tv Washington Journal 03242019 CSPAN March 24, 2019 7:00am-10:05am EDT
eastern, senator kirsten gillibrand delivers a delivers a speech to supporters outside trump international hotel in new york city. ♪ host: good morning. a live view of the u.s. capitol as congress returns this week. the report by special counsel robert mueller, with friday submission to the attorney general. questions continue on what is in the mueller report and whether it will be released to the public. morning, march 24. we will break it down and get your reaction. attention shifting from the special counsel's office to the attorney general, bill barr. his office has spent the weekend coming through the report with the expectation congress will have a summary that could come later today.
median join us on social @cspanwj and give us a phone call at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. on facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan. this is from the outlook section of the washington post, with some historical perspective. the senate watergate investigation, the watergate report by the special prosecutor, the iran-contra final report, the starr report, now the mueller report. let's begin with sarah lynch, following all of this for reuters with a headline how much of the mueller report must the attorney general release? she is joining us on the phone this sunday morning. first, what happens next? guest: thanks for having me on today. the next step is going to be what barr has said will be a
summary of the findings. there may be details we will not see in this. it appears, based on the letter he sent to congress on friday, that there are going to be several stages to this. the first could come as soon as today and that would be topline findings. it would hopefully enter some of -- answer some of america's burning questions, like was there collusion. there may be another stage discussed in his letter on friday. that is going to be a trickier part and involve looking at information that may not be made public but could be in the interest of public interests such as whether there were certain individuals that they declined to prosecute and why. we will hopefully as soon as today, maybe early in the week. we will get at least some findings this week. host: when you say topline, how will that be released? guest: at this point, i think they are planning to do --
of principalmary findings to the key committee members. chairman and the ranking members of the house judiciary committee and the senate judiciary committee and presumably a copy as well to leadership and to the white house and reporters. most reporters are going in to the justice department or their offices and we will -- believe it will be electronically transmitted as soon as today. host: this is from the washington examiner, an opinion piece. it has the following summary -- five things that did not happen in the mueller investigation. first, miller did not indict donald trump, jr., jared kushner, or other people who were reportedly in legal jeopardy. he did not charge anyone in the trump campaign or circle with
conspiring with russia to fix the 2016 election. mueller did not subpoena the president, the president did not fire mueller, the president did not interfere with the mueller investigation. your reaction? guest: that is true. we have been told by senior justice official that there will not be any more indictments expected out of the mueller investigation. the mueller investigation's mandate was pretty clear, although i also know some of that is still confidential. we only have a public version with the mandate was. there was a second, more detailed version issued in august 2016 -- 2017. with all of that said, we have to remember that there is a lot of unknown factors. as mueller was doing this investigation and came across various other potential violations, most notably in new york, and that is the office
that brought the primary charges against the president's former attorney michael cohen. we know that office is still actively investigating other parts of the trump business, as well as the presidential inaugural committee. we know state prosecutors in new york are looking at the trump foundation. i would not jump to the conclusion that this is over. the mueller investigation is over. that is what this means by this report being completed, but there are many other unknown factors that have not come to light. host: we are talking with sarah lynch, a criminal justice reporter for reuters. nancy pelosi says no way does she want a classified briefing. she wants this open and in the public. explain why that is important. -- i do lot of people not know if republicans would agree -- but most democrats would say it is important informationsified
will not be released to the public unless there was a special exception made. we have seen that done before. it will be a difficult question for attorneys at the justice department. a lot of information in this report could potentially be confidential. there could be classified information, which could be , and inspire a process of working with other intelligence agencies. information such as grand jury material that bylaw it is a crime for government attorneys and staff to release grand jury material. i do not know how they would handle that. at least one testimony in the past, we had a special prosecutor that released that to congress but not the public. that is tricky. there are other issues that could come to light, like executive privilege. even though trump was not
subpoenaed, nor was he interviewed, he did answer written questions to the special counsel. i think one question is whether he was truthful in answering , of which i'm sure he had a lot of assistance from lawyers. why she is concerned is because that was behind closed doors and it is possible that members of congress can be briefed on classified information without a meaning the near termc in would have access to what they had to learn. host: are there lessons from the starr report or the iran-contra investigation? reports were not all immediately released. the starr report was probably the fastest one. in that case he gave it to congress and they voted to release it. that was under a different
mandate and so was the iran-contra. we had a different law on the books and the special prosecutor or independent prosecutor was supposed to turn it over to a court who then decide whether to release it. here we are dealing with a different set of regulations. special counsel robert mueller is the second person in history who has ever been appointed under these rules, which are internal justice department rules. those rules say that the special counsel's investigative report is confidential and once it is handed over to the attorney general the attorney general in his power or her power has the authority to decide what to ,elease, what not to release and it has to be along the lines of what is already allowed under justice department rules and regulations. that is why grand jury material cannot be released because that is a violation of law.
we are dealing with a different set of circumstances. host: the attorney general is scheduled at some point to brief the administration on the findings. the president is spending the weekend at mar-a-lago. how will that go down? how will the white house be notified? guest: it will be different. on friday, what ended up happening was there was an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs who physically went over to capitol hill to hand actual paper copies to the staffers for the judiciary committee and then an electronic copy was set to the leadership. at the same time, the chief of called anbill barr attorney for trump. believe the plan now will be to do this electronically. we will be getting, at some point, as soon as today, an electronic copy of the principal
findings. i would imagine, although i do not know for sure, that there would be a call to the point person handling this matter for president trump. host: you alluded to this a moment ago, but what is your day going to be like? guest: i am definitely going to go into the justice department just in case. my colleague andy sullivan who covers the justice department was there yesterday. we will have a lot reporters going there today in case it happens today. said it general barr could happen as soon as this weekend. we are all on pins and needles. last week, all the reporters covering the justice department were chained to our desks waiting to see if the report had been completed. now we are doing the same thing
waiting for the summary findings. host: sarah lynch, who covers the justice department for reuters. this is exciting how much of the mueller report must the -- explaining how much of the mueller report must the attorney general disclose. interested, the wall street journal has a timeline of what happened according to mueller. the full two year breakdown is available at wsj.com. this is from richard rogers, who said putin helps the trump campaign and hurt the clinton campaign kerry what is that about? in theess of what is mueller report, the trump administration has been damaged -- has damaged american democracy. lacey is first from bristow, timothy -- tennessee, democrats line. caller: good morning.
as far as what is to come, very little because everybody knows why he chose barr for attorney general. there will be little to come from that course. will be beating their heads off. i do not think there is anything more to come of it. he has most of his people brainwashed and i do not think he can crack it. host: on the republican line, james from walker, louisiana. caller: reuters, really? do you even have a tinge of shame or guilt for your role in propagating this attack on the president? you and your friends in the media for two years have lied to the american people about a phony russian collusion story to try to win hillary back an election that she lost and your network has been anti-trump since 2015.
host: with all due respect, give some examples. forer: i can give examples your guest selection for the last three years. it has been 99% anti-trump, 1% semi defender of trump. every conservative you have brought on has been bill kristol or bill kristol junior. yourhould go to jail for treasonous actions against the president of the united states and there will be hell to pay for a lot of people. brian lamb and susan swain are in it up to their next. i hope you pay the price. host: james from walker, louisiana. certainly you know we cover all sides and it is all available in the video library, including every single event the president has covered, every news conference, every administration event. we will go on to mike from wisconsin.
caller: i sat next to paul ryan in sunday mass. nice guy. first thing want to say is i cannot believe anybody would think that you are partisan, steve. they just -- i just want to mention that. i did not call to tell you that. i was shocked that there was not our system --s indictments. our system in the united states, i do not know how anybody in any other country could not totally admire what has happened with .his process and the integrity all sides didm not affect with the truth was an
i was shocked. i was shocked that trump did not do anything wrong in that limited scope, and the system works. host: thanks for the call. we will go to a caller north carolina, rob, independent line. caller: how are you doing? thanks for taking my call. look, i have got to say that our economy is not doing too bad. inhave to say that isis syria and iraq and that region and from what we have gone through since 9/11 has been demonized and diminished. i want to say a prayer for the american people. i would like to say also that everybody needs to go out tomorrow and do a good deed for their neighbor and have tolerance and love for anybody
that has any difference of opinion and have a good conversation and be able to revel in the day and thanked god for it and god bless you and god bless the united states. post.this from washington the battle over the mueller report begins and trump allies claim victory. that is available on the front page of today's washington post. the political showdown over the russia investigation that could reshape the remainder president trump's term began in earnest saturday even before the special counsel's conclusions were known to the public as trump allies claim vindication while democrats demand transparency and vowed to intensify their own probe. trump and his attorneys and aides were clouded by uncertainty because they did not yet know the contents of robert .ueller's report
attorney general bill barr and justice department officials spent saturday privately reviewing. in florida, trump exuded optimism while playing golf and chatting with friends. he also exhibited uncharacteristic caution, refraining from publicly crowing that the witchhunt was over or declaring victory prematurely. there was widespread ignition that the -- recognition that the mueller report could still contain damaging information for the president and his legal troubles are far from over, with separate investigation into his businesses, the inaugural continuing in new york and capitol hill. the political battle ahead took form. the mood among democrats was tense and urgent and among republicans the calls for caution did not seem to reach the ears of trump's allies, who took a victory lap on his behalf. the full story is available at washingtonpost.com.
jeffrey is next from st. petersburg, florida, on the democrats line. caller: thank you. it is a great conversation. that the report -- i think madeny that the russians great efforts to interfere with warfaretion via cyber and bots is to deny that we are not experiencing climate change, which is like saying that the earth is flat. they did attack us and they probably allowed donald trump to become president. i do not think that donald trump is involved at a conspiracy with putin. the reason i say that is that i is an intelligent,
cold-blooded professional who has been doing this kind of thing for decades. an ignorant,is rank amateur who i would not want him involved in a conspiracy with me because he would be tweeting about it the next day. relighting that letter on air force one surrounded by witnesses. this guy is such a bad criminal. mark williams has this tweet in response to an earlier caller -- amazed by the callers. it seems they want to see and hear their beliefs and opinions only. into washington journal in order to hear from most peaceful political groups. join the conversation on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. we are getting your reaction to
the holding period we are in with the euler report now that it is in the hands of attorney general william barr, with the expectation that we could get more details or a summary released today by the justice department as key members of congress get a hold of what is in that document. the house and senate are back this week, so this will be the issue that will dominate conversation. alan, independent line. it is almost like we are heuristic in our thoughts and reasoning in trying to look at things objectively. i think american citizens should try to educate themselves. listen to public radio. i listened to and -- msnbc, cnbc, cnn, fox. i read a lot and i think we owe that. it is like we are on the final four and our teams are divided up and we are at each other's throats. really trying to rationally reason out what is going on
of being a kid when people started beating each other over the head with a chair versus a rational discourse on what is going on. the russians have interfered and they have us at each other's throats and trying to blame this or that is a dysfunctional family. democratic presidential candidates also reacting to the mueller report and calling for to be made available to the public. ,irst from kamala harris democrat from california -- releasing the mueller report is about protecting our democracy and the people's confidence in our elections and government. the white house must not interfere. give the information to the american people. that is from senator harris. this from senator elizabeth warren -- we need to make sure the rubber mueller report is released to the american public. this investigation has already resulted in dozens of indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas. sign our petition to make the eula report public.
