower courts because, how much further are we going to go with this? they say they did not want to go too far in terms of moving history forward with making a i amecision on this and just saying it should not have been -- it should of stayed in colorado. how muchn you say further it can go, what is a hypothetical that comes to mind? caller: a lot of people are talking about how the cakwas not decorated, so there was no and cakesssion generally don't have that much opportunity for expression. it did not even get to that point because he refused because they were gay i guess once we do get into the weeds, it is like,
ok i have to decorate the cake. say they voted the other way and you have to decorate the cake. how far could it go? there is an episode of curb your enthusiasm where he goes to the baker aoesn't reit, but he ate a cake that was baked to look like a black peanuts -- black penis. i am just saying. host: let's go to tim in massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. i think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. it was very narrow if you read the majority opinion. they just were saying the copper -- colorado civil rights commission seems to be a little too anti-religious when they brought the case forward. i don't think -- see how that would apply to a larger free-speech case. i don't understand. it seems like this with a one and done and i don't think there will be a large precedent set.
i think they are just kicking the can down the road. as far as the decision itself, does a religious person have the right to turn down a same-sex wedding cake if they don't want to make it? i would say they probably do. i don't think how you -- see how you can force somebody to provide a service on their private business. host: that is tim giving his thoughts on the decision i the supreme court on this cake case handed down yesterday. we have about 15 minutes for you to make your thoughts known. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. . whenndents, 202-748-8002 itcomes to the upcoming summit between the united states and north korea, the president tweeting out saying "meeting in singapore with north korea will hopefully be the start of something big. we will soon see."
senate minority leader charles schumer and congressional democrats say they fear this to trump would cave in at the summit in his eagerness to strike a deal. "permanentemands dismantling and removal of every north korean weapon of mass destruction, the end of pyongyang's ballistic missile program and complete briefings to congress on the deal." if he tries to reach a deal just for the sake of reaching a deal and the agreement fails to live up to the principles we have laid out, he will have been bested at the negotiating table yet again. the letter did not detail what the u.s. could offer mr. kim in an effort to strike a deal. if you go to the op-ed section of the washington journal, a senior fellow of the brookings institution talking about the future and what it might do between the relationship between the u.s. and south korea saying
is the alliance worth it? writing "what kind of alliance would make sense if the north korean danger disappeared? modestly scaled back version of today with no more than 25,000 troopstationed at all times. the u.s. would retain its current mix of u.s. fortunes, heavy army forces, additional ground logistics abilities, two wings of air force fighters, and attack aircraft. this would be backed by a commitment to send hundreds of direct defense of south korea." you can read more in the wall street journal. michigan is next. hello. caller: hello. i was thinking about the cake the flowers and the birds and everything on the cakes you usually see at weddings and they one they wanted is borderline sexual harassment, isn't it? host: the denver post, this is
their headline which shows the picture of jack phillips, the cake maker at the center of kissingece cake shop his youngest granddaughter. if you go lower, there is a picture of the couple, too, charlie g and david mullins. that is how the denver post plays it out in their paper. carroll, st. louis, missouri. line for democrats. caller: i wanted to ask, is it a fact they asked him to put something of seen on the cake, sexually obscene? i don't understand because that is not what i thought. i thought he objected to the fact they were gay, not what he wanted on the cake. host: the issue was his creation of the cake. what did you think about the decision? caller: i think if it was
because they wanted him to put something that on the cake then it was a good decision. if he did it because he does not believe in it and he has an open business, then i think it is totally wrong. host: what is the difference? caller: what is the difference? i don't think a store would be obligated to put up posters with cene things on it. if they put up posters and said, i won't put up anything that shows two men standing together, that wld be asinine. host: republican line, this is tim from council bluffs, iowa. go ahead. caller: why didn't he just go to a gay cake maker? why do you have to go to the supreme court to get a cake? host: what did you think about the decision of the court? caller: i think they wasted their time. 7-2, my goodness. they are wasting a lot of time
for a cake. what is going to happen to that cake after they eat it? host: why do you think the press was a waste of time? caller: why would you waste all your time on these two gay guys? isn't there something else to worry about beside the cake. if you want a cake, go to someone who will make it for you. have your daddy make it. host: steve, hello. caller: my scenario would be, you asked for an extension of the supreme court's decision. let's say two gay men or lesbians walk into a bar and i am a christian and a bartender and they start kissing and due to my belief, i refuse to serve them. i am not sure if this law, what the supreme court's decision, if they would protect me or what would happen. host: you don't think the narrowness of the decision would not give you protection? caller: i think it would.
i think it would protect me the way it is and i am torn on this. i have my face and values -- -- values,alues which are christian basically, but i would have a hard time refusing service to someone. it is a tough decision. host: when you say you're torn, you are considering how jack phillips may have felt being asked to make this cake? caller: i think is a christian he probably wanted to serve them. christians in this country. not everybody, but there is a feeling here sometimes. you don't agree with the marriage thing or with homosexuality. ike i said, if i -- obviously see people who are homosexual, it seems i am obligated to serve them as americans. i just don't have the answer. what would happen if they would
come in for another service and i would deny them because they are openly homosexual and that is what mr. richards in colorado did. i don't know the answer on this. i am putting out the for instances. call we appreciate your and all others who called. also twitter, one viewer says it was just as keegan and breyer who joined the opinion of justice kennedy because the colorado civil rights commission failed to give respectful consideration to the religious views of the petitioners. seems like a reasonable position regardless of your view of gay rights. twitter is available to you @cspanwj and on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. from texas, independent line from summerfield, this is jim. caller: good morning.
--at we have here, i think host: go ahead, you are on. caller: what we have is a situation created by our government. they have made a decision against god's law. god has condemned sexuality and he again condemns it in the first chapter of the new testament and in the 6th chapter of first corinthians. you have to go back to what the apostles said in chapter 5 verse 29. biblei apologize f the background, but how does this apply to the decision made by the court yesterday? caller: the government has created this situation and they are trying to justify the decision they have made in the population of this nation -- and
the population of this nation is not going to go along witht. going --t is jim giving his thoughts. justine from new hampshire, independent line. caller: how are you, pedro? host: i am fine, thank you. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am glad the supreme court made a decision. it is his is this, his livelihoods. the gay people rights do not start when you hit somebody's store or when they hit your chest. we all have your own rights. to force someone to do something seems like the wrong answer. at the same time, why do we have to know they are gay in the first place? now they brought it to the supreme court, i am glad they chose for the business owner because it is his livelihood and not just doing it for fun. host: a couple of facebook comments to share with you.
carolyn cook said it did not go far enough, but i will take it. if the baker did not want to bake the cake for a same-sex marriage because of his release -- believes, he would not -- shouldot have en ford to. christopher mckinney saying it is disappointing they open the door to discrimination of all kinds due to religious beliefs. i don't know how this doesn't gut the civil rights act of 1964. those arthoue the ts on twitter -- facebook, about 500 or so on this comment. you can continue making comments even after this question is done at facebook.com. on our twitter feed as well @cspanwj for the next couple of minutes, taking a look at phone lines as well. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002
brooklyn, new york is next on thindependent line, robert. good morning. caller: i think we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the free exercise clause of the first amendment. presumably if the baker's refusal to make the cake was based on some nonreligious basis , the decision would have been the opposite. how would the constitutional amendment resolve that? is, religiousint beliefs would not get any preference over non-religious beliefs. in this case, presumably it did. host: that is robert in brooklyn. -- in the new york times writes about paul manafort, the latest decision on him by the court saying federal prosecutors accused paul manafort onday
of attempting to tamper with tax ands in his federal money laundering case. prosecutors working for the special counsel robert mueller said it violated the terms of mr. manafort's release while he relate -- awaits trial. prosecutors said mr. manafort tried to contact witnesses by through an intermediary and through an encrypted messaging program. one witness told the fbi mr. rnnafort was trying to subo perjury and two witnesses provided texts to fbi. pennsylvania,-- indiana, pennsylvania, you are the last call on this topic. caller: good morning. i think the supreme court made the wrong decision. they set a precedent for discrimination.
