tv Washington Journal 06172018 CSPAN June 17, 2018 7:00am-10:00am EDT
about the evoluti of white house news management over the last two decades. and roger stone will then join us to discuss the trump k esidency and his new b politics. ♪ host: good morning. a busy week on capitol hill. the senate returns tomorrow. the house gaveling in on tuesday. senators will continue their debate on the defense spending bill. -- house voting for spot funding of the opioid crisis and president from with house republicans on tuesday in advance of debate over two gop immigration bills. it is sunday morning, june 17, welcome to the washington journal, it has been nearly six months since the president signed that tax bill. what impact has it had on you, your family, or your business?
and we are dividing the lines of the family on this sunday morning. if your income is under $50,000 per year, the number to call is (202) 748-80. for those of you making over $50,000 per year, (202) 748-8001 . and if your income is in excess of $100,000, (202) 748-8002. we welcome vwers and listeners on c-span radio. you can send assist -- send us a tweet at c-span wj or join in on .he conversation happy father's day. we want to begin with this headline from the new york times that the details into the trade wars starting to strain, businesses are disrupted and the president sees a tough stance as a way to rebalance the u.s. trade deficit. a number of editorials indicating that the trade war
negate any positive impact on the tax cut. in fact, the debt continues to grow, now in excess of 21 trillion dollars, meaning persistent. the debt is in excess of $64,000. what we want to get to brookings have been writing about at the brookings institution website, they take a deep dive into the tax bill, writing the following, that it will reduce federal revenues by significant amounts, even after allowing for the impact on economic growth, it will make the distribution of after-tax is notmore on the if it financed with concurrent spending cuts or other tax increases, the law will raise the federal debt and imposed burdens on future generations and if it is financed with spending cuts or other tax increases under the most plausible scenarios it will make most households worse off than if it had not and enacted. that analysis from the bookings
institution. in april the president touted tax cuts as good for jobs, the economy, and the american worker. [video clip] had tremendous success from the company standpoints and peoples standpoints, they have a lot more money to spend and something happened that we were not able to expect. itn we first passed it started with -- well, with at&t. we might as well give them credit. that's a lot of employees. all of a sudden other companies came along and now you have all of the big companies, they have given bonuses to the people that work for the companies. that was unexpected, nobody thought that was going to happen. most importantly, waiting until february 1, you see what happened to your wallet. you are getting a lot more money in your weekly or monthly checks than you ever thought possible. so, people are really liking it
and very important, it's great for the come -- the country. taxes were just th highest in the world cup -- world, from a business standpoint now they are not the lowest, but they are on the low side in his this is are coming back into the united states, meaning jobs, meaning jobs. host: we want to get your reaction to the tax cuts in the impact it had on you. we will go to terry, first, in hagerstown, maryland. caller: how are you on father's thankhank you -- host: you. caller: i saw a significant increase in my take-home pay thanks to the trump tax cuts. my employer, yes, it's over $50,000 with overtime. by the end of this month i will have logged over 200 hours
overtime year to date. the economy is booming, it's my best economic news in about 45 years. what are democrats going to say? we want the crumbs back from you and back in d.c. where they belong? afght years of obama doubling our national debt, when i hear democrat complained about the debt, it's like saying down the egg mac. they have no credibility whatsoever. i have projected economic growth at 4.5 to 5%. the economy is booming. democrats are sad because they have nothing to run on except trump is deplorable and if you give us the house and senate we will impeach him. that's what i see. host: by the way, congressman jerry nadler is our guest on the newsmakers program and that airs after "washington journal" eastern time. we welcome o listers on where we simulcast
of this program, and the bbc parliament channel. we are getting reaction to the tax cut and your tweets from jodey. now that the trump trade war is stripping everyone of the benefit of the tax bill it would have given, trump gives and takes away." host: well, that's not true, but let's get to billy on the under $50,000 per year line. caller: i have a comment about excisedtax endowment tax on university endowments.
this creates more austerity and academic job markets and affect me personally. cut for allax corporations. more austerity in academic job markets. host: what you do, billy? why do you bring that up in particular? caller: and try to get a tenure-track edition at a university. universities are not hiring as much because they got this massive hit to their endowment and they use that china -- endowment for financial aid to hire new people for new positions. home to probably more colleges per capita than any other city in the country? caller: exactly, so i'm moving to canada. host: finish your point? thatr: it seems unfair
taxing peter to pay for paul. taxing universities to pay for more craft breweries to get deductions. it's not just the simplification. technology, engineering, those fields, going into the craft business. host: thanks for adding your voice to the conversation. att: send us a tweet @cspanwj. this analysis -- host: next is len, joining us
from cedar hearst new york on our lines, making over $100,000 per year. good morning. caller: i wish i had one hour to sit down and talk to you. overnly am i making $100,000, i'm also an accountant and more of my clients make over $100,000 than under. i call this the frankenstein tax bill. inly because the various components were pieced together .ike the monster the only purpose of which is to actually extract, you know, a big tax cut from people making very much money. $100,000.than more importantly, i have clients making under $50,000, under $100,000. some of them have tax bills going up in this patchwork of monstrosity. the most important thing to
remember, though, is that their health care is going up, gas is go up. any benefit being given to under 250,000, give or take, is being taken away in other areas. the underlying result of this is we are going to have more debt and i think we need to realign singleand give people a a or health care to cut their health insurance cost. that is the biggest concern according to current polls. robbing peter to pay paul, schappert -- shuffle the next three card monte. what we end up with is one client making 400 thousand dollars per year in getting a $30,000 tax cut and another client with $2 million in capital gains getting an increase in taxes. it's all over the place. it's insane. and when you show president
trump -- i mean underlining it on the bottom there should be a trailer that says constant liar, constant liar. host: thanks for the call. our friend, mylan burke, referring to the we -- the tweet about the deficit -- tweet from kiki -- tweets,anks for your calls, and comments. you can also join the conversation on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. our line forinia, those earning over $100,000 or year. good morning, dominic. caller: good morning, sir, how are you? host: thank you. caller: it's interesting that the workings institute has never
seen attacks they disagreed with . i'm going to remind the individual who you have as a guest, when he shows up, everybody said the same thing about ronald reagan when he did tax cuts. they said it about john f. kennedy. the economymulate and no country has ever tax themselves into prosperity. that's my comment. host: reacting to the tax cuts in the floor of the house, democratic leader nancy pelosi. [video clip] president a jet that followed it said it was going to take $1.4 trillion from medicaid . a half a trillion from medicare, just to name a few of the cuts that have an impact on the health and well-being of the american people. again, a budget that should be a , itement of our values should be about how we allocate
our resources. this tax bill, this tax scam for the rich, for corporate america, taking is deeply into debt at the americanf people. mandate forted millions of people not having the access that they should, the bill impacts the tax scam that impacts the budget. the basisx scam is for a court case against pre-existing conditions that the administration refuses to defend. again, it's just a the monstrosity of trumpcare, they stole health coverage from tens of millions of americans, caught causing soaring cost. dismantling protections for people with pre-existing conditions while handing
billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy. whatntinues to drive up they are doing, continues to drive up premium cost with their senseless sabotage. me.t take that from ericlatest report from the academy of actuaries confirmed that the gop health care sabotage is responsible for driving up health insurance premiums across america. what do they have against the health and well-being of the american people, that they would go down this path? the house from democratic leader, nancy, outlining her opposition to the tax cut. on the white house debt of website, tax cuts are oh windfall for americans, pointing of the companies have announced pay raises, bonuses, or 401k hikes and that the president's tax cuts reduced the top that all tax rate from 35% to 21%,
making the businesses more including $5.5ts trillion of the total tax cuts with more than $3 trillion going to hard working american families. you can get more details at whitehouse.gov and on her facebook page. a lot of you commenting as well, including this saying zero paycheck increase and i can no longer claim some critical reduction's. i will probably have to pay something unpleasant. this from daniel, who said he honestly hadn't seen an increase and couldn't claim critical that actions. dynamic -- diane saying no money, but gas isn't up and that it was small considering the increase in inflation for the trump trade war and daniel saying that he's not wealthy enough to reap the benefits. you can join in on the conversation at @cspanwj. -- at@cspanwj facebook.com/cspan.
good morning. i am retired. this tax cut is really hurting the retirees. up,t of all, the economy is the cost of living, food, everything, it 20 are sent to 30% higher than it was prior to the tax cuts. as a retiree, my property taxes are up. i got a few dollars on the tax cut, but you cannot say -- it went towards living. the only people that benefit from this tax cut are corporations and the rich. a one-time bonus taxed at 20% to 30% is nothing, it's a one-time bonus. the only people i can say it benefits are the rich and the people who make a lot of money. the man from new york was absolutely right when he broke
it down about the tax cuts hurting people. call.thank you for the from silver spring, maryland, we are again dividing the phone lines. for those earning under $50,000, $100,000000 in over per year. on her twitter page, this refers to nancy pelosi -- well, forms.com with an analysis. the good, the bad, the ugly of the tax cut. here are three points from this essay -- at the macro level, a lot -- a rising tide floats all boats. the bad, the law is not real tax reform. this will creates as many if not more complications then it remedies. the ugly, if congress months to make sure the tax cuts would drive the economy and grow jobs, they would at least treat small businesses the same as big ones.
corporate america getting a 40% effective tax rate reduction while wallah fied small businesses getting only about 9%. michiganoining us from on our line for under $50,000 per year. good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. i work at walmart. i make $11.50 per hour and with this tax cut, all these mrs.? bonuses came out and if you were not there for 20 years, you didn't get thousand dollars. i worked there for four years and i got a one-time $250 bonus. ic $13 more in my paycheck, but with the gas going up, the $13 is totally wiped out along with food prices. give us that one-time bonus, tax cuts are not permanent, but will they be giving us a text -- a bonus this year question mark of never seen
tax cuts build roads. the roads in michigan are the worst in the united states. i think the tax cut is horrible for america. a $1.5 trillion debt with republicans who are fiscal conservatives? i think they wrecked it. that's my comment, thank you. josh, think you for the call. andy, good morning. under $50,000 per year line. caller: i'm calling about what the gentleman spoke about before, with walmart. i don't work on walmart are you with that thousand dollars bonus they gave, i know one thing, my credit card the minimum payment went up. called, they couldn't explain why it did. his minimums went up. they can't explain. i know what a few people. i guess we who don't work at walmart pay for those bonuses they hand out. when i call them, they can't explain it to me. that's the problem i have with
the tax cut. my mother and i go to walmart weekly and we always spend $180. we look in the back and we think we haven't spent much but when we get to the register it's a totally different thing. host: thank you for the call, we appreciate it. questioning whether or not the tax cut will impact the upcoming 435 to the house. satisfaction under trump isn't helping his party in the 2018 midterms and it is an issue in a number of key races, and eating north dakota. kevin cramer is a republican senate candidate. [video clip] >> let me tell you why i voted yes for the tax cuts. the people in this factory will get to keep more of their money. our state receives the largest tax reduction in the nation.
democrats will revoke your tax .uts if they get the chance we like heidi, but she's wrong to oppose the tax cuts. i'm a candidate percent and i approved this message. host: by the way, we will be your source for the you debates in the house, senate, and governors races as they begin to unfold on c-span. we covered the debate courtesy of and why one new york. congressman donovan and former congressman michael grimm, you can watch that on our website and in response to the kevin cramer ad, this from heidi heitkamp. on the issue of taxes in that race. [video clip] >> we all like heidi -- >> he camouflages it well, but he's attacking heidi heitkamp and has it wrong. she voted for fiscally responsible tax cuts for the middle class, businesses, and farmers.