former housing secretary in the obama white house julian castro -- the american people deserve to know the full truth about russian interference in our democracy. the special counsel's report must be released in its entirety. -- thenator cory booker trump administration should not get to lock up the robert mueller report and throw away the key. taxpayers funded this investigation and deserve to know the outcome. let me know if you agree. the estimate of the investigation in excess of $25 million according to the new york times. on the republican line, earl, california. caller: good morning, america. -- weards to the report now have found out after two years of digging into this cornernt's every dark that the man was innocent. i really take offense.
i am an avid supporter of our president. i'm a volunteer vietnam veteran. have had 14 agent orange surgeries. i want you to know -- maybe that does not mean anything to anybody, but i want you to know that i'm not calling to crow about this report. and i take won offense to anybody calling our president a crook like the previous caller. shame of -- on you, especially after all that man and his family have been put through. i pray for the president every day. i pray for his family, his cabinet, and their families. there was collusion with russia. it was on the clinton side and it is all going to come out. get ready to take a big red pill. host: this headline from speaker pelosi
rejecting any classified briefings on the mueller report. she wants everything to be made public. she did so yesterday in a conference call with reporters. james is next from raleigh, north carolina, democrats line. i want to apologize for the gentleman that called earlier and disrespected you. host: don't worry about it. we get it all the time. i am confused. i cannot understand how this investigation works. president that appoints and attorney general that gets the report and then reports back to the person that is under investigation. does not make it
public. can somebody explain to me how that works? host: thank you for the call. next is ryan, joining us from ohio, cincinnati. theer: thank you for giving chance to talk about why i would like to say on here. i am an independent. i have been independent since and howpaul campaign quo stoleican status that from us at the convention in florida. we were really trying to upset that and it has been a sport -- split party since then. never in a million years would i feel myself going back over to the republican side, but i have underneath this president. not the last call but the previous call before that i would like to say i think he is a good american and i want to thank him for his service and support of this president and senator lindsey graham, which i cannot believe, because i
thought he was a neo con. i want to say one little fact -- [indiscernible] host: speak into the phone. won 57.-- clinton 3001 hundred counties voted for trump and clinton wins 57 and she wants to blame the russians. all i would like to say is send her to jail. lock her up and put her in orange and send her pedophile, baby raping husband to jail. with miller plaza report income of the interest is now turned to new york as state and federal prosecutors have multiple investigations surrounding president trump. , a team ofytimes.com
reporters with questions they have answered. there are 17. could william barr declined to release the information from the mueller report? according to the new york times, the interning general could declined to release any classified that is or subject to grand jury rules. he could also keep any information from the public that is relevant to ongoing investigations. there could be a looming battle over information the white house claims is subject to executive privilege, which protects confidential discussions between the president and his advisors. we will have more in a moment. james is next from connecticut. republican line. caller: i would like to make two points. the first is a theoretical one. that relates to the russian intelligence operation as i have read it not in the american press but the european press. it seems americans attempted to sow discord anyway they could.
if you read the investigation, they were involved in helping bernie sanders first against hillary clinton, who they thought was going to win the election, as did 90% of the media. then, after hillary gets the nomination, they shifted their attempts to trump to weaken her as a president. -- in see in this report the reporting of this whole investigation is that the national media ignore the fact that the russians spend very little overall in an effective intelligence operation for merely using the bias for the democrats and the media to basically destroy the president after he got elected. i think the continuing operation is going on right now with democrat adam schiff and others from california continuing to try to weaken the president. i would like to see an
investigation going forward to see if some of these democrats who continue the investigation have russian ties. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. we are also heard on serious xm channel 124. and our viewers across in great britain. in florida, democrats line. caller: i am confused why these , ifle that got indicted trump had not been president, would they still be doing all of their legal stuff? indictede that got were doing this illegal stuff 10 years ago and now all of a sudden -- i think it would have still going on if trump had not been president. i am confused about all these indictments. host: this is from the new york times.
will the mueller report be made public? 17 answers to what may come next, including this -- why can't a sitting president be indicted? constitution or federal statute say that federal -- presidents are immune from prosecution. -- from the constitution bar indicting a sitting president. essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with the president's ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties. linet on the republican from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is this -- now that the mueller investigation is done and over with and according
to what i hear on the news, the democrats want to investigate president trump all the way back to when he was mr. president and made his first business dealing. with that, i think that turnabout is fair play and the president should get his own investigation committee and check every single democrat in congress, both the house and the senate, to see if they ever took favore or ever took a while they were in office to vote for something or not to vote for something because i know they are so crooked when they die they are going to have two screw them in the ground. that is my comment. go to springfield, massachusetts, ben, democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call.
remind people of how this got started. 17 american security within the federal government of the united states of america. morebi, the cia, and 15 security organizations dealing -- that told america that russia was involved in the election of 2016. most of us seem like we do not agree with those organizations. those are the same organizations that the president was questioned about when he was standing beside putin and he
took putin's word rather than to take the advice of our security system. if we cannot accept the advice of our security system, something is wrong with us. we have to understand that. one of the other things we have completebout -- the investigation is not overt. we need to wait and see what happens -- over yet. we need to wait and see what happens. no moreis for mark -- indictments. the pro trump spin machine is touting that the just completed mueller report recommends no new indictments. how much did the mueller report cost? another question answered in the new york times. thef september 30, 2018, special counsel's investigation has cost more than $25 million. more than 12 million of that was
direct spinning by mr. mueller's team. that amount will increase once the special counsel office submits its final list of expenses. can congress subpoena the report? yes. that does not mean lawmakers will be successful. what comes next is likely complicated. there are several reasons the justice department might be unwilling to just hand over classified or grand jury information, even under subpoena. in that case, congress could sue to enforce its demand. then it will be up to the courts to decide who gets what. 17 questions answered at nytimes .com and inside the newspaper. next is sam from new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i want to say that the mueller report has not been made public so no one really in the public domain knows the contents. however, there have been 37 indictments.
if you believe a man is surrounded by his friends, that should answer the question. i also think trump will be brought down by tax fraud and bank fraud. a look at the front page of the washington post -- not only the mueller report, but demonstrations across london amid brexit calls for a do over. there is this photograph inside the washington post. marchers calling for another referendum on brexit as the deadline looms, now moving to april. inside the sunday review, he look at the state of great britain and how brexit is changing the view across the country and around the world. available also on the new york times website. christian is next from arizona, republican line. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is the fact
time i hear someone on television say that this mueller investigation was narrow in scope -- it is a lie. from an ordinary american's point of view, if someone is for falsifying a business loan application, that has nothing to do with the russian collusion. , the actual law which rosenstein cited when he appointed mueller gave mueller the power of the attorney general of the united states, so for all these people out here on every single network -- i'm not talking about c-span -- i'm talking about all the other networks and papers and these constitutional experts in congress who say over and over that mueller's scope is narrow -- it is not narrow.
this was a fishing expedition. it was created on a false premise, as sarah huckabee sanders has said. the president has said that this was created off an illegal act. it was because they went after a -- carter page. in nuclear testified nonproliferation. he specialized in negotiations with foreign countries, one of them russia. the last thing i want to say is that if you are a man in america nephew, ave a son, a cousin, a grandson, i want you to look at this department of justice. look at this federal bureau of investigation and ask yourself -- would you like your son to violated, to have
his 14th minute rights violated? -- amendment rights violated? host: the investigation into boeing and the 737 maxygen at -- a jet born of a frantic race to outdo a rival. american airlines was considering a major purchase of the airbus made in europe. changes made to what is viewed as the workhorse of the boeing company now the legal troubles the company is facing following two crashes and the deaths of more than 300 passengers and crew members. from ohio,olyn democrats line. caller: i am calling about the mueller case. i do not care what findings. trump's followers will not listen to anything because trump and itst, full of hate,
is horrible what is going on in the country. his whole family is getting rich and these people following trump are dumb and ignorant. mechanicsville, georgia. there was a gentleman as to why thelier process we have now, the release of this report, the fact it is going to the attorney general -- i might be able to explain it to him. i'm not a lawyer and i cannot play one on c-span, but the special counsel -- there was an independent counsel law that was created after the nixon situation. the independent counsel law had alloweditude and he was to publish his entire report. that is what clinton got caught up in. when clinton was impeached, can
rr published sta in excruciating detail the salacious details involved in that situation and congress in its wisdom said that was kinda bad so we will change the law. they change the law to the special counsel law, and put it under the justice department and that is why we are where we are. host: the president and mar-a-lago, spending part of yesterday with kid rock, play a round of golf at the trump international course at mar-a-lago. sheila is our next caller, republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. just a couple of points that irked me -- i'm tired of hearing about these 13 indictments that were so bad. not one of them had anything to do with trump or collusion or anything else. elizabeth warren can stick that one. also i would like to know
exactly how much did the russians spend on this interference with our election? they've been doing it for years but i want to know the cost and where they spent it and how it was done. then i would like to know why it was ok that president barack obama sent a team over to israel to blatantly interfere with the benjaminn of netanyahu. please ask a democrat why that would be different. host: president trump wanted obama's birth certificate so police investigate trump starting in 1961. -- at least investigate trump starting in 1961. both starting -- sides drawn battle lines with trump allies quick to claim vindication. a look at the initial reaction once the news broke shortly before 5:00 on friday afternoon that robert mueller has issued his report to the attorney general.
bill barr and the justice department. here's the reaction courtesy of the washington post and cable news. > [video clip] >> it is imperative for mr. barth to make the report public and provide its underlying document tatian and findings to public. >> if the justice department tries to keep parts of it secret, we will certainly subpoena the parts of the report and we will reserve the right to or to testify before the committee. >> if it turns out that there are going to be further indictments, it does vindicate president trump but also raises and gives credence to those claims that this was a witchhunt. >> he has said this publicly. all he can legally put forward. that is where we will see this from. democrats are going to have to understand that. >> congress is going to need the underlying evidence because some of that evidence may go to the compromise of the president or
people around him that poses a threat to our national security. >> the justice department i line is you do not release negative information about someone who is in charge. >> that is the guideline we will fight. >> the facts and evidence here are likely to show a lot of criminality, a lot of wrongdoing and lawbreaking that is not indicted. >> i hope every word, every sentence, every paragraph of this report is released to the american people. if there is a single paragraph redacted, people will point to that and say it is in their. i would like to see not only the report be made public but how many tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent over two years to bully people if there was no collusion. >> if you trust mr. mueller, as ,ou have been told we should then you should be able to trust the report given to mr. bar and
not have to see all of this underlying evidence that supports it. >> the department of justice has taken the position that they will not indict a sitting president so there is information in here that shows they would have indicted donald trump then congress is the only institution that can hold him accountable, so we need to get the full information. >> we have to have a thorough review of how we got here, how we allowed political opposition research to fuel an investigation that was never founded in reality. >> americans should be proud of this day. despite attempts by donald trump to stop this investigation, robert mueller and his team were able to complete it. the fact that mueller and rob rosenstein kept their jobs shows the vitality and strength of our institutions and democracy. >> that courtesy of the washington post and a quick summary of reaction the first 24 hours after the mueller report was officially filed. we are getting your reaction on the sunday morning. we could get more information during the course of the day and we will be standing by all day
here as c-span. if we do get information, we will have it for you here on this network and on our website at c-span.org. ifs is from stan, who said russia influence our election why did hillary clinton get more votes? maybe they were playing the electoral college angle. this from another viewer sing with 37 indictments mueller's team has nothing to do with russia and collusion. it is guilt by association. if you were a friend of donald trump, you are fair game for mueller, who happens to be james comey's best friend and mentor. another tweet from steve says when the heat is on donald, his cultists show up on twitter and the washington journal trying to talk about hillary. distract and deflect is not a defense. let's go to wyoming. caller: i would like to say a few things. i hear a lot of comments made about the media as though the
media is a single entity with a single thought process. the media is made of thousands of people went to school, tried to get good grades, interviewed for a job, showed up for work every day, and form their opinions through a lot of education. there is a reason the media in this country is generally against donald trump. i think the biggest reason is the hypocrisy. you cannot say i'm going to be busy working for you and not play golf like obama did and do the dozens of things he has done. you do not have these kind of indictments, this kind of investigation into a guy who is clean. and it is so dirty really bothers me that the republicans are ok with it because he is a republican. i got into a big argument with my own father about it.
