tv Washington Journal 03032019 CSPAN March 3, 2019 6:59am-10:03am EST
women in afghanistan and further the mission. >> sheena adams shared an incident with me where she said she felt the men were trying to break her to see if women could hack it. he had really heavy gear and weapons. on a roadrrying it march. she pulled her women aside and said no matter what happens, keep up because i have a feeling they're going to try to test us. that is exactly what happened. >> eileen rivers, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. morning, national journal hotline reporter hanna trudo talks about the 2020 democratic presidential race and the direction of the democratic party. then, cbs news political analyst david brody discusses the religious conservatives views about the abortion policy.
and later, thomas countryman talks about the recent u.s.-north korean summit. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. when congress returns this week, the house will be taking up a campaign-finance bill. look for a senate vote potentially this week or early next week on the president's declaration, democrats forcing a resolution trying to rescind the action. the presidents former personal lawyer and so-called fixer, michael cohen, back on capitol hill before the senate intelligence committee. it is sunday, march 3. another democrat enters the race in brooklyn.
reaction from the presidents to our 15 minute speech before the conservative political action conference. the president and gop politics is our starting point this sunday morning. we want to year from republicans and independents only for the first hour. -- hear from republicans and independents only for the first hour. for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. we will hear from the president in just a moment at the cpac a conference and you can join in on the conversation on twitter at c-span wj or on facebook, with good sunday morning, a lot to talk about, including the fallout from north korea. this is the headline from politico, saying that trump delivered a scorched earth speech as he tried to regain his footing. this from robert costa of "the
on the statest," of the republican party, saying that the act we essence to trump is now a defining trait of the republican party, two years into his presidency, overwhelming at times erasing principles that conservatives viewed as the foundation of the party for more than a half-century." from the cpac conference yesterday, here's a part of the president's speech. [video clip] i'm totally off script, thank you, right? thank you, darling. you know i'm totally off script right now. and this is how i got elected, by being off script. [applause]
script,e don't go off our country is in big trouble, folks. we have to get it back. when i look at what's happening on the other side, i encourage it. no, i think the new green deal, or whatever the hell , the green new deal, right? i encourage it. i think it's really something that they should promote. they should work hard on it. it's something our country needs desperately. they have to go out and get it. i will take the other side of that argument only because i'm mandated to. they should stay with that argument. never change. never change. no planes. no energy.
stops blowing, that's the end of your electric. the wind blowing today, i would like to watch television, darling? a record for president trump, the speech lasted over two hours, we carried it live in its entirety. the front page of "the washington post" is the story that trump keeps his grip on the gop in this is what it looks like at washington post.com. more from his reporting, "standing before a exuberant crowds chanting, he spent two hours failing -- railing against the failed ruling class, calling the failed brush investigation bs and portraying his election as a major moment in global history. this from a democrat from aunt anna, jon tester, and fended off attempts last year by trump to unseat him in the midterm elections. saying "i don't understand why
they allow all of this stuff to go on. i would bet money two years ago, 10 years ago, this would never happen -- the story is available at the washington post website. we want to hear from republicans and independents only in the first hour to find that your overall sense of the president and his chances next year. jeffrey, you get the first word from greensboro, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you, thank you for taking the call. i'm an independent and i do not believe that donald trump will be elected based on the condition that his administration has displayed to american society. multiple, multiple indictments of his cabinet members that he picked that said he would have the very best in his
administration. mean, donald trump repeatedly got on tv and specified one thing and turned out it was a lie. springhill, from florida. couldn't disagree more with that gentleman. these are phony charges by a phony, fake press. time of trump will be elected president. he is the only president that i see that has the interests of all the american people. you can see what he has done so far and he will continue to do well. as much opposition as he has socialistemocrat party, he will continue to do well as long as you have most of the republicans that support him , he will continue to do well. thank you for the call. our men rockaway park, new york. alan, rockaway park, new york. caller: never underestimate the
stupidity of the american electorate. donald trump is unfit to be president. i want to make one out of the many outrageous remarks that he is said -- one that didn't get too much blowback was, talking about the middle east, he said he we are going to go and take their oil. i said to myself this man is not a statesman he's a street punk. he's conducted his whole life with that approach. give me, give me, the hell with worstnd he's just the president in my lifetime. thank you for letting me speak. host: thank you. hearing from republicans and independents only as the road to the white house 2020 years up. news over bernie sanders over the weekend and speculation continues over others, joe biden, with 11 official candidates in the field and we
have our discussion as to whether or not larry hogan would challenge president trump in a gop primary next spring and summer. the interview by the ways available on our website. hey is next from chardon, ohio. good morning. are you with us? good morning. lost her, thanks her but for trend to get through. this is the story from "the washington examiner." what to expect this week as the house returns, the headline is that frayed to democrats face a unity test with the democratic finance vote. "the unity of house democrats will be tested when lawmakers vote on their signature campaign voting rights and legislation. democrats won't have trouble voting unanimously on hr one, the for the people act, the sweeping legislation aims to expand voting rights and
host: a speech by the house speaker urging democrats to stay united on bills like this. live here on c-span. you're next. the president, would you vote to reelect him and 2020? manyr: yes and there are lack women who don't express how much we like trump because of the opposition in the black community. i would vote for him. host: thank you for the call. the president yesterday with this tweet again going after michael cohen, his former personal lawyer who worked for him for a decade, the branding manuscript for a new book
host: george is joining us from detroit. what do you think? caller: i'm an independent voter, also, and i have the opinion of the previous caller. i'm absolutely amazed at the american people. more than that i'm amazed at the republican party who for years and years talked about big spending democrats. talked about the budget. you don't hear these things at all. evangelicals and their so-called moral authorities around this country, these people have sold their souls and i would like for these people that call in and support him to please comment on the fact that all of a sudden the budget is no big deal anymore. the debt, exceeding $22 trillion and growing. forcan go to debtclock.org
more on those numbers. this is from stephen hayes, of the the weekly standard. he wrote a piece in "the washington post." host: that from stephen hayes. middletown, connecticut, good morning. are you with us, and about? -- annabelle? one more time question mark virginia, good morning to you. let's go to virginia. pennsylvania, good morning? yes, this is me.
as far as budget is concerned. we could never have a budget with the democrats. donald trump is a man of action. i don't care what he says, i don't care about his words, but and he'shings done very, very conscious of the american people. he works for them, he's been working hard and he deserves a lot more credit than he's getting. because of the fake news and the democrats, this man is being persecuted. and i think it's terrible. i think they have no moral conscience. a cozzi oh, i just heard that she laundered money to her boyfriend. they're all corrupt and they
lie, you know? trumpalk about donald because they are all liars. rana mcdaniel the chair of the national committee was among the speakers on thursday and the issue of a potential republican primary challenge president trump came up. [video clip] >> let me ask you about the republican side of the aisle. there is a democratic primary going on. will president trump run unopposed in the gop primary? what do you do if john kasich or larry hogan say they are jumping in. >> they have the right to jump in and lose, that's fine, they will lose horribly. president has 93% approval in our party. the country is booming. jobs are coming back. wages are up. the military has been strengthened, the veterans have been taken care of, the trade deals are stronger.
we have rule of law judges at every level of the court, including the supreme court with kavanaugh and gorsuch. what would any republican be saying that this is a guy i'm going to run against? go ahead and lose. that from the chair of the republican national committee just outside washington, d.c. outside the potomac. send us a tweet at c-span wj, we will read them. host: from glendale, california. john, good morning. your thoughts on all of this? caller: good morning. feelings.e mixed i'm glad about the criminal reform bill trying to handle the
opioid epidemic. i think it's great, giving us syria is something i think is very positive, but i do have mixed feelings about our debt going up. this is something that i was really just hoping to be handled. as someone mentioned, on and on again, there is a lot where i have mixed feelings and i see i'mgood, i see the bad, but really looking for some confidence into the fact that he's going to handle the finances in a better way than he has now. john, thank you. pennsylvania, good morning. erwin, pennsylvania. john, you with us? good morning. yes, good morning. i'm a registered republican and i voted for john kasich in the
primary in 2016 and i voted for hillary clinton and the general election. i will never vote for trump. feel very strongly that this could have been prevented if they would have done what atlantic city did 40 years ago. atlantic city said that anyone connected with the casino could never be part of the government down there. you cannot be mayor of atlantic city if you are connected with a casino. you have not just the white house, but the entire republican party is infested with these casino warner's. magazineo steve forbes the 400ill show you richest billionaires in america. all of these casino owners are in the top 400 richest people in america.
the carl icahn's, sheldon adelson's, the steve wins, they are all controlling the republican party. michael cohen's testimony. michael cohen was not only a finance chair for the republican party, but he was recruited by steve wynn, under investigation right now in massachusetts to see if he's even allowed to have a casino up there after all of his victims come forward. real quick question, john, since you voted for governor kasich in 2016, do you think you will challenge trump in 2020 and if not, who would you like to see challenge the president? caller: i am hoping that kasich runs. i don't know if he will. it seems like all of these crazy haveeters -- trumpers taken over the party and i really think it will completely destroy the republican party in less than make a change here. these casino owners have
among the democrats and republicans. listen at c-span.org. more from the c-span -- cpac conference, mike pence. [video clip] >> remarkably, a leading candidate is a devout socialist. but it's not just him. bernie has been joined by a chorus of candidates and newly elected officials who have papered over the failed policies of socialism with bumper sticker slogans and slick social media campaigns. what they are actually offering is just more of the same. or taxes, more spending, more government and less freedom. it was freedom, not socialism that gave us the most prosperous economy in the history of the world. it was freedom, not socialism, that ended slavery, 12 world
wars, and stands today as the beginning of hope for all the world. it was freedom, not socialism, that is moving us beyond the of the past to create a more perfect union and extend the blessings of liberty to every american regardless of race or reader color. .t was freedom freedom, not socialism, that gave us the highest quality of life, the cleanest quality of life on earth and improve the health and well-being of millions around the world. it was freedom. what medicare for all really means is quality health care for none. green about the green new deal is how much green it's going to cost taxpayers of
these people ever pass it into law. that's from vice president mike pence delivering his remarks and friday at the cpac conference and all of it is on our website, c-span.org. bernie begins his bid with a familiar refrain, a new story, his own -- that speech is also on our website. first we will hear from don, from california. good morning, don. caller: i'm sorry, i'm john. host: john, good morning. thank you, c-span, for having me on. good morning. anyways, yeah, i would just like , the bigger threat and i have said this for six months, is kamala harris.
she's black and she's a woman. i think she will beat biden and sanders and anyone else, she will wipe out the field. number two, i would like to say keep doingmocrats these investigations and now they want to go after donald trump's tax returns. you know what? this guy has been a millionaire, billionaire. i have seen over 1000 tax returns. every self-employed person lies on their tax returns. you know what i would like to see?
democrats that make $180,000 in congress that are millionaires now, like nancy $30si, she is worth million. how in the hell are you worth $30 million making $180,000 per year. host: in her case or husband is an investment banker, is her joint portfolio on that front. caller: you name the person and i will tell you the figure. i mean, it's ridiculous. i would like to see their tax returns. host: thank you for the call. trump fires up cpac crowd, blasting the democrats for what he calls bs scrutiny. us fromlewd joining norwalk, connecticut. good morning, welcome to the conversation. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe the donald trump always watches c-span.