i think one of the big questions to ask would be did this baker ever make a cake for a couple that had previously been married divorced because that would be against his religious beliefs as well. the second question is suppose this baker went to the hospital needing a blood transfusion and got a jehovah witness the doctor. a jehovah witness does not believe in blood transfusions. if the baker suffered a permanent disability while waiting for another doctor to do the blood transfusion, what with the cake baker do? because it jehovah witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions and the baker could be denied a blood transfusion? host: brenda will be the last call on the topic. two guests joining us. ningham is a forme prosecutor and white house lawyer and he will discuss the latest with the robert mueller investigation and how it could
play out. later on in the program, author souza onmaker dinesh d' his pardon from president trump. that is coming up on "washington journal." >> sunday on cue and day. ross delphic talks about his .ook to change the church pope francis in the future of catholicism. >> he think's church needs change in various ways. particularly around issues related to the sexual revolution, marriage, divorce popes on where prior
basically said these are changes the church cannot make. there have been these fraught places where he has clashed with cardinals, bishops, theologians, over just how far he can push the church to change, what the church can change without undercutting its own traditions or raking faith with the new testament, the gospels, jesus. c-span. a on c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today i'm a we continue to bring unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.
washington journal continues. host: thiss nelson cunningham president and cofounder of mccarty associates. a longtime observer of investigations particularly of a presidential nature and joining us to talk about the state of the robert mueller investigation. guest: pleasure to be here. your good you folks history? guest: i started life as a lawyer. a litigator at a law firm. i was lucky to be hired by rudy giuliani in new york to be one of his young assistant u.s. attorneys. that was 30 years ago last month really swarming in. i spent -- rudy swarming in. me in. for most of the six years i was there, just down the hall from me was jim comey who started life in that office.
i moved fr there to work for joe biden when he was chairman of the senate judiciary committee. i became his general counsel on the committee working on constitutional and criminal law issues. in 1994. in 1995i moved to the clinton white house where i spent two years as general counsel for the ofte house office administration, working on all of the underpinnings of the white house. the reason they brought in a former prosecutor and former senate official was because of the independent counsel investigations and congressional investigating committees that were just starting to investigate president clinton. that was my life at the white house for two years. i went on to foreign policy which is where i spent most of the last 20 years. host: with that scope what do you think about the current state of robert mueller's investigation? results?before we see
to it as someone who worked on complex white-collar investigations guest:, somebody who has watched the clinton impeachment go forward, who has watched many complex washington scandals u to get a feel for these things. i matched my thinking about watching the mueller investigation with what we know coming out in the press. wrote a couple of pieces in politico that laid out what i think will be happening in the coming months. howfirst piece looked at mueller will wrap up his investigation. there are a couple of things that are clear to me. mueller is reaching the end of his investigation. i know there are new revelations every day. newspapers are full of it. you have to understand, as outsiders, we only know a fraction of what is going on in a criminal investigation. it's like an iceberg. 7/8 is underwater and we only see a fraction of it. often we only see it a month
later. something that happened in jaary or february, we learned today. mueller is further along than st people would think. one of the reasons i believe that is because of the discussions that have been going on over whether to interview president trump. that is clearly going to be one of the final stages of an investigation such as this. how do jim comey and his e-mail investigation of hillary clinton? july 2 they had the interview with her, july 5 he announced findings. that is the way a prosecutor will work on this but you feel he's coming to an end. host: let me invite callers to ask questions. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents. you can make your thoughts or questions on twitter. -- and independents, (202) 748-8001.
guest: this is the issue bill clinton faced. he was sued in the paula jones case. he challenged it it went all into the part -- to the supreme court. the supreme court decided unanimously that a president must be subjected to a civil case. the president must accept process. if called to testify the president must testify. the court made clear he the president you have to make allowances. you ha to do it in ways that fit his schedule. he has important responsibilities. the court unanimously said a civil case can go forward and that the president can be required to testify in that civil case. in a crimil case it's even stronger. any judge will tell you a criminal subpoena trumps a civil subpoena. if bob mueller subpoenas the president, there is clear precedent, clinton versus jones supreme court case and earlier the unanimous u.s. versus
nixon watergate case, requiring richard nixon to comply with a subpoena and turn over the watergate tapes. there is no debate at all about whether or not the president would be required to testify, if he is handed a subpoena. no president wan to beanded that subpoena. clinwahaed that ca starr.st buy ken a limiteds negotiated time the president was able to testify from the white house. he did not have to have the indignity of walking to the grand jury room. lawyers sitting next to them, which is not what you would have if you went to the grand jury. watched itr is live on tv. what we are seeing this loud back and forth, all just loud negotiating tacticsfairly predi.
mueller has subpoena power and the president does not want to be subpoenaed. heouher dot voluntarily. host: ru giuliani directly involved in this process. what you imagine his role is in trying to negotiate? guest: he is obviously a very good negotiator. he is also someone who i think ear.the president's i think what rudy has been doing in the last couple of weeks, sometimes in the law precision helps. sometimes obfuscate and helps. he is throwing up a lot of arguments, a lot of issues. one of his goals i think is to make the whole thing seem to the public so confusing and so vague and so on the one hand, either they begin to lose interest or frankly they think whatever mother does -- whatever mueller does may not be that important.
i do think mueller will issue his report this summer. he does not want to interfere with the midterm elections. it' principriednto ecors. one of the reasons jim comey was criz. did it too close to the elections. will finish his investigation. i don't think he will invite the president. the constitutional rabbit hole. you could go down that for months or years. he wants to find the facts. he will produce a report. that report goes to rod rosenstein at the justice department and this is where it is different from the starr report. star was on special operating under a statute that required him to write a report and required him to send a report to congress. that statute is expired. the specl unsel gutions governing this matter are very different. rosenstein gets to report and he can juit on it. no requirement that he make it public. if he does, of course,s recy
rules he has to comply with classified information rules. it makes you wonder will we ever see a whole report in public because of t classified nature d grd jury secrecy involved. once that goertto ronstein, if he chooses to make part of it blic or forward it to the congress for their consideration, that is when you reach a moment of potential constitutional crisis. president trump has made it clear he does not want that report to go forward. host: we have some calls lined up for you. we will start with don, republican line in michigan. you're on with nelson cunningham to talk about the state of the mueller investigation. caller: they keep comparing this to clinton and that than. we have a president that there is actually a contrived situation that was set up to try
to make it look like something happened and now we are wanting the president to comment on that in an interview. i think that does not make sense. foris going to interview something they never set up in the first place? really a contrived situation from what appears from the fbi and cia. brennan, clapper of all of that. gut: you are referringo what's been called the spy gate incident. how did this invtion begin? there are a couple of things i think it is important to note. it is clear from the facts and from what's come out that the investigation began because of george papadopoulos and the information he passed on in the spring of 2016 that he heardhe russians had tons of e-mails from the democrats in july, when e-mails were dumped through wikileaks, the
fbi began an investigation. based on george papadopoulos. when they heard there were efforts perhaps by the russians toontacthe trump administration, they went to one of their longtime sources, a republican political appointee .ho's been identied ask his help to contact these individuals and see whether they'd heard from the russians. he did that. i know it has been called spy gate. i don't view it as contrived. i view it as what any of us would want the fbi to do if we had evidence that there was a foreign goverent trying to interfere with the political party. caller: i worked under thate department and i know the intelligence business well. i think robert mueller is doing a great job.