kevin cramer's vote increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion and now he says they will have to cut social security and medicare to pay for it? that isn't working out for north dakota. the north dakota senate race and the issue of taxes. springfield, missouri, the line for over $40,000 year. good morning, teresa. -- caller: me and my husband were on his retirement and we barely make it i every month. i've actually gone into the minor, trying to pay our insurance. as far as taxes, it's a joke. we still have to file our taxes, of course, but there is no kind of deductions. we make a little bit more than others, but it is still just so hard to get by. every month it just seems like i go further and further and further in debt with our credit
card because i have to help pay for our insurance. our insurance, or medical, we pay $704 per month. and he's on medicare. and i have to pay for my insurance. it's just -- i don't see how they expect it. they want everybody to go away. that's the only thing i can think of. it's almost impossible for us to get by. we just barely get by. by,we are really not eating because if you go into debt every month, a couple of hundred dollars in the next month its $225 and $250 going on credit cards? then whatever you pay your insurance, quarterly, you have .o do even more this is the first year i have ever had to -- when we filed our
taxes we had to get an extension and the deduction, we pay so much on deductions on her insurance. you can't even write it off. host: i ask you if yohave retirement savings. many with accounts in 401(k) or 403 b's the scene increase because of the stock market. caller: my husband had his retirement from his union. it's an actual savings account. they couldn't afford it. host: good luck to you,hank you for the call, we appreciate it. this is a tweet from rick, who says that the report out of the white house, like everything else out of the white house, is fake news -- host: issuee way, that's an
that house republicans want to address before the midterm elections. finally, from john -- next up is scott, joining us from statesville. the line for under $50,000 per year. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: good morning. caller: hello. first of all, i would like to say that i'm very pleased with the trump organization. 63-year-old retiree. happy father's day to all the working men out there. if we are working trueblue americans, we won't mind a small tax cut contribution to president trump. to't matter if to go back work at 63, there are plenty of
employment opportunities out there. very pleased with what president trump has done with his short-term so far. host: thank you very much for the call. from brookings, another look at the deep dive into the impact of taxes and the effective tax change on economic growth. "thecludes theolwing, structure is critical to achieving economic growth. cuts may encourage individuals to work, save, and invest, but if they are not finance by immediate spending cuts they will likely also result in an increased federal budget deficit that in the long term overdue's national savings and raise interest rates.
host: paul is joining us from pittsburgh on the line for over $50,000 per year. good morning. caller: good morning, this is your pittsburghenguin fan, congratulations on your caps. host: thank you very much. we deserve it, i think. caller: i remember talking to you last year about the time that we won. so, anytime, you guys played really good. host: they really did. are, retiredmments military, december of each year you get something from the finance center with how much change they make per month. mine was going to go up $47 per month and then in january after the tax cuts, i got another of $47ion and instead per month i get an increase of $192 per month.
it's a nice little increase, you know? when you are on a fixed income like me, every little bit helps. for those who say they don't want the tax cuts or don't like them, i would suggest you give whatever money you get from that process and give it to your favorite charity. and then of horse, you can claim charitable the duction's on your tax returns. i think the real test of how andctive these tax cuts are the impact they have on people will be -- we will know that in november when we have these midterm elections and we see how much the american people feel about these sort of things. let me bring up the earlier issue. under president obama the federal debt doubled and it is expected to double again over president trump and some people lame the tax cuts. you can see the numbers right
there, in excess of $21 trillion area does that concern you or your children or grandchildren? caller: certainly it concerns me, you know? we have been running deficits for years and years. the only way we are ever going to get this national that under control is we have to make changes in our entitlement programs. that includes medicare, medicaid, and social security. and most politicians don't have the guts to do that because every time they -- what do they call it? the third rail of government? a politician talks about doing that, they lose. until that's done, the tax cuts but, younimal impact know, if you -- i think you onuld do a program sometime just social security alone. when is it going to go broke?
trillion, if100 what we did was pay everybody. you are interested, mike allen on friday took an in-depth look at social security, medicare, and medicaid, really crunching the numbers for the next few years to see the trajectory, you might want to check that out. caller: i will. i bet it's scary. it's always good talking to you and congratulations on your cap's. does nextk you can be year, two in a row? caller: absolutely. [laughter] host: appreciate the call. outis is joining us from west in san francisco. under $50,000 per year. good morning, travis. caller: good morning, happy father's day to everybody. thank you, c-span. i'm basically just calling to voice an opinion about like -- basically what your last caller just said. deficit fornning a
for trillion, going to like three americans, 50% of it, it's just ridiculous. turning around and saying that entitlements need to be reformed, they do need to be reformed. but at what cost? , we will have so much ai and so much automation that all the work and be done by 10%, 50% of the population. do we not deserve, like, health care? living ins looking -- a $1700 per month studio that she just paid a deposit for with 14% lead.
attacking the aca when it was never really given a chance and certainly there were a lot of that got into the democrat pockets as well. -- it'sust really really upsetting to someone like me who, you know, has work hard their whole life, to see stuff like this happening in this country. host: thank you for the call from this -- california. if you are listening on seid and radio we are talking about the tax cuts and the impact on you six months after the president signed the bill into law and a couple of months after he began to fully take effect. house republicans are expected to take up another part of the taxes as they try to make some of the more permanent. this week the house will be taking up the immigration vote, meeting with house republicans on tuesday, the senate meeting tomorrow. this is from robert, president indicating that he might have a phone call with the north korean
leader. host: president talked about that issue when he met with reporters at an impromptu gaggle, as they call it on the business, first appearing on fox and friends. we wille lking a lot that stephen farnsworth, he has a new book looking at presidential communications. hostetter, pennsylvania, ken, good morning. caller: these people talk about walmart, the prices going up. truax, they do the people shopping for them. somebody's paying for the people shopping. they do the shopping, take it up to their car for them, it's crazy. giant eagle, the only ones made out there are the relief stamps. make it out with dax -- gas credits. someone pays for the gas credits, don't think they are not.
that's all i've got to say, goodbye. host: thank you for the call. from rebecca -- host: steve scalise was asked about the tax cuts this past week. >> is june 12, we are just under five months from election day. i'm curious what you think as you sit here today knowing the political climate, which is jobless rates at almost historic ticking prettys well, stock market is up. what do you think congress needs to do besides no harm for republicans between now and election day? what helps your >> continuing to follow through on the policies that got us here.
things have worked more effectively than anyone could have imagined and the benefits are affecting every segment of the society. african-american unemployment is at an all-time low. hispanic unemployment at an all-time low. everybody is benefiting from this. i agree, let's not do any harm. we want to come back and double down into a tax cuts 2.0, make the temporary taxes permanent. because of senate rules a number of individual tax cuts had to be temporary, while some others were permanent. let's make them all permanent, put more certainty in the marketplace. we will be bringing that the later this year. >> when will we see that? >> before the election. chairman brady is working on it now and that is something that i think will be another healthy step to see her the economic oath we are having. host: congressman steve scalise, who by the way was playing thursday at the congressional baseball game, the democrats
winning 21 to five over the republicans, marking one year since you were shot in northern virginia while they practiced for the game. we covered the game and if you are interested in watching sports on c-span, the congressional c-span -- congressional baseball games on a weite, c-span.org. john, from a claim, virginia, the line for over $50,000 per year. good morning, sir. caller: thank you to c-span for your service. i want to make the initial point pay most taxpayers something around 45% of their federal, state, and local tax systems. i want to invite everyone listening to just calculate how much you are paying in low sales taxes, property taxes, even if you are renting property. and federal taxes to see how much you are paying.
second, i think the the -- we need to reduce the taxes for everybody, because they are paying such a high percentage of the income, making local government and state government and federal government more efficient. third, i think that what mr. trump is doing is simply changing the structure of our tax system. we will have lower corporate taxes and let's make the point that corporate taxes are paid for by the individual consumers of those goods and services. the structural changes i think are pretty good for the system. it's meant to reduce the size of government generally speaking at the state, local, and federal level. power to the private sector, the private realm, i will call it, which is fine with me. is last thing i want to make
that these structural changes to the tax system i think are written for the private realm and mr. trump, i think, is on the right track. final point, the deficit in the national debt is an important issue and i think we will have to deal with that as a country. but i think the answer is to reduce government spending and not increase taxes. know, two thirds of the federal budget is the pentagon, medicare, medicaid, and social security. that's true. i think that more of that should be handled by the private sector , rather than the public sector. i don't like the idea that the public sector takes up these major sectors of our economy and tries to run them. i think we can be more efficient if we do it privately. john, thank you.
this is from our friend, who says that the tax cuts will not make a difference to everyday americans, even to trump supporters. host: in nevada, and for republican seeking reelection, -- dean heller, republicans seeking reelection, let's watch. [video clip] >> unfair, that's with a call the new tax plan. 83% of the benefits go to the richest 1%. corporations getting billions while middle as families see their's go up. adding $1.9 trillion to the national debt, which may force cuts to medicare and social security. a tax plan for the rich and we pay the price. host: that ad is on the air in
nevada and we will be falling all of these races. the new york times editorial focuses on the trade were in the terrace already hitting trump voters, including in the midwest, most notably in iowa and the great state of michigan and pennsylvania. you can read the editorial at nytimes.com. gary is joining us from jamestown, north dakota, the line for under $50,000 per year. good morning. caller: i appreciate these trump tax cuts. i certainly would have liked to see more. i'm not really concerned about the national debt. i just have a simple philosophy here. if the national debt does not deter immigrants from illegally coming to the united states, then why should i worry about it? like i said, i would like to see more tax cuts. thank you for your time. host: thank you. john harwood of cnbc, saying --
$50,000. good morning. caller: morning. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: hey, i'm sorry, thank you. is -- this is such an issue. , really the rich are the only ones gaining anything from it. everyone is talking about how they got these bonuses. they got these bonuses but along with those bonuses came major job loss. just about every one of these major corporations that benefited from this tax cut has -- had layoffs. business closing. now, as a result, we also have,
because of tariffs and other things going on, we have an increase in gas prices. huge. we will have major food shortage. so it's all going to be offset this tax cut and the only people who are gaining anything from it are the 1% and the people making over $150,000. host: thank you for the call from new hampshire. front page, "washington post," "trump's lawyers prepare for war." roger stone, longtime friend and advisor to president trump will be joining us with his new book. and at the top of the hour, and farnsworth, the book is titled presidential communication and character. we hope you tune in. mike joining us from laurel park, new york. good morning, mike. mike: i can't believe you
having -- you are stoneman on. unbelievable. -- stone on. unbelievable. he's rim and a. cuts, raising gdp, they needed more spending and they promised 3% and 4%. next quarter,at but you are not going to get that after that. if they wanted to help the middle class, why not give them a 50% tax cut? 200,000? under give them 50% if they don't care? that, like is like said, three quarters of the tax cut are going to go to the 1%. corporations, they were counting guysrporations being nice and giving everybody a great increase.