i would like to say god bless you president trump for your efforts that you have done for america. myself,lf, speaking for i have been a middle-class hard-working guy most of my life, all my life, since 13 years old. the democrats, speaking for connecticut, have turned connecticut from a number one industrial state of great prosperity to a state of taxation and people just leaving. we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. the democrats, all they do is tax and spend. , donald trumpself has done great things for the veterans. he wants to curb illegal immigration. and he wants to save the children. lou, thanks for the call.
this tweet -- if you are just tuning in, listening on c-span radio or the bbc parliamentary channel on a sunday afternoon, we welcome your calls and comments. in the first hour we are hearing from republicans and independents only and are focus is the president, would you vote to reelect him in 2020? this is the headline from nbc news, bernie sanders returning to his hometown of brooklyn, new york, saying that he can defeat donald trump. here's a portion of his speech from yesterday afternoon. [video clip] putting together the strongest grassroots campaign in the history of american politics. [cheers]
donald trump once to divide us up based on the color of our skin. based on where we were born. gender. our religion and sexual orientation. what we are about is doing exactly the opposite. we are going to free -- we are going to bring our people together. black and white, latino, asian american, native american, gay and straight, young and old, men and women, immigrants, we are together.
and together we will transform this country. bernie sanders, 77 years old, seeking the presidency, he announced in his hometown of brooklyn, new york. previously in the house of representatives, he won 11 primary states in 2016. this is from jim, saying -- host: this from another viewer -- host: finally this from stella -- host: send us a tweet at c-span wj. kevin, good morning. on the farublicans
right, you know, the state of wisconsin is the poster child .or donald trump the people voted democratic governor in their and republicans took the power away from them. is that freedom? you know, they took the people's rights away. he was going to duck his tail in syria holding the bag. but you know, he has taken women's rights away. that's freedom? the republican party is a dictatorship. wisconsin may have is -- may have well has been russia. host: susan joins is next in ohio. we have been hearing a lot of i your governor, former governor. caller: not my favorite
governor. i'm happy with mike dewine. anyway, i am a registered republican. i voted for president trump, i voted for him again -- i would vote for him again, i would vote for mike dewine. i have been upset for about a about this abortion issue. abortion, youted know, maybe up to three months. killing children who are born alive. if there is anyone in this who cannot wake up and see how wrong that is, i don't understand. that's one of the reasons i support donald trump and the republican party. host: steve with this treat -- tweet.
available online at politico.com. sid the is next. good morning, welcome to the conversation. i am an independent, i did not vote for trump and i cannot conceive why the republican party, anybody other than the diehard cult followers and absolute cult followers would vote for him again. i've, i've traveled abroad over to south asia twice in the last two years and it is embarrassing, the comments and questions i get from people. it's embarrassing to say i'm an american at this point in time. but it is what it is and we have to move forward. of who i wouldas vote for, but the thing that gets me is i keep hearing about and allsperous economy
of the stuff about the debt ceiling going up and up. necessarily soft for the clintons, but during that ,ime when the democrats were in our democrats were down to zero. my 401(k), and i have several, i don't have any regular pension. i'm a nurse. in one for 03ust b this past quarter. i'm just shocked and i keep hearing of all of these jobs. there might you more jobs, that they are nine dollar, $10 11 are jobs. collegeoming out of can't get jobs. you know? sos just -- there has been much revealed about the quality of this president, the lies are
on top of lies and are on top of ies and how the people, and felt bad, i have a lot of republicans in my family. i'm independent, i used to be democrat. i'm really for the right person. republicans give the whole mill away because they don't like one little section of what they have in their plate. sydney, thank you for the call. this photograph is from hanoi, vietnam, the president sitting down with kim jong-un, along with the u.s. delegation with john bolton who was on fox news sunday. talks undone by big egos and bad debts. here is some of the reporting from "the new york times." the conversation in the dining
host: that this morning from "the new york times," along with this photograph. shane, you are next, good morning from knoxville, tennessee. should the president be reelected? will you vote for him in 2020? caller: no, i won't. the short term memory that americans seem to have regarding previous administrations. as we recall, the last drop in the stop -- stock market was on george w. bush's watch and president obama had to pick up the ball and reassemble the economy if you will and get businesses up and running. the are so busy calling obama administration a failure, yet he had to put the pieces of the economy that bush had essentially scattered to the
four winds. now we have another republican back in office and, essentially, he's doing the same thing. i have to agree with the previous caller from maryland. this guy has no business being in office. no political experience. recall thelp to opening statement to president houses start in the white .y mitch mcconnell does it make -- they've said they would do anything they could to make obama a one term president and they did everything they could to block his agenda from getting anything done. trump is spending billions on expanding our defenses, but the thing is that those billions of dollars are going to have to be reinvested to maintain all of
the brand-new equipment. in the meantime, the veterans are still waiting in line. i myself am a retired veteran. we are still not getting the care that we need. i have to go out and see a civilian doctor because the doctors in the v.a. system are not adequate to the task. hadwe need somebody who has a long, or who has had a history working in the political realm. host: thank you for the call from knoxville, tennessee. this is from a viewer sending us a tweet -- host: this is the headline from "the washington post," talking
possible pardon for michael cohen, lawmakers investigating whether michael: was involved in any discussions about possible view as ahich they potentially right area of inquiry as to whether anyone sought to obstruct justice. cohen said he was a berkeley never asked and were not except one, but people not familiar with the matter said that his knowledge of the topic seems to extend be on that statement. lawmakers on the house and senate intelligence committee pressed in this week on whether a had any discussions on possible pardon and if so when and with whom the conversations took place. peopled spoke on the condition of anonymity. michael cohen is back on capitol hill later this week to testify before the house intelligence committee. that will take place this wednesday. last week before the house oversight and government reform committee, a portion of his open public testimony.
[video clip] >> what was the breaking point at which you started telling the truth? >> there are several factors. helsinki. charlottesville. watching the daily destruction of our civility to one another. putting up silly things like this, really unbecoming of congress, it's that sort of i'm responsible for. i'm responsible for your silliness because i did the same thing that you are doing now for 10 years. for 10cted mr. trump years. that you can pull up a news article that has no value to it and want to use that as a premise for discrediting me, that i'm not the first that people call at 3:00 in the morning, would make you
inaccurate. in actuality would make you a liar. what's put you to -- into the same position i am in and i can only warn people that the more people that follow mr. trump as i did, blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that i am suffering. in theichael cohen testimony the past week and the oversight committee. also it's on our website, c-span.org. next is dana joining us from hartford, connecticut, good morning. caller: me question mark diana. host: diana, good morning. caller: i was trying not to listen to cohen, i try not to listen to any of the negative stuff. first i want to say that i'm so tired of hearing names called. i'm not part of a cult. it's so obvious that these people are listening to the other stations, they parrot the things that we hear. to my is pointing a gun head. i am a registered independent who votes republican and i will
never vote for a democrat again. donald trump may not be the best person as people call him, they haven't crist -- criticizes economic policies, the fact that he was a businessman and was successful in every thing else, i could care less about that. i just want to know from these people -- by the way, i was a teacher for 36 and a half years, when i retired my pension was $39,000, it was that for years, for years. had his taxrump reform, my pension went up a little bit. i also got a cost-of-living increase that i never got out of -- under obama. you know, i have listened to people complain about the fact that there are no jobs. i have listened to them saying that we need unions. i know someone who has a small landscaping business. he lost all of his crew because he said that the economy is better and they all went for
union jobs. the fact that these people complain that there are not jobs out there, there are more people available than there are jobs. but the nastiness of the democratic party is what turned me off right away when he was having his inaugural speech and people were throwing water and urine at the woman going in. and this president, i think, has done more for the people of this country. the budget has gone up. it will go up under the democrats, to. but at least something is being done for the people of this country. for the people that call in and say that republicans are loony and this and that, they are pathetic and i am sorry, but they have no business to criticize fellow americans because we voted differently and i will continue to vote for trump. i will never vote for a democrat. one of the other things i wanted to say about president trump's i find him a very strong person. there is not another person that could take the criticism he has
for the last two and a half years. use the, what is it? identity? they all hide behind the color. .heir sexuality if someone criticizes them, you can't say that because now you are a racist or you now you are homophobic. no, we cannot have identity politics. if you are a politician you are up for scrutiny and criticism. host: thank you for adding your post -- voice of the conversation from hartford, connecticut. the gallup survey showing the insident is at 50% or higher 2018 in seven states. you can get the full details at gallup.com. andrew, your next pennsylvania. good morning. caller: yes, i would vote for trump again. time.d for him the last i am retired. i have been since i was 70.
through the eight years with obama, i didn't gain a nickel. i'm very happy the way things are going right now and i would definitely vote for him again. host: thank you for the call. this is from park storm -- host: join in on the conversation on our twitter page at siu san wj. raymond, from lexington, south carolina, good morning. caller: there is one thing that worries me. it's about the whole 2020 election, the democrats have gone so far left that the american people, especially the women, they may not vote for trump, but i think they are not going to vote at all. because ofeve that
everything they have been doing that trump is going to win so handedly, we may end up with a one party system. the democrats are devaluing their party and if we wind up with a one party system, no matter which it is, that's very bad for the country. power is very hungry. eat more and more and more. you need to have a two-party system. the democratic party is, women don't want this baby being killed and stuff like that. their sons are being ridiculed in the workplace and sexually harassed because of allegations that are unfounded and stuff like that? the democrats have gone too far and they need to recognize this. for theymond, thank you call. hannah trudeau will be joining us at the top of the hour. david burney of the cbs christian broadcast network. we will turnhour our attention to north korea,
what's next in the aftermath of those negotiations that collapsed in hanoi with the president? the senate is expected to take up the democratic resolution that would rescind the president's executive order on the emergency declaration on the border. this is the headline from the editorial page of "the washington post." "senators reject the emergency declaration and the senate must defend its prerogative from the wayward white house. the primary question is not whether they favor construction of a border wall, it is whether any president having failed to appropriate money from congress for something he favors should be able to ignore congress and just spend the public funds. here from tom tillis, republican from north carolina, who is going to work with the democrats and -- in supporting this resolution. a speech from omar, saying that he will also side with the democrats, giving them the votes
that they need with the president saying that he would veto the resolution and the question being whether or not they can override the veto with the two thirds required in congress. back to your phone calls. from tampa, florida, robert, good morning. caller: first i would just like to tell you thanks for at least giving your screeners there, giving them a fair shake. it's not all just one-sided like the mainstream media. i would like to say, i'm definitely voting for trump. one, because there is definitely more jobs than there are people here in florida. everything is going just wonderful. you know, the best way to starve socialism and communism is to divide the country and that's what the democratic party is doing right now. people need to do their research, they are mad because there is an outsider there, he's not a politician. he's doing everything for the american people. is he the best thinking person?
no. but by the way, i voted for the obama first term and when i so if you strike to do for the country, his deficit went up more than any other president in history of the country and it's always going to go up, i don't know which you can do about that. thank you for your time. time magazine," "the triumph of julia louise dreyfus" is the cover story, also the 50 people a changed comedy. a tweet from another viewer saying "yes, he is the only obvious choice as we don't want to go down the road of socialism and end up like the other these people crying a president trump are just that, crying, any of them can only repeat with the fake news feeds them. that tweet from earlier today. good morning, larry. caller: morning. host: go ahead. caller: good morning.
