tv Washington Journal 11102019 CSPAN November 10, 2019 7:00am-10:02am EST
opposition to lengthy overseas military operations. jess morales rocketto and then super majority co-founderjess morales rocketto joins us to talk about women's impact on campaign 2020. washington journal is next. ♪ good morning. the house returns this week. the senate also in session in a story that will be dominating the headlines. the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, public hearings. this is the fourth time in our country's history that a sitting u.s. president faced impeachment by the house of representatives. in two of those cases, the senate failing to convict. the third, richard nixon resigning before the final vote. be watching this week? what do you expect to transpire? , that's online
for democrats. (202) 748-8001 is online for republicans. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-0003. be sure to tell us your first name and where you are texting from. be sure the you are not driving. send us a tweet at c-span wj -- send us a tweet @cspanwj. we want to begin with the front page story of "the washington post," focusing on the republican strategy as hearings get underway this wednesday and friday. "republicans trying to steer the inquiry away from president trump. house republicans on saturday pressing ahead with their efforts to move the impeachment inquiry away from president trump, calling on democrats to add witnesses to the probe, and theg hunter biden whistleblower, whose initial complaint kicked off the investigation --
for democrats. they need to make the case. no quid pro quo has been the trump rally mantra. democrats have william taylor and george kent, state department officials who have given compelling testimony, according to democrats, as well as the linkage to the vikings. friday we have the ousted chief ambassador to the ukraine, maria ovich. its -- marie yvonne of what we have seen so far is republicans trying to make this an issue about hunter biden. adam schiff is rejecting that. we will see that talking pressure from republicans continuing in the days headed up to this hearing. host: it really is this intersection of two events.
public impeachment inquiry, the potential of a government shutdown. to have been reporting on this as well. what have you learned in recent days and what, potentially, could happen? there is talk of december 13. initially, richard shelby, the incorporators in charge of the issue, talked about kicking the can to february or march. we don't see congress having the bandwidth to deal with media spending -- with spending and impeachment. nancy pelosi says this is the let's try. it done, floated the idea of a short-term resolution to continue to try to talk. the problem still remains to be that remains trump's border wall ,- the problem still remains
trump's border wall, it's a real obstacle. democrats do not want to pay for this. allowing a little bit more money , but preventing future transfers. it could be a more calm or stable environment. in terms of an speech and -- in terms of impeachment inflaming everything, it will be difficult. host: is there the possibility that we could see the president forcing a government shutdown just at the time these public hearings are reaching a nexus? thought the president would not be impeached, then this ukraine matter to me by surprised. engaged innt becomes actions that keep surprising the pundits. there's a possibility. republicans tell me that would be foolish.
his numbers are in jeopardy. he didn't benefit from the previous government shutdown. the 35 day at the beginning of the year did not include the pentagon or other agencies, because the government was artie half funded. this year there is no funding bill that has been passed. it would be a much bigger scale shutdown. republicans feel this would be damaging to the president and he wouldn't gain the border wall money. he was only able to fund it through a contentious act of shifting money around. host: we are talking with erik wasson, who covers capitol hill for limburg news. news.esident -- bloomberg addressedtrump reporters yesterday. [video clip] >> it should be public. what i said, it was misreported as usual. i said there shouldn't be anything. impeachmentn't be
hearings. i say read the transcript. it's all about the transcript. they are having people, i have never even heard of some of these people, i don't know who they are. by the way, it's all thirdhand knowledge. regardless of what anyone says, read the transcript. they want to have a transcript of the second call. i'm willing to provide that. we will probably give it to you by tuesday. another one coming out that is very important. they ask for it and i grip -- i gladly give it. there has never been it president this transparent. it's a witchhunt. here's the deal, read the transcript. read the call. now i will give you a second transcript. i had two calls with the president of ukraine. you will tell me if you think anything is wrong with it.
never in history has anybody gone through this. it's a witchhunt and it should never happen to another president. host: that's president trump. he spoke to reporters yesterday. erik wasson, i want to go back to what the white house had to say about the transcript. it was a verbatim, it was a that's, correct? guest: right. lieutenant colonel lindemann talks about how in this memo, there were words left out, other references that he tried to get back into the memo. ellipses inlot of this. it's not a verbatim transcript. the other issues that democrats have a transcript that shows what they are talking about. president talks about the president of ukraine doing a favor for the u.s..