they did that when the cameras were on for the first month, but that isn't happening anymore. social security hasn't gotten a substantial increase. 2% for the last decade or more. specifically for a middle-class tax cut to stimulate the economy. maybe it will do it for one quarter, maximum. we didn't need it, the economy was doing fine. thanks a lot. host: thanks for the call. this week -- -- this tweet -- c-span continues to travel the country not only with their 50 state to her through alaska and hawaii, we hope you tune into that, also our cities to down south, the,
taking a look at literary life. american history tv will focus on new orleans cuisine, a mix of creole and cajun. we visit one of the city's oldest restaurants. let's watch. [video clip] largerhere takes a much piece than it does anywhere else. orleans.o eat in new one of the greatest things about the food of new orleans is -- is it creole or cajun? what is it? originally you seek real and two completely different kinds of cuisine. was then in southwest
louisiana. the word creole itself comes from the hispanic word that firstnative and their were the native offspring of the french settlers. their food is really city food. more refined. perhaps as cajun well but it's are a seasoned. we are situated right across from the site of the old french market. there was an active market here in the city from 1718, from the earliest days. the bounty of everything that was available in season, fresh and local, using french and spanish traditional preparations , this true indigenous cuisine developed and that is creole cooking. we travel to new orleans,
louisiana this afternoon on the m3 american history tv and on tv . you can check out all of our trips online at .-span.org/citiestour looks good down there, we hope you tune into the programming and all of our coverage as we crisscross across the country to showcase what happening in your community and let you know about what we are doing here on the seas and network. the impact that the tax cuts have had on you, your paychecks, maybe your business. robert is joining us from clinton, maryland. good morning. good morning. i actually take issue with the format of your show. i have quite a few years. the c-span though people are trying to push certain issues, regardless of
what people have to say, it doesn't make any difference. i want to take special issue with this tax cut that the republicans give the corporations. us from giving any money to social security or health care. anything for helping folks with the economy. nobody can do anything. for the few of us that set up [indiscernible] i'm telling you right now that i can't believe that anybody with any sense could believe that this helps the average working man. taking the money away that we need to help us live and give to the corporations. it's so sad. for the american people to be so
ignorant, it troubles me. i can't understand it. we areet me be clear, not pushing any issue and by your response, the indication is what we are trying to do, you put your point on the table. the goal here is to have a dialogue as we are doing right now. you are making statements in then you go on with whatever you have to say and when we have over tort, we can't get back to you. -- have retort, we can get back to you. host: you are on right now. caller: that's just me, but many other people that call cannot get back to you and explain their positions after you try to make light, or whatever, the question is. giving up on the american people, i never knew it was so
stupid. i'm sorry, i love you all, but i've never seen so many dumb people in my life. you are giving up our country to this man who is a money laundering. i don't understand how we can do it. have a nice day. host: this is from steve -- "the weeklyver of standard," the new virtue police ," nsa from kevin williamson -- an essay from kevin williamson. we are getting your reaction to the tax cuts, the impact on your own personal paycheck. we will go next to ralph in sterling, michigan. good morning. in 1962i went to detroit and a burger king whopper was only $.49. everything is based on cars and
trucks. if they keep giving more money theeople and keep adding to trucks and cars, eventually people are not going to buy them. thank you, ralph. nancy, farmington, good morning. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. host: sure. sir.r: yes, i'm responding to the gentleman who called in 15 to 20 minutes to havewas so proud contributed to trump's america. i want to remind everyone out there that the new york attorney general has issued a lawsuit against trump's friend asian for persistently illegal behavior. persistently. the man is a crook and has been for decades. i've written notes down here. i have never trusted him. the republicans are completely complicit.
this tax cut is just a joke. i wanted to remind everyone that paul manafort, his campaign manager, spent the night in jail and hopefully, cross my fingers, will never see the light of day again. michael: is on the edge of an indictment and he also is likely going to jail. with this lawsuit being referred to, the irs and the fec, you can be the joy and hear the joy in my vce. i'm sleeping like a baby these paul manafort is in jail and the rest of the crew is going to jail also. host: thank you. he's likely to stay in jail , when hisptember triats undway. this is the headline from "the washington post." roger stone will be joining us from fort lauderdale at 9:00. michael, weighing in on the new orleans and the creel, saying
that the food is absolutely wonderful. this from carol -- i loved the bananas foster, but the rest of us -- the rest of it is still we are all getting hungry but we hope that you tune in at 3:00 time. our local content vehicles traveling to new orleans to check out the culinary cuisine. "the washington st" is focusing on immigration this morning and pointing out that there were 2000 immigrants separated from their parents over six weeks and the headline is that america is better than this. what one doctor saw in a texas shelter for migrant children." ofording to the department homeland security, "nearly 2000 immigrants children were separated from their parents in april and may and those working at the shelter were doing what they could to make sure that the needs of the children were met, that they were fed, that they had beds, toys, playgrounds, people to change their diapers, but there were limits to what
workers could do and it could have long-term devastating effects on young children who are likely to develop plastic stress in their brain -- us fromchard is joining athens, tennessee. good morning. the line for over $50,000 per year. thank you for taking my call. i work in a small southeastern tennessee city. my paycheck, i look at it and i saw that i netted over $500 on my taxes is here. at her know how you can add it up any other way, but i'm benefiting. i don't know if other people are not in a fitting? i don't understand how some people can say they are not. we are always worried about what
somebody else has got or what somebody else doesn't have. if we just kind ofor about herself, it's probably a lot easier. richard, thank you for the call. from our facebook page -- host: here are your comments from online, facebook.com/c-span. connecticut, good morning, the line for over $100,000 per year? caller: liberals don't seem to understand that when you raise taxes and you raise regulations, increase regulations, it just chases corporations and jobs out of the country. president obama said manufacturing is are coming
back, trump is being it back. steve jobs said that apple jobs were not coming back. now they are investing hundreds of billions in this country, bringing back thousands of jobs. unemployment is down, people are back to work. the economy is buzzing. doing better than it has in decades. you have to be blind not to see it. host: thank you for the call. line for over $50,000 per year. good morning, i make about $60,000. my taxes went up about 4000 battle $400. i'm sorry, went down $400. so, you know, my question is, why couldn't this happen like seven or eight years ago when nota was president? it's going to happen when a democrat is president because they want intel. everybody
they want to keep everybody dependent so that they can do whatever the heck they want to do. that's the way it was for the last eight years. god,getting better, thank it's getting better. the last call is here from charles and washington, d.c.. have you seen an impact in your paycheck? >> thank you for c-span. i did not see an impact or increase in my pay. but what i gentleman say earlier that the american public really does not understand what the tax cuts are about. comments made so far do not mention -- never mentioned anything about taxes and the waste in the military.
i can remember, years ago, there was a big discussion about a hammer costing $750,000 or some odd, insanely odd, price. onen just imagine what plane or one ship would cost, and that impact on their taxes, for small people, many of whom are, today, struggling just to get basic health care and employment. if limit here in washington, abysmal -- employment here in washington, d.c. is abysmal, especially for the black population, when there is unprecedented development here. host: thank you. the first hour of "washington journal" this father's day. farnsworthstephen back at the table, now with the university of mary washington. his new book.
later, roger stone joins us from fort lauderdale, florida. "how to win up politics, business, and style: stone's rules." business partner paul manafort now in a washington, d.c. prison. we will talk about that, coming up. in our newsmakers -- "newsmakers" program, gerald naylor joins us at 10:00 eastern time. among the topics, impeachment. [video clip] >> if democrats win the majority in the house, you will become the chairman of the committee. there were a number of stories written of this is the man that would oversee impeachment. arecratic activists anticipating that peter what are you telling them heading into the election and preparing for next year about your stance on impeachment and any plans at this point? >> i think it is much too early to determine whether there ought
to be impeachment proceedings or not. the first thing is wait for the mueller investigation and see what he finds. -- did thective president participate in a criminal conspiracy with the russians to upset the election? that is one of the key questions. justice, etc.struction o we have to see what the evidence is and what these special counsel fines. i have said also -- i said this 20 is go during the clinton administration, and i will repeat it now. i mean it. it will be harmful for the country to pursue an impeachment if the case were not so overwhelming and the evidence so overwhelming that, by the end of the impeachment proceeding, an appreciable fraction -- not a majority -- but an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for the president would agree
that you have to do it. if you did it on a partisan basis, where only democrats are supporting impeachment, besides the fact that the arithmetic does not work, you would tear the cotry apart. you have 20 years of recommendations are people saying we won the election, you stole it. that is not good for the country. you only avoid that if the case is so overwhelming and the evidence so strong that you get an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for trump to agree, perhaps reluctantly, that you really had to do that. the ranking democrat on the house judiciary committee, jerrold nadler, our guest on "newsmakers." you can listen to it online anytime at c-span.org, on our free c-span radio app, airing following the "washington time,l," 10:00 eastern 7:00 for the west coast.
we want to welcome back professor stephen farnsworth. "presidential communication and character: white house news management from clinton and cable to twitter and trump." we will talk about the book, but i have to talk about this headline from saturday's "washington post," and the photograph of the president walking to the north lawn of the white house, and impromptu presser, first appearing on "fox and friends" and then meeting with reporters for 20 minutes. this is never have an for. -- before. guest: what you have is a president who does not pay attention to what has happened before. he is looking for ways to draw attention to himself in new and innovative strategies. for people who have covered the white house for a long time, it will be surprise after surprise. if you look at coverage in the post, on network television, you can see the advantage of doing what the president it.
he got the opportunity to dominate the new cycle on a friday. that pretty much leaves conversation saturday and sunday as well. from the point of view of what the president wants to do, it looks like a win on friday. host: if we look at this friday mog, this n area known as the north lawn, where network anchors do their standups. it was unexpected. you can see the cameras were all handheld, the shotgun mics over the president. you hear the questions and his response. not the normal setting in the white house leasing -- briefing room or walking down the hall to a more formal news conferences. guest: this is one of the advantages donald trump has when it comes to dominating the conversation. when you do something impromptu like this, reporters do not have enough time to come up with precise questions, exact wording, to solicit responses they are looking for.
the advantages to the person who knows what is going to happen next. donald trump knows more about what he will do next than anyone else. that is an advantage when it comes time to deal with a very serious and complicated set of issues he is dealing with right now -- canada, north korea, the questions of trade, of other issues, with respect to the investigation is involved in right now. host: so he is the communications director. guest: you are talking about a president who is the press secretary, communications director, the president focused on making the presidency look like what donald trump wants it to look. it is a real skill, a real challenge. he is very experienced in television, when you think about his work with "the apprentice," and the way he tried to dominate 1980's,les, even in the
trying to shape the image of donald trump as a successful businessman. host: the president also appearing on "fox and friends," and he hosted not even get in initially because there was an issue with his credentials. the president tweeti shortly before 8:00 that he may appear on "fox and friends." he did so. the washington post put together this compilation to give you a sense of the questions and his response. [video clip] >> what brings you here? >> you do not know already? >> you are live. >> it was a pretty good report, and i say the i.g. blew it at the end. the report was a horror show. that one sentence inclusion was ridiculous. i made changes to the agreement because i wanted it to make -- to be better for the united states. then, he got up and says he does not want to be pushed around by the united states. almost 300% on
dairy products. we cannot do that. when i came over, they were all saying about separating the families. that is a democrat who -- bill. that is democrats wanting to do that. they can solve it easily by coming together. they think it is a good election point. i think it is a horrible election point. >> congress has to change the law, but people are saying even though it is the law, it is heartless. that is the law, and what democrats gave us. we will change a today if they want to negotiate. but they do not want to netiate you they are afraid of security for our country. i am looking out both of them. i would not sign -- i need a bill that gives this country tremendous border security. >> does that mean a wall? >> we have to have the wall. >> rudy says you should not talk to mueller. >> people say that. >> given the i.g. report -- >> they are getting people who say a little that something little off.
is it a nice day? then -- he lies. i would like to talk, but it seems to be biased. >> should james comey be locked up? want to getever involv in that. certainly, they just seem like their criminal acts to me. what he did was criminal. what he did was a terrible thing to the people. what he did was so bad, in terms of our constitution, in terms of the well-being of our country, what he did was horrible. should he be locked up, let someone make that determination. >> re: close to seeing mr. kim at -- are we close to seeing mr. came at the right house -- mr. kim at the white house? >> it could be. he is the head of a country. sit upks and his people at attention. i want my people to do the same. host: the president said he was joking about that. guest: i am not sure that was a
joke. there is, at the core of donald trump, a more open view towards more authoritarian leaders then you usually see from presidents of both parties in the past. one of the challenges that the united states has in the world in promoting the nation is this question ovalues. one of the advtages the democratic and republican presidents was at the core of who we are, and the core of our advantage, is this question of democratic norms and developers. that is not mean you cannot talk to leaders. during the cold war, plenty of presidents did. but the idea of trust and there are five, the idea of tearing down walls, that is a pressure on authoritarian leaders that have seemed to work well for democratic and republican president's in the past. one of the challenges donald trump faces as president is this question of how to deal with authoritarian leaders.