your guest is a breath of fresh air. . like what you are saying allow him to go forward. who is standing up for the united states of america? i swore on the bible that i would protect the united states of america. nelson, your question for our guest specifically? suggest --t do you can you inform people, the republicans and the democrats and all the people across the nation -- host: thanks. guest: this is why i think someone like mother is what we need. he is a longtime republican
political appointee. he has put together a staff of current and former prosecutors. i know there are claims there are angry democrats. stackedr's edition was with many republicans including rod rosenstein. the current secretary of labor worked for ken starr. the later solicitor general. the team was heavily republican. republican.f was what we have here is mueller, who is himself a republican reported -- appointed by a republican, appointed by donald trump. mueller, for 30 years, has been a legend in the law enforcement communities. since long before he was fbi director. he is someone who has widespread trust. until this investigation began
few ever questioned his ethics, his standing, is worth it -- his work ethic. at the end of the day come he is to answer as many questions as possible and try to lay this matter to rest. we are lucky to have someone like mueller. we are lucky he comes from republican roots. i think that will help persuade many that this was a fair investigation. host: neunnilson cham, our t. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . caller: good morning. a couple of questions for you. was bought andt paid for that generated some of the interest in this collusion, repeatedly brought to the attention of american people
just cashed out on everything about this investigation. it was just the start of a small conspiracy. in my mind it cashed out. as a republican, i voted for the , i'mdent. as a republican supporting the fact that a lot of positive things are happening in the country. obama did some good things. trump has done some good things. it is time to shake of trade deals. i'm looking forward to getting to the bottom of it. i't think it has to be the ablu forefront of the news each day. the hate has to be spewed from every news station. just get to the bottom of the investigation, take a look at what happened and take action. let's keep in mind on thing we are missing. we seem to share all of our projects with russia. we depend to get back from the space station with russia.
an economy about the size of texas. they are not our largest threat. i'm not that worried about russia. guest: you make a very good point, which is thatul it be good if this all happened more quietly. it would be good if the investigation could proceed without as much noise as there is. investigators do their best work when they're able to put their heads down, review the documents and draw conclusions without a cacophony of noise around them. have two reports we can look forward to that will give us a lot of answers in the coming months. one is the inspector general report with the department of policemanhe internal at the department of justice who's been asked to look into how the clinton e-mail investigation was handled. how did the
investigation into the trump campaign begin. michael horowitz, the inspector the hall onwas down thother side from us when we were young prosecutors in new york. we all worked together. michael horvitz is a serious investigator. we will learn a lot from his report. i think it would be good for all of us to hold our breath a little bit and wait to draw judgments on whether things were contrived or whether someone is the devil, until we have reports in front of us. host: the president raising out the possibility for the ability for an department himself. what is the legal standing and what do you think about him raising the issue? guest: nobody knows whether president can pardon himself. decided by the supreme court. we have the proposition that no man is above the law and that
suggests someone should not be his own adjudicator and pardon himself. but it has not been tested. etiquette is a red herring. the president might have the power to pardon himself, he clearly does not have the power to pardon himself from impeachment. the constitution itself says in the pardon clause the president shall have power to confer pardons except in cases of impeachment. i don't believe mueller is going to indict the president. i don't think he's going to bring him to bear on criminal charges so the president won't have a need to pardon himself. if you recommend to impeachment the constitution is clear the president cannot pardon himself from impeachment. host: let's go to texas. democrats line. you are on with nelson cunningham. caller: good morning. why is there a russian around every corner with this trump
guy? it's just ridiculous. we know that trump has the ability -- the way him and cohen use llcs, they have the ability to launder and hide money. .e acts so guilty he will do anything to win and that means colluding, conspiracy with russia. manhe asked what the guilty . what can we say? guest: mueller has put together a team that is perfectly designed to get into the issues you raise. he has some of the best prosecutors and former prosecutors out there on criminal tax fraud. on international money flows. on money laundering, complex criminal organizations. on cybercrime. these are the best we have.
they had been spending a year investigating this, gathering all the documents, interviewing all the witnesses. if there is a there there, they will find i they all come out of career prosecutorial service. if there is not, they will knowledge it. host: new charges against paul manafort from robert mueller, witness tampering. what do you think about that charge in a larger scope of the investigation and how does paul manafort play into the larger scope? guest:position. person -- only american indicted by mueller who has not yet pleaded guilty. the others, michael flynn, papadopoulos, even rick gates, have pleaded guilty. manafort sits out there. one trial in july, one in september.
just looking at this from a cold-blooded prosecutor standpoint, he's a dead man walking. 69 years old, facing counts in both jurisdictions that are ironclad. he took millions of dollars from the ukrainians. ukrainians.mpathiz failed to report himself as a foreign agent. failed to pay taxes on that money and he hid it through offshore accounts. it is cut and dried. has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the prosecutors. paul manafort is 69 years old. the only way he is going to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail is if you plead guilty and cooperates. what we are seeing right now is a bit of a dance between mueller and manafort, trying to get him to cooperate and plead guilty. i think this move of looking to revoke his bail because manafort
reached out to witnesses in the case against them and basically said years when i've been saying about what we've been doing. i'm paraphrasing. classic attempt to shape a witness testimony. mueller is using this outrageous for someone to reach out directly. mueller is using it to increase pressure on manafort. if manafort pleads guilty, if he does agree to cooperate, that is the last milestone along with the interview of the president, the last milestone we have yet standing before mueller can complete his investigation. host: from west virginia, republican line. carl, good morning. caller: you are a lawyer and a member of the bar. i will asse you answer my question truthfully and without spin. wasou thinkillary clinton
20 yearsago i was an expert in sothing nobody else knew anything about. can tell you that keeping documents on a private server unorthodox. it might not have been wise. i see nothing, never saw anything that made it illegal to do so. it's as though the secretary of state took physical papers and decided to keep them in a home office rather than her government office. then you get into the question, classified information or not. it turns out there was a smidgen of classified, the lowest level of classified information in those papers. you can criticize her for that but you cannot say she was a felon for doing that. for keeping her papers as it were in her home office instead of her state department office. you have to but the destruction of e-mails. as i understand it there were some e-mails that were
accidentally destroyed by low-level employee. i don't think there's any reason to believe hillary clinton ordered that. here, but i right believe comey was able to reconstruct many of those e-mails from other sources and devices. --your good second question i apologize. first full answer to your , i mr. second one. -- i missed your second one. host: on the democrats line, stan in kodiak. caller: i'm on the republican line i thought. i must've missed style. could you tell me where the spy in the hillary campaign was from the government so we know that both were supposedly affected by the russians. why aren't we given the information about the spy
clapper used that term, in the hillary campaign? guest: there's not any evidence unaware of -- i am aware of that the russians were reaching out to clinton campaign except ie legally hacking their e-mails. there were no contacts between the clinton campaign and the russians. it is simply not the same. -- was there something wrong with getting a fisa warrant. the fbi waited to begin their pfizer investigation until carter page was no longer --
they did not want to be wiretapping and actual campaign advisor. they waited until he formally -- at ii thimportant to recognize. there's a lotf ck forth on it. there was a paragraph that indicated to the court that there was some opposition research that had been involved .n the dossier carter page had been someone who is a target of attempts to recruit him. three years before this happened, repeated attempts by russian intelligence. the fbi met with him and said do
not read -- do not meet with the russians. he left them off. carter page makes a trip to russia where he comes back and says he did not meetith russians but the fbi has evidence he met with russian officials connected to intelligence. that would raise questions in my mind. host: al in dayton, ohio. you are the last call. go right ahead. caller: ask for c-span. mr. cunningham. very interesting. .'ve been following this one of the going to force -- his tax returns would end this .nvestigation
guest: mueller has been on the job about a year i'm confident that one of the first things he did was send over request to the irs. the process by which prosecutors it's veryx returns straightforward for prosecutors and i'm confident mueller has .hose i've been impressed with the professionalism and it is impressive they've had these -- --re been no leaks
host: nothing cunningham talking about the status of the mother investigation. thank you for your time. guest: pleasure to be here. host: we will hear from dinesh desousa on his pardon from president trump. we will be right back. >> as a former educator i really believe that education is the most important factor facing south dakota. we have been dead last in teacher pay for many years. we are now 48, which is not great but it is an improvement. we must understand that children are our best and greatest assets. we have to take care of them. make sure they are good citizens . >> i think the most important issue in north dakota is diversifying our economy to deal with energy and agricultural prices. >> i feel education is one of the biggest issues we are
dealing with. thatng with our students have behavior and social problems. that emotional side. --k of support, lack of whether it be bedford -- beds for kids that need, just finding we don't have the support we need to help these kids be successful. public funding right now whether for infrastructure programs or public employees such as teachers. funding is really tight in our state. >> part of c-span's 50 capital's tour. washington journal continues. host: dinesh desousa is an
author, filmmaker and most recently in the news for receiving a pardon from president trump, joining us from houston, texas. good morning. guest: good morning. host: could you remind viewers of the situation that caused you to get the pardon in the first place? guest: yes. my college friend wendy long was running for the u.s. senate in new york in 2012. we've been friends for 25 years. i gave her $10,000, the campaign-finance limits. i wanted to do more for her campaign. i convinced two of my friends to donate $10,000 apiece. i reimbursed them. i exceeded the campaign-finance limit by $20,000. ho: w would someone else have been fined or punished for doing that and how did you end up going to a facility for that? case, i was aical
first-time offender. the main point, my motive was not corrupt. the candidate did not even know that i did this. in cases like that were no corruption is involved in my -- mixed guided affection for a friend. those cases are handled with community service and a fine. in my case, that was not so. host: was that because of the things you had said that the obama administration? guest: i think it did. my reason is twofold. my first released documentary film subtitled obama's america. i know the president was mad about it.