i'm going to vote for president trump again in 2020. i have a question, maybe you can find the answer. read something somewhere that all of the democrats voted against the pay raise for the seniors and different people. i haven't seen anything against -- in the news about it. if you could find out something about the american people know that the democrats, they want to give everything away free, but when it comes to giving the and people on social security raises, they don't want to do that. host: you are the third or fourth caller that has phoned in, that is a cost-of-living index built-in. it's not a political decision by either the president or congress. it's based on the numbers of inflation that the place, in order to take the politics out of it. caller: doesn't the people have to vote on it one way or the other, though question mark host: -- though? no, now thatst:
inflation has moved up of it, you get more in your security check each month. first --e third or fourth person to phone in, i want to get that on the record. let me go back to this a la poll. we showed you the headline earlier, the president, 50% in 17 states. some of the other highlights, the job approval below 40% in 16 states. he has the highest approval rating in west virginia and in what -- and in wyoming. most approval rating, hawaii and vermont. more from the cpac conference yesterday, the president. [video clip] on thisfight so hard phony deal witchhunt that they put together, a phony thing that looks like it's a dying so that they don't have anything with russia. there is no collusion. now they morph into -- let's inspect every deal he's ever done. we are going to go into his
finances, check his deals. these people are sick. they are sick. i saw a little shifty shift yesterday. for the first time he went into a meeting and he said we are going to look into his finances. i said -- where did that come from? he always talked about russia, collusion with russia. collusion delusion. for a we are waiting report and we will find out whether or not who we are dealing with. we are waiting for a report by people that weren't elected. think of this. we have the greatest election in all fairness, i used to hear andrew jackson. this is now greater than the election avenger jackson. people say that. i'm not saying it. was the equivalent of or greater. when i first started it was this is ronald reagan.
then we started really doing well and they were coming everywhere to vote. from everywhere. the red hats. the key is in the color? the key is what it says. make america great again, right? but we have the greatest of all-time. now we had people that lost and unfortunately you put the wrong people in a couple of positions and they leave people for a long time that shouldn't be there. and all of a sudden they are try to take you out with bullshit, ok. host: that from the president yesterday. this is from one of our other viewers. referring to the other caller who said that the caller complained that he wasn't getting a raise on his socialism check and it's the democratic fault? another crazy call.
host: barbara, from suffolk, virginia. thank you for waiting. good morning. i just want to say that i not only like president trump, i love president trump. he is trying to do so much for this country that the democrats arethe rhinos in congress trying to shut him down. they want to investigate every little thing about him. but nobody seemed to care about all of the negative things that obama did. growing because of president trump. deficitama, our
doubled. it doubled from the time that this country began to have a budget with george washington until obama. the, thea got in, the, deficit doubled. but you know, everybody wants to thatcize everything president trump has tried to do. and i just, i just, i think it's this grateful -- this race will. host: you are right that it doubled under barack obama. it's expected to double again under president trump based on current spending. does that concern you? caller: no, it doesn't. because if they weren't going to complain when the budget doubled under -- the deficit doubled under obama, then they have no
about whatmplain president trump is trying to do. he is spending, he is spending the money on security and he is trying to build a wall that will help our security. but the democrats only care about illegal aliens. this took care of us the american people -- they don't care about the american people because they want illegals to vote for them, which is why they care more for illegals than they actually do for newborn babies. host: you realize that two thirds of the budget is medicare, medicaid, social defense. and the bulk of where the money is being spent are for entitlement programs and medicare and medicaid. medicareirst of all,
and social security is not an entitlement. it's ours. i worked for nearly 50 years to earn what little social security that i do get. we are not for the savings that i put aside for 30 years, i wouldn't have enough to live on. go to lisa,l joining us from tempora, florida. good morning. we are asking you at the president, the election of four to 20, republicans and independent voters only. good morning. i will not vote for trump. him dueingenuous and by to the line. it's a constant lie, lie, lie.
i watched him it cpac. i was so ashamed that he is our president. the spewing of lies against people, americans. i don't care if you're a democrat, republican, independent, we are american. we are supposed to unite each other and come together to solve our problems. not sit around and point fingers and blame and then turn around and do the same thing and say that it's ok because i'm a republican, i'm doing it. or i'm a democrat, i'm doing it. i'm tired over the rhetoric over obama. he's not our president anymore. yes, he made mistake. he made huge mistakes. every president does. they are human. they make errors. they are not gods, they can't read the future. i wish that the republicans would actually -- the ever trumper's would actually listen to the topics and find the facts and stop putting trump on this
high pedestal. because he has lied to us. he wants to take away medicare, he wants to take away social security. disabled,lmost 56, working since i was 16 years old . i am getting so little in my social security and then medicare doesn't help. it's ridiculous. i cannot make it paycheck-to-paycheck. and he wants to build a wall for his own pride. withs nothing to do security. i have been to texas. i was born there. there is no emergency. he is lying to the american. and he's a fraud. go to tonya, next, alabama, good morning. -- caller: ialler: will vote for donald trump again. i will campaign for him.
that lady that just called from florida, don't agree with nothing is said. the people calling names, i don't serve in a cult. did i serve jesus christ. -- host: this is the pursuit of what is known as bloody sunday. live coverage scheduled get underway at 9:45 eastern time. oncontinue our conversation 2020 politics in just a moment. henry trudeau will be joining us as he announced yesterday that bernie sanders is in the race. david brody looking at religious conservatives and the issue of abortion in 2020 politicsa remis program is airing later, following the speech by senator cory booker. governor this week is pete ricketts, chair of the
republican governors association who joins us from lincoln nebraska. one of the questions we asked him was 2020 politics, larry hogan and whether -- could face a primary challenge. [video clip] >> if the popular governor of maryland does decide to run for president, will you endorse your fellow republican governor, will you support the president or stay on the sidelines? >> i will be supporting the president in his reelection campaign, no doubt about that. >> what advice would you give governor hogan? say in a republican who is thinking about running against the president, they should wait until after the president gets passed this reelection cycle. >> it is funny because a lot of republicans in the gubernatorial arena like hogan as a model for the future of the party. this is a governor who is actively thinking about running for president and at the same
time the incoming president also a republican has less than ideal poll numbers. could you explain how you square that, if hogan is an example that we should look to as how theiricans should run states and how they stack on the national stage and at the same time challenge the incumbent governor who you are supporting? all, governor hogan is doing a fantastic job in , theand and his reelection stats are close but not exact, he has been a very good job in his state and i want to give him all the credit in the world, but so is president trump. you would be hard-pressed to find an administration that has accomplished more these first two years in the trouble administration. think about getting his tax cuts and jobs act passed, the work he has done on renegotiating some of these trade relationships. the work he has done in regard to the court about things he has
done to cut regulation. 22 regulations cut for every one put in place. these are things that are impressive with regard to him delivering on campaign promises. at the end of the day, he gets back to results. rickets isnor beebe our guest on c-span's newsmakers program, the republican from nebraska. there are three governors races this year. you can also listen to newsmakers online at c-span.org or download the free c-span app. we want to welcome for the very first time, hannah trudo. she covers politics for the national journal. thank you for being with us. let's begin with the announcement yesterday, bernie sanders officially in this race. there are now 11 expected to enter. what is his path to get to the democratic nomination? guest: his path is reclaiming that progressive base that he
drummed up support of an expanding that, the party has moved in his direction since the 2016 election. he is looking to capitalize on the support he has but also people who did not follow the election last time is closely, let them know that he is the true progressive candidate and the one who has held these views for as long as he has been in public office. host: he was the only candidate really challenging hillary clinton in 2016. now you have other progressives. how does he square that circle facehis bid to run and these challenges from many people who agree with his issues? guest: i think the challenge is going to be a little more intense for him this time because like you said, he is going to face other democrats
who now call themselves progressives. the thing he has going for him is that existing base. he is ahead in most of the national polls. you can take that with a grain of salt but he has out fun raise all of these democrats so far. he has that existing base of progressives, and so he is going to use that to his advantage to start and it is up to the other candidates to sort of build momentum the way he did in 2016. host: jay inslee of washington state. what does he bring besides the issue of climate change? guest: jay inslee is running as the climate change candidate, so far the only governor in the race. he represents this idea that governors are the best suited people with the executive level experience to take on the current executive of the united states, so he brings a unique sort of washington state perspective.
he has delivered results time and time again. i think running on climate change is how he sees his pathway forward. yesterday,resident two hours, two minutes and 17 seconds, the longest speech he has ever delivered. guest: looking at the democratic party and the candidates in the running right now, they're going to have to navigate a different sort of balance than they did in the last election. they will have to acknowledge president trump and how they're going to be different from him, but they don't want to focus on him. they don't want to rely on being the anti-trump candidate. they want to make sure they differentiate themselves in a variety of different ways and show voters what they stand for. host: what is your overall assessment of michael cohen? he is back on capitol hill behind closed doors this week but what is the political impact for the president and the democrats? host: i think the democrats, a
lot of people are looking at what is their response? so far we have not heard any of the main front runners calling for impeachment. a mega-donor expressly said that he will support a candidate or multiple candidates who would support impeachment, but i think what we saw early on during the testimony was some candidates like elizabeth warren or amy klobuchar were commenting during this live testimony as it was happening. ,amala harris, bernie sanders they were not commenting during the testimony. it is interesting to look at it dickeye democratic field perspective who chimed in early and who was taking a more wait and see approach. we're talking with hannah trudo, politics reporter for the national journal. her work is available online at
nationaljournal.com. the president was speaking for two hours at the cpac conference in the washington, d.c. area. bernie sanders returning to his roots, announcing his candidacy in brooklyn, new york. here is a portion of what the vermont senator told supporters. [video clip] >> when we are in the white house, where going to address not only the national disparity racialth, but the disparity. going to root out institutional racism wherever it exists. end the will we cowardly outrage of voter suppression, we are to make it easier for people to vote. when we are in the white house,
we are going to protect a woman's right to control her own body. that distinction is a woman's decision -- that decision is a woman's decision, not the federal government's not the state government, not the local government. host: he did seem to touch on all of the things he talked about in 2016 and also said he is going to have a stronger grassroots organization in telling supporters. guest: that is the key difference. he said on a recent appearance on the view, when asked what are you going to do differently, the first thing he said was i am going to win. rally, itked at that was reminiscent of a lot of his he is not 2016 and branching out in terms of policies, he is sticking to his core platform.
he is making some tweaks along the way, addressing his personal story in a way we have not seen. he is reaching out to minorities in a way he was unable to successfully in 2016. it is becoming evident in what we are seeing now. this scoop last week, joe biden making job offers in new hampshire, telling you what? guest: multiple sources have come forward to say that joe biden has in fact -- it is unclear if he has made in formal offers or thrown out the idea that if he runs, he would like you to work with him. he has been reaching out to people in new hampshire and sort of tapping potential hires. host: do you think he will? guest: i think he will. host: let's get to your phone
calls. with hannahn, dave trudo who covers national politics for national journal. caller: good morning. comment, i to make a certainly won't be voting for mr. trump. man and i him a con don't know how the american people can put up with the lies, starting with the crowd size and the wall. mexico certainly is not going to pay for it. some of these conservatives talk about obama. president obama was handed the worst economy in the history of an exchange. record home foreclosures, record job loss and deficits and when trump came into office, he was handed a bubbling economy.