he would say i do not watch the news. i said maybe you should pay attention to what is going on. everybody has got an opinion. there are different things that are important to different people, but i am tired of these republicans who are completely blind to the criminality of this man and it is all ok because he is not obama. someone said earlier turnabout is fair play. obama was elected. the republicans got together and said we are going to be the party of no. we will make sure this man has one term. he will not be a successful president. he had dozens of investigations by the republicans and he came up clean every time. trump and his associates come up dirty every time and it really bothers me that republicans will disparage other americans because they are not north korean, not russian, not communist.
host: how did you leave it with your father? actually got him to turn on the news, do a little research, and he came back to me a week later and said the man is not fit to be president. host: i ask that because my guess is we are having that conversation in all of our families these days. caller: i hope so. with a to make friends lady involved with politics and she says that is the biggest problem is republicans talk to republicans and democrats talk to democrats and therefore nobody talked to the other side. nobody seems to care anymore what the other side thinks. i was surprised that hillary lost. i think if you're into democracy that is democracy. i heard a lady see if you weeks ago without the electoral college california would pick our president.
no. americans we picking our president. the things republicans are doing to take power away from incoming democrats -- the whole thing is that asbut i have faith long as the republicans and trump keep just hurting everybody with his ignorance he is actually wrecking the chances of the republican party staying in power. host: this is from the washington post's sunday magazine. the forgotten minority of higher education. shock treatment -- how medicare for all would change health care and the u.s. economy. finally, alexandria ok zero cortez -- k zero ocasio cortez.
we will go to california, independent line. independent and i think the lesson to learn from this fiasco going on in u.s. government is very simple. earmarks and all kinds of lobby bribery schemes in your government. you do not have a democracy. you have a constitutional republic. it is quite simple about the corruption that is going on in the fbi and department of justice. you do not have an honest government. to blame russia for this fiasco is pretty hypocritical because we spy on russia, china. china spies on us. israel spies on us.
russia spies on us. there are so many hypocritical, nonsense arguments going on in the country that it is divided and it is divided because your u.s. congress is taking lobby bribes and it is not going to stop. you will have these arguments forever as long as you try to -- get crooked hillary. indict her. if you have not indicted her, you do not have an honest government. you have a one-sided government. host: let me go back to the top of the program. a contributor to fox news and write in the washington examiner five things that did not happen in the mueller investigation. here they are. robert mueller did not indict donald trump, jr. or jared kushner or other people reported to be in legal jeopardy. he did not charge anyone in the trump campaign or circle with conspiring with russia to fix the 2016 election. mueller did not subpoena the president.
the president did not fire robert mueller and the president did not interfere with the mueller investigation. you can get more details at washingtonexaminer.com. on the republican line from florida, mark. caller: thanks for taking my call. the previous caller before the last one summed up what is wrong with our government, with people today. you have one side saying i am an independent but this site is wrong. i'm going to give you a fact of what is wrong with our country. when you have elizabeth warren, who falsified documents saying she was a native american, go free but the guy who would do this college scandal gets arrested for the same crime, that is what is wrong with our country. democrats spending 25 million dollars on an investigation that led to nowhere, how much energy and power could they have spent working with the president? they said nobody wanted to work with obama.
why repeat the same mistakes the republican party made three years ago? i voted for obama and i voted for donald trump. it cannot be a maxine waters saying get in the face of republicans. it cannot be a party that is content on not accepting the fact that they lost the 2016 presidential election. yes, the media failed and is trying to atone. c-span, thank you for being fair, but the media overall, sometimes even fox news, are trying to atone their mistake and miscalculation of the presidential election. donald trump is a joke to them until he won and he came from the outside looking in. i would rather trust somebody from the outside to fix my border as opposed to people who have been in there for 30, 40 years. you neede a democrat, to ask yourself this question --
for 30, 40 years, you have the same people now trying to tell you that this president, who has only been in washington for three years, is wrong. fix your party and make it stronger so we have a better republic as opposed to being us against them. thise one america, under president, whether you like it or not. he is your president and he is your president as barack obama was your president. newsmakersn's program follows the washington journal. david, democrats line, georgia. caller: i'm glad you just showed that graphic about the five things the mueller report did not accomplish because my point i wanted to make was what you think they have been doing for the past two years? they must have been investigating something. everybody needs to wait and see because that is what we have been doing for two years.
since friday afternoon, we have had this explosion of everybody drawing their own conclusions, which i do not think is appropriate until later today when we can actually begin to read what they have concluded. host: from the wall street journal, the probe into robert mueller's career of public service is available online. russian probe into interference in the .16 election now over, robert mueller joins a small club of prosecutors that have taken on the task of investigating a sitting president. tenure isr's 22 month the capstone if a career spent mostly in public service. he saw heavy combat as a marine in vietnam, took down complex criminal enterprises as a longtime prosecutor, and has been confirmed as the new head of the federal bureau of investigation when the september
2011 -- with the september 11 attacks occurred. he will likely be best muellered -- mr. routinely shuns the limelight, even when promoted to government jobs that involve engaging with the press and explaining government actions to the public. he famously spoke for 45 seconds after being nominated as the fbi director. he has maintained that style ever sense. a life and career of robert mueller at wsj.com. next is jonathan from new hampshire. me.er: thanks for having this whole mueller investigation -- it has been a witchhunt. a whole news a story the whole time has been hillary clinton's emails were leaked, nothing content of the emails.
the content of the emails is what the actual crimes have been committed. the hypocrisy of our government is beyond any means. for them to sit for 2.5 years to investigate stuff based off a fake dossier which has been proven to be a fake dossier, the author of which pleaded to corroborating the evidence in it , and then the fbi will not investigate the blatantly obvious evidence that is in the --ils that were leaked out like podesta doing the same thing paul manafort did. paul manafort is in jail for it because paul manafort registered two minutes behind podesta. i do not understand it. ,'ve been watching for 30 years the democrats and republicans alike. we call them establishment politicians, the true swamp.
they have been destroying this country. they have not done anything for the people of this country, for the inter-cities. look at every intercity and it is controlled by democrats. inside time magazine, secondhand safety as investigators probe the faa and boeing after two deadly crashes. we are getting your reaction to the mueller report and what happens next now that the attorney general, william barr, has it and has been reviewing it and will likely update members of congress on its contents. that could come later today. there had been speculation it would take place yesterday. that has been delayed and we are monitoring all of it. congress is back this week. from pennsylvania, republican line, robin. caller: good morning. and i want youl to know i've been watching this since donald trump became president. nobody ever brings up how the democrats are acting.
you do not see the republicans out there harassing people. -- pullaters has people people to go after the republicans. what are the democrats going to do? are they going to keep this up until somebody hurt somebody? i am worried about 70 going after the president. -- somebody going after the president. if anything happens, democrats are responsible. they have to realize and see what they did on the other site. adam schiff is dirty up to his eyeballs. he has to be investigated. there is no way around that. investigated. there is no way around that. host: thank you for the call. this is from steve. the longer the attorney general holds onto the report, the speculation will reach a fever pitch. everythingm stella, donald trump was accused of
happening, ukraine, hillary, obama collaborated with russia on ukraine. where is the outrage? welcome to the conversation. good morning, robert. think most of the people that are calling complaining are forgetting that reagan wasen ronald the president, he eliminated the fairness doctrine, and that would have been what they are looking for. in other words, you get both sides of the story at the same time as opposed to fox over there and cnn way over there. that is what they forget keeps happening. it is a shame they don't know any better. thank you. host: thank you for the call from missouri. this is the headline from
aidesco, the president's gearing up for the mullah report. headline.at what is happening next within the administration? who will lead the effort? guest: good morning. we are hearing that the white house and the trump reelection campaign and republican national committee have been getting ready for this day. the day where we actually find out some of what is in that report. they are thinking it is going to exonerate the president, but they have come up with language for a lot of contingency plans. it is not just going to be black or white. we might see something that says other people close to the president did something wrong even though they are not being indicted. they have all sorts of talking points ready to go when we find
out what is in the mullah report. host: we know the president yesterday at mar-a-lago. he golfed with kid rock. he seemed to be pretty comfortable. guest: one of my colleagues is in florida with him and heard the same thing. in,as not supposed to stop there was a republican fundraiser. we were not sure if he was going to go. he did go and talk to little bit. lindsey graham was giving a speech. the president seemed to be in good spirits. he introduced lindsey graham. mar-a-lago,own at it is a place where he is surrounded by people he has known for a long time. he is surrounded by friends. he took an extra large group of , probably because
he knew this was coming out. he likes being there. he is scheduled to return to washington later today. tweet a just got a moment ago wishing everyone to have a nice day, but we have not heard him react to the mullah report. -- mueller report. i was talking to people close to him on thursday and friday. they were saying they were really hoping he would not say much. they were not going to say much at the white house. until they knew something. what you saw on friday evening was a brief statement by white house press secretary sarah sanders, where she does not say much. she ate knowledge is the report -- she acknowledges the report has gone to the justice department. we have not heard a lot from the president.
that is because they are waiting to see what it says. when we know what it says, expect a lot of spin, a lot of talk about what they think this means. they are trying to get the president to not say much until then. know that is not easy. he often doesn't go this long without saying something. it is possible he might say something today. it is possible we may know a little about what is in that report. two: let me share with you tweets just a moment ago, the president saying good morning, have a great day. then he said, make america great again. what is going on in the president's mind right now? there was a lot of chatter last night that he had
not tweeted. people were marking how many hours it had been. i saw interesting comments about what is the longest he has gone without tweeting. he did not break the record. tends to read what people are saying about him. he might have been seeing that. he might have been tweeting ?ecause why not he is not tweeting about this. a lot of people are hopeful they will get some indication of what is in that report. host: if you have been watching cable tv, it has been almost fever pitch speculation of what is in the mullah report. muellero ask you -- report. youre to ask you what is speculation? guest: it is hard to tell.