a few weeks later the fbi came .anging on my door no case in american history where someone has been prosecuted. host: that is the argument that your lawyer made in this case. selective prosecution, that is your contention. guest: i now know a little more about the case. the congressional oversight committee has a copy of my fbi file. the fbi when they found out about me assigned $100,000 at the outset to investigate this case. .hat is strange
there is no reason to highligh my conservative politics. int: the judge in this case his judgment saying there was no evidence of discriminatory effect or purpose. what do you make of that reaction? guest: we are talking about a clinton appointee judge. we told him the only way to show -- to look inside the fbi files and in the government files, normally obtainable, the judge flatly refuse to let us see the .ile
saying there is no select a prosecution but he would not let us find out if there really was. us forr. desousa is with the next half hour. 02) 748-8001 four republicans -- for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independent. you are on with dinesh desousa, go ahead. caller: accepting rdon is an admission of guilt. stuff, little alibis and he's giving them away by accepting this pardon. guest: first of all i think that is logically idiotic. if someone is wrongly convicted pressured oror is bludgeoned into making a plea deal and then you are pardoned like something the part you are doing no more than clearing your record and rectifying the original injustice so the notion
that just because you accepted a pardon automatically means you are guilty is reasoning for stupid people. host: you eventually pleaded guilty to this. guest: you have to realize the process that leads to this. what the government does is they try to threaten you with all kinds of preposterous and redundant charges. we will get you for mail fraud. you put the check in the mail. thanks rod. -- bank fraud. we are going to get you for filing a false document. i didn't file any documents. but the guys who sent the money in the filed -- they say we are going to send you to prison for years and years, it will destroy your reputation and your life unless you plead to this thing in which case we will drop the rest of it. this kind of bludgeoning tactic pressures the innocent into pleading guilty. caller: i wanted to ask a question.
are you an immigrant? guest: i came to america at the age of 17. caller: that's interesting. thed a question about intersection of propaganda and information especially when it comes to media. the citizen united thing came from a movie right? kind of what you went through came from a movie. interesting what you thought right-wing, whatever you to call it, taking up something the left uses a lot, media. i will sit and listen. guest: i think there's a greater realization not just of the importance of popular culture, but the real emotional power of throughto reach people their heads and hearts. for years i was a writer and speaker. i don't think the obama administration would have regarded me as important enough
to go after. in 2012 i released a movie in 2000 theaters, the second-highest grossing political documentary ever made. that movie upset obama. people will say what makes you think he cares about your movie. the reason i think that is because shortly after the movie came out attacks on it began to appear on a website called barack obama.com. that's how i know the narcissist was upset about my movie. host: what kinds of things did you say about him particularly? -- do you think that caused what he think the white house reacted because of that? guest: here's a sample from that movie. obama had been traipsing around the country chanting the phrase we are our brother's keeper. his argument for economic redistribution and obamacare. i went to kenya and i found obama's actual brother living in a sort of third world slum in
the muck of nairobi. i asked him, what has obama done for you and the guy says nothing. this guy has not lifted a finger to help me. this kind of thing in a movie when i'm talking to obama's actual brother transcends the debate about obamacare. showing the presid the united states to be a hypocrite and i think obama did not like that. he's a patty guy and he apos to go after me. caller: good morning. i want to ask a question that i want to make a comment. ofe you not found guilty campaign-finance violations? guest: i was. caller: ok.
you think the mayor can people arstupid and idiotic. as a black woman you are -- i am offended that you would go after the first black president to demean and malign him and what you said about michelle obama, as a black woman, u are right. we are very upset. talking about narcissism, what about this narcissistic person in the white house now? that's not narcissism? the only reason you're on c-span . offended that you have this person when we have --ican-americans philadelphia eagles. why don't you have some of the eagles on this morning? think as a black person i would think you would realize just because someone has been convicted of a crime does not necessarily mean they are guilty
or that they've received equitable and fair treatment. is criminal justice system far from equitable not just in a racialense but in a political sense. to give an example, rosie o'donnell, the comedian, admitted she had violated campaign-finance law five times in five separate jurisdictions. in theory, five u.s. attorneys could file charges against her today but there is no talk of her being charged because there is no corruption involved in her case. rosie goes if i gave too much money give me the money back and i would have liked to have gotten that treatment. host: from florida, independent line. caller: i'm glad to speak to youcaller:. .e re-watched your movie previously mentioned in one of the other calls. we watched it from beginning to end and i want to thank you for making that movie. my question to you is going to be when you spoke to his brother
and when you went to the grave ,ite of the former president off camera you impart any information on how their society, their culture also felt about him. when eric holder put you in a cell how did you feel about that day? kenya aten i was in the obama family homestead i got a window into obama. we think of obama, the first african-american president, civil rights guy. we might think of him in connection to the civil rights movement. obama's ideology is anticolonial. obama wrote a book, dreams from my father. part of what i wanted to do was learn about his father and his father was this african socialist who hated the west, hated america and wanted to have
.eace prize she never even got i don't know if germany is ever going to come back from what she has done. host: thanks, karen. thank you. guest: i will say that europe is theng a serious problem best ans take them at game against that seem largely digest -- largely indigestible. german?rkey become a can a pakistani becoming lisman? -- become an englishman? america has been a better solvent for assimilation than europe. we have done better with immigrants here than over there. people tend to attack president trump for being a racist and this is based on the fact that trump is supposedly against immigrants.
trump has always drawn the line and illegallegal immigrants. it's important to realize most legal immigrants who come to america are nonwhite. and come from asia, africa president trump has never said he wants merely white immigrants from iceland or new zealand and fewer immigrants from barbados or bombay. he just does not want illegal immigrants to break the law and come here in the wrong way. joe, goodington, d.c. morning. caller: good morning. , hented to ask mr. desousa is a film writer and all. supporting your base, that is ok. you are equipped to attack obama. now you are being supported by the president and
administration. it works like that. at night when you sit down to you look at yourself and think you are not so secure after all. none of us are. i think that sometimes we get so partial that we can do more damage than good. you may do some things that tablesxpose and turn the . at the end of the day, see who you are. youare still mr. dinesh and may be in that culture and that environment that supports you and makes you feel good and successful. that's all well and good. host: thank you, joe. guest: i would like to try to say were my politics comes from. when you talk about things like my base, i don't n for office. i don't have a base. i'm a nonwhite immigrant who came to america with $500 in my pocket.