a few do not promote democratic values, in my view, you undermine one of the advantages of the american system has and the environment in terms of convincing people to move towards a more democratic and peaceful world. craticnd repubcan presidents before dona trump have had a csienline on this point. i am not sure it is a great idea to walk away from that as quickly as donald trump has. host: what is fake news? guest: ultimately, we have a real problem with modern media today in terms of what the truth is. you have a presidency and campaign, before that, that did not focus as much on what the actual facts are. issue oftalk about the trade surplus with canada, for example, we see evidence, from his own administration, contradict what the president is saying. , actually, thet
discussion that donald trump has is focused on a tiny share, less than 1%, of the trade. out, forke everything example, in your personal life, you have a net surplus at the end of the month if you do not pay your mortgage -- well, you have to pay your mortgage. the dairy conversation is a tiny fraction of this. one of the problems reporters have today is how to deal with an administration that does not show the same kind of fidelity to the truth that would be, in myiew, in the public's interest and also how reporters can do this. you have seen so much by people out there in politics today, as focused as a journalist, on these questions of credibility. anytime you raise questions about whether the president or administration is telling the truth, you run the risk of being seen as in the pocket of the other side. in our very divisive politics, the fake news argument is a way
to toss away any focus on what , to use thetrue evidence, as poor as it may be, in some cases, to use it as a weapon. if you can sufficiently muddy the waters, you can create an environment where there is no real truth. you can say things that are not true and you will not necessarily get called for it in the point of view of people trying to understand what is going on in washington. host: last week, the president tweeting, taking aim at the fake news. "so funny to watch this fake news, especially nbc and cnn. they are fighting hard to downplay the deal with north korea. five days ago, they would have begged for this deal. look like war would break out. our country's biggest enemy is that take new so easily, gated -- promulgated by. -- by fools. " guest: if you look at the
authoritarian leader is treated when you look at -- even the north korean leader's own familyrsre facing execution, in some cases, for decideshe, on a whim, to treat them. that is a different thing. i understand why reporters will not be all that well received by anyone in politics. politicians have a view of the world's it is pier 1 reporters question that -- view of the world as it is. when reporters question that, as they should, they -- i should say i was a reporter for 10 years before i became an academic. what we have here is something that has gone to a different level. you have a whole set of comments across -- day, after day, about journalists being somehow disloyal. position.s an extreme
it is one that can pay off if you consume news in a certain place. you may not hear their corrections, the fact checks, all the ways in whiceru administration is being held to account for saying things that are not true. to be achallenging time reporter in america. it is very hard to do that job. i think it is an idea of the trump organization has tt you can get better public relations if you push back extra hard. it is a strategy that has, in some ways, worked for him in the campaign and may work for him in his core base of supporters. host: our guest is dr. stephen farnsworth, the director of the sensor for leadership and media studies at the university of mary washington. he is also the author of a new book, "presidential communication and character," earning his doctorate from georgetown. you write the following. "the first orban presidents of the internet age developed remarkably different approaches
to selling themselves and their policies to the white house has long been the center of american political discourse. the past two decades have forced recent presidents to redesign their media managing strategies in the face of frequently changing journalistic and political environments." guest: what is striking to me is how flexible our last four presidents have been through this book focuses on the clinton, george w. bush, obama, and trump presidencies. each one had a different idea on how to sell the presidency in terms of how to sell the policies that they care about, but also the person they are as president. it is important to recognize that one of the challenges that presidents face, whatever the media environment has been the last 20 years, has been to focus on a highly personalized view of the presidency. people may not get excited about the particular trade policies of one president or another, but they can focus on these people
as people. so whether it is bill clinton going on talk shows and talking about how he understands the troubles of working-class america or whether it is george w. bush, who wanted to create an environment where presidents had a higher moral standard in the wake of the clinton scandal, or barack obama, who wanted to bring a more optimistic, hopeful world in the wake of the difficulties in iraq and iran -- afghanistan, or donald trump, who things of america's best position, and trump's own is theal standpoint anger and channeling that into his political campaign and whether it is cable or fox news or facetime or twitter, you see this whole orientation of the presidency, one president after another, moving to different environments. i do not think donald trump would do well on "between two
do not think george w. bush would have been good on twitter. our presidencies correspond well to the ridly changing media environment they face at the time they are elected. host: one other point from your say in the modern media environment, there is little opportunity to express a complicated side. if you want to hold the attention of an increasingly distracted public -- especially for millennials, constantly on their smartphones. guest: well, they better not be on their smartphones in my class. we have to have some standards. but they have the rest of the day to be on social media, and, of course, they are. this is a problem. you have complicated issues. whatever the topic you may be talking about. trade or infrastructure or health care. these are not things that are solved easily. that means ticking up out -- thinking about these things
thoroughly. if you have a tax cut, that could increase the deficit. it could increase economic growth, but that could increase in certain sectors which may or may not be awful. if people do not have reliable health care, they make choices in tms of staying with a job they do not like or foreclosing other opportunities. there are policy dynamics that are part of this conversation. that it is easier to tweet out there is a problem in canada, that there is a fake news, that there is something out there that is very simple. twitter is great for offering a bumper sticker level of discourse. that is a great thing for somebody who is not really focused on the nuts and bolts of policy. it is great for getting people to feel more than think. that is one of the key advantages of what donald trump can do in this modern media environment. he has a very good instinct for where americans are angry, and he is very effective at using twitter to channel that. host: let's bring in our viewers and listeners. we welcome those on the bbc
parliament channel in great britain. and for our c-span radio audience and serious xm audience. -- sirius xm audience. our guest is stephen farnsworth. the book is called "presidential communication and character." nancy is up next, independent line. caller: good morning. i did happen to catch the news conference. newstrump pulled on the media. he gave them so many topics, and your speaker is right. he did steal the show. but we are crawling down so many issues. after throwing our trade partners under the bus, the same trade partners, by the way, that fight with us in every single
-- since thes 1950's, and he goes on to talk korea, the trade wars. in t meantime, we are setting up concentration camps for children. children. them -- this is the real disgrace on america. this has international ramifications for the united states. host: thank you. guest: i think it is important to recognize, speaking first on the comments about that news conference friday, that what donald trump can excel at is flooding the zone. by talking about a whole range of topics, he has set the media agenda particularly focused on those things you wants to focus
on. host: on that note, peter baker of the "new york times those quote reminded us that when he would sit down with barack obama, george w. bush, bill clinton, he would have to scratch his head because what is new? byd trump is different. there are 10 or 12 stories in the cversation. thet: if you look at "washington post" front page that you showed at the beginning , these are donald trump stories. it is one story after another that deals with what trump talks about. many of those stories came out of what he had talked about in that news conference or on twitter that day. notreally have donald trump only the white house communications director, but he is effectively assignment editor for washington bureaus all over town. they see the tweets in the morning, and that is what they chase during the day.
it is a disadvantage for congress to have an executive so focused -- so much the focus of media attention. the founders envisioned a system where we had coequal rches, where congress was part of the discourse and policymaking. but in the age of trump and the age of television leading up to trump, there has been a degradation of congress' ability to challenge and to legislate with the executive branch. when you deal with these issues that the caller mentioned with respect to what is going on in the border areas, where you have emily's being separated, we see -- where you have families being separated, we have limited information. there was a senator from oregon who tried to get into one of these and was rebuffed. we have had a few reporters who have been able to get in to these detention centers, i guess we can call them, for children at the border. we have a little bit of information. but you might expect the places where the administration chooses to let reporters in are the most positive, the most upbeat, the
most appealing in terms of images about what is there. it is congress' job, and they need to do more, to figure out exactly what is going on in some of these policy issues. congress has not authorized this particular policy. this was not the way the same law was handled under president obama. there is, i think, an important dynamic are trying to figure out what the president is doing, and congress is part of that conversation. so our reporters, but they do not have the subpoena power lawmakers do. host: the network interview that the president conducted this past week, "fox and friends," sean hannity in singapore. ecta over the past week. that is a logical choice for donald trump. he gets positive treatment on foxnews compared to other media outlets. you go to where you can get a friendly argument. at best, a conversation that is
somewhat questioning, but not heavily so. they do not necessarily have the opportunity for this real-time fact checking. this is one of the problems we see today. you cannot necessarily expect that every reporter is going to be ready at any moment to say, actually, the trade deficit is such and such dollar figure with canada. you cannot be prepare for every issue with respect to the number of nuclear weapons north korea has and how they will be adjusted under the treaty. in all fairness to reporters, they are covering a huge number of issues. there is no logic to what will be talked about in a given day. even when the administration is trying to put forward the story of the day, something else happens in the world are yet it is a very difficult environment for that. these organizations have gone down the fact checking road. it raises questions about what is true. is news story at the moment
the world donald trump sees at the moment, given the project ability of the next issue coming up. host: on the republican line, charles, you are next with professor stephen farnsworth. caller: hey. it is the first time i have gotten in. i sure appreciate the program. my comment is that mr. trump is trying to bring free trade from every country. as friendly countries, such canada, mexico, and all the other ones, even if our deficits are not as large them, isn't it right of the american worker gets a fair chance to make a living and let our middle class come back? we have lost a lot. in the past 40 years. economists told us then that free markets were going to bring
everybody up. what has happened is a lot of people came up, but here in america, a lot of us went down. guest: i think that the transition, economic transition, over the last 30 years in this country has been very difficult for a lot of people. ford, he who worked at was an immigrant who came to this country, his family came to this country, and he had a nice job. fog in korea, graduated high school, and had a good union job making cars. note opportunities are there for young people today. that is very tough in the industrial communities of the midwest in particular. it is a challenge, when you talk about how to make the economy work for everyone. it is a major challenge. it is important to recognize, though, as much as people like to focus on job loss as a result of greater trade, there is also a lot of job loss with respect to technology.
a lot of people do not have jobs because of the ability of companies to hire machinery, effectively, to hire technology to do wh used to take a lot more workers to do. we need to have that conversation about these situations, with respect to how to make sure communities across this country are vibrant going forward. it is not just the industrial midwest. rural areas, agricultural communities, where you also have greater to knowledge he making it easier for a smaller number of farmers to produce more food -- that is a good thing from the point of view of us buying food at the grocery store, but it is not necessarily good for farming communities across the country. there is a lot of challenge to work through. that is why, in a bumper sticker -- that is why a bumper sticker conversation is not the way to go. host: and you grew up in role america. guest: that his record my dad is
a dairy farmer. so i know how much of a struggle it is good how much work it is and how little of a return there is on your investment. it is a challenging environment, and it is getting worse and worse. as you look of the struggle for families to deal with communities that are fighting a difficult environment. to trade, it is important to recognize we have education mechanisms -- adjudication mechanisms in these trade deals. the wto or nafta, these trade deals have opportunities for countries to say this is not for, or this is a problem us, and to have that kind of negotiation and adjutication. when we decide to be tougher on other countries, those other countries are going to decide to be tougher on us. as those tariffs, barriers to trade, increase on both sides, a lot of people will be hurt by
that. host: we go to maryland next. ,liff, thanks for waiting democrat line, with professor stephen farnsworth. caller: i appreciate c-span m uch. i will level criticism on the press, and i do not mean c-span. entirebeen a democrat my life. in the last election, i so wanted to vote democrat. unfortunately, they nominated could notndidate i vote for. i intended to sit it out. but i got so angry at the such obvious bias of the mainstream media against donald trump -- you cannot deny -- it was so over-the-top that, in the end, i ended up voting for trump. not because i like him, but only because my disdain for what the press had been doing to donald
trump -- for lack of a better word, trump everything. in the midterms, i never voted in the midterms. my wife and i are going to go, and i will hold my nose. i will not even look at the names of the candidates. i will just vote republican. do i like republicans, no. but my disdain for what the press has done has so overshadowed all that, i will do it anyway. let me give you a quick example. i used to listen to npr. i stopped, because i got tired of nothing but nonstop trump bashing. for whatever reason, the other day, i could not find anything, and they started out one year after the mueller investigation, 90 they say one year, and people have been arrested three arrested. have been fine.