i keep hearing the announcement that was made on friday that there will not be more indictments. meple are taking that to that is great. we have seen a lot of indictments, but a lot of them were russian nationals. we knew they tried to interfere with the election. people close to the president but on unrelated charges. i think people in his orbit feel pretty good about the fact that there are not going to be more indictments. fromne thing i heard people that are well versed in how the department of justice and prosecutions work say is that there are possible that there are other indictments, but they are sealed. case, it might not mean everything is great for president trump and his circle. i would say the white house is
feeling pretty good about it, but there are a lot of things we don't know. host: what about congressional democrats demanding this report be made public and some speculating this could defuse any threat of impeachment by the house judiciary committee. yesterday fort about 30 minutes. they want the full report made public, not a summary, as the attorney general said he would or tomorrow.ay probably today or tomorrow. they want the full report, and they want the public to have the full report. ,f you are watching cable news you will that they are pretty united behind that, saying everything needs to be made public. i don't think that is good to happen. it is not going to happen right away. we're hearing is the report is very lengthy.
the department of justice has to go through it and determine what can be released and what cannot be released. that is why bill barr is going to release a summary. it is going to be a showdown. if they don't get everything they want, it is possible they could take this to court, and there could be a legal fight. that could take a very long time. it is interesting. , the housetime democrats will continue what they are doing. dozens ofnvestigating things in the trump administration, both at the white house and in the agencies and departments. they are pushing for documents, pushing for people to testify. they could issue subpoenas. there are a lot of avenues where they could get information. host: we talked to sarah lynch in the first hour. what is your day going to be like on the white house beat? my colleague is with the
president in mar-a-lago. he is our main person with president trump today. i am standing by. i expect to write a bigger picture story about the president, but i don't know because i am also waiting to find out what is in the mueller report. we have a lot of folks on capitol hill dealing with that. i don't know what it is going to be like if we have another day where we don't know. the attorney general had indicated it would be today or tomorrow. i think he is mindful that a lot of people in washington and around the country are waiting. i think he is trying to be as fast as possible. covers the kumar white house beat. thank you for being with us on what could be a very busy sunday. guest: thanks for having me. host: senator patrick leahy,
first elected in 1974, just a few months from when richard nixon was forced out of office. beware the mistakes of richard nixon. issad, joining us from west virginia. line for democrats. caller: good morning. i still think the president, maybe we cannot prove he is but he says he believes tin over our intelligence agencies. when he takes the line of the kremlin, talking about everyone,, he attacks all of our allies except
vladimir putin, even the pope. he attacked the pope. i think he is compromised financially. he lied about trump tower. he said he had nothing to do with russia, but he was still talking about building the trump tower in moscow. for the republican who talk about harassment, donald trump for six years talked about birtherism,im -- harassing barack obama. for six years, they went after hillary clinton for emails. they did not get one indictment. donald trump, he is the second man on the putin payroll.
with all of this because of russia pollution. host: thank you for the call from west virginia. bob costas from the washington post and a team of reporters, the battle over the mueller report begins. the political showdown over russia investigation that could reshape the remainder of president trump's term began in earnest saturday even before the special counsel's conclusions were known to the public while democrats demand transparency -- vow t two intensify o intensify their own probes." and justice department officials spent
saturday privately reviewing the report. his advisors,of he exhibited on characteristic -- refraining from crying that the witchhunt was over. his legal troubles are far from over with separate investigations into his businesses, inaugural committee, and conduct. the washington post writes, let contours of the political battles ahead took form. the calls for caution from trust attorneys did not seem to reach the years of his allies, who took a victory lap on his behalf. two tweets from the president this morning, saying good
morning, and make america great again. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. as i am listening to the callers today, i am kind of sounded by by the factsaddened that the morality and ethics and behavior of donald trump. donald trump has been conning people for 40 years, whether it was in atlantic city, dealing with my bosses in new york -- mob bosses in new york city. i don't get the sense that anyone is willing to hold the president to a higher moral ground. i see a lot of your colors today that were disparaging you and the media, everyone else. they cannot seem -- they seem to think it is ok that president liar,is a corrupt man, a
but that is ok. i think the country is going to take a hit long-term when we the presidentlow of the united states to behave this way. the call.k you for from yahoo! news, robert mueller, the invisible prosecutor who shook the white house. next is a viewer from florida. you're next. caller: good morning. i am so glad to be online today. thank you for your time. this issue. the last caller was on the same page as i am. investigationthis is going to help us see a president that we all elected.
the important thing is what are we going to do next. we are so fed up with these different issues. even our right to vote is a big issue, whether it is the gerrymandering that is going on -- i don't think there is anything wrong with the electoral college. i think there's a problem with gerrymandering. i believe that this is what is going to bring some morality to the people. the democrats are on the right page. a bunch of people coming in. there are going to be more people who are going to sit down in these caucuses. there are going to be more people who sit down in these various meetings. i have great hope. i do not like donald trump, but he is such a great catalyst. we are operating under fear right now. what follows that fear is the faith we have in our country.
i believe america will rise again. host: andre calling from florida. next is vickie from texas. democrats line. have been listening to you all since 1993. this morning i was listening, and i am hearing the different responses. it appears to me that a lot of the responses is making it appear like people in society actually believe it is ok for a president to not have any integrity. it is ok not to have character. guys are hating. why would you not allow the president of the united states
-- why are we waiting for him to make a tweet? what is that about? host: he just happened to be making the tweet while i was on the phone live. that was not planned. issuedere talking, he those tweets, so we incorporated that into the conversation. the point i'ms trying to make. this is a serious matter. to do waiting for him something out of character. he has already done things out of character. this is hurting the american people. a sitting president cannot be indicted. , weatter what he has done will not even know about it. nothing will be done. over $25 million has been spent on this matter.
the intelligence agencies we ought to rely on have already told us there was russian interference. host: thank you for the call. a couple of questions, could william barr declined to release information from the report? the attorney general could decline to release any information that is classified or subject to grand jury rules, and he could also keep any information from the public that is relevant to ongoing investigations. there could also be a battle over information that the white house claims is subject to executive privilege. can congress subpoena the report? yes, congress can subpoena just about anything it wants, but that does not mean it will be successful for lawmakers. what comes next is likely to be complicated. there may be a number of reasons why the justice department is
unwilling to hand over classified or grand jury information even under subpoena. , but then itd sue will be up to the courts to decide who gets what. back to your calls. good morning. you are next. republican line. good morning. there are a few things i would like to say. president, he was said in russia, talking to a russian over there, and said after he was elected, he would have more leeway. is this treason? is it not? obama is not the first black president. he is the first biracial president. the things he did to this country is a shame. them, justnd all of way. -- wait.
they talk about the border. they come over here, and they take all the money for welfare and all of that, and the american people don't have what they need. they are to have floods that are taking billions of dollars. somebody needs to get a backbone. i wish donald trump would close the border. put the military on it. stop this nonsense. host: from the new york times, britain is drowning in nostalgia. brexit has exposed my country as a self absorbed backwater. we welcome our viewers and listeners on the bbc that simulcasts this program every sunday. louisiana,n from democrats line. caller: good morning. please allow me to make four
quick points. yes, it is a shame that obama sewert us out of thithe . i don't know what is in mueller's report. none of us really know. we have not heard the report. what i do know, what i have seen and heard from the mouth of this president, he has colluded, he has conspired. he is a pathological liar. .t is not over the only way we can get this man out is to vote him out in 2020. knows thisnt, god foul man and his administration is as guilty as sin. i guarantee coming you can believe he will not get away. host: what happened to mueller,
a timeline of events is available online. nick, you are next. republican line. withr: what has gone on mueller is a corrupt situation. all of your callers are talking about someone's personality. he comes from new york. he is corrupt. how about what mueller has done? totally dishonest. i know prosecutors. i have seen them in new york. the man is corrupt. he has a history of corruption. host: you are saying robert mueller is corrupt? caller: that's right. host: how so? caller: tell me you don't know about whitey in boston, and he was killing people that were
supposed to be indicted, but they died while in jail. and: when democrats republicans have both praised the work of robert mueller in the past, they are wrong. caller: you don't know about this? let me say this. all i hear on your station is how bad he is. forget about mueller and his report with comey has been a coi up. it is a disgrace. no one has address that. host: we don't know what is the report. you are jumping to the conclusion that he is trying to force him out of office, and so far we don't know that. caller: i don't know that? are you naive about that? i watched this for three years. i am retired. other people just pick up the news. tell me the media is not corrupt and biased, and we will stop
talking host:. i would disagree with the premise of your question, but this is your chance to speak out. go ahead. caller: you are always one-sided. host: how are we one-sided? explain that. caller: tell me don't think so. host: you think this network take sides? caller: you don't think the media -- trump says all democrats -- have you ever heard of 18 or 15 prosecuted? host: you understand the media is not a single entity. it is a disparate group. there are all sites out there. there is fox, msnbc, breitbart, .nn, c-span you cannot say the media are all corrupt. caller: you think it is ok to have a two in this country against the country. host: i did not say that.
you said that. caller: that is what is going on. you do not care about that. i think every president should have somebody like mueller watching over them and you should try to impeach him because i think that is a wonderful country. host: your last word. go ahead. caller: you want to live in a country like a third world country where you don't like the guy, you have a coup. that is what is going on. i'm 75 years old. i have seen it every day. i have watched this for three years. i never had any feelings. donald trump is doing a lot of good things for the country. that does not matter at all to some people. the country is doing good. that's ok. no, it's not. we don't like him. we don't like the way he talks, but he is doing great things for the country.
host: there is something wrong here. host:we will leave it there. doing great things for the country. there is something wrong here. host: we will leave it there. caller: how are you doing? host: we are great. a nonentity really in this country. i am homebound. don't have access to the internet. no iphone. i have cable tv. i have limited access to different news media. report.ler let's see what it says. everybody is getting so excited about it. i do not believe the mueller report will uncover any impeachable offense against that events against that moron in the white house.
i fully support the house investigating the moron. i hope they use their investigative powers wisely. their terms of office are short compared to the time it takes to conduct a good investigation. host: charles, you get the last line from illinois. our line from republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. all the democrats jumping on this bandwagon saying we want to see the report. job.guy has done a good took care of the military. aircraft were falling out of the sky with obama and bush. that has to be looked at.
up.: you are breaking i a apologize, we will have to leave it there. the formal announcement and kick off by senator kirsten gillibrand as part of c-span's road to the white house coverage. democrats calling for at least 60 justices on the supreme court -- six new justices on the supreme court. is this court packing reminiscent of fdr in 1937? marking the 30th anniversary of one of the worst disasters in america, the exxon valdez disaster. we continue in just a moment. just a reminder, newsmakers follows "washington journal" continues with a conversation about a crowded democratic field
and how the dnc will handle debates in june. >> with so many candidates in the primaries, nobody was happy in the debate stage. , what are you thinking and how are you talking to make it fair for the candidates? >> what we are talking about is unprecedented. there has never been a grassroots fundraising threshold to get on to the debate stage. especially early on in the primary season, allowing an alternative threshold is important. we have heard from the last cycle that the undercard format did not work so well. it was not well received. that is why what we are doing is unprecedented and that let's int assume 14 people qualify june. we will have consecutive nights,
seven and seven. we will do random assignment. there is no varsity and jv. we will do the same thing in july. the upside to that is i know most of these candidates. they are spectacular. are you worried about a big field? absolutely not. i welcome this big field. it is a world-class challenge to have. all of these candidates have a story to tell, a record to talk about, and a vision to share with the american people. varsity ono jv or these first two debates, i think we will have record viewership. is our guest on c-span's newsmaker program. you can listen to it on c-span radio, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio at.