republicans say that the part about the favor comes earlier in the transcript. democrats say that with witnesses testifying that they went and told ukraine that there would be linkage between the aid thethe biden investigation, phone call and policy limitation matching, there was a linkage. trump continues to say read the transcript. democrats say that that is their strongest piece of evidence. calendarking about the , the hearing begins this week on wednesday. congress in session. then we move into thanksgiving and the december christmas holiday. what are we expecting a terms of the timeline for the next six to that's ans? guest: important question. the previous impeachments you mentioned took place in the house judiciary committee. with the clinton impeachment, referred his
investigation to the judiciary committee, where they examined it. in this case we have the intelligence committee performing the role of fact-finding. there is going to be a limited role of the president to participate. that is going to change in the house judiciary committee. there will be an opportunity for himself,dent to defend present evidence that would clear him. at that point the house judiciary committee markup, it will probably be multi-day and televised. that is going to be a very important decision for house democrats. are they going to try to bring in the mother investigation. allegations that trump has emoluments,om the of all -- a violation of the constitution. and if not, why not? some say that if you don't, you are basically saying the mueller matter was not impeachable. house democrats tell me they are going to try to stay focused on
the ukraine matter. when mueller testified, it was what -- widely viewed as a dud for democrats. the house democrats are going to move into judiciary committee hearing the markups. we are looking at and him peach schmidt vote on the floor by christmas. that appears to be the general feeling. that could slip into january, is the timeline i am seeing january. it's another opportunity for the president and his lawyers to present the case and read much more like a courtroom trial. the senators will be at their desks acting as a jury. every day except sunday until the matter is resolved. host: erik wasson of bloomberg news, thank you for being with us on this sunday, we appreciate this. guest: thank you, steve.
cover the one oracle entire process, gavel to gavel as it unfolds. we have a page set up at c-span.org/impeachment that is basically gathering all of the information on the inquiry. you can check it out anytime. now to your phone calls and the story that we will be the missing on this week, the wednesday hearings getting underway. republicans trying to steer the inquiry away from president trump. "the washington post," writing the following -- host: on our facebook page, mark
what was that about? has the president been impeached or not? the inquiry began the formal process that included a series of formal closed-door hearings. members of congress and that committee responding to what's been happening behind closed doors. the public phase gets underway this week. the articles of impeachment will be drafted by the house judiciary committee and they will then go to the full house for a vote by the house of .epresentatives if congress approves, it goes to the senate for a trial which, , isrding to erik wasson likely to take place sometime in early in january. it's a series of steps in the public phase that are getting underway this week. lily, joining us next from niagara falls. good morning. good morning.
i'm nervous, but this is the first time. i'm a first-time caller. i just want to know -- or why did president trump even call ukraine? he called them to congratulate him. and then he took it to a whole level. -- whole other if he hadn't made the call, this wouldn't be happening. i think he started the whole ball rolling. i think he's corrupt. he had corrupt intent. and now he's going to have to pay for it. host: thank you for the call. this is from lisa simmons -- host: that, from lisa on our facebook age. this --s
when president trump was the winner, they said they had to impeach him or he would win again. al green said that. stormy daniels. remember, everybody. as soon as the information came out about russia, he's gone. everybody stopped talking about that. now it is the phone call, the phone call. you might not have gotten every single perfect word of the phone call, but the general gist of the phone call was there. what did he say? he said hey i would like you to look into some possible corruption with the bidens. that is legal, that is what you are supposed to do. if you want a quid pro quo, it was when biden on television sons oft he told the guns that if they didn't look into the lawyer -- host: let's deal with the facts. he did not make reference to his son in that case. as you rightly point out, he mentioned the u.s. withheld aid.