i've seen the american dream as a reality in my life. ofelieve in matters opportunity that enable people who start out at the bottom to be able to climb up the ladder and make a better life for themselves. when i look at the two parties it seems to me one of them is offering me a ladder and the other is offering a rope. you got democrats on the top of the building. you don't have to try but we will lower a rope to you, you grab onto it and we will pull you up. i say to myself you are going to pull me up but then i am dependent on you. what if you let go of the rope? i would rather see a ladder propped up against a waland climb up on my own and have a earned achievement instead of someone else giving it to me. this is the reason i leaned to the republican side politically to protect host: lettersf opportunity. you heard from the president once. have you heard from him since he received your pardon or anyone from the white house?
guest: no. the kind of call that was talking about something that was a done deal. essentially trump said i will be announcing this by tweet tomorrow morning and he did. since then i have been out talking about it. my prosecutor preet bharara has been on cnn. the nash voluntarily pleaded guilty. what he does not say is all of the strong-arm tactics the government uses to get you to do that. they basically bludgeon you into it and put on a pompous road and go he voluntarily did it. i'm glad we are having this debate. political justice is a terrible thing. we want lady justice to be blind and not selective. host: you did respond in a blunt way. you say? guest: twitter is a rough
um. we tend to fire nd forth sometimes in the heat of the moment. i did what i call my karma is a bitch tweet. you thought yocovanc your career by being a little water carrier for obama in getting me but now you got fired and i got part -- pardoned. host: jessica in virginia. caller: i have two quick questions. the first is, you have claimed that in your act of committing election fraud that there was no corrupt intent. you used donors which would be indicative of premeditation and from premeditation would conclude there's corrupt intent. how would you go about explaining that? if you generally believe you were coerced into pleading guilty, what have you done, if
anything to advocate criminal justice reform? guest: your first question had to do with corrupt intent. you're right. i had intent. i used straw donors. i was trying to get around the campaign finance limits you have admitted to that from the beginning. i never denied it. i was on megyn kelly's show before my trial talking about it. wasn't corrupt intent? what corrupt intent means is that you are trying to get something out of it. there are lots of cases which the government has prosecuted were someone says i will get this money for you and then i want to be appointed judge or i will get this money for you but i want my business to get a tax break. this is what the law calls quid pro quo. the essential definition of corruption. when there is no corrupt intent and a first-time offense as in my case and when the amount
involved is quite small, $20,000, there is no case in the histof the united states where somebody was indicted, prosecuted, locked up for eight months, sentence to psychiatric counseling, ion probatr ve years for this kind of an offense. it is unheard of so it suggests that these guys were trying to, in some ways, carry out a vendetta for what i had said about president obama. criminal justice reform is badly needed. said i wasasically not a very self reflective man and he was going to help me by ordering me to undergo mandatory psychiatric counseling. think of my fence. i did not commit a perverted deal. i gave money to my own 25 year
-- a friend of 25 years running for senate. my motives were obvious. one writer characterized as misguided loyalty to a friend. the judge thought i had to go to a shrink fors. i characterize this as a reeducation program. click i was trying to get me to kowtow to obama. if i have started making regular appearances on msnbc he would have pronounced me cured. host: let's hear from andrea in michigan. republican line. caller: i'm just so very happy that president trump pardoned you. i've seen your movies. i'm an african-american female and all these people calling in , you really got imprisonment because of what you did against obama. people so much in denial
especially my own race. they will call in and probably dog this call but i want you to be comforted. there's a large majority of us black people -- and i had a blac woman, educated black woman with two masters degrees and i want to let you know i'm very proud of the fis you put out. even the host when he asked you what does obama have to be mad at, go look at the movie. the truth about a whole bunch of stuff. host: mr. desousahost:? guest: a lot of my recent work -- if i had singled out obama, attacking obama would be one thing. , even morent mie critical of hillary that i had been up obama. the subtitle of that movie is the secret history of the democratic party. in that movie i show that many of these things blamed on the
right and america were perpetrated by the democrats. democratic party is the party of slavery and segregation and jim crow and the ku klux klan in position to the civil rights written -- host: bristow, virginia, democrats line. ali. caller: good morning. do you believe that president raised byn american an american family and is culturally american that does not have any cultural background as a kenyan? yet, you went to kenya and interviewed his brother. together --ie that i am african. i know what our people do, they dependable.
i am not sure of y baground, but i am sure you are familiar what i am talking about. don't you think ofhat is not right to go and interview someone in kenya for someone who was born here as an american -- can you answer that for me? guest: certainly. do i think that obama is an american? yes. he had a white mom and a kenyan dad. his dad was never an immigrant, he was a foreign student to came to america, studied, and went back to kenya. who influenced him more? the mom or the dad. the answer, his dad. father." "dreams of my describesk, obama
taking a trip to europe and to kenya to learn more about his mother and father's heritage. history trip to kenya as described in over 100 paget -- his trip tkenya with described inver 100 pages. he talked about weeping at his father's grave and the moment of a pip anywhere his father's -- and a moment of you t -- and a moment of epiphany. people say, where are you getting it all from and i am getting it from obama himself. host: gary, miami, florida. caller: thanks. theyou cover in the movie fact that obama says he attended reverend wright's church for
more than 20 years and he did not know what reverend wright was saying even though reverend married him and his wife, blasted psalm, baptizes children, and the fact that reverend wright prior to that had been a black muslim and often accompanied farrakhan to --ya to visit said off to visit sadaffi? and can you comment on this picture that just surfaced of obama? the matteressence of is that obama moved in very radical circles in chicago. he was close to the former domestic terrorist, he was in church, height's
knew what those men represented and what they believed, but there is a powerful desire not just by obama, but by the media to camouflage his background. to present him as a very mainstream guy. all of this was swept under the rug. a lot about obama to this day is not known. he has never released his college transcripts. very odd that there are aspects of his life that remain for people like me who have studied him, remain sort of like you would say a blackhole. because of the extraordinary degree of media prection of obama. i would sit down with reporters who i had known and they would you got shafted, i am sorry this is happening to you. thei would say, you're on left, it would be important if you wrote something in the new york times, and they would say, no, i could not do that. they were all protecting obama.
it was so imperative to them that the first black president succeed that it did not matter what he did or what he believed. and this isre call from oklahoma, independent line. >> yes, good morning. good morning. i would really love to know your origin of your country that you come from for i am a proud african-american and i never de ny my heritage. i have never seen her movies, but sometimes you sound very arrogant, sir. what makes you so arrogant? host: we will leave it there. i can i do not know if answer that, i am not arrogant. i am sometimes combative because i am in a combative situation
and i tried to give as much as i get. i am very proud to say i was born in india. middle class parents and i went to school in bombay. came as a first-generation immigrant at the age of 17. america has been the land of opportunity for me but i have also seen the american nightmare and imagine hearing the immigrant hearing the united states of america versus dinesh imagine having them go through your tax records, your everything, so i've seen the upside and downside of america. having grown up in one culture and familiar with another, i think there are a lot of wonderful and unique things about america. what makes my work controversial is that i am old enough to say so. joining ush d'souza on washington journal, thank you for your time.
today across the united states have primaries. we're going to focus on a couple of them and what they mean for the larger picture of the upcoming november election. if you want to talk about primary day in those eight states, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8002 for decrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independent. we will be right back. sunday on cue and day, the columnist talks about his book "to change the church." needs tonks the church change in various ways, particularly around issues sexualo the revolution, marriage, divorce, and so on where pri popes said
these are changes the church cannot make. there have been these places where he has clashed with theologians over how far he can push the church to change, what the church can change without under coming its own traditions are breaking faith with the new testament. q and a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfold daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies. continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc around couny. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.