stohr with bloomberg. thank you for joining us. there are nine justices on the supreme court. democrats are calling for six more justices. why? anger there is residual over what happened with merrick garland when republicans refused to have a vote over president obama's chosen successor. there is continued anger over the kavanaugh hearing and that somebody is on the court that democrats feel should not be there. this is the most conservative and the my lifetime, question is not which way the court is going to go but how quickly in terms of conservative rulings. democrats are seeing that as something they want to stop. host: if you could speculate a year from now, if there is a
vacancy next year, with mitch mcconnell hold off on any process of nomination until after the 2020 election? guest: it is hard to imagine that would be the case. the rules about the supreme court change depending on what you can get away with. it is hard to imagine that mitch mcconnell who has the votes in the senate to nominate a successor would not do that. you could have a clarence thomas resignation, or if something were to happen to force one of the more liberal justices off, you could see a really conservative court, and it is hard to see mcconnell would not want to make that happen. host: is there a sense of hypocrisy with that? guest: it depends on how far you want to go with each party saying different things depending on their circumstances.
mcconnell is now saying his position is when you have the president of one party and the senate of the other party, you should not have about. -- a vote. explanations tend to shift. it goes to the fact that each supreme court seat has such high stakes, and both sides are willing to sacrifice principle to get what they need. host: the idea of adding additional justices, if that were to take place, what is the process? guest: the reason we have nine supreme court justices is because of a statute. nothing in the constitution says there has to be only nine. congress could pass a new statute that says we will have 33 if congress wanted to. you have the usual, both houses
have to pass it. you have the filibuster on the senate side, which seems to be the one insurmountable obstacle in the short term for democrats. there is no likelihood the democrats will have enough votes in the senate to overcome the filibuster. could chief justice john roberts manage, if they had six new justices, could they physically manage that? guest: there would have to be a lot of physical alterations. there were have to be some real changes to the physical building, the courtroom, the conference room. folks would have less room for their office staffs. it would be a change. the mayor of south bend, theana, was asked about
prospect. here is his response. [video clip] >> would you support expanding the spring court by four members -- supreme court by four members? [applause] >> i have not reached a considered position on the question of court packing. i don't think we should be laughing at it. in some ways it is no more a shattering of norms than what has already been done. host: how is this issue resonating among the democratic base? guest: they are liking it. there is a group called pack the courts that is going to events like this and asking these questions to try to get candidates to respond. it's sort of fits in with all the other things we are hearing democratic candidates talk about, green new deal, changing the electoral college, sweeping proposals and ideas that would
fundamentally change the way our democracy works or policy. even though it was do not have a great chance of success, it is the kind of thing democratic primary voters seem to want to hear. host: the president was asked about it this past week at the white house. here is his response. [video clip] >> i would not entertain that. the only reason they are doing that is to try to catch up. if they cannot win through the ballot box, they want to do it through a different way. it will never happen. i guarantee it will not happen for six years. that presumes he is reelected. the reality is it would be really difficult for this to actually happen. just putting aside the political dynamics, and we have not talked
about the history of court packing, the historical example 1930's, who was unhappy with the supreme court striking down parts of the new deal and proposing adding members to the supreme court. politically, that was a big loser, perhaps the biggest political mistake fdr made as president. democrats will have to overcome that hurdle, that it seems like they are trying to politically manipulate the supreme court for their advantage. host: the fact that this even became an issue is indicative for how rare it is for justice clarence thomas to speak out during oral arguments. in a case this week. involvedis discrimination in choosing a jury. trial, ther is on same prosecutor had repeatedly
struck black prospective jurors from the jury. the question for the supreme court was whether the man was entitled to a new trial. host: the fact that justice thomas asked questions is because? guest: he so rarely does it. before that, he had not in three years and before that in 10 years. it only happens every few years. thomas whenrthy -- he does ask questions, it is often around issues of race, where he feels strongly. he has asked questions involving affirmative action in university admissions. wereis case, his questions to the lawyer for the defendant, asking about whether his lawyer had struck people from the jury as well and what the race of those people were.
it was a sort of contrarian question after an argument that seemed like it was going in favor of the defendant and still seems like it. it seems like the court will give the man a new trial. thomas wanted to put on the table that both sides were doing this sort of thing. this weekend we learned brett kavanaugh will be teaching at the caps on -- antonin scalia a school of law at george mason. guest: judge kavanaugh has eased his way onto the court. he has taken his time becoming a public figure. he did not give a speech at the federalist society recently even though they wanted him to speak at their annual dinner. he has not given any public speeches yet. he likes talking about the law and likes teaching. he has this position going
forward. our guest is greg stohr. he covers the supreme court for bloomberg news. we're talking about the idea to expand the supreme court, now with nine justices, let's get your phone calls. robert, you are first. democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to talk a little about politics and the judiciary. because of the electoral college, we have a president, who did not get an majority of the votes, and i believe it was bush who did not have a majority of the votes. as a consequent to that, to have a president, particularly donald trump, who looks to the federalist society for his appointees to appoint justices who, in my view, would not
reflect the majority sensibilities of the population, i think it is dangerous. you are getting folks on the court with lifetime appointments in a society that is changing rapidly. i cannot leave that is going to be good for the future unless the folks who are appointed step ,side from their political generally more conservative, leanings. as justice roberts once said, call balls and strikes as they see them without any strict political indication. attorney,stand, as an there are different points of view. i respect the more thoughtful conservative thinkers. folks who i think
are the onto the pale in their political efforts to politicize the judiciary. host: thank you. guest: the caller raises some valid points. one thing we have not talked about is the notion of term limits for justices. this is something most scholars think would require a constitutional amendment. there is an idea of having 18 year terms for the justices that would guarantee each president gets to appointments every term and might take some of the sting out of these appointments and some of the political or her -- furor out of the confirmation battles. there is a movement we have that is potentially problematic of younger and younger justices,
an arguably judges justices who are more ideological. host: let's go to our on the republican line from ohio. caller: good morning. of obama,ight years nobody talked about changing things, changing the electoral vote, all of this stuff. they cannot wait to change stuff. host: we will get a response. guest: politics is part of this. i think from the democrats standpoint, the merrick garland nomination changed things. they believe that was unfair, and they believe republicans abused the process and stole a seat. part of what is motivating this is the notion that republicans have not been playing fair with supreme court nominations.
we need to take what tools are at our disposal. that is obviously debatable. host: was it unfair? guest: there is no precedent for it. mitch mcconnell says there is a tradition. there has never been a situation like this where he had a vacant seat that arose during an election year in february. host: because of death. guest: because of death. there was not a tradition going either way. it was certainly surprising when most of us heard mitch mcconnell said he was going to do that. host: he did. host:part of the argument you are hearing from democrats is they did not even hold a hearing for him. why not conduct a hearing to give him the benefit to testify before congress?
accounts, merrick garland is a well-respected judge and would have likely acquitted himself very well. it would have been harder to save we are not going to confirm him. in the gamut of who president obama could have selected, he was about the most moderate judge obama could have selected. he was older than some of the other prospective nominees. somebodyre looking for who was not going to have a , there were not going to be a lot of reasons for republicans to oppose, it is hard to say he is appointing a radical. it would have been harder to oppose. they wanted to do it categorically and say we are not considering any nominee. it is about the whole process. one thing i want to say about this, over the past number of
decades, republicans have gotten the vast majority of supreme court nominations. not all those have turned out the way they wanted. from a democratic standpoint, the idea that republicans get tw o supreme court nominations for every one we get does not seem fair. host: senator orrin hatch stepped down. went to the white house, said if you nominate mary garland, he would be confirmed. guest: he has said that for an earlier vacancy, i forget if it was for sotomayor or kagan. he was encouraging president obama to nominate someone who would be acceptable to be republicans. reaction fromthe republican senators.
marco rubio, the left is use the courts to get done what they could.. the left wants to dilute the impact of these jurors by packing the supreme court. let's go to jesse from illinois. democrats line. good morning. caller: i'm going to ask one question, and then i will hang up. i don't understand, what's the purpose of the supreme court? i don't understand what the purpose of the supreme court is. i don't understand why they have a lifetime appointment. thank you. constitutionin the . that is the short answer. the thinking is that it allows
for judicial independence. the framers were imagining that this way a judge or justice would not be feeling i need to cast my vote's in a certain way so i can be nominated for another term, and they would in their to not rush rulings. if you are only on the supreme court for 10 years, maybe there is a feeling that you have to hurry up and overturn precedents you are questioning. if you are on for a longer time, you can take a long view and promote more stability in the law. host: this is from senator lindsey graham, "i find it ironic democrats want to increase the size of the supreme military."ut the
caller: good morning. my question is, what do people believe a true present is supposed to have -- president is supposed to have as a moral compass? where is the patriotism? where is the following the constitution our forefathers have tried to get us to follow for our own protection and safety? much ii'm not sure how can answer that that was not directly related to the supreme court. i think there is an understanding that all branches of the government are supposed to follow the constitution. to the extent she was talking about the president not following the constitution -- host: in terms of increasing the number, mark green with this tweet, "limiting the seats to
nine ensures the u.s. supreme court remains impartial, beholden to the constitution and no political party. that is why i have introduced a constitutional amendment to do that." guest: this is republicans trying to nip this in the bud and say we are not going to change the seats. there is pointing out the potential danger. let's put aside the filibuster. if we were in a world where every time one party had control of both houses of congress and the white house and could increase the number of supreme court seats to let their president appointed additional justices, you have the potential for the court to swim back and forth. host: let me go to the mueller report. there is speculation that if
congress is not able to force released, ito be could go to the court. are you familiar with how that process could work? guest: if it does not get released by the attorney general, i do not have too much expertise to lend to that subject. i have thought about whether the president can claim executive privilege in the courts. that could also end up in the courts. host: we saw that during the nixon administration. guest: that is the one time the supreme court has weighed in on executive privilege. that ruling was one that we think of as forcing nixon's attorney over the tapes -- nixon to turn over the tapes, it was a compromise where the court did privilege incutive a couple of different forms and said there is going to have to
be balancing. the president does have certain rights to keep certain things confidential so they can get candid advice and communicate with aides. in that case there was a criminal case where the tapes would be material evidence, if there is a strong enough interest on the other side, executive privilege may have to yield. how those factors may end up working out in the mueller report is an unanswered question. our conversation with greg stohr, supreme court reporter for bloomberg news. he earned his law degree from harvard. let's go back to more information from congressman green, republican who wants to keep the supreme court to nine justices. the u.s. supreme court shall be composed of nine justices, the one of these offices maybe they
get until filled. caller: good morning. basically, it doesn't matter how many justices you have. it has to be uneven because you have to have the fall guy who takes the credit. nine is fine. 11 is fine. every time you do it, each justice has less power because there are more of them. ginsburg, she was sick. how long does a justice have to a,sick like if they were in they be replaced? they aren't ever going to come back to the court. clear she isld be back in the court.