we need to be clear, i just want to deal with the facts. in that case he was talking about the pressure from european countries and the obama administration to get rid of what they called a corrupt solicitor in the ukraine. it had nothing to do with his son in his comments. the solicitor was the one looking into biden's son. they got rid of him. that was one of the things of corruption he was looking into. i will end it on this thing. the greatest thing the democrats can do is what they are doing now. the average person is so fed up with them. they don't past ills on the table. they don't pass the trade bill. they don't do anything on immigration. it's the greatest thing. trump is going to win in a landslide. these people, they never stop. what did they say? we had better impeach him or he is going to win again? have a great day. master bill taylor, coming
wednesday morning to testify. live coverage gets underway on c-span three at 10:00 eastern time. you can listen to it live on c-span radio, stream it on the web at c-span.org. the house and senate will be in session at the same time. you can watch on c-span three and on the other c-span platforms and it will of course reenter in the primetime schedule. willy is joining us on the independent line from annapolis, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. gentlemanening to the defending trump, sometimes i tche,him little dud because he reminds me of him. what this man is doing is more serious than what bill clinton did. it's about espionage. it's a serious matter.
why are the republicans doing this? it's deeper than we think. certain members of the republican party are in it as much as trump. seems like when the shoe is on the other foot, the republicans do more squealing. when it was bill clinton, they were fools to move ahead. that is what i have to say. host: thank you for the call. we will have live coverage this week on c-span two, on the web, and on c-span radio. the ambassador for step by the trump administration will be telling her story live this a.m. eastern time, all of it available on her homepage. you can find all the information related to the impeachment inquiry and president trump. i have a question.
what's the definition of a thetleblower? host: definition of a whistleblower? it dates back to the 1700s and it allows anyone in the government to be protected to point out wrongdoing. -- to be protected for pointing out wrongdoing. what is your point? .aller: to be protected i work for the federal government. they are to be protected in their employment. not in their anonymity. up have a man who is heading ,n investigation, adam schiff who is saying that this man needs to be protected. his anonymity needs to be protected. he's a cia analyst, is he not? host: that is what they reported. they are not releasing his name. >> that's fine, you don't have to release it.
the drudge report released it. my point is, don't play games with anonymity. other whistleblowers didn't get anonymity. this person does not deserve anonymity. especially since he got information secondhand and possibly that information was stuff that should not have been given to him. think theou information, the role of the whistleblower, is still relevant when you have people on the account who are cooperating -- corroborating what was reported in july? caller: i'm trying to finish my thought. host: sure. caller: my point is when you try to bend the law to cover a whistleblower through anonymity, this should be dismissed in the senate. and of story. have a nice morning. let's go toost: tony, joining us from clifton. good morning, tony. couple of quick
things. first, what we know and what has been revealed through the depositions is clear. donald trump has committed an impeachable offense. it is almost unbelievable, no to to too low to go defend the sky. disparage anybody. out the whistleblower, break any law, it doesn't matter. it's amazing that we went from eight years of a president who was decent, intelligent, thoughtful, always talked about the decency and goodness of americans. naively, i think. now to someone who is breathtakingly ignorant, dangerous lee -- dangerously in a, unfit to be in office, people defend him no matter what. it tells you it's not about facts or truth. it's about this notion that somehow a certain number of white people believe that white
people are victims and donald trump makes them feel good about it. thanks. this is from john -- host: on the republican line, janet, ohio. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: well, i just want to tell you that i'm going from wisp -- whistleblower to whistle -- whistleblower to whisper for 2020. host: and that means what? caller: exactly what i said. host: doug, good morning. caller: good morning. this is a big scam, like the rush investigation was.
they are just bringing in witnesses, like they did in the kavanaugh hearings. everything they are trying to accuse trump of his everything that happened under the obama administration. just going to empower him even more on the 2020 election. host: thank you, doug. carolyn, democrats line. the hearing is this week. will you be watching? caller: yes, i will. host: your thoughts about the inquiry? it is prettynk well lined up. well organized. i think they have enough to impeach him. i don't understand why it wouldn't be. , it'slearly, you know clearly an event, a breach of power. we have got to put a stop to in mean it he and
stuff, this total immunity for everybody. i mean, he thinks he can do anything he wants. it's got to be stopped. the powers, the senate, i mean the congress, the judiciary and the executive. if you don't have that, you don't have a democracy. he's making a mockery of the whole thing. that's all i had to say, i guess. host: thank you for the call. a perspectivey," from democratic and republican staffers, including this poll, ans the president committed impeachable offense"? online.at's available this is a text message from lone
patriot, in florida. let's go to steve, joining us from corpus christi, texas. good morning. caller: people keep hollering about this whistleblower thing. impeachment, he didn't get impeached, but nobody knows who deep throat was. the guy is supposed to be protected. on this thing where they keep that ukraine was doing , joe joe biden or whatever biden's son and all of this and stuff. those, those people have already
corroborated what the whistleblower has stated to congress. they are saying that, you know, those are career people. career people. these people have worked in different administrations. bush, obama, trump. trump is making a mockery of the united states. the republicans are going to go along with him. they all have a monkey up there as long has -- as long as he has behind his name. it's plain extortion. if you don't understand someone extorting somebody, god, what else can you do? he actually can go out on pennsylvania avenue and shoot somebody and they would justify that, to. host: thank you for the call.