washington journal continues. tuesday in eight states todld spe what happens this november and what could happensht of power in the house and the senate. wele cusingn me of those tod particularly on how it plays into the overall picture. if you want to make your thoughts on this primary day but what it might to do or influence the november elections, it is (202) 748-8000 --(202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for democrats,nd independent. -- the loston angeles times, good morning to you. >> good morning. few of the crazy
things that can happen and california today and why use the word crazy? guest: california has a really unique primary system instead of being a republican and democrats, we have a top two primary. twordless of party, the top vote getters get to novber. in california, that means they could be democrat on democrat or republican on republican. host: let's start with some of those, particularly the governor's primary. set those up. some: we have gavin knew who has been running since 2015 anhee lieutenant governor, expected to get the number one spot in california. the real question is over number antonio who is the former mayor of loseles and he is been a front runner for most of the race, but recent polls have shown him struggling to get through number two.
partat is president trump , aorsing john cox republicanhe hasone much better in the polls. host: when you say much better, give an example. gues he has been getting a little bit closer and most recent ideas poll. he was within range of knock ing one of the top two. host: what is the lieutenant governor's pitch to california voters? guest: that he is well-prepared for the job. lieutenantas governor, he knows what goes into the work and he has been doing this for a very long time. he has raised a ridiculous amount of money. host: when it comes to john cox as a trump supporter, is that his main argument? part tot is, in
make a california goen again. he is pushing for the state to work better with the trump administration administration that it is. --t:he senat a to votersent explain how this race has shaped up over the last few months and where does it stand today. guest: feinstein is running for her fifth term. there are a lot of young moats in california who have .een rearingth bit to run something we are seeing with the contender, he has turned out that the legislature with so many strong candidates running for governor, this is an obvious place for him to go. we are also seeing this trump shift in the senate race. originallystein
said, have patience with the president and she might be willing to work with him. really when de leon decided to enter the race and he has been critical of her and her willingness to work with the administration. feinein has hardened her stance on trump in the last year. she is taking a bigger stand. of theurning to some house races, there are questions of whether the house will stay democratic, and two of those districts that people are looking at is ed royce's 39th and 40th district. guest: these are both open seats so they should be on democrats radar. of these districts are in orange county which is been a republican stronghold for decades. bubbles of the districts also -- both of the districts also backed hillary clinton for president in 2018.
they have not been able to narrow the field so both of these races have more than a dozen candidates running. royc'shelly in ed has anointed who he would want ,- aoung woman ned yung kim and she was state legislator and very popular in the district. we respect and she is going to make the top two. the bigger question is who is going to be her opponent if the democrats get through. 49th, it is anybody's game. rohrabacher, recent statements of his with the cnn headline "it is ok to not sell homes to gay people," put that in context. guest: this is a district where
he has been protected for a long time. might notutlandish be as acceptable as they have been. hes beinal from the right by by a former mentee of his. they waiting tstop running for thuse and dana rohrabacher ran again. he is in the news a lot s to work with the russian government and how that has played with the russian investation. host: speaking of that, one name that comes up frequently is does whats, how happened here playint ther hi guest: is not having that big of an impact. is a stronpponent
opponents, but not particularly in this district. this is one of the most heavily republican in the state,unes is very popular and has been. -- he is also raking in a huge amount of money. saw: one more question, we reporting that there are more independents in california than republicans. what do you think about that phenomenon and how does it play out on this primary day? guest: it has been steadily happening for the last two decades. it is shifted further and fuhehe last d bred the progressive ideology. there are going to be heavy republicans for the early returns, so we are going to hold we need to wait to announce any winners later in the day when we start finding out the day of
polling. we might not know who the winners are for a week or even because people are allowed to to mail in their ballots up to the day that the polls close. they could still be coming in. host: cerro wire reports for the "of the los angeles tim she was here to talk about primary day. think you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: eight states are holding primaries across today, and you want to talk about primary day. for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for democrats, an independent, (202) 748-8003. irving from las vegas, nevada. go ahead.
caller: yes. i was thinking that the arefornia primary votes going to turn out a lot better than a lot of people are projecting. as far as how thatare going to do. if the democrats were wise, they definitely vote out a lot of those republicans who voted on the tax bill to increase their taxes as far as giving the state tax write off. host: do you think issues like the tax bill become something voterwho want to go to the polls? do you think that drives them? caller: it should, though there are not that many republican districts in the state of california.
in the state of nevada where i am from, we are going to reelect and jacky rosen as part of the senate. it is hard to pronounce the other one's name, but we will vote for her for governor of nevada. what i really wanted to say -- move on to the republican line, south carolina. caller: goomorning. the polls are indicating that may be there is some close races and i work in a high school which is primarily a liberal environment with the teachers. when you are having discussions with liberals and you asked them what is disgusted, they are absolutely disgusted with the
briefedtic party when pres -- the democratic party. runningsident trump was , i told people that he was not only going to win but he was going to embarrass hillary clinton with the number of votes. people are not saying coup they were voting for but when they get into the voting booth, they are pulling the switch for trumpo. that is what is going to happen here, too. themselves,ic party the establishment has boxed themselves into the far left contingent of society and most of the democrats on the street level are not with that. that is raymond and south carolina talking about the primary day. your thoughts, (202) 748-8001 for democrats, (202) 748-8002
for republicans, (202) 748-8003 for independents. watching out for races in the house and governor, south dakota has the gop primary for governor. it has been a knockdown drag out to battle between two seasoned south dakota politicians. the race is played out along the em is trying to buck the trend this year for republican house members losing primary bids for higher office. according to a poll, he led jackley i just 45% in late may. late may.5% in from maryland, dee is next. caller: good morning.
the show has been fantastic. what i want to say is people are discounting something in california that i think we'll have an effect and that is the issue of immigrationnd thank -- and sanctuary status. that will play in favor of republicans because americans are tired of the criminal elements. they are tired of seeing their country taken over by a radical group in our beloved democratic party. migrate with to both republicans and democrats in my family and it is to see this happening. you hear the term change, we need change for the better. i hope california can kind of make a loud statement. 38 highlighting to what to watch for in new mexico.
a potentially history making proxy war, a three-way race lopez, andaland, martinez. one of the u.s. attorneys fired by president trump last year despite the fact that he supports a single-payer health care, more outwardly liberal candidate should be able to win this district, but some democrats say that lopez and haaland, will wind up splitting the non-martinez primary vote. withoney races led $700,000 plus raised. they are throwing lots of red meat on the campaign trail. that is the analysis done by "5 "538."
i're next. caller: good morning. democrat for over and i'm going republican now because i am frustrated with the way the democrats have used at minorities in the inner-city. andi have seen the result overe last 40 years and it is worse than it was. i am very disappointed in our democrats, the way they have treated the inner-city, and have left them under the bus. because of their own soul -- ads until it is time for reelection. donald trump, he has done more than barack has done in eight years, and tt is ridiculous.