but they never said one word about the fact that not one of the 19 people arrested had anything at all to do with the collusion. so if you did not know that, you would think there was this vast, vast collusion going on. that is the kind of unfair stuff that really ticks me off. if donald trump truly did something really bad, and the mainstream media actually -- not that i expect the everwood -- did an open, honest, fair, unbiased report on it, i would have trouble believing it, only because i would take this is more mainstream media bias against trump. and i say this not as somebody who particularly likes donald trump. but it is so obvious, over-the-top, the unfairness to him, that i think it is turning a lot of people off. in fact, i think it is pushing
people in the trump corner. thank you very much for taking my call. and when i jump on the media, i am not talking about c-span. host: we appreciate the call. quick follow up. if the election were today, 42020, would you vote for donald trump for reelection? caller: i would be tempted to only because i know that is what the press does not want me to do. i know that is not good -- i have a son would be dead if it were not for the democrats. my son had a health condition. we did not know about it. because of obamacare, he stayed years insurance two longer. a $200,000 surgery that would have wiped me out cost me $2000. i am very much for the democrats, but at this point, i am so angry at the press. it is just so unfair. easier,es not make it
and he is not the most likable guy, but i hated george w. bush because of the war. our americanh used -- how freaked out we were over 9/11 -- to lead us into that war. i consider him the greatest disaster to america. at one point, i stopped getting the "washington post," because i got tired of how unfair they were in attacking him. i am intelligent enough. i can think for myself -- host: i will jump in, because we want to move on. but thank you for weighing in and adding some interesting thoughts to our conversation. let me put on the table his point and share with you this exchange last thursday with cnn's jim acosta at thregular white house briefing and press secretary sarah sanders. [video clip] >> these children who are being separated from their families as they come across the border, the
attorney general earlier today said that, somehow, there is a justification for this in the bible. bible,oes it say, in the that it is moral to take children away from their mothers? >> i am not aware of the attorney gena' comments or what he would be referencing. i can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. that is actually repeated a number of times throughout the bible. will let me --ou i will not comment on the attorney's specific comments that i have not seen. i know it is hard for you to understand, even short sentences, i guess, but please do not take my words out of separation ofe illegal alien families is the product of the same legal loopholes that democrats refused to close. these laws are the same that have been on the books for over a decade, and the president is simply enforcing them. >> the policy to take children
away from their parents, when they come across the border with their parents, and suddenly they are pulled away from their parents, why is the government doing this? >> because it is the law, and that is what the law states -- >> they do not have to do that -- >> it is that have to be the law, and the president called on democrats in congress to fix those loopholes. come toesent failed to the table and fail to help the president close these loopholes and fix this problem. we do not want it to be a problem. the president has tried to address it, and democrats refuse to do their jobs and fix the problem. i have given you enough time. host: that exchange with jim acosta of cnn. we want to share another moment from that same white house rest -- press briefing. with -- he also writes for "playboy" magazine. that followed up jim acosta.
>> -- [video clip] >> don't you have any empathy with what these parents are going through? >> settle down. i am trying to be serious, but i will not have you yelling out of turn. >> these people have nothing. >> i know you want to get more tv time, but that is not -- honestly, answer the question. it is a serious question. these people have nothing. they come to the border with nothing. you are a parent. n't you have any empathy for what they go through? >> jill, go ahead. host: to the caller's and what you saw a moment ago. guest: these white house briefings are a problematic ways for people to have information provided to them. it really is the sausage making of political conversations. it does not look appealing. that is a real problem.
on the one hand, you can look at the press secretary, you can see the conversation there is shaped in a way that is at some distance to what is really going on. obama had a different way of treating people at the border then trump did, even though it is the same law. there is a republican majority in the house and senate that makes it difficult for democrats to be blamed for whatever changes that are out there. even within the administration, there are people who are probably owning this as a mechanism, separating parents, as a vehicle to make sure people do not come across the border in great numbers. turning to reporters, this is not exactly the professional moment you want reporters to behave in. it becomes a challenge to get permission in the white house briefing, in part because it is the opportunity, or at least the accusation, for grandstanding in terms of what is being done and how these questions are being asked. no doubt about it, you get a lot
,ore focus on the questions sometimes, then the answers, when reporters and press secretaries come into combat. on balance, this works for the administration. because reporters are not ever going to be seen as all that popular. questions andg challenging people. whether you are a democratic or republican president, you will not like a lot of what the media has to say about you. there will always be some level of criticism at reporters, regardless of who is at power -- who is in power and how it is handled. but make no mistake -- this is a more combative relationship that we have seen in the past, in large part because of these questions of credibility and information. there is also the fact that any new presidency is going to have to involve hiring a lot of people who may not have that much experience in washington and not that much extended terms of clinical communication in terms of dealing with the press.
that means it is a big challenge. you after that the fact that the trump team has walked away from people who have worked in previous republican administrations. after that loyalty is more highly valued than anything else, in some cases, and you end up with people who are struggling in their jobs, whether it is head of the epa or people in the communications office, or people who have replaced the first people hired. it is a vehicle that does not give a lot of light. it gives a lot of heat. host: republican line next, houston, texas. mike, good morning. caller: this would be a good time to mention that president obama promised to reform the immigration and border policy when he was running for president in 2008. this would be the right time to talk about that. he promised it. he lied. i would argue that president obama's lies were far more consequential to americans than
the 3000 lies that are effectively hyperbole by president trump. he talks off the cost. he knows what he wantss to do. host: thanks for the call. guest: what you see with you get. trump is what you have a very unfiltered president. sometimes he says things probably a lot of people in the white house which he had not set, because then they have to undo or reverse things. that is a constant problem. that is one of the reasons why most people make it through the presidential election process have a lot of political experience. they have been senators or governors am dealing with reporters for years. they learned what to say, what not to say, how to say it. donald trump has good instincts for channeling the anger in the country, parts of the country, particularly in those communities that see better times in the past when they see
in the present. that serves him well with his base. the real challenge for the trump presidency is going beyond that, the question of how you get from 40%, 42%, to 50%. when you look now at the midterm elections, early indications in virginia and in special elections across the country suggest a challenge for republicans, may be a greater challenge than obama faced when he was going through his first midterm elections in 2010. you have got up, and you can see -- behoove the president to not focus as much -- title,he book, the "presidential communication and character: white house news management from clinton and cable to twitter and trump." nancy joins us from new york. caller: good morning. i want to wish all the fathers
in these united states a happy father's day. in also -- and also for president trump. he is a terrific father. i have a proverb which we sometimes find to be true regarding the g7. it is keep your enemies close, t keep your friends closer. have a wonderful d. call.thanks for the we go to laura in ohio, democrat line. caller: good morning. originally, i was going to make one comment, but after the gentleman was talking about the biblical and sarah sanders was -- i want to say they say that following the law is biblical. if following the law is biblical, someone explain to me xodusod guided moses and e
ever happened. because the pharaoh was law. did moses followed the law? no. he followed right. so let some of the republicans that agree with this explain that. i can say trump, easily, can be positive with north korea's leader and russia's leader. they have a lot in common. personality, they are alike. he gets along and speak so highly with both of them now. yet democratic ones we have been friends with for years he is to go on. host: thanks. and we are told the president is expected to have a conversation with the north korean leader today on the phone. guest: i think talking is better than not talking. during the cold war, when you had horrible things going on in china and the soviet union, presidents tried to reach out to
communicate with the leaders opposite. that makes a lot of sense. the issue, though, is whether you go too far. you do not want to be too congratulatory of dictators who rule by force. i do not think that serves american interests. i do not think that serves america's interests in the world. i think donald trump was wise -- to meet with the leader of north korea. he was wise to have a conversation on how to make the world a more peaceful place. that conversation makes sense. what does not make a lot of sense is to prop up and create this positive image of someone who is not so worthy of respect in terms of the way they have governed their society. i think donald trump focuses a little too much on power and who is in charge and respect who is in charge and the dynamic of power. not spend as much time thinking about the value and culture that comes out of that power.
absolute power creates no end of trouble in the countries where it exists. disadvantage to live in such a place. that would be something that might suggest a bit more cautious approach, a less adulation in the direction of the leaders of north korea or china or russia or turkey. host: back to your book, you write as the nixon administration faced the watergate scandal, president nixon tried desperate strategies to denver the attention. fromaranoia kept him responding rationally to a growing crisis. the watergate rake in to place in june. in december of 1972, nixon on the phone with his press secretary. [video clip] >> he fully understands the "washington post" situation. there was no reporter today at the ceremony. there was a photographer there, but apparently, they screwed up on their desk assignment today,
and there was no reporter present from the "post." >> i want it clearly understood ever, nom now on, reporter from the "washington post" is ever to be in the white house. is that clear? >> absolutely. >> not just the press conference. >> at their briefings. >> never. no church service. do not tell mrs. nixon. she will approve it. no reporter from the "washington post two is ever to be in the white house again. and no photographer either. is that clear? none, ever. that is a total order. if necessary, i will fire you, you understand? >> i do. >> good. host: december, 1972. nixon steps down in 1974. guest: i think one of the things to remember about any president
is there is great ability to shape the discourse in terms of who you talk to and who you do not talk to, who you allow into the building, you allow for various conversations. so much of the information a reporter needs is held by the white house. the administration has all of that information. you can really leverage media outlets by offering exclusives to rivals and things like that. as the watergate scandal ripene d, as the "washington post" got closer and closer to the inner circle in terms of the scandal and the cover up, the nixon team once into a defensive crouch. this is not unlike talking about fake news publicly. one of the things that is the great unknown of politics is how different politicians would react in different times. i do not know that richard nixon would be as good at twitter as donald trump is. but richard nixon probably could have made good use of fox news,
had that existed in his time. if ronald reagan or richard nixon or donald trump had to deal with different media environments, i am not sure how they would have handled it. certainly in this media environment now, the president is very effective when it comes to trying to distract the conversation, move the conversation in a different direction. anytime we talk fake news, we are not talking the mueller investigation. every time we talk north korea, we are not talking about people who pled guilty who were part of a trump campaign. there are ways to change the discourse. that is one of the strategies that presidents consistently employ. and the more troubled and administration seems by something, the more likely they are to engage in this war. host: which is how you conclude this book are you people who expect the mass media to provide better medical discourse seem to send to be disappointed.
continue toill magnify and him fight a character traits of candidates and presidents that can make or break campaigns at administrations. let's go to sandra, independent line. caller: good morning. i have to say i totally agree with your guest, 100%. i also have to say that there are over 11,000 children being held now in 100 different camps in 17 different states. when donald trump said it is the democrats' fault, it is not. he made it zero-tolerance. the democrats and ery other president was not cruel enough to make a 0%. donald trump could have gone to congress to get permission, but he did not, because he knew that they would not go along with him. so all of these children, doctors are saying, psychiatrists are saying, these children will be mentally harmed. there was a reporter on msnbc
yesterday -- friday, and he said there was a woman with a 4-month-old baby, breast-feeding a baby. that baby was taken out of her hands, and they were separated. he is separating children from their mothers. and by the way, there was a person that says something about president obama -- president obama got us out of the recession. one of the reasons we are doing so well today is still because of president obama. he also helped over 70,000 people get health care insurance. things,o say these because, like i said, i agree with the guest today 100%. host: let's bring in a republican voice and get your reaction. oklahoma on the republican line. thanks for waiting. your thoughts on all of this? very wellur guest is
college educated and spoken well, but he is full of crap. his statement comparing obama and trump and how they interacted with the media is more liberal, socialist fallacy. mediae the liberal climbed all over obama, and he could do no wrong. even though benghazi is a crime not answered for. his year-round deal, paying them crime unanswered for. fast and furious, on and on. -- and this liberal since there and condemns trump for all his lies. he has not lied. is, sometimes it unfiltered. but the country is doing much better now. better than it has for a long time. host: two different perspectives. guest: this speaks to the polarization in the country. you see a great deal of anger with respect to the way that
trump is governing from some people, and anger that continues to reflect back on president obama before that. and, of course, secretary of state hillary clinton. you have a situation in which we have a real difference from the way that the media operated, even 40 or 50 years ago. if you think back, even to the days reagan was president, he had to win the evening news cycle. how you have the conversation at the white house during the day was focused on what was going to happen on cbs and nbc and abc at 6:30, 7:00, whenever there's in the local market. conversation that may not have been as open that the folks at cbs and abc and nbc did not think were important. now, you have this disparate media outlets, all these different places to get into the
conversation. people can hear different evidence, here different things going on. -- hear different things going on. so as you think about the presidency in the modern media environment, you see a greater ability to have a wider range of media outlets but less ability to talk to each other and less of an ability to agree even on what the facts are. it is a challenging environment for a president who is trying to go beyond that 40% of the country that will always support the democrats or the 40% that will always support the republicans. those people in the middle, it is hard to reach out to them given this current media environment. host: our line for independents, illinois caller. connie, good morning. happy: good morning, and father's day. these kids that are being
separated at the border, that happened under the obama administration. there was never one thing said. and it was triple separation compared to what donald trump is separating. what is important to recognize is there is a problem here that needs to be addressed in terms of what is happening. it speaks to the question of levels of transparency in government. one of the things that is a problem in every white house is that sort of news management int is keeping the public what is going on. this is a problem. these are people who are governing in our name. it is important the government is as transparent as possible. this is a shortcoming of the trump administration, of the obama administration. doubly difficult.