this is from tina, saying -- host: a look at the cover of "cq weekly." what nbc news reporting on the gop wants in terms of its requests. it was sent yesterday to the chair of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff, who is undertaking the hearings this week, beginning on wednesday. this headline, "gop wants hunter biden and the whistleblower to testify." gop has demand that the identified -- identity of the whistleblower be revealed. chiff calling it --
host: more details at nbc news.com. julie, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have an interesting remark to preface my comment. the voter a few minutes ago talking about whisper, she's talking about a woman who phoned in three weeks ago from california who said that there are several people who are trump supporters but are very reluctant to say so in public, in the workplace, for fear of retribution. i'm not sure if that's what it was. maybe it is just spreading that term, if you will. the whisperers. here's my point. william golfed and, from the brookings institution, was on a panel.
yesterday. i'm sure that you are familiar with who he is. they watched these polls closely. the panel was on the politics of this current situation in the impeachment hearing. and that the polls have actually risen in the population among independents who are swing voters who do not want to see this president impeached. if you want to go through other polls, very quickly, if i could approvalgress has an rating of 12%, 13%? the mainstream media has an even lower approval rating. i think this is going to backfire on the democrats. i think they are painting themselves into a corner and this is nothing but a failed attempt to try to persuade public opinion that president donald trump committed a crime. a high crime and misdemeanor. there was an article a few weeks ago called "of urging --
subversion of the constitution." if anything, he was wrong and what he did in his judgment is to be questioned, but if anything this could be what they call maladministration. his is a central point in entire administration from the day the trump was elected. he is the antithesis of a politician. he doesn't operate in a government fashion and i think this is going to backfire on the democrats. i think that president trump will win in a landslide. even just recently there were numerous articles in "the new york times," about how he could win the electoral college with even less of the popular vote. million, now he could lose it by 5 million winningbut with overwhelmingly in the swing states. host: which is why the national polls don't really mean a whole
lot. you want to find out the polling in pennsylvania, ohio, florida, michigan, new hampshire. those are the states that will determine. arizona. a number of them will determine whether or not the president is reelected based on the electoral college. julie, thank you for the call. this from clinton -- "the washington monthly," 50 years old. charlie peters, the legendary writer behind the magazine takes a look at 50 years in the latest edition available online. on the newsmakers program, our guest this week is thatcher leahy, a democrat from vermont, talking about how congress will deal with impeachment and other matters. "newsmakers" ayers after "washington journal at 10 a.m. rs aftertime -- ai
"washington journal" at 10 a.m. eastern time. here's a portion of that conversation. [video clip] >> at the same time, spending bills will be going through mid-december at some point. can you explain how it will be possible to compromise on appropriations legislation in the middle of impeachment vote? >> i think we can chew gum and walk at the same time. we did a lot of things during the clinton impeachment. we can get all of these things done. what i think is a critical meeting next week of , congresswoman granger and myself.