things were certainly not as bad as people said. as far as the truth to the nation, i think i have never seen anything like it. this guy is a professional con man. illegal voting and all of this andf, he slants the truth we are a better nation than that and we deserve more from our chief executive. host: thank you for the call. let's go to a republican point of view from tennessee. caller: good morning. i would vote for donald trump for a second term. two comments. the republicans passed up a great opportunity to get some good legislation passed the first two years of trump's first term. they blew that with a bunch of
squabbling, so that is on them. especially with a field of 40 plus candidates and growing, they need to get those 40 candidates together and weed out attention seekers and get down to the serious business. host: thank you for the call. voters tois up to the start weeding out from a field candidates whoal they see is the best to take on trump and who has the platform to move that agenda forward. to the first gentleman's comment, a lot of democrats feel the same way about trump's relationship with the truth or lack thereof and so it is on them to capitalize on that sort of inability to convey things in the most accurate sense and target their messaging to the
factual policy prescriptions that they bring forward. host: hannah trudo, a graduate of north east university in boston and began her career at politico. she now starts her -- she now writes for the national journal. here is an excerpt. the president is a divisive unpopular figure who can be defeated. impressions of socialism and endorsements of reparations racially fragment in nation that urgently need unity. there are both worn ideas, nostalgia trips for the radicals of old. --y ought to come the issue of where the democratic party is and talking about socialism, even bernie sanders saying he is a devout socialist. guest: he is a
democratic-socialist which is and appeals to his base where other candidates are moving. lanebeing said, there is a for a more moderate candidate to emerge. right now we have amy klobuchar, who is standing in that lane alone and i think the elephant in the room is joe biden who -- he was talking about making moves in new hampshire and other states and as soon as he enters the race, if he does indeed run, he will occupy more of that forle-of-the-road ground democrats who feel uncomfortable with a democratic-socialist label. host: a story about the amy klobuchar in the star tribune that says she will do better in treating her staff. let me get to your calls. in ohio, good morning.
caller: i have a comment to make. i watch this quite often. news. plus cnn plus fox what i am upset about and i just don't get, we have lost our moral compass in this country. i don't understand. with the new thing election and now we are going to be fighting socialism. it seems like every 40 years there is a new agenda and now it is socialism. i just wish we could get back to having our moral compass and doing what is right. the degrading of people that president trump has chosen to do , i don't get it. host: thank you for the call. guest: what she was outlining is
the first person that came to , we is senator cory booker have talked about joe biden, amy klobuchar and bernie sanders. cory booker is a front runner in the sense that he is a senator, a top-tier person in the democratic party but he is differentiating himself by running on a platform of unity and morals, taking the moral high ground in the age of the administration. we see others like elizabeth warren or bernie sanders sticking more closely to their , andpolitical convictions i would put joe biden in that category as well, cory booker is taking an effort to address american values and the decency they hope to bring back to the country. host: back to the story from the star tribune from: char, saying she has been hard on her staff and that she vows to do better.
-- tribune from amy klobuchar, saying that she has been hard on her staff and that she vows to do better. end the issue including the reference from the new york times? seen: that remains to be about where amy klobuchar will fall in terms of this reported conduct. addressing that she says she will do better is at least technology it is aential issue. it could come up in debates by her primary opponents. it is something she is keeping in mind. it is a wide political strategy to a knowledge she may have done some things wrong in the past and that she vows to move forward. host: let's go to brian in pennsylvania, republican line. thank you for waiting.
caller: good morning. i am a conservative christian guy and i love trump, i think he is great and i just wanted to comment as a christian. the democrats have gone so over the top with what they did with , whatugh and how slimy they did to discredit his personal life and his family. along with cohen. cohen's testimony was so by script democratic, just a sleaze campaign. to say those things about your commander in chief is so over-the-top and then on the contrary, that is one topic but you have a president that has results. there is hiring all over this area. it is amazing how many jobs, people going back to work. different major things going on with world diplomacy, with dealing.
i had a family member die of drug overdose. how could they not want to secure the border? he is fighting to do what he believes in, what he ran on and what people like me voted for. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think you touched upon democrats' biggest challenge in 2020. the election for them is very far from done and dusted. hill going to be a steep to reach enough voters who basically acknowledge the people that feel the same way you do and then try and potentially win over some of those trump voters in the form of somebody like joe biden who could potentially run on a platform that would win over some of the parts of the country that trump won. aree are a lot of reasons people who support trump to support him again. to me, that is the democrats'
biggest challenge going forward. how could they put forward a nominee who could take over trump when there is substantial support for him? host: let me ask a question for you personally. the a dozen candidates in race and growing, how is national journal keeping track of all of this? guest: i'm currently the only 2020 reporter. i am doing a focus on the democratic party and attract it daily for our newsletter hotline which has been out for many years and then i tracked it based on what i think is not being covered enough. for us it is more about going behind the scenes. we are not going to do the big rally story that cnn or new york times would do, but we will take you behind the scenes and give you a glimpse at something that has not been covered as much. the perfect example of that is the other day we broke the news
that bernie sanders was getting ready to release his tax returns. that is something that he confirmed live on cnn during a town hall. it was kind of a proud moment for us because we really question to answer that question and i spoke to some allies of his and people in the campaign who did not want to deny that was something that was in the works and wait for him to say it on tv. host: his campaign also had a staff shakeup. others who were part of the 2016 campaign have basically parted ways. guest: he is pivoting to a different strategy. he is taking a look at what worked well and what did not and sort of pivoting and moving forward. nina turner, one of his closest , she is very much still with him and he has a lot of senior communications people and they are doing a bit of a pivot.
if you are listening on c-span radio, we are talking 2020 politics. in memphis,t tennessee on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i could never support donald trump or any republican because all republicans do is give tax breaks to the rich and stay money -- and spend money on the military. they don't spend it on the soldiers or the veterans, they spend it on the contracts. i am still on food tramp -- food stamps. a lot of people are suffering, working all of these jobs. people cannot live on these jobs. as far as supporting a democratic candidate, i would either support elizabeth warren
or bernie sanders. i could never support a moderate or conservative democrat. you might as well vote republican. thank you. host: thank you larry. guest: one thing that resonates the a lot of people is that living wage issue has become front and center since the 2016 campaign. almost all democrats now in the running have adopted a $15 minimum wage platform. that is in large part due to public support of it. it is a widely popular policy proposal that is out there. the more sort of liberal or progressive candidates like elizabeth warren bernie sanders might have a harder time differentiating themselves on that key issue which is something that speaks to the heart of their career in public service. elizabeth warren the former consumer financial protection bureau history, bernie sanders with his economic justice
platform. while those have been core issues that speak to a lot of central voters, i think you will more centrist democrats adopting that $15 minimum wage which a few years ago was considered a very radical idea. host: another weekend of presidential politics. we were live with a full two hours president trump at the -- at the cpac conference. also our coverage of bernie sanders who officially entered the race yesterday in brooklyn, new york. at 9:45 eastern time, senator cory booker is speaking at the anniversary of what he sunday in alabama. with a commemorate that speech as he continues his president campaign. all of our coverage is on our website. ron is joining us from new jersey. caller: good morning.
say in 2020, i am going to be looking for a candidate who takes a strong position on dirty money in politics. in 2016, i was let down by both parties. they both brought somebody who has a lot of conflict with that kind of thing. in 2020 i need to see a candidate who takes a strong position. hannah, i want to know your opinion on money in that big money in politics. host: we solve this tweet from elizabeth warren saying she will not hold any big on razors and will not take -- will not hold any big fundraisers and will not take pac money. caller: i think those fundraisers makes a big difference.
looking at candidates like harris and even booker who have taken money from people like big pharma. that is something that voters should look at. thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. guest: you hit on probably the biggest touch point in the democratic party right now, a point of contention but also progress as some people see it. one thing that is pretty universally accepted at this point among most candidates is their disavowing of corporate pack money -- corporate pac money. that is a significant step. that is in large part due to public outcry, the need for smaller donors. bernie sanders as we mentioned earlier in the show, he has an
advantage because he has a lot of small donors already built up. that said, he is not the only one in the running competing for those donors. elizabeth warren has been frequenting house parties and asking for five dollars, $10 in lieu of doing these big donor dinners. i think you will see a true test whether other democrats will feel the need to go as far as she did or take it a step back. we're talking about the former washington governor. he has said he is not going to go as far as others have and will accept corporate donations. we are on a spectrum currently but i think it is definitely something that most candidates are moving towards. host: from louisiana, richard is next. republican line. caller:. good morning i just want -- caller: good morning. i just want to say i am voting
for trump again because he is republican and is doing his job. you don't think the border needs a wall and you come to louisiana and look at these roofers on the roof. they can't even speak english. the state of the union address he gave was an embarrassment to the united states. these people just sat while this man talked, our leader talked. deal with america? this man is trying to do a job. he can't do it without help. there is a big incentive for democrats this time around in 2020 to run on immigration or to incorporate immigration reform into their platform. how popular it is on the republican side and they are looking to figure out a way to reach enough people to pull over to their side and say president trump is doing xyz,
but this is what we will do to counter that. you will see potential conflict between trump's rhetoric and trump's results to some people versus how democrats will view inhumane,extreme or the ways that candidates and voters have felt about it. that is going to be one of the core issues in 2020. host: from the new york times, this headline, 2020 news, should they get into the race early or really early with reference to beto o'rourke? guest: he reported early last month. i had spoken to sources very close to him that told me he knows that a potential senate run would not end up as well as his last run against ted cruz which he was not victorious and.
-- victorious in. he had long sort of known that the way it might not move in his favor in terms of a second stab at the senate and that said it looks like the presidency is the only viable are him -- only viable next path for him. he is kind of a wild card right now in terms of how he might shake up the race. host: also in the new york times, spurning a senate rick -- senate bid. line. on the democrats you get the last word. caller: good morning. i would like to get your opinion on to -- on my democratic choices but first i would like to say to all the republicans out there that are praising trump, he lies to you every day. he lies more than casey anthony lied. the peopleny brought
all the way into the workplace before she admitted to it. he takes them to the workplace and then tells them all the workers are lying and that he actually works there. anthony, you casey are not the biggest liar anymore. for my democratic choices, i think that may joe biden, we need a guy that can be apologetic for all the things that have happened over the last couple of years. if by any chance john kasich would come over to our side and run as a vice presidential candidate to where we could maybe form a party in the middle where it is not far left or far joe scarborough could come on board with the democrats maybe. guest: i have not heard of a biden/kasich ticket floating yet. that is a new one. as for biden specifically, he is
someone who a lot of democrats feel that he is the best to take on trump. of thoses to a lot white working-class voters who trump swept in 2016. they think henes, is the best because of that reason and also the nostalgia that people feel for the obama presidency. said, who is best to take on trump depends on who you ask. a lot of women feel that potentially a female candidate can be best to take up the mantle where hillary clinton felt -- fell short. i think it depends on who you ask in what perspective they have. host: hannah trudo is the national politics reporter for national journal. her work is available at nationaljournal.com. your first appearance on c-span. you did a great job. guest: thank you. host: when you come back again question mark -- will you come
back again? guest: absolutely. host: we will get the perspective of david brody and later, what is next for north korea and south korea and the u.s.? we will get the perspective of thomas countryman, a veteran of the state department. a reminder, our cities to her continued -- cities tour continues and we are in pasadena, california. of that a portion conversation with the executive director and ceo. [video clip] >> pasadena is known for the rose parade and rose bowl game and it has established an identity for the community over the years. it goes all the way back to 1890.