she was battling cancer. guest: she missed one round of arguments. not only did she take part in those cases, she has already written an opinion from one of those cases that was argued based on the briefs and argument transcripts. every sign is that she is back at full strength. host: how does she look from your standpoint? guest: just as she did in the fall. she is a remarkable woman. if you look at her physically, you might think she looks frail. she has a tremendous amount of strength. she has come back from cancer three times. her work ethic is remarkable. she is 86. in terms of her ability to do the job, no sign that she is not able to. there are a lot of interesting things about that question. to go to the issue of what
happens, it is up to the justice. we sought chief justice rehnquist, when he had cancer in 2004 and 2005, he missed about half of a supreme court term. he eventually died after the term. there are no rules for forcing the supreme court justice off the court. on the subject of the odd number of supreme court justices can that is what we have usually had. we have not always. we have at six, 10. and when justice scalia died, we had only eight. some people thought the court function better because they were forced to work together to come up with a majority decision . you did not have a prospect of a 5-4 decision. because of the dynamics on the court, that meant you had to
reach across to the other side of the ideological divide. we tended to have narrower decisions. host: this network just celebrated its 40th anniversary. we would like to see cameras in the court. chief justice roberts has opened the door a little bit by releasing audio we can play. do you get any indication that the justices would go along with cameras inside the court for oral argument? guest: i do not. justice kagan and justice alito testified in front of the house last week. they were asked about cameras. remarkably, justice kagan, who joined the court in 2010, said it was not a topic that have ever been formally discussed among the justices since she had
been on the court. she'd knowledged there would be acknowledged-- there would be some benefit, but both of them since they joined the court felt more sympathetic to the other side of the argument which is that there is the potential that having cameras in the courtroom might change the oral argument that justices find essential for deciding cases. host: thank you for waiting with greg stohr, who covers the supreme court for bloomberg news. caller: in a partial way, i had hoped ruth bader ginsburg would retire under obama. that is clearly a partisan wish. gore hearings after the election questions, it was fascinating to make it into the
court. my question would be this, the 1846dent for that one was or something when there was a question about the election, and it went back to congress. precedentthe for that issue. we know it was a partisan vote to stop the recount. has there ever been a time where the court did not act in a partisan way? , it ismueller report fascinating to me that the media will be talking about the clinton sex scandals, then they -- theer to this russian trunk interference in our election. ofody mentions the lack congressional oversight in regard to the bush administration and the iraq war,
which stems from that 2000 supreme court decision. would you do a show on peter, would you guys do a show on partisanship and also on the fifth amendment? because they keep saying that the kids all indicated that they would plead the fifth. if you could indicate that, that would be great. host: thank you. guest: let me start with bush v gore and the partisan nature of it. back in the time of bush the gore, we had two republican-appointed justices that kind of sided with the liberal sign. we do not have that anymore. now the five most conservative judges were appointed by republican presidents, and the more liberal judges were appointed by democratic presidents.
it looks like both parties have gotten much better at predicting they will vote and given the kinds of rulings that they allow. that is something that a number of people, including chief justice john roberts, worry about, the perception of the court as just an extension of the other two political branches of the government. it is hard to see how we will get out of that mix right now. that may just be the reality for the next several decades, at least. host: do you have any indication about a case involving roe v. wade or abortion going to the court that could potentially overturn the 1974 landmark ruling? guest: that is an interesting question. there is a good chance the court will pick up an abortion case next term. the court has already
involving case hospital admissions in mississippi and louisiana, it is very similar to a case the courts decided a couple of years ago in favor of clinics in texas, striking down the texas law, so we could see the court starting to shift there and reaching a conclusion in terms of the louisiana law. wade, thereroe v. is a sense that you get from the court right now that they want to move lowly toward overturning landmark precedence, and that is the biggest one. you do not see them rushing out to take cases. it is possible there and will be forced on something like that. states arecontrolled passing a lot of laws, one just past in mississippi that banned abortion as early as five or six weeks. if a lower court were to ever uphold the law and the appeals court down there, the fifth
circuit that handles things for mississippi is very conservative, if a court were ever to upholding law that really challenged roe v. wade, it would be hard for the supreme court to say no, we do not want to take that case. so it may be that the court has is still whether roe good law before some of the justices will decide if it would really like to. host: but there is some reluctance, wouldn't you agree, of stare decisis? guest: absolutely. but that is not an absolute, and the justices, i mean, we have citizens united as one example that got a lot of attention. overturned a ruling along the way. the case a couple of terms ago involving, i guess it was last term, involving union fees, where the court overturned a
ruling that let public-sector unions collect mandatory fees from nonmembers who were in the workforce they are, overturned the president. so this court has shown a willingness to sometimes overturning precedent. casey, as one senator once said, our kind of superduper precedents, because they have been reaffirmed repeatedly, and it should make it harder for them, but that is hard for this law and is very takes it, if the court long enough, it could overturn it. host: joe joins us from lake geneva, wisconsin, republican line. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask mr. stohr, which he thinks is worse, trying to destroy the reputation of people like robert bork and
brett kavanaugh by lying about them or not to take the nomination of merrick garland at all. guest: i am not sure i am in a position to say which is worse. they are different kinds. the whole battle over the court kind of depends on where you want to start in history. one side will say well, you did that, but you did that a few years earlier, and you did that a few years earlier. thee is no question that politics of this has just ramped up over the last several decades. bork was a nomination that was very likely to shift the court to the right. ways, the last nominee to really put it out there what he believed in what he was likely to be. that candor ended up hurting him. and they opposed that, gave something by imposing that, which means they got a much less
conservative nominee, anthony kennedy, and the price that they paid for that, as well as it reflected in the caller's question, that republicans felt that robert work was not treated fairly, so they were going to top up their own efforts make sure that the next time they were fighting at least as hard if not harder than the democrats. justices likeking robert krueger. nost: you hear the phrase more suitors, and he was someone some of the new hampshire , aernor, and president bush fellow conservative, it is up not being like that at all. ae is the biggest example in that ended nominees
up disappointing their backers, and republicans in the federalist society have taken some real stuff since then to make sure that sort of thing does not happen again or . host: we will go to south carolina next, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. are the policies the same puerto rico, and is it considered abortion when cops are killing kids? what do you say to that? will let the comments stand unless you want to respond to it. guest: puerto rico, the constitution does apply there. host: obviously part of the united states. good morning. caller: good morning. a comment and a question. i think the guy who called earlier from atlanta, i think the left has try to politicize the courts just as much of the right. let them have their lists, just
like the federalist society. say it outp does not loud, but everybody knows. my question is, if we are going to add more justices to the supreme court, how will that work? will donald trump, if he wins the election, will the appoint six justices? that what was be poetic justice. this is something that the democrats -- guest: i do not think they will support it if trump wednesday reelection. host: explain the process of doing that, because it would require a change in the constitution. guest: there are a couple of different proposals that people have talked about. adding seats to the court could be done by a a couple of different statutes. the reason we have nine is because of a law passed in the 19th century, so congress could -- the tactical hurdle would be
the filibuster in the senate, and right now republican-controlled could say we have a different number of justices. buttigieg has addha different option, five appointed justices, five selected by the other 10, and that would require a change to because addition, because the constitution lays out and the senate is supposed to support the supreme court justices. host: so the chief justices would be nominated by the justices themselves? guest: i am not sure if the chief justice is part that would be selected by the other 10. host: we will go to john, republican line. roeer: yes, roe v. wade,
came out and admitted that she lied about being raped, so shouldn't roe v. wade be overturned? guest: well, if there is an actual premise that is wrong, the court has the power to have case that overturns the ruling, but it is not something that would come as a practical matter, change decisionknow, the roe has been on the books for a long time, it will rise or fall depending on what the court thinks of a future case. host: the court lives through where 10urne case, people were killed by a sniper. case,urt will take up the and explain why they decided to do so and specifically what they will argue. the underlying issue, that the supreme court has, in a series of cases, when juveniles or sentence to something like life in prison,
thees have to consider specific facts of a case to decide whether this person is so in chorus will that a life and ine is warranted, lvo has beena sentenced in both -- and virginia. the lower court said the joint district judge needs to reconsider four of the life sentences in the virginia case malvosider against mr. and whether he is the type of person who needs to change and therefore should be left in prison for his entire life without the possibility of parole. so what the supreme court is going to consider is whether they will reinstate the life
sentence without the possibility of parole, without the judge having to go back and consider the particular facts of this case. host: and again, you talked about the flowers case earlier. thecourt is not taking up issue of whether he is innocent or guilty, they are taking up the issue of what? guest: there is a ruling from the 1980's that says prosecutors cannot exclude some one from the jury because of their race, and in this case, flowers has been fifthal, this is now his time, and to open there was a mistrial, and in each case, there was a history of removing only the black jurors from the perspective jury. the question for the supreme court is in part whether that history is something they should
convictedhen he was again in the fifth case, whether that should be overturned because the prosecutor discriminated in removing black jurors from a perspective jury feared i should point out the defendant is black in this case, which is why the issue matters in how his case goes forward. host: in terms of numbers, 72 jurors had heard the case over six separate times from the 1990's. mr. flowers is still in jail, and more than 60 were white. only a handful were african american, correct? guest: correct. trial, although one of the jurors on the jury were white. one was black. the prosecutor excluded, i believe it was three other jurors who were black. the prosecutor said "i had legitimate reasons for removing all of those people," and that
is always ok, but the course will that decision and say "is that the real reason? was it really because you excluded that person because he or she had, you know, been accused of a crime before? would you have made that same decision if it were a white person?" so that is part of the analysis that a court goes through. host: and the decision coming down, we expect, sometime in june. maine,o to rick, from our last call on the democrats line with greg stohr from bloomberg. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. i do support the proposal, the thinking that we should expand the supreme court, because it seems to me that the hearing, i will be interested in hearing what your guest has to say, that mitch mcconnell holding up and refusing to even -- i cannot even think of his name at this point
-- miracle o merrick garland. caller: merrick garland to be heard when the majority of senators would have wanted to do that. that was extraordinary. -- i think that was -- i think that was unprecedented. guest: we discussed this earlier. it was unprecedented. on the other hand, we had not had a situation quite like this. there was not really a road map for this. matter, we had come to expect that when a president nominates someone, the senate would at least consider the nomination, but the stakes were high enough that senator mcconnell made the decision to do otherwise. it was actually a pretty significant gamble that he took, because it was entirely possible hillary clinton would have won the election and nominated someone even more liberal than merrick garland, but senator
mcconnell pulled it off. host: anything coming up? guest: the court will be arguing partisan gerrymandering again. gerrymanderingn cannot be challenged under the constitution, even if, in one of these cases, one party explicitly said we are doing it this way because it will give us an advantage. this is the case of north carolina. and then the final sitting, the court will hear arguments in the census case, the question of whether the administration can add a question about citizenship to the census. two lower court judges said the ministry could not do it. kind of the main event issue is whether they violated the federal law that governs administrative agencies and did not give real reasons for adding the citizenship questions. host: you have a full agenda.
greg stohr, who covers all of this for bloomberg news, supreme court reporter, thanks for stopping by. guest: my pleasure. host: it was one of the worst man-made natural disasters in the history of the country. it took place today, the exxon valdez catastrophe, 30 years ago. fromll get the perspective erica martinez. she works for e&e news. "-span's "washington journal continues. we are back in a moment. >> monday night on "the communicators," from capitol hill, democratic senator edward markey of massachusetts and republican congressman greg walden of oregon join us to talk about net neutrality, privacy, mergers, and more. walden: how strong or all debates you want to put
on the books? that is the conversation we will have. it is the states that want to get strong privacy protections to their citizens. walden: if you think about the internet, it is like a superhighway that we drive in. but if you want to get off the off ramp and go to the neighborhood you want to go in, are the searchramp providers havee enormous control over what we see, when we access it, how we access it, and i think this is right for the public square for a debate. >> watch "the communicators" monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. timenight on "q&a," to blitzer prizewinning
biographer robert caro on his book "working," in his search to find out how political power works. ,obert: we will not be spared but he has torn out the walls at the end, so it was all one big picture. he sat in the center of this big black leather chair. you look to the left of him out the window, was the robert moses bridge. if you look at the right hand side, there was the tower of robert moses state court, and there is robert moses, i want to tell you, intimidating. i will never forget, he got up, had this wonderful charm and smile, still mighty, still at the height of his power. i think he was 78 then. still at the height of his power. and he said "so you are the young fellow who thinks he is going to write a book about me."