i think it will give us a path forward. though,the big mistake, to go basically to your question , it would be a big mistake if we don't get these things done before christmas. if we go to a continuing into next spring, for example, then you are so much in the presidential election. a lot of that is just going to continue that way. a lot of our social programs will be hurt attlee. a lot of our defense programs will be hurt badly. that is the thing that is bringing quietly in the cloaks cloak-- quietly in the rooms conservatives and moderates together. i think it can be done. i sure hope can. senator patrick leahy is ."r guest on "newsmakers he is the former chair of the
senate judiciary committee. "newsmakers" is available on the free c-span radio app and anytime on c-span.org. vivian has this -- host: from lexington, kentucky, republican line. good morning. caller: did you say betty? host: betty, i believe? caller: i'm an independent. i think trump needs to go. he's a lying, thieving crook. can't see his taxes. he thinks because he has money,
he has power and that he can take the power and do whatever he wants to do with it. like the other gentleman said, he could shoot a man on the street today and nothing would be done to him. something needs to be done. just like his tv show, someone needs to look at him and say "you're fired or con host: thank you, betty. tomorrow is a veterans day, the 11th day, the 11th month, the 11th hour, commemorating the end of world war i and we commemorate all the veterans who -- and celebrate their service to the country. this from "the new york times." "what we left behind, -- the soldiers we left behind." we will have live coverage at the arlington national cemetery and at the tomb of the unknown, getting underway tomorrow morning. stanley is joining us on the --ublican line from lao bill
lowville, pennsylvania. , each ofn the polls those top four democrats are shown beating president trump head2head. where i look are the true pools. i haven't looked at them since 1980. the only time the betting favor won was 92. trump is odds on to beat any and all of them at the next election. you don't hear nothing about that. host: stanley, thank you for the call. dumont, joining us from high rim , georgia. good morning. good morning, sir. thanks for taking my call. i'm really surprised at all the support the republicans are giving to this man. it just goes to confirm that it's all about race.
matter if it was mickey mouse up there. as long as it's a white man, he does no wrong. thank you for taking my call. thank you. we go to rob, joining us from sullivan, indiana. good morning. caller: trump is a pathological liar, a hypocrite, corrupt, a womanizer and a traitor to this country. d onhe's an arrogant bastar top of that and he always has been. he needs to go and i don't care how we do it. host: thank you for the call. paul is joining us. republican mine, good morning. paul, are you with us?
i'm here. good morning. let me tell you when this is going to fall apart. number one, summit is going to raise the defense act, which requires the president of the united states to withhold funds from ukraine after certifying that corruption has been eliminated in the country. the democrats can yell until they are blue in the face about withholding funds. really what he is doing is what he is required to do by law. the other point where this is going to fall apart, for these people are asked to look at the transcript and identify where in the transcript a real quid pro quo was given, when those memos were being paid for by ukraine from their own taxes and has nothing to do with appropriation from congress or the united states.
intonvestigation corruption in the ukraine is public knowledge. biden's son is public knowledge. you mean that trump can't tell me that "i read in the wall street journal that hunter biden was part of influence peddling "? joe biden give me a break. host: thanks for the call. this comment -- tweet, @cspanwj. this headline about frozen ukrainian aid, writing "house are building a case that president trump attempted to extort a foreign leader desperately needed
military assistance to ukraine unless there was an investigation into trump's rivals. but a key part of this remains a mystery. frustrating their efforts to prove one of the more damaging charges against trump, how has a president ordered to freeze $400,000 handled at the highest levels of the administration? what reasons were given, if any, to any senior budget official who implemented the abrupt freeze? despite the blind and hasty retraction by mick mulvaney -- blindside and hasty retraction by mick mulvaney, uncertainty deepened over time. time." julie, oregon, good morning. we have mail in ballots. that's the answer to voting to ensure a fair election. i watched c-span.
lately i have been watching the house of representatives and the senate channel. the senate makes me so mad. they do nothing. al they do all day long is point these judges. a lot of them are not even qualified to the position. that should be against the law. they are not doing anything when they have 200 bills on mitch mcconnell's desk. gun safety. climate. everything, voter election security. they don't ring one bill. all day long they do nothing and it is in. into me. what are they doing in the senate? that's all i'm saying. thanks.lie, you can watch all the long on c-span, c-span.org, or use the free c-span radio app. good morning, dawn.
caller: good morning to you. scribbling for mute. there we go. -- scrambling for mute. there we go. i think we are experiencing a full-court press, a sophisticated media blitz intended to sway public opinion. everyone knows that, right? oh when i listen to call her after caller, day after day, they just swallow it. i want people to at least look at this one aspect of how the media is framing this whole ukraine phone call issue. the framing,way the constant use of the words political rival, for one. aump looking for dirt on political rival. that has morphed a little bit, but that should always be a red flag whenever the talking heads in the media is in unison.