so much ability of the news to be contained in the government -- we have not mentioned this , but theews is a for-profit business. the financial health of media companies gets more and more precarious. it gets harder and harder for news organizations to engage with the investigative work that is so important. it is hard for them to have reporters to cover all the stories that need to be covered here and while a lot of my research is critical on the media, it is important to recognize they are responding to business pressures that are making it difficult for them to do the very important mission journalism has an hour clinical system. host: a follow-up from robert green -- which president had the most transparent and accessible administration? guest: i am tempted to say that i would not name any one.
i think all the presidents have a stake in controlling what is said about them. that reality means even very publichat are -- if you think about fdr. a president who had news conferences every other day, basically. you had all of the opportunities to interact with the president if you were a reporter in the 1940's. but there were things not set about fdr. there were stories the mark in public did not know. particularly, the cover-up with the spec to the disabilities or cover-up in the immediate aftermath of pearl harbor and how vulnerable the united states was. even open presidents, presidents that connected with the public ,- you can think about reagan fdr, and you can see the same media management imperative that dominates so much of what they do. to jim,t's go
republican line. caller: good morning -- host: the go to marry. are you with us? caller: yes. i ju wd to s how your guest example fires why people this like and distrust the media so much. he earlier was criticizing trump with meeting with brutal leaders of north korea. but obama met with the leaders of cuba and iran. guest: -- host: i have to jump in, because what he said was it is always better to talk with enemies. caller: the, was critical of trump for meeting with brutal dictators. when obama met with brutal leaders, there was not a criticism, there was praise.
the media comes across as partisan hacks. the people -- the children being separated from their parents. there were pictures of children in their cells, and there was outrage. that picture is from 2014. that happened under the obama administration. where is the outcry than from children being separated from their parents? that the people in the media are basically partisan hacks. it is important -- you can see i said nothing critical or positive. i said nothing at all about obama and cuba. my view is it is good for presidents to speak to leaders. i think that was good for people to have a conversation.
i think a conversation with north korea was good. it was good for leaders in the cold war environment. is that you dont not go far in praising these people. ronald reagan was not buddy buddy with the communist leadership. he told them aggressively to tear down that wall. that is a model that is much more effective when you think about pressure on the societies. democratic models of engagement make a lot of sense. it demonstrates why we are a better political system then totalitarian systems. around the world, there is competition now between free and toree societies do for us surrender our advantage, in my view, in a way that ronald reagan never host: the book from clinton and cable to twitter and trump.
from the university of mary and washington. thank you for being with us. guest: thanks. host: when we come back we'll turn our attention to the president maul man forth and a new gook stones rules. -- book stone's rules. "washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. also on c-span radio, and sunday afternoons on the bbc parliament -- book stone's channel. we're back in a moment. the we understand it anti-war movement was thought of as scruffy haired college aged protesters. here were middle-aged clergy. it made the public think, well, if they're against this war
maybe i should reconsider it myself. that was sort of a turning point. their action clearly didn't end the vietnam war. but i don't see how you could argue that it didn't help end the draft. the head of the selective service said publicly they felt they were under attack. so i think it clearly you can draw a line from what they did to the draft ending in 73. >> monday night on the communicators. this week's decision by a federal judge approving the $85 billion merger of at&t and time warner. joining us to talk about the deal, the president of the american anti-trust institute. global son university
anti-trust institute. >> really in the decision, that's really the key issue here in a vertical merger and in a horizontal merger is how does the merger change the company's global incentive and their ability to exercise greater market power. >> i teach anti-trust law. we've looked a long time to find a vertical merger opinion after a fully litigated case to teach to students. there isn't one in the modern era. i think whatever way this case came out and even whichever way comes out on appeal again should there should there be one being the first fully litigated opinion in a vertical merger challenge in a long period of time, i do think even though it's one district court judge, one fact specific opinion wund instri one proposed merger does give it some degree of importance. i think other judges should there be another vertical
merger challenge who are looking around to see what their article 3 judicial colleagues have done in these opinions can't miss this one because there's nothing else. watch the communicators eastern on at 8:00 c-span eastern on c-span 2. words.ght on after the book from the left. he's interviewed by mona. >> who is one of the most persuasive incentive and their ? >> john mccain. >> on what subject? >> just about anything. i admire john mccain because he was such a maverick which i like. and he was also brutally honest. he was willing to take on his own party. i wrote a book critical about barack obama called buyer's remorse which i got a lot of crap for from my fellow
democrats but i thought there's some things that i believe barack obama let the progressive side down. so john mccain felt his party was not living up to what he believed the republican party should be and he was willing to ay so. >> today on american artifacts on c-span 3. tour the library of congress exhibit on the centennial of world war one which showcases american ideas about the war through artwork, posters, photograph, films, and documents. >> the idea of contributing to the war through labor, the idea of growing your own food so as to conserve larger quantities for the war effort. this is actually by mabel wright who is frank lloyd wright's sister. again another individual kind of rises to the surface during
world war one. you see here also food conservation. i know we make everything out of corn to but back then we didn't. this is kind of new. again one thing that's worth in world war ii the government rationed food. hoover believed that if you just encourage people to act correctly they would ration food themselves. you didn't need in world war ii the government to impose it on hem.
host: joining us from fort lauderdale florida is republic satist and author of the new book stone's rules hoto win at politics, business, and style. thanks for being with us. guest: good morning. great to be here. host: let me begin with news of the last 24 hours. your friend and former partner paul man forth now sitting inside a jail in the washington, d.c. on allegations that he tried to witness tamper connection to his case. your reaction to what happened on friday and where does this go next? guest: well, i think connection. your reaction to the special counsel is trying to pressure paul man fosht to plead guilty to avoid a trial. the reason i think they are doing that is they do not want
to discuss the surveillance that was on both paul man fort and according to the "new york times" on january 20, 2016, on myself and also carter page. in fact i discovery, the government insists to man fort that he was never under surveillance at any time. the "washington post," the "new york times" and many other media organizations have reported otherwise. i think that surveillance was unconstitutional, was illegal. i don't think the govement wants to talk about it at trial. i think that is the reason mr. man fort is being squeezed in this way. host: but he is also accused of trying to influence witnesses in this investigation. guest: obviously i can't speak to the specifics of that other than what i have read but i do find it interesting that for brothers who the
hacked the house computer system who is accused of brothe burglary, stealing records, stealing money, has not spent a day in jail while mr. man fort sits in jail. this is very clearly a pressure tactic on him to induce him to plead guilty to avoid trial. host: let me get your reaction to another story. and the "washingtonost" has the headline at this hour. you revealed another conversation, another meeting in 2016 with another russian operatives and the "washington post" has this exchange between you and mike. ow crazy is the russian? your response wants big money for the info. waste of time. the russian way anything at all interesting. can you explain what this is all about? guest: your response wants big money for the absolutely. a long time associate of mine asked me to meet with a gentleman by the name of henry greenberg. turns out that's not his real name because he had information that he said he wanted to pass
on to the trump campaign. i met with mr. greenberg who has now been revealed to be a long-time f.b.i. informant and he told me he wanted $2 million for unspecified information. needlesso y i declined. i said i didn't have $2 million and even if i did iouldn' use it to buy political information. he laughed and said well it's not your money i want. it's donald trump's. i said you really don't understand. donald trump doesn't pay for political information. i have reported this meeting now that mr. cap uto has refreshed my memory to the house intelligence committee. it was a 20-minute exchange. even mr. greenberg in the "washington post" confirms that there was no transaction and that i declined. now, knowing mr. greenberg's extensive background as an f.b.i. inform nt, it is pretty clear to me that this was a sting operation of some kind, an attempt to penetrate the
trump effort and perhaps compromise donald trump himself. it turned out to be so inoccuous that i didn't recall it but i have given my e recollection now to the house intelligence committee. and also to the inspecter genel. host: the characterization is that you did not disclose it to federal investigators. you just explained that you didn't know about it or forgot about it. is that your excuse? guest: that is correct. i did not recall it at the time. i wouldn't call it an excuse. of special fice counsel raised this question with mr. cap uto in a memory -- i had no memory of this. it was an inoccuous exchange. this guy of special counsel shows up wearing a mag in a hat and trump t-shirt. he makes this offer, i decline, nothing inappropriate happened here. and i have now refreshed my memory and informed the committee.
host: why do you think f.b.i. operatives would have done this? helper ell, we have the ample, the strock page exchanges. very clearly the f.b.i. or at least some subset of it was trump against the election, was trying to penetrate the trump campaign. i think this was a sting effort. at the time, i thought trump election, was it was a clumsy effort just to get money and i declined. but in all honesty, this was a 20-minute exchange which i did not recall because it was so ridiculous. host: should the president consider a pardon for paul man forth guest: i think that premature. i think mr. mana fort needs to go to trial. the president could make that decision at that point. in the case for example of general flynn, who has pled, i think the president should consider a pardon for general flynn.
host: you are friends with paul mana forth, he is your former partner. when is the last time you talked to him? guest: it's been a cple weeks now. bviously i feel very badly for him. it is going to be very difficult for him to prepare or trial from a jail cell. the hard ball tactics of the special prosecuter a oio. but we have not spoken in several weeks. host: what did he sound like when you talked to him? where is his mind at the moment? guest: anxious to go to trial. unwilling to fold and plead guilty. not willing to testify against the president in any way. i don't think he has any information that's damaging to the president. therefore, in order to do so he would have to make something up. their false witness as it were, that would be perjury in itself. so i think he is at least the last time i spoke to him
anxious to go to trial on these charges. host: right now he is looking atrges based on his personal financial dealings, his lobbying efforts, and his business practices. correct? nothing involved in the campaign. uest: i thought this was about russian collusion in the 2016 election. paul man fort stands charged with numerous infractions but none having to do russian collusion in the 2016 w presidential election or his service in the trump campaign. frankly, i think he does not get enough credit for his effort to thwart an effort to steal the nomination from donald trump even though donald trump had run the primaries and caucuses and state conventions. as you know there is a precedent in 1952 robert taft came to chicago with more than enough votes to be norm nated on the first ballot and that nomination was stolen from him in the credentials committee and the rules committee of the 1952 convention.