it was to let the world now we have these amazing flowers and citrus growing in the winter months in southern california where the sun was out and temperatures were very temperate while the rest of the country was under snow, so only the years, many people only know pasadena because of the rose parade or because they have seen the rose bowl game. booktv,weekend on heather mcdonald and former fbi deputy director andrew mccabe. .oday at noon eastern at a mcdonald will take your calls, facebook questions and tweets on several of her books including the burden of bad ideas, the war on cops and most recently, the diversity delusion. former fbi director andrew mccabe -- deputy director andrew mccabe discussing his book, the threat, how the fbi protects
america in the age of terror and trump. >> i did spend a lot of time speaking about the decisions we have made and the reasons behind those decisions and how we thought about those issues at the time and with the benefit of hindsight i try to be honest in my assessment of did we get it right or not? the two biggest issues there are jim comey's announcement in july about our conclusion of the case in a very public way that departed from president and then jim's decision in october to notify congress about the reopening of the case because of the emails on the wiener laptop. i very much agreed with jim's decision to announce the case as we did in july. in retrospect, i think we probably got that wrong. >> watch booktv this weekend on c-span two. >> cohen -- >> "washington journal" continues.
host: we will come back david brody with cbn news. back: always -- we welcome david brody with cbn news. guest: always happy to be here. host: what was your overall observation of the cpac conference? guest: it starts with a visual of him hugging the flag and that sums up his 2020 campaign and 2016 camera -- 2016 campaign, make america great again and what he did after it etch-a-sketch of a speech because it was all over the place. he made a case for make greater -- make america great again first and what democrats want to do is make america socialist. or sit herehere today, on a sunday morning, that is a pretty strong hand to play from the president. host: there have been a number of references to the law recently signed by governor cuomo on the issue of abortion.
the president of this yesterday at the cpac conference in the d.c. area. [video clip] >> weeks ago lawmakers in new york cheered as they passed legislation to allow babies to be ripped from the womb of their , right up to the very moment of death. and a statement, the likes of which i don't think i've ever heard, in virginia, the governor, a democrat stated that he would allow babies to be born. outside, he would wrap them and take care of them and then he will talk to the mother and the father as to what to be done and if they did not want the child who was now outside of the womb, they will execute the baby after birth.
they will execute the baby after the birth. that is one many people have never heard of or thought about. this is a radical agenda by the democrats. host: the president yesterday at the cpac conference. can you sort through exactly what thelaw states, democrats are proposing and what the president is referring to? guest: this is obviously contentious. the born alive bill would provide medical care to infants that were going to be aborted but survived the abortion. a lot of democrats will say will there is already a law on the books. the difference is that this would actually provide medical care. the other bill gave legal protections. that is the difference. that has been that the -- that has been the
big contention. mothers are not the perpetrators here. the folks going through these tough times at the end, late-term abortions, a lot of this is very difficult. it is all difficult. what has been missing in this debate is the compassion element for folks going through that. a lot of folks talk about the compassion for the unborn which is extremely on -- extremely important, but what about compassion for folks who have to endure all of this? as for what the president is saying, he is talking about ralph northam's comments and let's be honest, he stepped in it. even democrats admit that he did not say it artfully at all but it gave republicans an opportunity to explain what this would do. in essence, a baby would not be left to die if it did not have the proper medical care but what
the pro-life groups are saying is that all of this -- all this bill would do is give these babies that were going to be aborted that survived the same medical care that any other baby coming into the world at the same time would be given. host: others would say it is murder. guest: even donald trump is talking about executing the baby. this is provocative language that upsets a lot of people. i understand why upsets folks on the left. at the same time there are for -- there are folks on the pro-life side that say it is an execution. here is the thing. i go back to the compassion part of this. this is where the pro-life community has missed the boat. there is all of this compassion for the unborn but what about folks that really are going through the process, the adults in this? that can be cloaked in a little more on that side. host: adding to this debate was the piece by -- the new york times.
as the supreme court blocks the louisiana abortion law, essentially a bill that would have left only one doctor in a settled -- single clinic authorized to provide abortions in the state of louisiana. data giving because it involved john roberts who was appointed by george w. bush, siding with the more liberal justices. guest: a lot of folks are referring to judge roberts as the new justice kennedy. that is a concern within the conservative ranks. the abortion issue is playing out state-by-state, even in missouri. that law passed this week would in essence make abortions illegal in the state if roe v. wade were to be overturned. it is being played out at the state level. fetal heartbeat is a big issue in terms of when the fetus can have a heartbeat detected.
i think this is where the debate is. technology is on the pro-life , wherear from ultrasound conservatives have lost on the marriage issue, the supreme court, the life issue is much different. host: let's get to your phone calls. our guest is david brody as we look at conservatives -- republicans and the conservative agenda. first up is henry on the democrats line. caller: good morning. know how anyone could force someone to do something they cannot do. how could a man tell a woman to carry a baby to term and he can't do it? if you can't do it, don't tell some of the else to do it. -- somebody else to do it. guest: that is part of the
argument. it is -- i will say this, at least politically, this is a winner for this president. he puts it in with socialism and in 2020, all of this. all of this together and you have a narrative that says the democrats have on far to the left and at that point, you have a potential recipe for victory in 2020. host: one of the stories that made headlines recently, your interview with sarah sanders and her comments about the president which included what? guest: included her saying that she believes that god wanted donald trump to be president. that interview was the last question i asked, was it a planned question. i was running out of time and said oh by the way and that answer. she said it because she believes it.
tens of millions of evangelicals believe it as well. i know that throws liberals into a tailspin and has them grab the excedrin. i get that. at the same time, this is what evangelicals believe. they believe that donald trump has been put in office for such honestly,this and those tens of millions of evangelicals who believe donald trump as president today because of god also believe barack obama was put in office because of god as well. that part of the story does not get talked about. they believe god is sovereign over everything and that they would not be a donald trump without barack obama. host: limit go back to this aliveline -- born abortion survivor protection act. just to put on the table exactly what is being debated. it would prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree -- proper degree of care in the
case of a child that survives abortion and also doctors who fail to comply with the requirements could face up to five years in prison. guest: we talked about medical care earlier. i think from the pro-choice standpoint, there are folks who are talking to me about this and saying that they are concern is aborted baby is an that survives abortion and is put on medical care, that at that point they would be some sort of long protracted legal where that would be more pain for them to go through because if they want that baby, let's say the baby had no brain activity and they just wanted to let the baby go, that they believe that it would be in a long protracted legal fight. the pro-lifers say that is not true and that it would not be that, they as the parent would have the same rights as other parents. if they want that decision to
make -- if they want to make that decision to let the baby go, that would be all right. host: according to the centers for disease control and abortions, 1.3% of are conducted after gestation but conservative say they likely underestimate that frequency. let's go to will from ohio, democrats line. caller: thank you and good morning. if disturbance -- it disturbs me watching some of your commentators. you take an issue and make it left and right but sometimes it is right and wrong. you take an issue like -- i watch the supreme court and every justice this comes up and -- every justice that comes [indiscernible]
now you have a center-right supreme court and most of the country is more to the center. now you want a minority to govern the majority. guest: i would say that the country is more center-right, not necessarily right in the center. i would also say most polls shows when it comes to late-term abortions, 80% of americans in general believe that late-term abortions should not happen. i don't want to get back to the politics of this but the truth of the matter is, you have almost 80% of folks in america saying late-term abortion should be illegal, that is a hard position for the democrats to be defending time and time again. host: let's go to julie from
indiana on the republican line. is, pelosiquestion owes millions of dollars of back taxes and i want to know why nobody is doing anything about it and why only the republicans are getting sentenced to go to jail. i want to know why these other people are not. i feel that obama and clinton should be in prison because they have blood on their hands for , selling iranian to russia. iranian bombs. the democrats spend and spend then they get voted in and they lie to the people. we're going to do this, we are going to do that. they get in and they have their own agenda like dictatorships. guest: i think the overall point
is that there is a double standard out there and i think this plays into the liberal mainstream media. we know that most of the folks in the mainstream media tend to side on the liberal side of things. it is not a stretch to say the liberal mainstream media. because of that, it gives oxygen to a lot of what the democrats -- on issues like that rather than breitbart and some of the more conservative venues. it does not get as much oxygen or play. host: when they hear the estimated price tag of the green is something we will hear more from the republicans i suspect. guest: the president gave us a sneak peak during that to our extravaganza -- during that two hour extravaganza.
it was quite a speech whether you did not like it or liked it. the fact that he could speak for two hours at c-span. i called it etch-a-sketch because it was all over the place. i guarantee democrats were saying at that speech this guy is clueless, no idea what is going on. so many issues with donald trump but that speech right there is what could get donald trump elected. i understand democrats cannot figure it out. the truth of the matter with donald trump is when he goes off her,t and he is off prompt that is the most dangerous time for donald trump but also the reason he got elected and people should not discount that. deal, the green new democrats are providing economy material for donald trump for
2020 and the green new deal is a treasure trove of one-liners. host: our guest is david brody, author of the book, the faith of donald j. trump. what did you learn about him that he did not know? guest: a lot of things. me in an he told interview in the oval office in august 2017. he talked about how if he had never run for president, he never would have been in contact with all of these evangelicals that have come into his life and he said that had made a difference. i thought that was interesting because as i extrapolate throughout the book, it is cooperated by a lot of folks -- cooperate -- corroborated by a lot of folks. is he a work in progress? yes. i would include you and me and all of us out there. he is a rough new yorker who would not win the vote for
senior pastor of the year and he would not be at the top of list of boy scouts but a lot of folks get lost a lot in the donald trump we saw at cpac yesterday. he is a much different person in person. what i have been fascinated to understand is that most politicians want to kiss babies in public and show that compassionate side. donald trump wants to do the exact opposite. he does not want to see any of the softer side. he does want you to see the rough law and order part of donald trump because it is what he sells. host: this is what he said yesterday to supporters at cpac. [video clip] >> i am totally off script. thank you darling. you know i am totally off script right now. is how i got elected, by being off script. [cheering]
pres. trump: if we don't go off script, our country is in big trouble because we have to get it back. when i look at what is happening on the other side, i encourage it. i think the new green deal or whatever they call it. the green new deal, i encourage it. i think it is really something that they should promote. they should work hard on. it is something our country needs. i will take the other side of that argument only because i am mandated to.
they could stay with that argument. -- they should stay with that argument. no planes, no energy. ,hen the wind stops blowing that is the end of your electric. darling is the wind blowing today? i would like to watch television. host: you are smiling. guest: cue the 2020 election. everybody talks about how he lies all the time but the truth of the matter is, he got elected on authenticity. he is who he is. he is going to let it all hang out there. i am not talking about fact checkers, what he is specifically saying in different situations. i am talking about how he projects himself and shows himself to be very authentic. at quite a few of these network anchor luncheons and behind the scenes west wing
discussions with white house staff. it is off the record. you know what the funniest thing is? onwould love to have it all the record but his staffers want it off the record. about an hour to two hours later, most of us off the record, he is tweeting about it. he tweets about things that were just happening at that meeting. because he isut who he is in terms of what he wants to say and he just lets it rip. that is why get a two-hour speech at cpac. host: we carry that whole speech in its entirety. we will go to beth in north carolina, republican line who has been very patient. are you with us? caller: yes i am here. host: turn the volume down. caller: i am sorry.