>> robert caro tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." > >> "washington journal" continues. ericawe want to welcome martinez, the natural resources editor for e&e news. 33 years ago today, the exxon valdez spill. 257,000 barrels of oil spill, equivalent to 125 olympic oil spill's. more than 17,000 barrels recovered. 13,000 miles of shoreline impact of your 11,000 people employed by exxon within to assist in the cleanup effort. in terms of the outright deaths of the natural habitats in the region, 260,000 seabirds, 250 bald eagles, 2800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 22 killer whales, billions of salmon and
herring, to give you an example of the enormity of this disaster. guest: yep. and this day, the pacific hearing has never recovered. there were some genetic organs in prince william sound, fewer than 10 of them left. 22 of them died. it was a disaster like no one had ever seen before. host: what happened? guest: well, it was a confluence of many different factors. on march 24, 1989, just after midnight, captain hazelwood, who had been drinking earlier in the day, radioed in to say that the exxon valdez oil tanker had run aground. 11 million gallons of crude oil spilled.
a lot of things have changed since then. , right, there was no after, there was no immediate response really prepared. equipment was under piles of snow or being repaired in anchorage. it took a wild to get out there and get it cleared, and then that really exacerbated the disaster. host: and if you look at the size, the in normandy of this spill -- and the enormity of this spill, how strong was it? guest: 1300 miles of coastline. prince william sound, it is the place where the big alaska pipeline ends, it is also home to quite a huge fishing community and a big part of alaska's fishing industry. host: this map really gives you
a sense of how it spread over a two-week period. you have been up to the region more recently. what does it look like today? prince william sound is beautiful. bydez is a port surrounded majestic mountains, the water is blue color, the water life is abundant and visible. but there are still places where you can find oil on the coastline under rocks. there are deposits. you can never actually cleanup and oil spill. host: what happened to the captain of the exxon valdez? guest: he did not ultimately face criminal charges. host: and what happened to the vessel itself? , it washe vessel itself taken in for repair and renamed the exxon mediterranean. the distinction of being one of the only vessels
named, securing an act of congress to be kept out of prince william sound, so any vessel that spilled x amount of crude oil in prince william sound after march 22, 1989, could not come back into prince william sound, and that meant no matter what they renamed it. ultimately, it ran in europe for a while until it no longer met standards, and they shipped it used notia, and it was for oil for it while, and then 2012, set up in india in just for parts. host: we are dividing our phone lines regionally. we welcome your dissipation in the conversation. a look back at exxon valdez, 30 years later. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001 for those
of you in the mountain and specific time zones, and we have inine for those of you alaska. what about the immediate response by president george h.w. bush as this story began to unfold? guest: one thing that they did inte quickly relatively was the first few years settle out state and federal financial agreement with exxon. about $900ide billion for restoration and cleanup. the state of alaska and the federal government quickly started marshaling resources. there was not a great plan in place by the oil companies, but they employed, as you mentioned, , and they00 alaskans started heading out" to try and attack this spill.
it is like trying to skim the fat off the top of gravy, is how it has been described. it worked the first time but not the second. it is not really work in cold water. they tried containing it. three days in, the wind kicked started heading out. it is a massive oil spill. it gives you a sense of how deep it was. guest: i think there was an
"snl" skit, that one of the things they tried with using hot water to hose down the rocks. ed it,ort of collectiv and it killed off more than just the oil, unfortunately. host: is there an estimated price tag, how much done to the environment, the federal government? guest: at least $2 billion. billion on about $1 restoration and cleanup. is a fisherman and people of alaska, you know, is far higher. that is the court based on for decades. initially, and anchorage court awarded tens of thousands of places $5 billion, but exxon appealed that. it went all the way to the supreme court, and by just a few
years ago, the supreme court knocked it down to $500 million. let's go to chico, california. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: hello. spills.inking about oil do you know how many ships during world war ii, and they all contain crude oil? there is no chance to clean any of that up. anyhow, if you have 15 supreme court hearings, you are going to have a confirmation going on, and it is going to lead to a civil war. host: thank you. guest: did you want to respond tto that? guest: you know, you mentioned the many oil spills. oil spills have gone down to -- downdramatically
really dramatically. it had such a significant response from the federal government and ultimately the industry. i think in the 1990's, there were more than 350 large, 7 million ton plus, oil spills. through 2016, there were fewer than 60. host: what specifically did the captain hit? guest: now the way they do it, there is a series of tugboats that takes you out even further than they went then, but there is a reef, a known obstacle, there were quite a few. they were angling around to get around some ice, and the captain was not on deck. mate inut a third charge. he had been on duty for 18 hours, so he wa exhausted.
there were a lot of poor choices made that night. host: leo, good morning. thank you for waiting. caller: thanks for taking my call. good morning. and what to ask you, what do you think will be the legacy of richard nixon considering he signed the clean water act, he signed the clean air act, he signed a law of bringing in the environmental protection act. the reason why i ask this question is because the media news is soiled this weekend with comparingr report, trump to richard nixon and terms of impeachment, so what is your impression of richard nixon? host: i also want to point out the creator of the epa, signed it into law in 1971. guest: yes, he was the first person to sign major environmental legislation into the united states. obviously, that is a legacy that stands today and is obviously
probably overshadowed a bit by his having to step down, you know. it is hard to say. joiningt's go to kim, us from massachusetts, good morning. caller: hi. good morning. thank you, erica, for keeping this important message alive. this event, i remember this very well. very sad. i just want to make a comment aside from a thank you, but it is interesting that the ployting lloyd of -- of, i think it is proctor and gamble, i think it i dawn dish liquid, the user for cleaning up oily creatures. host: did that make a difference? yes, fromll remember, the 1980's, that dawn cleans oils off of birds.
it is something they used, but still hundreds of thousands of birds still died. host: go ahead, kim. caller: thank you. host: did you want to follow up? wanted to sayjust thank you and it is an interesting question. host: let's go to bill -- whereas in sisten switzerland? caller: i am a crew member of the salvage vessel based out of the story in oregon, which is vesseld salvaged from exxon valdez. some of my crew members were on that job, and i know what a lot about it. i want to bring up the point about the guy bringing up these salvage, who ran the salvage for on oil spills on the columbia river, by jury rigging, if you google the
your vessel salvage chief, will see all of the history about it, and many years later, they were called to be the lead salvaged ship on the exxon valdez, a very tough job, and i just wanted to bring this up because the salvage chief is now a foundation teaching youth seamanship skills, and it is being restored based out of astoria, oregon, in the case of a cascadian event, where there is a massive slip of the continental shelf. the oregon legislature is debating a bill as we speak on funding the salvage chief to bring it up to coast guard standards to use as an imagined emergency standby platform and to educate underprivileged youth in seamanship. host: thank you.
are you familiar with this? guest: i am not. it is very interesting. let's go to j in new york -- actually, kentucky. good morning. caller: hi. i was stationed in alaska for 17 years. i was in the united states coast guard, and i did a lot of work in prince william sound. and i know we trained sonsiderably on the bosvos system for recovery of oil when tenders, andbuoy as far as i know, they do that, and i know there is pre-staging equipment in prince william sound now to try to get a better grip on that if it were to happen again. another thing i want to point out as i have been sure down and hitchens broke, down on the up rocksd we picked
down there, and there is still residual oil on the beaches down there, so i cannot really think i'm a you know, we are totally out of the woods on this yet. long, longng to be a time, and it is something we are .oing to have to keep an eye on we are going to have to look at the long-term effects of what happened down there. that is pretty much all i have to say. thank you. .ost: thank you, guest: prince william sound has an advisory council of citizens that plan for spells. they have changed the way they stage them, the way they export ships out of prince william sound, the with a track ships as they leave, but as the caller said, yes, there is still oil on the beaches, and it will
probably be there for white sometime -- quite some time. host: how much money is used for , $10fund, 1 trillion? guest: the oil spill on? $6.5 billion. host: $6.5 billion. guest: yes. prior to the spill, there was not a new method for digging into it, and they had to pass a new law for that. host: we will go to anthony in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the discussion. the last caller, yes, the degradation to the planet, i do not think we will ever heal. it is just a slow decline, and the ramifications, especially the extraction, it is only 120, 130 years old since we
discovered oil. evolving,en slowly and it is growing our environment at the same time. i remember the valdez, there was a lot of windowdressing that occurred. there were some audiotapes that came to light after the fact, where they were putting skimmers out there that did not actually work, and they were just trying to make it look like they were cleaning up the disaster that it was. i think it was, the gulf of mexico, there was that well that they could not was involved,on dick cheney, the former executive. what about nuclear waste? what occurred in japan is polluting the water, and you cannot shut that valve off. we cannot see it, touch it, or put a handle on it, but we are in trouble as far as the immense amount of pollution that is being created by nuclear energy, although it is exposed to be
this clean form of energy. but there is no way, if you are caring it long-term in the environment. it is going to be destroying life as we know it, and i think this exxon valdez is something to be discussed and the destruction that the oil industry has caused to this planet. my understanding is this reactor burns 600 times hotter than the sun, so what does that weigh into the equation as far as global climate change? i realize this is maybe off-topic -- host: [laughs] yes, let me maybe stop you there, because we are off-topic. my guess is erica martinson, graduate of catholic university, earned her master's in journalism at nyu. next up is margaret from texas, good morning. caller: good morning.
i am 91 years old, so i remember all of these oil spills that we have had. i think this is a great program, reminding us what also fuels due to the environment. you know, down in the gulf -- because i live in texas -- even onugh you cannot see the oil top of the water, it is on the bottom of the ocean, and it is destroying the natural life on the bottom of the ocean. it is still affecting all of the sea life down there. i mean, it is a terrible situation. i know that even bp is stressing how green it is going, you know, ,ow it is showing wind turbines because this is -- i mean even the fossil fuel industry realizes that they are in their last days, really. people want to live in a clean, sustainable environment. are providing more jobs, like they did, last jobsthey provided more
then any of the job occurring in the fossil fuels industry. it is not just all of these young people today, and thank god for these young people. host: margaret, thank you for the call. your response. guest: thank you. you know, it is worth noting that anywhere where we have a oilof oil shipping and drilling, especially in the ocean, there are issues. ,ost: let's go to john calling from colorado springs. good morning. caller: good morning. i am very interested in this subject. when i was growing up in albany, new york, i was actually part of cleaning up these spills just out of high school. my cousins had a pollution
control company, and we deployed the balloons and had vacuum firsthand oilsaw and fuel in many different pollutants on the hudson river. uh, i was not until, ll that you uh, bi mentioned earlier that we started cleaning it up, and i, as a young boy, used to go canoeing on the hudson river, and we would one day see a red dye in there, and another day have a foul odor. and of course we were not conscious of these pollutants and what they could do to our health, and we were swimming in it and playing in it. it was absurd. as we talk about -- and then
coincidentally, a lot of my the queens --o down in maritime college in new york, i think it was kings point it was located, so i had friends then, as time went on, driving , and my best friend was a captain, and he would tell me stories and how eventually we this --ore conscious of of the fact that these pollutants were devastating our environment. host: cap we, though? guest: quite a bit. the exxon valdez spill actually prompted congress to act.