the fact that people are giving democrats the free pass, it is hard to sit down without -- having a conversation about this because we get attacked. of blacka lot minorities that support trump, but they are being silenced. like one lady said, we do our voting when we go in the booth. host: that is donnie in north carolina talking about primary day today. melville, georgia, independent line. hello, i wanted to make a comment about more independent voters in california than republican voters that you made a comment earlier. peoples like a lot of are going to become independent because you cannot decipher if the republican side or the democratic side are looking out for the public's best interest
or if they are just looking out for the party. to make a clearheaded decision at the voting booth, it is best to be -- have an independent view to determine your vote. i am not surprised that more and more people are becoming independent. host: you identify as an independent, what does that mean to you? caller: what does that mean to me? it means you are putting america first and not party first. you are looking at the actual plforms and the type of legislatures that these politicians are trying to promote when they are running for office. you are going to make a levelheaded decision, and unbiased decision on who you vote for. host: who do you tend to vote for? yeah, if you are
talking global, that could go different directions. on the national level, i have elections for president obama, and also for hillary clinton in the last couple. my view on republicans is that they do not tend to have a in their party. towards the same direction and not towards a more inclusive direction. in georgia, ify you want to contribute, (202) republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and
.ndependent (202) 748-8002 the associated press reporting as of yesterday that thousands in north dakota have already voiced voting ahead of the 12 primary election. tans haveus north dako marked their absentee or mailed in ballots by noon on monday. that is reporting from the "associated p." continue to call in on the lines d make your thoughts known and you can also post on our twitter feed and on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. one of the things you saw on the map, new jy being highghted for key and recognizable people. joining us on the phone
from nj.com as a politics reporter. good morning. guest: good morning. host bob menendez, what is he face today? guest: that is an interesting race to watch for what will happen in the weeks and months the calm. essentially, after -- months to come. essentially, after being admonished by his colleagues in the senate, new jersey is a very democratic leaning states, but thehe latest poll between tru p senator and his republican challenger, he is up by four points. that is an eye-catching figure in a race as blue as new jersey. his democratic challenger today is not a serious challenger in
terms of putting up much of a fight. the coming between now and the general election and where that race polls will be something to watch in jersey. menendezt has senator done to make the case of having people to vote for him? if you are just talking about the primary in a state like new jersey where getting oftenunty lines is more than not going to determine whether or not you win the race, bob menendez has all of the backing of every top democrat in the state, every county line, so it is nearly impossible for a grassroots effort and less it is very well-funded, to counter that. in the coming weeks and months, what we will see is a very on bothve ad campaign sides but you will have bob menendez throwing jabs at his is a formerival who
executive of a pharmaceutical company who has some controversial moves of the company, you be pitting that against him. these are two candidates that will be able to raise money. it all comes back at the end of the day when voters go to the polls in november, this is an election where the biggest player is donald trump. we know that from looking at the whichssional races have been snoozers in new jersey, you a lot of interesting dynamics going on with out of our 12 congressional seats, five are held by republicans, but new jersey is looking at one of not, and more likely than if there is this blue wave, flipping more than one. host: let's look at those districts. 5th is interesting
because that race has held -- he is it is still a freshman lawmaker and was able to upset the republican that ld theeat before him, but that is a race were national republicans will be pumping money in to try to challenge him -- the it being political report saying it is a safe blue sea. lance?nd leonard guest: it is a tossup. you have a bernie-hillary split in terms of where the party is. thehe democratic side, contested primary which will be interesting to see where it shakes out. you happier jacob who challenged lance last time but lost by 10 points who is going up against
in they who worked clinton and obama administration, who has the party support and county lines, but that race is considered a tossup and that could be one of wave areas in a blue that could be flipped. been in congress since the 1990's, so that would be consequential. the open seat races and the 11th district and the second district. 1th, you have republicans retirg. who is a former navy pilot and federal prosecutor who has garnered attention. this he is considered a tossup, but b certainly a catching figure in terms of credentials and is considered a candidate.
you have another congress retiring, that is the one who is most likely look that to beflipped -- looked at flipped this time with the widespread support among the democratic establishment. it is worth noting, there is a conservative democrat, voted against gay marriage, a rating with the nra, but as conservative as you can get in new jersey. host: was the turnout for these types of primaries? guest: the turnout is typically low. the people who turn out are the base of the party. you now have these anti-trump activists across the state, and you have these fights,
specifically in the second district, you have just va drew -- jeff van drew whose challengers are african-american not wanes, do the opposite of him, but a are progressive. they are facing an uphill fight , because he has the party establishment and the county lines behind him. it'll be interesting to see if they are able to make any kind of legitimate challenge against him. anti-trump, grassroots activism has really inspired people to get out, but again, more likely than not in countysey where lines reign supreme, it is probably a done deal. ,ost: matthew arco reports thank you for your time. guest: thank you. on in ourill continue
discussion about primary day, eight states -- we are focusing on three but others are taking place. if you want to make your races,s on specific (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. nancy in fairfax, virginia. republican line. caller: good morning. i am calling because of what was said about congressman or back -- congressman rohrabacher. we are from the same generation. responsible in terms of dealing with mr. putin, but there is totally on stance is d -- totally un-sam stated
substantiated un charges against russia. congress cannot have a sense of counsel statue so i would like to know why mr. rosenstein thinks he can write one. host: ok susan is next from massachusetts. hello, i'm calling about the california primaries. want to ask, i people who call in to write down the topics they want to talk about and clarify them. so they can get to the heart of what they are trying to say, because a lot of people call in and they freeze up. down, yout write it can articulate the better your position. major on-topic on
this california primaries as people need to look at the platforms of the democratic party, the platform of the republican party. you are ine very surprised. if you vote the democratic party, look at the platform, their publicans, their platform -- the republicans, their platform is taking the way the russian sanctions. they do not want this sanction russia anymore. there is a republican major point that they understood that miesrussians were our ene and will always be. when you vote republican, you are saying to the republicans we dorussia.rabacher, host: ryan, dallas, texas. democrats line. caller: yes, how are you doing?
i want to waste the democrats the best of luck, but the united states is really lucky because not teaching the ks be terrorists, our kids are not blowing stuff up, and we have been treated so bad, but we are not teaching our kids to go blow stuff up. because of this section about primaries, what do you think about that? caller: i just hope that the democrats win, and that they do what they say. how about the people that need it, give some of these vocational classes for free so these children can get cdl licenses, they areky tha black people are not doing that with their children. host: that is ryan from dallas, texas. the phone lines are open, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and
independents (202) 748-8002. this is from the "the new york koch," writing about the they make a push for free trade agenda. they make a push for free trade agenda. the initiative will promote the traditional free market view of open trade as beneficial for all countries. the group says the advertisements for drawing trade principles in line with that cy, it has threatened what was already put in place -- and the campaign comes as a moment of contention in the republican party which normally embraces free-market views, but now is in contention with the president along with pressing the administration to drop its tariffs on imports and chinese
goods. mr. trumpalling on the north american free trade agreement. republican line, steve in florida. caller: yes. ure problem have in country is lack of education, civics, u.s. constitutional passes of our trade deals. you go back to 1882, there was a bill about immigration for chinese coming to the unit states. they became americans. immigrations -- does that play out to the discussion of primaries across the united states?
caller: lack of education in american history. host: steve in florida making gives points. ane washington post," initiative when it comes to scorecard to evaluating state programs assaying the first scorecard includes a state-by-state information showing that on average, half the women on medicaid are getting care while they are pregnant and after getting -- giving birth, and less than half of children and teenagers have preventative .entist visits the scorecard also makes public measures of government performance. and waivers that deviate from medicaid's ordinary rules. is a part of the
recalibration of the power of medicaid between the federal government and the state. the program was created in 1955 as part of lyndon johnson's war on poverty. medicaid now covers more than 67 million individuals while covers nearly 6.5 million children. republican line, in winter haven, florida. caller: yes, it is all linked to health care. host: sorry, already got you. dee in oregon. ayoler: i likldto the democratic party, which i been a democrat my entire life, if you do not understand where the party should go, remember the crowds for bernie sanders. it is very clear because the republican party is going in the opposite direction. been a democrat my entire host: not enough of those candidates and knees primaries do you think? she hung up. -- not enough of those
candidates in these primaries do you think? she hung up. democratic line. democrat'm a lifelong as well and honestly, i am willing to sacrifice this midterm to get rid of pelosi and schumer. the dnc has to change. with a take a more conservative look, i am a 60-year-old man. i am rather successful and we have to of a more conservative angle. the lunacy when pelosi and schumer start to speak, anyone cumh a motor -- a modi of intelligence can see they are destroying our party. host: what needs a conservative outlook in your opinion? caller: people i joe donnelly, confirmation, for they do not do it along party lines, they do it with rational thought. there couldthe cia,
not have been a more appropriate choice. donnelly, i thought he was a rational thinker, he did exactly what pelosi and schumer told him. i do not want a lapdog. i want someone who will vote for me and not the party. that is whbeieas successful, he got away from party. socialism, i do not think that is good. that is going to sell to a few left-wing lunatic liberals because they think you can have a free lunch. you are saying to vary a need for more blue dog democrats, moderate democrats? caller: know, exactly. i am more than happy to go across the aisle and vote republican. host: that could be part of the discussion on this primary day, (202) 748-8001 for republicans,
(202) 748-8000 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will go to toledo, washington. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span, it is the only place we can get the news dire. i am a lifelong demt. years and military service and in order to be able to change the direction of our country, we ought to play in police programs that are beneficial to our program, you have to get elected. all thek and watch various campaigns on which democrats have lost the house and lost the white house. every case, it has gone to the fringes, it has been more radical. instead of being aspirational, working towards goals that will
help everybody and make our country even better than it has thus far by generation after generation, we have got to get back to being able to elect people to public office. you cannot do that is a candidate. -- is allot to look you are about is a candidate. you got to look at the policies. aller the previous c says we need more moderates, what do you think? caller: that is what i am trying to get at. we have people who had never been affiliated with the democratic party championing this rather than the other thing, and we lost. again andl losses ain over trying to dd stuff. we are all americans. we should all be working towards making our lives better and doing the things we have always said.