host: go ahead. basically i think we are doing a big disservice when we always talk about pro-life and attach it to evangelical christians because this is an issue for all faiths. anyone who respects the sanctity of life and it is not an that our constitution puts life before liberty. with it is exception just one body, the woman's body. when the child is conceived, it is two bodies. guest: she is absolutely right. look at american catholics in this country today.
they just had a march for life rally. there are lots of them out there. this is being propelled a lot by catholics, american catholics, especially young american millennial catholics in this country, so i think that is a point. host: let's go to michael outside of rochester. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: doing fine. caller: i would like to say to your guest, i am a bit confused. the democratss if seem to enjoy abortion or something to that effect. that is far from the case. abortion is not enjoyable for anybody. it is something that should be an option.
something that is very difficult to discuss. i am glad we are discussing your right now, but it is not immoral. it is not whatever. it should be an objective thing. it should not be a right or left thing. host: and it is front and center. guest: i agree with the caller. of -- it isany sort a very serious issue and it is not just about the unborn. it is compassion for the folks going through it. i 100% agree with the caller on that. i think the distinction here is there is a difference from the pro-life perspective between abortion and what happens when that baby takes a breath. actually aborted baby comes out alive, then where does
the debate center and democrats are pretty much on record to say that protection is not there. the medical care protection is not there and that is the crux of the debate. no one is saying -- donald trump and others are trying to paint democrats as these horrible folks. they are not horrible. it is a very tough decision. small,ppens in that hundred folks or so that are born alive. what happens then? the 1.3% i believe is late-term abortions but if you go into the actual babies that are born alive after an abortion, about 500 or so in the last nine years , what do you do with that? it kind of shows you where everybody stands on it. host: here is how bernie sanders
addressed the issue yesterday in his announcement speech. [video clip] >> when we are in the white house, we are going to address sanders: when we are in theity white house, we will not only address the national disparity of wealth and income but also the racial disparity of wealth and income. we are going together to root out institutional racism wherever it exists. not only will we end the we will makeage, it easier. when we are in the white house, we are going to protect a woman's rights to control her own body. that decision is a woman's
decision. government, not the state government, not the local government. [cheers and applause] host: from yesterday's announcement by senator bernie sanders, and of course the contours of this debate not black and white, but based on what he is saying, where does this push the democrats? guest: very difficult for he says "right to control her body." ok, that has been the argument for a long time, that is pro-choice policy, but again, what happens when the baby is born alive and is now outside the woman's body? then what? that is a huge distinction. i understand democrats may say republicans are playing politics on this, because it is just 200 babies that are born, but way the right season is one, it is a life, one life to save would be enough to make a difference, and, two, they believe that this
whole thing started because some of the abortionists that have been out there, we have seen movies and all about that are in abortion clinics and allowing babies to die, that have been a lot of what the pro-life movement is about. that is what the movement is talking about, not these other more complicated matters. host: one final point before we let you go. there was a debate inside the across court about a dating back to world war i. it is in bladensburg, maryland, not far from washington, d.c. based on what we heard from reporters who were inside the courtroom, it sounds like the court is going to say keep the cross there. why is this important for evangelicals? guest: it all has to do with religious liberty, and evangelicals believe the culture has been attacked, has been under siege for a long time. this, along with the life issue,
along with the marriage issue, is all purée. they want to make sure that a timeicals get back to in america where religious liberty is respected, not just for evangelicals, but for all states groups. and donald trump has come a long, and leave it to god to have a sense of humor, he has been a fighter and a champion for religious liberty. host: david brody, his work is chief at cbn.com, broadcast for christian broadcast news, thank you. guest: thank you. host: in case you missed it, last night on nbc, there is an excerpt of the opening skit on "saturday night live." [video clip] >> you are watching c-span. sorry, i read that wrong. you are watching c-span?
michael cohen is about to give sworn testimony. [cheers and applause] >> all right, i would like to get this hearing underway. i would like this to stay professional, ok. please do not ooh and ahh. this is not married with children. also, this is all anyone cares about anymore. coming up, a performance by alexandria ocasio-cortez. [cheers and applause] if anyone believe this would be the most damning and humiliating moment of their lives, but for trump, it is just wednesday. let's hear it for my witness, michael cohen. [cheers and applause] thank you for joining us today, mr. cohen. >> i am sorry, who said that? [laughter] >> i am right here. i am right in front of you.
>> oh, there you are. thank you. >> mr. cohen, i understand you would like to read a statement. >> yes, your honor, if it pleases the court -- >> i am not a judge. >> i had some help from the guys who wrote "green book." [laughter] >> ok, you mus may begin. >> ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- >> not a court. [laughter] >> thank you for inviting me here today to correct the record under oath. of course, the first time i testified was also under oath, but this time, i, like, really mean it. [laughter] i am here today to tell you that mr. trump is a racist. [laughter] i thought that would be a bigger reaction. [laughter] host: a little fun on "saturday night live," courtesy of nbc, taking aim, in part, at this
network. hearingay, the full with michael cohen, the real hearing, is available on our website, c-span.org. thomas to welcome countryman, the former acting secretary of state, and now the chair of the arms control association. good morning and thank you for being with us today. guest: thank you, steve. host: with the summit that took place in hanoi, i want to get your perspective on the headline in the "new york times." >as president trump settled into , it wasg room already turning tense. at a dinner the evening before, mere feet from the bomb shelter where guests cover the vietnam war, he had resisted what mr. presented as a grand bargain. north korea would trade all of its north korean -- nuclear
weapons or an and to sanctions squeezing its economy. an american official later decided as a proposal to go big, a bet that president trump viewed as a view of himself as a consummate dealmaker where he would succeed where three have failed, but mr. trump's deal was essentially the same deal the u.s. had pushed for a quarter of a century. in the end, mr. trump went back to washington with nothing. arsenal will keep its standing while the two sides argued. there were only promises to keep talking. well, mr. sanger is a good reporter and has done a great job with this story getting some of the details that we previously not know, but i do not quite share his pessimistic conclusion that there was nothing accomplished at this summit. the result was disappointing, certainly, but it was not really
surprising, and it is not a disaster. if you go back to singapore when the two leaders met for the that time last june, meeting was not well prepared, and the result was a very ambiguous declaration that many thought leaned too heavily toward north korea's priorities. this time was different, and that gave me some optimism about the summit. have been intense meetings after many months of no real negotiations. there have been some good, intense meetings between the u.s. and north korea just in the last two months. there were still more intensive discussions in hanoi in the two days before the .eaders arrived i expected there would be a partial agreement, that is, something that would move the process forward, north korea taking some steps towards denuclearization, and the u.s. taking some steps to formally
end the korean war and moved to normalization. but when we got the two leaders actually in the room, it appeared that mr. trump, as the "times" article and others have reported, wanted to go big. "let's go for a great, big deal." that is his style. that is his confidence in himself that he can persuade anybody to make a really big deal. but when it became clear that that was not possible, i am disappointed that there was not -- a shall agreement partial agreement with steps from both sides that could have signaled more clear progress, and i think that is imparted to the poor preparation and the president's reliance only on himself and not on his very qualified team of advisers. the good news is this was not a breakup. kept their language
cool, made clear that they are going to keep talking, and i think there is room now to go back to a careful step-by-step process instead of one big agreement. host: but is there? because of the two leaders could not agree to this, why would you a ministerial level would reach some sort of agreement? guest: well, i think that the "times" article is correct. the big idea that mr. trump had a good one. normalize relations, good economic ties, complete denuclearization. but it is not new. it is the same thing that the previous four presidents have sought from north korea with some level of success and ultimately disappointment. president for trying something that the other previous presidents were unwilling to do, which was to engage directly with the north
korean leader, but the fact remains that the same deal about the u.s. has wanted for 25 years does not suddenly become more attractive to the north koreans when it comes from the likes of donald trump. host: we are talking about the aftermath of the u.s.-north korea summit that took place in hanoi. our phone minds are open, and we are open, and we're dividing our lines regionally. if you live in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. for those in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. this is another piece from tammy can, a frequent writer for the "new york times." " the summit was not so funny in seoul. koreans hoping for peace were crushed." guest: i think there is a mixed view in seoul as well. jae-in and south
korea has been a the central figure, more than president trump and chairman ken, in pushing for this progress over the last year. a relaxinges to see of the tensions between north and south and hopes to see ultimately some progress towards a real piece regime of my real peace treaty on the korean peninsula. host: so to that point, is it now up to seoul to be the point between washington and pyongyang? guest: not exactly. south korean diplomat c has been that we and it is clear do have a personal relationship between the u.s. and north korean leaders, and i hope it becomes clear after hanoi that north korea has now empowered its team to work with the u.s. team.
one of my criticisms of president trump's approach is that by making himself the focus, the only important person in the room, he has removed authority from his very qualified negotiators. host: our guest is tom countryman. we have you back after being with us last year. please give our audience your background, your work at the state department. guest: that is less interesting than hanoi, but i spent 35 years in the foreign service with the department of state, specializing in the middle east, europe, and in the last seven years of my term on international security issues , i was in charge of nonproliferation for six years in the last few months of the obama administration, i was acting undersecretary for arms control as well. host: and why did president
trump ask you to leave? guest: that have never been clear to me. if you can find an answer from the white house -- i was let go from the job administration one week after the inauguration, which was a personal liberation for me. i very much enjoy being retired. but i have been very critical not just about the inability of the white house to fill empty positions at the state department but the fact that the white house does not trust career diplomats who have served faithfully one president after another, whatever their party. and as a consequence, he is undermining the united states' influence around the world. host: with the president essentially defended kim jong-un armbiere death of otto w saying he did not know exactly what happened, what was your reaction? guest: well, the most positive thing i can say about it is he hetrying to preserve us what
has described as his "romance" with kim jong-un and did not want to say anything bad about him, but of course it is disheartening that the president believes the word of dictators, whether it is kim jong-un or vladimir putin or any other dictator you can name, and yet shows distrust and disrespect for the democratically elected leaders who have been the closest u.s. supporters throughout the last 70 years. host: and of course the otto warmbier family quick to respond, saying kim jong-un was responsible for the death of their son. uva and student at québec essentially in a coma, where he died a few days after his return to the u.s. addressing that yesterday at the cpac conference. [video clip] pres. trump: as you know, i just returned from vietnam, where i had very productive meetings with chairman kim jong-un.
very productive. we got along. we developed a good relationship, very good, and process., historic i get a kick out of people in administrations, "donald trump should not be doing this or that," they tell me how to negotiate. one administration gave billions of dollars to him and got nothing! and we have not given him anything yet. i look forward to may be doing something at some point, but i know one thing -- i am going to give other countries to give, maybe not us, but i am going to get other countries to give it all works out. if it all works out. but i had to walk, because every once in a while, you have to walk. because the deal was not a deal. it was unacceptable to me. i do not like the deals that these politicians make. they make a deal just for the sake of doing it. i don't like doing that.