the republican national convention is governed by its own rules rather than state or federal law. and the trump campaign despite the fact that they were rolling up large victories when it came to delegates was really not paying attention to who was being appointed to these crucial and controlling committees. mr. man fort is a master at convention politics. he was exactly the person the trump campaign needed at that time. he beat back an effort by the cruz folks to hijack this nomination. i think he deserves credit for that. host: and when rudy julianie, the president's lawyer saying the president could clean up the russian probe with a series of pardons your reaction? so far the russia probe doesn't seem to have revealed any russian collusion. that's why i call it the russian collusion so far the de given the partisan nature of all of the investigators, given
the fact that we -- that the special counsel indicted 13 russians and now doesn't want to provide discovery to them clearly looking for a headline, this is a bogus partisan investigation. the president's is right. it's a witch hunt and it has interestingly not slowed the president down in terms of returning the country to prosperity and seeking peace abroad. it's amazing how much the president has been able to achieve given the daily attacks magnified by the mainstream media from the democrats and his critics, and i think mr. july ni is absolutely right. host: let me go back to this story which broke this morning. trump associate revealing new contact with the russian 2016 l with the
campaign. were there any other meetings that took place that you now remember that took place in 2016? guest: none that i can recall. i didn't 2016 campaign. recall this one. it was so inoccuous. and, again, i want to be clear. i declined any effort to purchase information or to pass this information on to donald trump. host: let's get to your book called stone's rules. how to win at politics, business and style. guest: let me be clear. i had no advanced knowledge of the source, content or the
exact disclosure timing of the wikileaks disclosures regarding the dnc. i received nothing including allegedly hacked e-mails from assadge or julian the russians or anyone else. i passed nothing of that nature on to donald trump. as some have assadge or the russians or anyone else. i passed claimed. so this allegation keeps getting repeated. there is no evidence to back it up because it is not true. now, it is also accurate that i do not regard mr. assadge or wikileaks as russian assets. i think he is a journalist. he does what the "washington post" does, what the "new york times" does. he gets information sometimes classified and he publishes it. it is interesting to noted that wikileaks during the entire time of its existence has never been questioned in terms of the
authenticity or accuracy of what they have published. very few american newspapers or media organizations can say that. so i reject the idea that he is a russian asset or that wikileaks is a russian front. atthis juncture although i once believed that the dnc had been hacked, today i don't think they were hacked at all. as you may know i'm being sued along with others including the trump campaign by the democratic national committee, which is terrific because we'll get a chance to look and examine those servers and establish once and for all whether the dnc was ever hacked by anyone or whether the information was downloaded to kind of portable drive and taken out the backdoor, which a number of it counter kind terro experts now believe based on an rticle i read in the nation.
host: up written how many books? guest: this is my sixth book. but this book is somewhat different than the others. you don't have to be a republican or a conservative or a trump supporter to benefit and enjoy this book. it just would work for bernie sanders supporter, progressive, even people who aren't interested in politics whatsoever. if you're trying to get ahead in business or media or fashion or agriculture. no matter what your chosen avocation, i think these rules ould hold you in good stead.
host: good morning. guest: good morning. fox news is the fake news. they don't want to answer people w will estion them on something. trump and july ni are using it to try to bring down a real american hero. mueller. he got wide bipartisan support for the job. and now he's getting closer and closer to trump and they're getting more and more hostile. secondly, trump's bankruptcies, he bailout, the facebook accounts, 2016 elections and money laundering. it's all connected. and mueller's the best person in the country to connect those dots and all -- they're all going to catch up with trump because no one including you, stone, are above the law in this country, it's just a matter of time. host: roger stone. guest: i guess i'll put you down as undecided. wow, real hostility this morning.
no russian collusion has yet been proven. you seem to want to litigate the last election which donald trump won. i find the coverage far more balanced than say cnn. host: i want to look at a picture from nuzz week magazine. in your office with a number of nixon posters from his campaign from 1968 and 1972. how would nixon have handled watergate in today's media environment? guest: let's remember that in 1973 and 74 we had a monolithic media, three major networks, several national newspapers. but there was no internet. there was no alternative media. no there was only one narrative. it was the "washington post" narrative. for example, we didn't know at the time that three of the
water gate burglars were still on the c.i.a. payroll and reporting to their case officers. e didn't know that john dean had directed tony and jack -- two private detectives and both decorated new york police officers working for the white house -- to case out the watergate six weeks before the break-in according to their oral histories and their own biographies. there was only one narrative. so i think if there had been an alternative news media, nixon would have had a bretter chance to make his case. this -- and i think it's important. nixon was both very great and very flawed. he reached a strategic arms limitation with the soviets. he opened the door to china. he tony desegregated the public schools. saved israel unlaterally in 1973 yomkip purwar. he launched affirmative action
in the office of minority enterprise. at the same time, he launched the racist war on drugs, which has been a total failure. he took us off the gold standard. gave us wage and price controls. so i think he was both very great and very flawed. but i think it's time that his presidency be seen in balance. bill clinton said this most eloquently at president nixon's funeral. it is time to judge richard nixon on his entire record, and his record i think shows he was a peace maker. host: he died in 1994. do you recall your final conversation with hinl? guest: i was supposed to dine with him the day before, and i had to cancel. but he was very upbeat. he was never very retrospective or intro spective.
he was always looking forward. and as you know he came to be a key adviser to president clinton during the breakup of the soviet ubeion and developments in china also wrote numerous best sellers on foreign policy in his retirement years. ask me about my reverence for nixon. it in a sense is almost nonpolitical. it has to do with ask his resilience, with his persistance. it's an american story. defeated, knocked down, disgraced, he still kept coming back. a man is not finished when he's defeated, nixon wrote. he is only finished when he quits. i subscribe to that. host: on the democrat's line from michigan. henry you're next with roger stone joining us in florida. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to kind of piggy
back off that missouri caller with two points of my own. of first using a metaphor war. a conventional invading force into america or any other country when they want to take it over, the first thing they want to do is to take control and command of the country's communications structure. this is what donald trump is ing when he den grates and media. es our when he talks so much about the media and them being such bad people. vladmir putin knew that had he used conventional forces to invade america it would have been mutual suicide. so what did he do? he used trump's economic or financial situation, this flailing company needed money, no american banks would loan him money, so putin and the olegarks loaned him money, got
im financially indebted to them and now trump is their operatives.hearts this is where i agree with donald trump about the media being fake. the media says them and now trump is their operatives. my second point. the people who die- that donald trump touched the heart and knows the working class white people. and that's why he won. well, this is the thing. these people are not the forgotten people because black people see them every february during black history month in eyes on the prize. this -- host: thanks for call. i want to go back to the first point. with regard to russia and donald trump. the president has -- guest: i don't know -- go ahead host: the president has not released his tax returns and some seem to indicate that there could be potentially maybe a link between his finances and the russian
government. guest: no one has ever established that donald trump took loans for any russian entity. i have been on the record saying he should release his tax returns all the way back to the 2016 campaign. i said it dung the campaign. i think it would clear the air. on the other hand, if you are really looking for russian collusion it's pretty easy to find. $143 million that the clinton foundation took from executives in the russian-owned energy company that was seeking control of 20% of america's uranium, or the half million dollars that bill clinton took from the same ee entity. that would seem to me to be a real effort to influence the clintons by the from the same r host: california. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you mr. stone. you're a true patriot. here's a couple things that the
fake news isn't talking about. how about barack obama sending eller with uranium over to russia? is mueller hing was the guy that brought it over. so he's -- how can he is be investigating anybody? and there's another thing. what about the whole middle east -- the thing in the middle east? the fleecing of the whole middle east under barack obama after he got -- what was it? the noble peace prize? or barry rack obama society my or? he hid his school records and how -- and what about his financial ors from george soros and working for laraza all those years and this fake daca
unconstitutional. unconstituti. he said it 19 times on the air and we've got to quit chasing his tail. let's get down to the bottom of the corrupt obama administration. host: thank you. any reaction? guest: you raise a number of key points. it's interesting, and the previous caller seemed to miss this also. as far as mr. mueller is concerned, he arrested the three wrong people in the anthrax matter. the individual he finally arrested died mysteriously in custody. to investigate the sara societya florida based light school where five of nine hie jackers were to investigate he let four men rot in a boston jail to cover up for f.b.i. informents involved in the
whitey bullinger matter. samples le the uranium to raugs during the acquisition of uranium one. this is hardly an unblemished us hardly an unblemished record. therefore that he would now sit in judgment of this president in what is clearly an effort to undo what they could not do at the ballot box i think is really questionable. you justed on what said it sounds like those will be some of the talking points when the mueller reports comes -- discreditedit both him and his work. we don't know what his report will say. that -- any evidence of collusion in the trump campaign manager even the indictment of the 13 russians evidently active online still doesn't show a clear connection or consistency.
some points appear to be pro-hillary, antiheroine. print trump and most of their money is then after the election. david is next in middletown, new jersey. independent line with roger stone. good morning. caller: good morning c-span3 of the best channel on television. host: good morning david. caller: it's an honor to talk to you and to mr. stone. host: go ahead. we can hear you. caller: all right. mr. stone, i am a world war ii vet. and i lived through the depression. on linemember standing with another may he rest in peace to get food with thousands and thousands of other people.
and i remember having dinner by candlelight. not because it was romantic, mr. stone. we didn't have electricity. i know what it is to do without. i would like to make two comments. one has to do with president nixon. i firmly believe that if senator robert kennedy had not been assassinateded he would have defeated richard nixon. he would have got u us out of vietnam and it would have been a different country. secondly, we are the greatest country in the world. and we're the greatest country because of three words. the programible of the constitution, -- preamible of the constitution, we the people. host: he is a regular viewer nd just turned 90 years old.
we appreciate hearing from him. your reaction. guest: well, first we salute your service. i was happy to see that president trump took the $400 salary that he is given by the government and donated it for e upkeep of veterans cemeteries. i think the veterans health care system in this country may be the number one scandal and something the president feels very deeply about fixing. as far as robert kennedy is concerned, first of all i am an admirer of robert kennedy. was a staunch anti-communist. i don't really believe he was a liberal. i think he was a pragmatic and very effective leader. i disagree with the idea that he would have defeated nixon because i don't know what southern state he could have carried. recall that in his narrow defeat against john kennedy, southern every
state. kennedy carried georgia, alabama, mississippi, and so on. bobby could never have carried any of those by 1968 he was fully polarizing in the country. the new four-part netflix robert kennedy is really superb. i admire him for his commitment his ert kennedy civil rights o staunch anti-communism. host: let me get your reaction to comments this past week by senator bob corker republican of tennessee, he is not seeking a third term. it's almost becoming a cultish thing. it's not a good place for a party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to the president. is that in reference to president trump and the g.o.p. your comment. guest: first i think senator
corker is upset because president trump is more popular among republicans and all voters a in tennessee than he is. this was also frue of virtually every republican president who is remade their party in their concombage. lincoln, eisenhower, certainly reagan. so the fact that the president's popularity transcends the republican party not only dominates the republican party but transcends it is not only typical of successful republican presidents but is really profound. i believe that in places like nebraska, for example, where the president's farm more popular than senator sass or in tennessee. as i indicated, i don't see this as a cult. i see it as loyalty and popularity based on his successful governance. and the fact that we have 4% economic growth. and this is prior to the
president's corporate and personal tax cuts having a hance to get traction. 223,000 jobs created in may, 1 llion new jobs created since trump became president. we were told that structurally this could not happen under barack obama but the president is demonstrating enormous ccess with this economy. i think that's what explains his popularity, not some cult-like phenomenon. host: how to win in politics, business, and style. the latest book by roger stone. i want to put on the table,
exchange exchange the president had on the north lawn of the white house. where network reporters and anchors do their est: the fact that virtually 100% of 100% of americans knew who he was and knew his life story as a successful businessperson was an enormous leg up in his efforts to become president. he as you know thought about running for president as early as 2000 although i don't think very seriously. he did consider it very seriously in 2012. ultimately running in 2016.