helping to help other people nd theorld to get there. host: we will go to dave in california. independent line, hi. caller: i just ed to ke a comment. we have got to get all of the republicans out because our country is going down the thailand. -- the toilet. the big tax breaks, that is an irresponsible thing. that is the worst thing you could do. people on medicare, if you do not vote of those republicans out, they are going to take an ax to medicare. medicaid is an entitlement, but medicare is not. we got to get the republicans out of there. host: before i let you go, i was wondering if you are watching playsnate primary that out between dianne feinstein and kevin daly -- kevin de leon.
caller: i know diane feinstein will be ok because she is from calirnia. host: both are from california so i was wondering if you thought that onc -- one should survive above the other. caller: on that, i am not really sure. , it it shouldotes, be a good thing. the republicans are irresponsible. i cannot really comment. host: new york, mike, republican line. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: i am fine. caller: i would like to say stands for and dnc dumb and crazy. host: primary specifically? thatr: i would like to say
aa going to happen now, but we definitely need more republican senators in york. from democrat line, debbie caller: hi, i think the need to change and i do not seem to realize that. i have voted democrat forever. i'm 63 years old. i did not vote for hillary clinton, i do not know why they ran her. host: debbie, are you saying that more moderates are needed? caller: the democratic party used to be the party of the people. i do not see that anymore, it looks like they are going global now. host: what do you mean by that? caller: the french accord. but they were going to vote for if we elected them in, but trump
did not go for. host: the climate change? caller: yes. yeah. ce i havbe democratl i have heard is of glal major cause warming is overpopulation. val court said nothing about that, overpopulation. said nothing about that, overpopulation. i guess it is not pc anymore. they were going to go with nuclear as a clean form of energy. clinton gave it to north korea and look where that point. -- that went. host: rod from new hampshire, what is your thoughts? hey, democrats need to go to a more liberal path.
i am a bernie sanders fan and there is a reason for that. democrats and republicans have been more moderate on each of the sides. basically, everything has gone to the rich, the wealthy. a country is only as good as the people that are in it. if you do not invest in your country, if you do not invest in the people, they are going to have a garbage country. you take this big, beautiful country of ours and fill it up isis, and youor are going to have a crap country and that is what bernie was all about. it was about the people of the country. in newhat is ron hampshire. one of the states we will focus on now, montana. an anchor introducer and poerhat ation,ood morning y. guest: good morning. it comes to montana,
it seems that everybody is focus on what is happening with jon tester and the senate. can you describe that? guest: they are focusing a lot on montana because they want to make sure they do not lose any ground there and senator tester has four republican contenders trying to get that nomination. there are a a lot of outside groups funneling a lot of money into the state. candidates -- of those four, who are the top contenders? guest: i'm hearing a lot about matt rosen dale, but he ands been going head-to-head on tv and in the ad campaigns against each other. they were all focused on senator ander until late april,
then starting in late april, they really turned on each other. they started attacking each other's character. host: where does senator tester stand today in polling? guest: i have not seen any polling as far as voting, but i do know his approval rating from a poll done at the beginning of the year was about 56% approval and that is what president trump had an montana and 2016, but president trump's approval rang hasropp a few points since then. host: has it been consistent for him, is it lower, what does it say about his viability? -- he saw as a rise rise in that rating from the last poll done. he appeals to a lot of people, senator tester's campaign has focused on veteran issues as he
is the ranking democrat on the veterans affair committee, but that led to hot water. president trump calling came out of people and a lot have been focused on that as well and not necessarily agreeing with what he did there. host: of the four running, which one aligns themselves closely with president trump? guest: i would say probably troy ing and mattwn rosendale. he had michael flynn coming and then flynn canceled for a he has been very critical of theer for opposing president, but they try to drive he says hessage -- is willing to work across the aisle.
someone told me yesterday that the president plans to sign another bill into law this week. has the president publicly endorsed one of the republicans running? guest: not that i have seen. rosendale have been hitting each other hard with attack ads. rosendale for being a carpetbagger and not really knowing what he wants. that really holds a lot of weight in this space. rosendale has a lot of natial support. he appeals the tea party side of the republican party and russ fagg has a lot of state support. out: when it comes to turn for these types of events, what are we expecting in montana?
guest: we saw a drop in turn out in the year 2000. they were in the 30% range. they really dropped even more during the midterm elections. saw 45% turnout but that was a presidential year. georgiou reports on policy things for nbc. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you. a few more minutes to talk about primary day in the united states. your thoughts on primaries overall, we met several talking about the democratic party. for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, for(202) 748-8002
independents. and on the line for democrats. primaries are interesting things because in georgia, the primary is an opportunity for the party to elect its candidate based on its fo georgia iss in sometimes, we get people who seem to be -- claimed to be independent, but they get to the primary, they find out they cannot vote because there is no independent primary. i think that maybe one of the problems that people do not realize. you have to have a candidates from each party and that is where the vote goes. it makes for an interesting situation when they get to the polls.
i think the party simply is so they can vote for one or two candidates. close primary. it makes a big difference. bernie really was an independent as trump was. they both went in on the coattails of the democratic and republican parties. happened, is they both went to the extremes. i think american generally is more centrist. if you want to get the majority goestes by state, and that to the way we have about electing our president, win each state gets a certain aunof votes, instead of the popular vote -- what happens if you really want to get somebody to
win, you have got to go to a more central point of view. that is the only way you are going to get people to work across the aisle and accomplish something. and powderis ann springs, georgia. >> good morning. host: good morning. i have been -- sorry. i have been watching for a bit. it is interesting. d by thers got booe democratic party when he gave a speech saying we need to get back to the working class, middle of the ground voter. that says a lot. i agree withn from before, most people in america are centrist. 90% of us agree on 99% of issues. i don't understand why there is sand, line drawn in the
why so many people are holding so steadfastly to this notion. it is ridiculous. host: is that a phone behind you? guest: that is an alarm. host: let's hear from jonathan, leesburg, virginia. independent line. caller: i have been doing quite a bit of studying and when you look at the left and right, on the right, extremist fascism and on the left, extremist communism. it is important to identify when both sides of gone too far. we have to identify when the left goes too far. toialism can be dangerous what we identify as america today in terms of law and the way we operate. that. to express
host: that is the last call on this topic on this primary day. look for a wrapup on this programor 7:00, we hope you will join us. we take you to the senate energy and natural resources committee, thrmanlisa murkowski, theblican from a wildland fire outlook and management program, that hearing is set to start momentarily.