i want to do it if it works. if not, let's not make it. but one of the things we have done as we have no testing, no missiles going up, no rockets going up, no nuclear testing. we got our great people back. we got our great, great people, and that includes our beautiful, otto warmbier, whose parents i've gotten to know, who are incredible, and i am in such a horrible position, because, in one way, i have to negotiate. in the other way, i love mr. and otto,armbier, and i love and it is a very delicate balance. host: thomas countryman, as you hear the president's reaction -- president yesterday, what is your reaction? guest: coming back in a coma is expect whenng you
you're in a north korean prison. the president made so many other mistakes in the short clip about the history of negotiations with north korea. other administrations have tried the same approach except for engaging at the leader level, and with success, for a time, the agreed framework in 1994 actually stop the plutonium production necessary to make nuclear weapons for a of eight years. -- for a period of eight years. it was the george bush administration, led by john bolton, who tore up that framework, because north korea had been cheating on other partners, and that is when north korea resumed plutonium production and decimated its first nuclear weapon. so the president's statement about other administrations are as accurate as his other statements. warmbier,with otto
him saying he does not know his torture and the state of his condition. guest: i have to assume that the north korea would have been aware of this, because it was an issue that was not only big in headlines but one on which the united states has repeatedly approached north korean authorities from the very beginning of his detention. host: so did the president lied? is in as he said, he a very tough position of your has told much bigger whoppers than that one. james.et's go to good morning here you're on with ambassador tom countryman. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to ask you with this debacle with north korea, scared forlook more
the american people and the surrounding countries that this man is not going to give up his nukes? guest: it is a great question. should we be more afraid about the risk of military conflict after the failure of this summit? answer is, obviously, yes, a ittle bit more afraid, but think i am less worried of and i was a year and a half ago when wereresident and mr. kim threatening each other with nuclear destruction and speaking language.heated i am thankful that we are not going to go back to that situation, so at least for the moment, we have less of a risk of a military conflict in korea than we were facing i would say at the end of 2017. host: what do you know about the nuclear complex?
this is a photo of from the "new york times." guest: young young has been at the center of north korea and weapons production for, i think, three decades. they a place where operated a small nuclear reactor , used the spent fuel that they took out of the reactor to extract plutonium, and that is the core reactor that they have decimated, and then they also began more recently began in the enrich uranium, a enrichum or enriched- or an uranium path. the dismantlement of yongbyon
would be a very big step, because it is at the heart of its production, but it is not at the only component of the nuclear weapons component, and i think that is one of the things that the u.s. negotiators tried to pin down in the days before speakingt, are you about only one geographic area that contains about 300 buildings, or are you talking about the other side that you have not previously disclosed to the world? host: so if it was just that one facility, and if the president said in return, we will limit some of the sections, we will reduce some of the sanctions, but still keep some in place, would that have been a good targeting tool? are obviously 10 other questions to ask about it, but based on that short description, i could see a deal along those lines. if north korea shuddered young
yongbyon, and nothing else was operating there, i think it would be worthwhile for easing u.s. sanctions and allowing north korea and south korea to have more economic interactions. but that is not what mr. kim was asking for. he was asking for the lifting of united nations sanctions, which are different from u.s. sanctions. once those united nations sanctions were lifted, i think it would be very difficult to put them on again. if you just look at the deal the way mr. trump describes it, and he did not describe it with perfect accuracy, but close enough, north korea was offering something reversible and asking for something that was irreversible, permanent, and very big.
thatu look at that, simply, it was correct for the president not to accept that offer. host: another piece from josh in the "washington post," he writes the following "the trump administration officials failurently save the means there was no choice but to fair try.ethod a trans approach has failed. pyongyang is happily reaching -- reaping the rewards. " let's go to jeremy. good morning. thank you, c-span, for standing for democracy and our freedoms. i was just listening, and oh, my god, i think people are getting
tired of saying "i told you so." interested in peace or the west, he is interested in getting what he can for himself by giving up nothing in return. while trump leaves empty-handed, at a minimum, kim is able to go back to this people and say, "you know what, your dear leader has the attention of the american president." him in his role in the eyes of his people, who already see him as a god. we know this is an established pattern of behavior for not just himself but his family as well for three generations. is the trump me administration vis-à-vis north korea, which is surprising, given the lower standards. i mean come on north korea got
exactly what they wanted out of all of this, because there are photo op. he can go back to the american people and show how the nuclear arsenal brought america back to the negotiating table. i think trump was play in yet again. he really thinks that dealmaking is just a matter of having a good relationship with our adversary. this president, the avatar of narcissism, really thinks he can make deals, and the tyrants of the war know how to exploit this and have done so. host: jeremy, thank you for your call, here in washington. guest: ok. i think we should be careful not to overreact. you know if there had been even a small agreement in hanoi, the president would have come back and said it demonstrates what a genius he is and what a great diplomat. that would be an exaggeration. when we have no agreement, i think those who are critics of the president -- and i count myself as a critic of the president -- should avoid
exaggeration. it does not demonstrate the complete failure of the effort that he has made. anys fairly normal in diplomatic process to have setbacks, to have successful meetings and unsuccessful meetings. to i think is important is continue to give encouragement in one of the very few areas of foreign policy where i see this president attempting to improve national security by reducing the risk at north korea. so the criticism of whether mr. trump can be pulled or not is, i think, a separate topic. what is important is -- will both sides learn from this and do a lot more work at a level below the national leader before they put their two leaders back
into that kind of make or break position? that is where i hope we can do going forward, and i am determined to remain optimistic about that. host: we welcome our radio audience, reminding our listeners that we are talking to thomas countryman. he spent more than three decades as a career foreign service officer. he is now the chair of the arms control association and serving as a form policy for america advisor. otis in south carolina, good morning. [no audio] good morning. -- caller: good morning. thank you for accepting my call. host: sure. caller: i have a question for mr. countryman, is it true that the obama administration sold them, or is it just propaganda? is justes, it propaganda.
there is no shortage of uranium in the world. plenty, the have americans have plenty. there is uranium mining in the united states, but uranium is not a commodity that either russia or the united states have been a shortage of. host: we will go to catherine in st. joseph, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. bring out thato other presidents, you know, when they havenegotiated, not negotiated any faster. sometimes it has taken 45 times of negotiations to come to a decision. and i think we forget that there has been some progress. we have gotten some of our veterans back, or our military backed that were there.
bodies, i should say, or remains. and also they stopped their testing. some of you had said the things that the president are inaccurate, i wonder who is giving him the information that he uses? and i wonder if there is still somebody in his administration that is advising him wrongly so um,oes look, um, badly to, to us. host: catherine, thank you. we will get a response. guest: first, i very much appreciate your point, that negotiations like the us usually -- like these usually take years. and of course there is no negotiation like this. the obama administration worked for years on the so-called iran nuclear deal, which was 100
agreementler than the with north korea will be, if we ever get there, because iran did not have any nuclear weapons and was not close to producing a nuclear weapon. so if you take that as a relatively simple case compared to north korea, and look at how long it took, how many setbacks a goodere, and how still deal that stopping nuclear development is still criticized,, you will appreciate how hard the deal was with north korea. so i do appreciate that as well. i also think it is very important that the north koreans provocative the actions of testing nuclear weapons and missiles. that has done a lot to lower tensions on the peninsula. in return, mr. trump has now large-scalecanceled
exercises that the u.s. military does with south korean forces. that also has reduced tensions. but neither of those yet are the kind of significant steps that will really get us to a permanent solution. as i said before, i am determined to stay optimistic that the u.s. will learn something. the president does have good advisors, some of them, particularly mr. bolton, are especially skeptical of north korean, and have talked in the past about using military force against north korea. i think the problem, when the president makes inaccurate statements, is that he is not a detailed guide. lot, he is read a not close to mastering the details of north korea's program , not so interested in history, casualpeaks in a very
manner that leads to rather inaccurate statements. i will leave it at that. nuclear the issue of a north korea, here is the leader of north korea in hanoi, through a translator. [video clip] kim jong-un: [speaking corian] translator: if i were not interested, i would not be here right now. [laughter] way, that one sentence from kim jong-un was perhaps the most interesting summit, "ifin this i were not willing to denuclearize, i would not be here right now." given today'sat situation, the north koreans are not willing to give up their nuclear weapons, and that is unitedng that all of the
states intelligence agencies have agreed on and have said to is toss, but the business change all of the calculations. i cannot imagine that six months or a year from now, north korea will be willing to give up all of its nuclear capabilities, but i can't imagine a situation in which with careful, step-by-step , you getoth countries to a situation where mr. kim does not any longer believe that his personal security and the independence of his country depend upon possessing nuclear weapons. that sounds far-fetched right now, but we have seen those kind of changes in other countries in the past. e, takes a lot of patienc and that is why i think that the president's big approach, go big approach in hanoi was not accepted by the north koreans. host: a very quick follow-up,
and then we will go back to calls. a third summit, could you envision kim jong-un coming to the united states? guest: i can picture it. i think it is much too early to speculate on that, but it is not impossible. host: let's go to michelle in los angeles. thank you for waiting, michelle. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is a two-parter. no place in understanding but only in expressing personal opinions. my question is why normalization with north korea and not cuba or iran, where he tore up the agreement? no continuity, it seems. host: thank you, michelle. guest: well, i think you're correct, that neither cuba nor iran are as nasty violators of human rights as north korea is. we have real issues with both of them.
i think one reason that the president is hostile with cuba and to the irans is because president obama made progress with those two countries, and nothing defines the trump presidency more than trying to undo everything that president obama did. why he chose north korea as his signature effort in foreign policy, i cannot tell you. than a more urgent issue iran or cuba. neither itron nor cuba have the to strike at the u.s. homelands or at u.s. bases overseas with nuclear weapons, but north korea does, so it should be a higher priority. but i agree with you that the kind of effort we are making with north korea demonstrates withyou can talk countries, even when you have serious disagreements about
major policy issues. we should take that approach as well with cuba and with iran. host: ambassador countryman, our next call is from silver spring, maryland. john, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't even know where to start. first of all, why think when you are making a deal like this, you should do some homework. he knows that he needs to send the best and the brightest to sit down with north korea, see if what they are asking for is agreeable. when the president usually goes places like this, he goes to ceremonies to sign the deal with another president. i believe that this president usually does things his way, and we have a foreign secretary who is incompetent, that he thinks he can go a couple times to north korea and make a deal with them. think about one minute, the previous administrations, they could not handle this gentleman. he could not work with them.
why do we think that north korea is going to work with donald, knowing that he wants to do it this way? because of this president is not listening to his advisors, and people who knew better than him, we cannot have a deal. goes to vietnam, it is supposed to be something that they already agreed and signed a deal, but we have incompetent foreign secretaries who is a yes man, who is just doing what donald trump wants. host: john, thank you for your call. guest: john, you are absolutely correct. that is the more usual way that such a summit happens. that the result of pre-negotiating, and the leaders do not go there to close the hardest part of the deal, they know what the deal is, what the agreement will be, and they talk about how to implement it and how to build upon it. that is the usual model for a summit. now, i do not criticize the president for ignoring the usual
model and trying something different with north korea, but i am disappointed that there was not better preparation of the kind that you described. host: we had a story over the weekend, the so-called working with the u.s. military and our allies, including south korea, going to be scaled back somewhat. let's listen in. [video clip] >> well, the significance -- that.are two parts to one is -- does it contribute to the atmosphere for discussions with north korea? in the second is -- how does it affect south korea? for the discussions with north korea, the president seems to want to do something to sustain some momentum to demonstrate that we still have a way forward in negotiations with north korea. be criticism will from some people that he did not need to do that. he did not get something specific in return for that particular move.