they established strict, punitive penalties for companies few still oil, and quite a .ore environments for shipping they required a 25-year phase in tankers becomeinkles becom double hulled. host: and that was a significant change. what? hulled means guest: it means there is a next her wall thereguest:. -- guest: it means there is an extra wall there. recently, a norwegian tanker had a similar crash in the gulf of mexico. it was double hulled. it ripped on the outside. nothing spilled. host: let's go to and loving it.
good morning. caller: good morning. wonderful conversation. one anecdote in a couple of comments. i vividly remember this like a piece of music. i do not know if a lot of people do that. i was thinking about what was going to be my first vacation in 1989 in as many years, went to europe. time, theret that was no computers, and the phone was this big, clunky thing. brat, and i was lucky, i stayed in one of the towns in france, and there was a nice post that we would get daily from paris, "the herald tribune," "the usa today," and that was my treat. and low and behold -- never member, it is a day or two old.
i have been there a few days, and is big, ugly picture, i am in this quaint little town in france, and my heart just tried to stop. guest: this is probably one of the most televised natural disasters that we have had to date. it is really something that stuck with a lot of people, because those images made it out and lasted a while. we all remember them cleaning the birds or hosing off the shoreline or cleaning rocks and what this did to really a pristine environment. host: erica martinson, who was with e&e as a natural resources editor, on this, the 30th anniversary of the exxon valdez oil spill, thank you so much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: we are going to take a short break and come back with more of your calls and reaction to the mueller report. what is next? for democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001, and for independents, (202) 748-8002
. a quick break, and we are back. the "washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. >> monday night on "the communicators," from capitol hill, democratic senator edward markey of massachusetts and greglican congressman walden of oregon join us to talk about net neutrality, privacy, mergers, and more. markey: how strong are all of the debates you want to put on the books? that is the conversation we will have. and m it is the states that want to get strong privacy protections to their citizens. rep. walden: if you think about the internet, it is like a superhighway that we drive down. will what really happens is eventually you want to take the
off ramp and go to the neighborhood you want to go in, the off ramp are the search engines, facebook, google, and some of the other providers have enormous control over what we see, when we access it, how we access it, and i think this is right for the public square for a debate. >> watch "the communicators" monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> tonight on "q&a," two-time pulitzer prize-winning biographer robert caro on his book "working," and his search to find out how political power works. robert: we went up thsese stairs to his rather modest college, but he had torn out of the walls at the end, so it was all one big picture. he sat in the center of this big black leather chair. if you look to the left of him out the window, was the robert
moses bridge. the robert moses wa causeway. if you look at the right hand side, there was the tower of robert moses state park, and there is robert moses, i want to tell you, intimidating. i tell you, i will never forget, he got up, had this wonderful charm and smile, tough old guy, still mighty, still at the height of his power. i think he was 78 then. still at the height of his power. and he said "so you are the young fellow who thinks he is going to write a book about me." >> robert caro tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: the mueller report now in the hands of the attorney general. the headline from "politico,"
congress waits another day for mueller's findings. we did get to tweets from the president, basically saying good greatg and "make america ." nn is calling from bar harbor. we findi think whatever from president trump and his businesses and his campaign involvements with russia, i think what we really have to look at is why americans are so susceptible to being influenced in that way, because i think the report coming out of other places in europe where people aren't, they will say , andthat is the russians the american people are so gullible. and the question of how much costs, i would like to
compare that to how much money we have paid to trump tower during the transition, how much we have pay for the agents, security for the president, you for using hisrump card and his family. what is next is 2020, and hopefully before then, i would like to see the president voted out, but to do that, we have to get rid of all of the republican voter suppression. host: thank you for the call. this is the story from the "washington post," the political showdown from the russian investigation could reshape the remainder of president trump's term, which began in earnest saturday even before the special counsel's conclusions were known to the public. democrats demanding transparency and vowing to intensify their own probe. his attorneys and aids were clouded by uncertainty
because they did not yet know the content of robert mueller's report, and attorney general bill barr spent saturday privately reviewing. the president in viewing optimism all playing golf, lunching at the clubhouse, and chatting with friends. he also exhibited uncharacteristic caution, refrain from publicly crowing that the witchhunt was over. report could still contain damaging information for the president, and his legal troubles are far from over with separate investigations into the president's businesses, the inaugural committee, and the case is continuing both in new york and capitol hill. and so writes "washington post," the move among democrats was tense and urgent, the calls for caution from trump's attorneys did not seem to reach the ears of his allies who took a victory lap on the president's behalf.
(202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. if findings are released, we will make them available at her website, c-span.org. for now, mums the word on the mueller report. good morning. where are you calling from? go ahead, caller, you are on the air. caller: i am calling from manchester in the u.k. host: we turn your television down a bit? caller: and my speaking loud enough for you as it stands now? host: we can hear you, go ahead. caller: i will just turn this television down a bit. host: are you still with us?
go next to bill joining us from wisconsin. good morning. caller: hi. how are you doing? i finally got through. host: we are glad to hear from you, bill. what is next for the mueller report, speaking as a republican, what do you think? caller: first, want to say you are a gentleman and i really on this you program. all i want to say is nobody ours up the part about great president donald trump, he never accepts a paycheck. he donates to charity or whatever. that is all i want to say. i think he is the greatest president ever. thank you. the president tweeting this makeing at 8:02 a.m. " america great again." bob is up next from broken bow,
oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. like to address america. i think our biggest problem is somehow we have not been caught what i qualities are. -- taught what high qualities are, honesty, integrity, and the. i do not see trump exhibiting hardly any high qualities. he exhibits low qualities. we all know what those are -- lying, cheating, womanizing. what we need to look at in this country is what is right and what is wrong. and don't praise someone for being a liar. host: thanks for the call. we go to mark in green bay, wisconsin, democrats line. good morning, mark. caller: hi, good morning. thanks for taking my call.
i question the significance of the mueller report. what is it going to prove? i mean, we already know that trump is not a leader of a country. anyone that makes fun of a person with a disability on a global stage, i mean, we all know what trump is, so what is this report going to disclose? information that we already know. that is what irks me. we are stewing over this mueller report like it is going to disclose some information, and it is not. trump is who he is. host: from the "new york times," how much is the mueller report going to cost? a series of questions. estimated $25 million, according to the "new york times," and part of that was directly spent by mueller's team.
once the special counsel's office submits its final list of expenses. joining us on the democratic line, ben, good morning. good morning. thank you for taking my call. the ag report is only going to be a summary, and it is only going to be what the law provides. the one we really have to wait for is the attorney general -- or the inspector general's report. that will tell you what really happened, because that will look at both sides, not just one. thank you. host: thank you. let's go next to richie joining us from spring hill, florida. hello, richie. caller: yes, i would like to say that the deal about the mueller report worrying about the messing up our u elections, i look at the whole thing with the last 30 years, america has been interfering
with all of these countries all of the world, and all of a sudden it is a big deal that the russians are trying to interfere with our elections. it is a big fake deal. host: more from the "new york times," could william barr declined to release information from the mueller report? declined to release anything that is classified, he could also keep information from the public that is relevant to ongoing investigation, and there could over anying battle information the white house claims is confidential between the president and his advisers. next up is stephen from sarasota, florida. good morning. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. what i would like to say is i appreciate neutrality on all of these discussions. bothhing i have noticed i amemocrat party, surprised there is nothing from
the democratic party, i would like it will time, maybe a debate, every topic, a 30-minute debate from both sides, and then come back to it a few days later. if every topic such as this has a debate with both sides, i think it would help us in this country, and keep it very neutral. i do not like what hillary has done, i do not like everything trump has done. neither party is perfect, but i do believe we are one nation. host: thank you, steve. also from the "new york times," can congress subpoenas the report? the answer is yes, congress can subpoena almost anything it wants, but that does not mean congress will be successful. what comes next is likely to be complicated. the justice department might be unwilling to hand over classified or grand jury information, even under subpoena. congress could sue to try to enforce its demand, then it would be up to the courts who decides who gets to see
what. joining us from georgia on the republican line. you get the last word. caller: yes, i am appalled at y fromf the idiotic o people calling. it is a shame that we live in an era with so much technology, but people are so stupid. and set of taking a look at what in the last two years, that he has accomplished more than what any democratic party has ever done in the last 20 years, so i think it is high time that the democrats open up their eyes, learn what is right, that, hey, life is very special. killing a baby is not special. and it seems like the party is so far left that they are in outer space, and it is a shame that our country has gone this way.
host: paul, thank you for your call from georgia. just to update you, is there is a summary that is released by the department of justice and attorney general william barr, we will come back on the air without information during the course of the day. we will also post it on our website on c-span.org of the sue heard on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern time and all of our programming is available at c-span.org. we are back with another edition of your washington journal and reaction to the mueller report and what is next for the administration. newsmakers is next. thank you for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend ahead. ♪
>> here is a look at what is coming up. next, newsmakers with tom perez, chair of the democratic national committee. he talks about the field of democratic presidential candidates. the parties convention in milwaukee and candidate debates. after that, outgoing commissioner scott gottlieb reviews his tenure at the agency, including developments in tobacco and nicotine regulations. rule of governing and drug testing on animals. 12:30 p.m. eastern, democratic presidential candidate senator kiersten gillibrand delivers a speech to supporters outside of trump international hotel in new york city. tonight on q and a, two time pulitzer prize winning
biographer on his book, working. and his search to find a how political power works. he went up the stairs and had torn out the walls at the end so that it was all one big picture. thist in the center of big, black leather chair. if you look out to the robert mosys for his -- if you look out to the left, there is the robert mosys bridge. i want to tell you, it is intimidating. i will never forget that he got up and had this wonderful, charming smile. a tough, old guy. still mighty, still at the height of his power at 78. he said so you are the young
fellow who thinks he is going to write a book about me. at 8:00 eastern on c-span plus q&a. once, tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to the washington policy, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's idea is more relevant today than ever. it is a nonpartisan coverage of washington that was funded as a public service by your cable or
satellite provider. unfiltered view of government by television and online. so you can make up your own mind. >> now, newsmakers with democratic national committee chair tom perez. our interview with mr. perez was recorded on friday, before it was announced that robert mueller had completed his investigation into rush upon involvement in the -- russia's involvement in the 2016 u.s. election. this is just over 30 minutes. >> newsmakers is pleased to welcome tom perez. he served as the secretary of labor during the obama administration. thank you for being our guest. two political reporters will be asking questions.