i began urging him to run as early as 1988 because i believed that he had the size and capacity and independence to be a truly great president. last unconnected to the 30 years of policy mistakes that have given us endless foreign war where our inherent national interests are not clear. the erosion of our civil liberties. a stagnant economy. a last 30 years of policy mistakes bro. huge multiinternational trade agreements which seem to be good for our trading partners but not so good for us in that they have sucked the jobs out of america. i think 2016 was the time that donald trump was the right man at the right place with the right message and the american people were tired of politics as usual. tired of both parties, republicans and democrats,
tired of congress, tired of a system they viewed as fixed against the little man, against the individual, which is why i thought from the beginning trump could be and now is a viable presidential candidate and i think potentially a great president. host: from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. happy father's day. i wanted to ask about the meeting that you had forgotten with the now known f.b.i. undercover agent. you described it as kind of a setup. but isn't that the exact job counter intelligence of the f.b.i. to find out if there's any illegal money given to a campaign from a foreign country, in this case russia? and also one small fact that among many but trump's own son has said many times plibble that they got most of their from russia before he ran
as president. so i can't imagine the f.b.i. not investigating. it would be criminal not to. your comments on that. thank you. host: thank you. guest: well, were they conducting similar investigation into the clinton foundation and the millions of dollars of foreign money including ukrainian and russian money flooding into that entity? i believe this idea that the f.b.i. infiltrating the trump campaign to look for russian collusion is nonsense. they were planting falks evidence of russian collusion as part of the insurance policy that peter strobe spoke of in his e-mails -- e-mails the justice department did not want to hand over to the kgs and the house intelligence committee only learned about when the inspecter general's report was produced. or when judicial watch forced those through a freedom of information act request. so no i don't think it is the
role of the f.b.i. to infiltrate a presidential campaign. having been involved with nixon, let's point out that because t down individuals connected to his campaign broke into the democratic national committee and planted bugs -- none of which actually really ever worked -- and also because his campaign got caught infilling rating the campaigns of his opponents. first senator humphrey then senator george mcgovern. what we see today is far more egregious. it is the use of the authority and power of the state to conduct surveillance and to infiltrate one of the two major party presidential campaigns. the use of a fabricated dosier as the underlying legal rationale for surveillance on trump associates, i believe
myself included, is an outrageous abuse of power that makes watergate look like a second-rate burglary. host: let me go back since the caller brought it up. the headlines in the "washington post." that you and mike said in separate interviews they also dizzf did not disclose the greenberg meeting. and further there have been 11 different conversations between trump campaign officials and russian operatives. guest: i simply didn't recall this exchange because i viewed it as inok luss and fairly ridiculous. $2 million for unspecified documents. i have informed the committee. i expect to testify before the senate intelligence committee. i would again like that testimony to be in public not behind closed doors. certainly prepared to discuss this then.
i have sent through my attorney a letter to both the inspecter general and to the house chairman of the intelligence committee telling them everything i know about this brief meeting. i can't speak to the 11 other contacts. i can only speak based on my own experience. host: are you worried about being indicted by robert mueller? guest: well, i wouldn't say that i am worried about it. i find it interesting that they through every ng molecule of my personal, political, and business life, former o subpoena through evey employees who weren't working for me during the 2016 election and other long-time associates in what appears to be some effort to frame me in an effort to silence me because i former critic of the mueller
investigation. if the effort is to find some extraneous bogus else, and pass it on to the trump campaign. yeah, i think this is a witch hunt and i think it is outrageous. it is orwe willion. we clearly live in a police state. i thought this was about russian collusion and the 2016 election. why then would mr. mueller be interested in interviewing former associates of mine who weren't working for me during the 2016 election? it's the possibility that they me? attempt to frame
i will respond accordingly. host: how often do you talk to the president? guest: it's been a me? while now. nd from time to time. i believe his lawyers have probably advised him that it would be best if we did not talk while now. matter is clarified. his strongest ntire supporter. there was a "new york times" i report that the president feared me. makes no sense. he has nothing to fear from me. i am among his strongest supporters. and i have no intention of making something up and testifying against him if that is what the special counsel has in mind. host: ohio, democrat's line. good morning. mplingtsdz they should impeach him. cause he's a womanizer, he's a -- raped all these people and they haven't done one thing about it. he don't show his taxes. all he thinks about is the big
people and the heck with us little people. especially the seniors. i think it is a dirty shame. host: we'll get a reaction. guest: well, if that were the citea they would have impeached jack kennedy and bill clinton. it's interesting that we're still trying to clarify bill clinton's acts tivities as infidelities or indiscretions when the area is far more serious sexual assault and rape. these charges against donald trump are unproven and i don't think they are the basis for any kind of impeeve ych drive. host: joe, republican line. kimplingtsdz today is father's day. as someone who understands american history, and how people of color as slaves had their families separated, children taken away from mothers and fatsers, how can
you and how can the president support a policy that he has created that is separating youngsters from their parents at our border? guest: well, of course the real answer is people shouldn't come in to the country illegally and then they would not be separated from their families. of now, when the question pardons came up, i was very clear that almost a year ago i wrote to the president to of pardons came up, urge him to issue a posthumes pardon to marcus garvi, an early civil rights leader who was an advocate of black education, black responsibility, black pride, black identity, who i think was a truly great man who was unfashely targeted and set p by the f.b.i. because he was successfully beginning to organize black people. so i having worked for richard
nixon who gave us affirmative action, who desegregated the public schools without violence or blood shed, who created the office of minority enterprides, i identify with that struggle. but i think this question is a different one. if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't attempt to enter the country illegally. the problem with our immigration system seems to me that the people who are waiting in line, the people who are going through the process legally are being cheated by those who are entering the illegally and cheating the system. host: the president is tweeting this morning. just a short while ago one of i his number one targets the "washington post." he writes the following.
reaction? guest: well, look, i think the president's holding the mainstream media's feet to the fire is a good thing. obviously i agree with it. i don't think that you can monolithically claim the main streelt media is entirely biased. there are biased reporters at the "washington post." there are fine and honest reporters at the "washington post." there are biased reporters at the "new york times." there are fine and honest reporters at the "new york times." but the president gets more and his share of fake news things are published about him and his family that are untrue. above all he is a counter puncher and i think a very effective one. ost: jim from long island.
caller: hi, mr. stone. i like the answer that you gave to the last call about illal immigration. i wanted to say that when you thank veterans, i am starting to see that the as just lip service because i see the democrats and my own town hall tripping over each other to help illegal immigrants and do nothing for us. i'm steeped in the ms-13 stuff here. this place is turning into a third world country and i can't get the town to do anything about it. they've got these houses just loaded up with people. you wouldn't believe how many people are in these houses. you've got five to a room. the town isn't doing anything about it. they're getting all kinds of benefits that i never get. i really appreciate the comment you gave to the last person about them coming in here illegally. by the way, on tucker carlson, he just talked about that guy
with the two kids that got arrested, and then i think the government -- the governor of new york stepped in. he was driving without a license and driving without insurance. if i did that, forget about it. this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about. thank you. host: thank you. we should point out that tucker carlson writing the latest tion to your book, stone's rules. roger stone. guest: well, you raised an excellent point. a perfect example. when the president criticized m-13 olence and specifically the mainstream media depicted that when he called them animals as a denunciation of all immigrants. not what he said. a perfect example of the mainstream media bias against this president. host: michigan, democrat's m-13 specifically the mainstream dia
line. good morning. kimplingtsdz good morning. i have a few things to say to mr. stone. first, there's a big difference in taking millions of dollars for your foundation as long as you don't use up any on yourself. and the clinton foundation, makes for people all over the world. second thing is donald trump's sons were on a year ago and they both said money was pouring in from russia. another thing i want to say arrested for arrested for money laundering. he lived at trump towers and he was also donald trump's campaign months. he also attended a meeting at the trump tower a year ago with the three russians. thank you. host: thank you. guest: well, manager for almost. first of all, the clinton foundation paid $6 million for
chelsea's wedding. do we consider that a personal use? they were supplying aids medicine abroad that had never been medically approved, was probably more dangerous than hiv. it is very clear that there was a pay to play scam going on at the clinton foundation where you would contribute in support of public policy decisions, the approval of uranium 1, perhaps the largest treasonist financial crime in american history. i still don't think it is proven that the trump organization has taken enormous russian financing. i've seen no proof of that. and paul man fort is innocent until proven guilty. he has a right to a fair and speedy trial. so let's not denounce him as guilty until he's had his day in court. host: the filing by the new york attorney general suing the foundation following a
investigation saying the trump family saying the children using it as their own personal piggy bank. guest: politically motivated. this was cooked up by eric sniderman who hoped to become governor on the back of a new york state weave of unpopularity in a blue state against the president. how coins dental is they announce this charge on the day the inspecter general's report comes out. the foundation actually gave out more than they took in with donald trump himself subsidizing it. i view this as an entirely politically motivated charge. host: viiareblican line. good morning. aller: good morning, c-span. thank you again for a wonderful program this morning. mr. stone, i recently viewed the documentary about your political life and what you are
doing these days. i thoroughly enjoy it. i have one question. it's something that frustrates me to no end as a republican and conservative leaders who go on network television, the able shows, and the hosts will ask a question which is really more than pushing a certain narrative or certain false premise to a question. and i listen to republican leaders, conservatives, and they just don't push back on it strongly enough. i find it very frustrating how much falsehood is advanced by the so-called mainstream media. host: i'm going to stop you there. only because we're short on time. thank you for the question. those republican
conservative leaders need to read my book stone's rules and it will tell them how to handle those kind of media inquiries. i those republican conservative leaders need to read view shows like this as an opportunity to answer questions but also to say what i want to say. and that's why i like c-span. it's entirely fair and balanced and you get your opportunity to lay out your points of view. thank you for the call. host: we have timfor one more question. this program is carried on the bbc parliament channel. this is from england. caller: thank you very much. just a quick question to go back to the beginning of the segment. when mr. stone discussed his interaction with mr. greenberg and the $200 million request and his recollection was he had a hat and trump t-shirts. i think that's memorable to kind of forget $200 million is not an easy amount to forget. if the f.b.i. was so hell-bent on negatively affecting the
trump campaign, why didn't they expose flash leak that trump -- last week that trump was under investigation when they made the announcement about hillary inton? i think it was ludicrous that mr. greenberg -- that's not his real name. he has several names. it has worked for the f.b.i. for over 17 years. i simply didn't recall. it wasn't $200 million. it was $2 million by the way. i'm not sure i understood the second part of the question. so i'm not going to try to answer it. host: but do you understand why this now coming out again leads those who have more questions about what role trump campaign operativeses may have had in 1if6? guest: grasping for russian collusion when there is none. i would be happy to answer these questions, again, for the senate intelligence committee, again.
nothing changed hands here. i rejected what i now believe was some effort at entrapment by the f.b.i. it was a simple denial on my part of any interest and i didn't pass the information on to the trump campaign. i'm certain i will have the opportunity to discuss this under oath again soon. host: in our final minute members of the trump administration very critical of leaks coming inside the trump white house. why so many? guest: well, i'm kind of disappointed in the fact that in many cases the president has hired people who don't support his agenda and who are not loyal to him or that agenda. therefore, the back-biting and leaking is very disappointing. working in the white house is probably the highest political our you can have in
business. our business. no one elected you. donald trump was elected and you serve at his pleasure and his appointment you his appoin him both your discretion and your loyalty. host: the book is titled stone's rules. how to win at politics, business, and style. author and republican strategist roger stone joining us from fort lauderdale, florida. thank you for being with us. we hope you'll be back again. guest: thank you for the opportunity. host: we're back tomorrow morning. mong our guests. new treasury department report showing the federal deficit so far this year reaching 23% higher than in the same period last year. a gazey week here in washington. -- a busy week here in washington. look at what the senate is going to be doing with defense bills and the house taking up opioid and immigration issues. this programming note. tomorrow at 2:00 eastern time
live coverage of the justice department inspecter general report. michael hor wits testifying before the committee along with christopher wray. that gets under way 2:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. also on c-span radio. we hope you tune in for that. newsmakers is coming up next. to fathers, grandfathers, godfathers and uncles, enjoy your weekend. have a great weekend ahead. >> of next, newsmakers with new york congressman jerrold nadler.