how much does it affect our ability, the u.s. military and the republic of korea military, how much does the suspension of exercises affect their ability to defend south korea? militaryou need a good expert on that. we have substantial forces, 28,000 great americans, serving proudly the u.s. military in the republic of korea, and the south korean military force, in a conventional sense, is stronger than the north korean military. over time, that advantage could we do not do enough training exercises together. my own guess, not as a military expert, is to say that this suspension of large-scale exercises will not have an immediate effect on our preparedness. host: we will go to anderson,
california next. howie, good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i imagine that you were in the bush administration, too, gw's, right? do you think it would be proper for another country to make the claim that george bush, because ,f what went on in abu ghraib was aware of everything that was going on there and knew what was happening and was responsible for the torture of people that were there? a foreignou expect country to, um, you know, respond with -- we expect you to whatt responsibility for went on and take blame for what went on, but i don't think we really expect that we would be saying that george bush was responsible for the atrocities that went on there.
host: how we, thank you for the call. guest: that is an interesting question. i did serve in the bush administration during the bush presidency. i was mostly overseas at embassies in europe. theing aside the fact that invasion of iraq in 2003 was the greatest foreign-policy mistake that the u.s. has made in the last 40 or 50 years, and has led to real disastrous consequences in the middle east, on the particular question about abu ghraib, i think you make an interesting point, but it is not the same. abu -- there was so much happening in iraq at the time, and there were not individuals raising the issue of iraqi prisoners directly with the leadership of the u.s. government. when you compare that to otto there were u.s.
government officials, press, humanitarian organizations that were directly raising mr. warm ier's case at the top level of the north korean government. i think there is a different expectation of awareness, but i do find your point interesting. know mr. countryman, you the test welcome of a foreign service officers exam. it is now reaching a new low, the lowest level since 2008, in a decade, and has come to a significantly the trump administration. this tells you what? guest: this article was very interesting. it refers to the number of americans, mostly young americans, who enter the process of becoming a foreign service officer. it starts with a very difficult, that lesswritten test than 10% of those who take it pass.
and a number of people interested in making the choice i did, serving our country not in uniform but in foreign policy around the world, it rose very shortly after september 11, 2001, and now what has declined rather sharply in the first two months of the trump administration. it could be economic factors related to the job market behind that decline, but i think the article that you mentioned in correctlyefers to the demoralization that the wont toite house is cause in the state department, that fewer people see this as a career where they can do meaningful work in public service to their country. it is real, patriotic work. negative.all there are still many thousands to take the test, more than there are jobs available every
year, and those who are still in the department, having gone through this rigorous selection process, are bright, capable, stepping up, and i hope that people do not leave the department, unless they are forced to, because the nation will continue to rely on their skill. eventually, there will be a president and a white house who have some respect for federal workers, and then they will have a more important role again. host: we will go to northbrook illinois, outside of chicago. bill. caller: good morning. have one little statement, and that i have my question, but i would like you to respond to both. mr. trump, going kim, it hasg mr.
taken the argument off the table diplomacy hasat not been attempted. if he goes to japan and to the united states, the argument that diplomacy has not been tried, i believe, has been removed. my question is, the u.n. and the u.s. sanctions, what are they actually doing in terms of the gross national product of north korea? of constraint are those sanctions achieving? i mean, are they really severe? they might prompt korea to lash secondke japan in the world war, or are these just irritants? host: thank you for your call. guest: interesting points.
on the first, if we get to a situation where mr. kim goes and to military threats provocations, you are correct that he will say "i tried diplomacy, it did not work." he hinted at that in his new year's speech this year. i do not think that will be the most important factor, either driving his decision or driving but youd's response, are right come as a rhetorical argument, he will use that. the sanctions point is interesting. entirely was not accurate when he said that north korea asked for the lifting of sanctions. the north korean foreign minister said no, we wanted notial lifting, but he was being entirely accurate, either. what the north koreans asked for most lifting of the
important sanctions. since 2016, the un security council has imposed economic sanctions. measures to correct the north korean economy and get them to change their policy on nuclear weapons, so this has affected the import of energy from china into north korea, and it has affected the export of seafood, and textiles, and coal, and other minerals from north korea. i do not know that there exists reliable estimates on how much this has shrunk the north korean economy, but without question, it has a significant effect, and the fact that north korea put this at the top of its list, ahead of a declaration about the end of the war, more important than establishing embassies in the two countries, they put as their most desired u.s. step to
be the lifting of sanctions, i think that demonstrates it is significantly squeezing the north korean economy. much lessueeze it if china and russia do not enforce the sanctions, as they are obliged to do, but the chinese, in particular, sometimes are straight, sometimes are lenient in enforcement of sanctions, and lately, they have become more playing it. host: from south dakota, ray, you are next with tom countryman. good morning. caller: my name is kay. host: good morning, kay. caller: [laughs] i have a question going back to that year of the korean war. we know that communist countries then controlled north korea, as they still do.
continuedhas done -- to try to make a deal with them. and to the history of our country, to date, my brother north korea ever signed a peace treaty with the united states. why do we keep trying to send trump over there to do something? he is never going to do it. host: thank you for the call. we will get a response. guest: well, first i hope that you would give warm greetings from me and i think millions of other americans to the veterans of civil war there in south dakota. it is a conflict that i think too many americans took for granted, but we lost tens of thousands of great american servicemen in korea, fighting against communism, fighting for democratic government in south
korea, and they will always have my appreciation. it is correct that there was never a formal peace treaty to end the korean war. there is an armistice that governs the relationship along the border, along the demilitarized zone, but it will be valuable for both the north koreans and the south koreans to have a formal peace treaty and to say hostilities are definitely ended. should be a relatively easy thing for the u.s. to do, to make a declaration that this war is over, and to say we have no intention, no hostile intention towards north korea, and i expect that the president would have done that in hanoi.
it is a different question, it is another level of complication to negotiate an actual treaty and formally ends the war, that would have to involve china, which was a combatant in that war, and it would have to involve the united nations as well. and that is not something that can be done in a very short time. but it is still part of the treating aation of normal relationship with north korea in exchange for the giving up their most dangerous weapons. host: our topic, north korea, the summit in hanoi, vietnam. what is next? our guest is tom countryman. bob is joining us from michigan. good morning. caller: i would like to point out a different theory as to why north korea will never give up their nuclear weapons. for one reason, no country that has finally put together nuclear
weapons, and i'm using pakistan, israel, and india as an example, they have never given them up. in fact, they continue to produce them. we got off easy with iran. we were able to get a 15-year respite. well, that is gone now. i am also going to put this theory to you. i do not think north korea fears the u.s. fear hawaii or't alaska, you know, but i think their main fear is china and japan. china because they left them their leanings in terms of economics, and japan, because, i have got to tell you, when i saw blew,fukushima ii, when it and the government's reticence to get involved in the cleanup and hiding that disaster for as long as it did, that is a
plutonium producing pond right there. host: thank you, bob. guest: well, on the second korea doesink north view the united states as the greatest threat, and they have a it.ber of reasons for accurate canpeople in the u.s. remember how completely destroyed north korea was in the korean war by u.s. and allied bombing. be more devastating than south korea. ,nd the north korean regime through the last three generations, kept alive the resentment and hatred of the united states as a propaganda tool to support their own regime. the northery deep in korean psychology that the united states is an enemy.
and it is only in the last year that we have seen some change in the public propaganda narrative. i do not think that north korea views china as a threat, but they do view china as an annoying big brother, who is always trying to tell them what to do, and mr. kim, as much as have done their best to exert some independence from china, while at the same time, trying to make the best of their economic connections with china. they do worry about south korea, and they do worry about japan, but their psychological and military focus has very much been on the united states and its military forces in the region. host: but to that point, dozens north korea need china when it comes to its trade policies and
its support, infrastructure support, to survive as a country? guest: yes, it does. 90's are -- 90% of north korea's trade goes through china, heavily dependent on china for energy imports. host: we go to minnesota next. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. mr. countryman, this is fascinating. i want to approach it from a different angle, and this is a great segue for what you just said, the resentment and the hatred for the u.s. for the bombing over all these years that have been maintained. that approach is not meant nuclear standpoint, from a humanitarian standpoint. wouldn't it be in mr. kim tog-un's interest demonstrate a love for his own show the world that he
loves his own people and treat them with respect, and then maybe we can reach these other points more diplomatically? host: thank you. guest: you certainly have put your finger on what makes north korea may be the worst place to live in the world. chainistence of a gulag, of concentration camps that imprisoned hundreds of thousands of north koreans, widespread hunger, inadequate agriculture production, repression of independent expression. i would love it if mr. kim would theseto ease up on things, to allow more humanitarian aid into the country and to allow people to get out of these prison camps. but he has been very clear that his first priority is the security of his regime, and if
that can be firmly established, as he thinks he is doing with the creation of nuclear weapons, then we can talk about economic growth and opening up the economy. he has never spoken, to my knowledge, about respecting individual liberties and reducing repression in north korea. it is what he should do -- no question -- but it is not on his to-do list. host: jeanette here in washington, d.c., good morning. caller: good morning. my question or something i am wondering about is sort of where in u.s. fits -- u.n. fits with all of this regarding north korea feared i was very touched by what happened with otto warmbier. it seems to me, if i recall correctly, that nikki haley kind of suddenly left the u.n. on a
friday, and within the next week , he was being returned to his family. i just wondered -- were there any kind of repercussions that they may suffer for the human rights abuses? do we have other people there in north korea? and also, do we have people from north korea that we may have, you know, holding here in prisons or detaining or what have you? host: thank you for the call. guest: i am not aware of any north koreans being held in the u.s. i am not aware of any u.s. whozens, at this moment, are being detained by north korea. foolish for any american citizen to visit north korea, because of this history of taking american citizens hostage on phony pretext and using them as bargaining chips in negotiations with the u.s. host: even now after these two summits? outcome woulde
still not go to north korea as a private citizen. the role of the united nations nuclearo much in the talks, but the u.n. human rights commission has long been investigating the human rights situation in north korea and has issued a truly damming reports about the status of political prisoners and the repression of individual liberties. a very interesting debate going on among many of my colleagues and for their colleagues in government as to the president should talk about human rights when he talks to the leader of north korea. so far, this residence is not talk about human rights, except in countries that he does not iran and cuba, so i do not expect him to change, but there are serious people who
believe that unless the u.s. puts human rights into the discussion as well, we cannot get to a permanent, lasting, normal state with north korea. host: thomas countryman, a career foreign service officer and now the chair of the arms control association and advisor with the organization foreign policy for america, thank you ray much for stopping by. guest: thank you, steve. host: excellent questions. i think everybody across the u.s. host: i hope you will come back again. reminder, we begin the conversation every day at 7:00 a.m., 4:00 on those of the west coast. week,g ahead at a busy and thereene of axios philadelphia inquirer is jonathan to marry. --jonathan tamari. here to talk about
credit rating agencies. that is tomorrow at 7:00 a.m., 4:00 a.m. on the west coast. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] a reminder, senator cory booker is running behind in selma, alabama. our live coverage begins as soon as the event begins. here >> we want to welcome for the very first time, hannah trudeau. she covers politics for the national journal. >> thank you for having me. >> bernie sanders officially in this race. there are 11 more expected to enter. to the his path to get democratic nomination? guest: his path is reclaiming that progressive base that he ginned up support of an 2016 and expanding that. the party has moved in this direction since the 2016 election. he is looking to capitalize on the support that he has