let that make you skeptical. joe biden is not much of a rival. we know that. i was traveling all of september. any of his rallies, it they are not tell a five -- televised. he's not able to construct coherent sentences. we know that, right? biden is not a viable rival. ad nausea with her that trump did this with ukrainian president and is looking for to it on a political rival. i say no, no, no. are, i hope for trump, i hope that what he really needs third on -- it is legitimate, is the coup. the neoconservative to against ukraine in 2004 and five. beginning in 2003 during the sochi olympics. my god, viewers. have some institutional memory. we can remember this, right?
biden's son got on the gravy train of the imf money. billions. read some news outside of "the post" and the times -- "the post" and "the times." we have legitimate reason to wonder what happened in ukraine. are in fact covering the former vice president, as well as the democratic and republican candidates. you can go to our website to see all of the events that we have covered with all of the candidates online. just wanted to clarify that one point. are you still with us? hung up. by the way, we were in new hampshire earlier this week on the campaign trail with senator michael bennet, democrat of colorado. with joe conversation sestak of pennsylvania, getting underway this afternoon at 3:30
eastern time. the schedule is available on our website. all part of our campaign 2020 coverage. we hope that you watch and turn in. steve has this point about .eterans day, tomorrow "a day set aside to honor those in the military. in war or peace. not my call, but things heated up regularly at checkpoint charlie and they earned this day of honor. we will again have live coverage to commemorate "veterans day -- commemorate veterans day tomorrow. the president will be in new york city tomorrow and tomorrow in the morning we will also focus on veterans issues. as well as today with dan caldwell, joining us at the top of the hour. jim, good morning. will you be watching the hearings this week? caller: have i been? host: will you be?
they haven't been public yet. yes, sir. i try to involve myself to that extent. i have a question for you. i want attorneys to hone in on this one. what codified law are they going to use to impeach this man? being a pathological liar, being , or even the collusion issue that arose with russia, i want to know where the codified law is that they are going to use to impeach him. because there is none -- if there is none, haven't heard of any, i'm not sure where they are going with this. if there is none, there is nothing to impeach him with. high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't apply. they are going off of tangents, laws.ng in the media new
all of a sudden this is a violation of law? no it is not. if it is not codified. we have to have each element of the crime that applies. probable cause has to exist that we can meet each element. dan, thanks for the call from south carolina. some of the key players today, gordon sondland, alexander bittman, on the white house national security council, who came to the u.s. at the age of three from the ukraine. injured in the war in iraq. fiona hill, former national security council deputy assistant. saying that the president sought a favor from the ukrainian leader. this headline from "the new york times," "republicans argue the impeachment case falls short of ."oving misconduct
."om "the new york times robert, california, democratic line. caller: good morning. i live in orange county, california. a pretty bigas republican stronghold. a few years ago the last election switched every seat to the democratic side. one thing i have noticed with the candidates on the trail, they were not talking about impeachment, but they were not running from it when a person ask them questions. they said that they would certainly take it to an impeachment inquiry if the evidence led then there. all the talk let people saying -- well, the impeachment is going to hurt democrats, i think it actually helps democrats get into office. that's my feeling. delaware, republican line. frank, good morning. morning.ood
i'm calling to reference, first of all, i'm a republican. there's a reason i'm a republican. i'm an american. as far as democrats go, i got rid of all of my democrat friends. all of them. meetu are a democrat, to you don't know what's going on, you don't -- to me you don't know what's going on, you don't care what's going on. you are trying to impeach the best president you ever had since abraham lincoln. you voted for obama?,. -- come on, democrats. host: if you had a friend who obama, youvoted for got away from them? as you get older you should get smarter. what about family members?
any family members that are democrats question mark -- democrats? caller: no, i don't. alexandria, virginia. good morning, donald. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think they should ultimately go ahead with the articles of impeachment for what's going on in ukraine, the extortion. but i also don't see any reason why they can't go ahead and include articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice as revealed in the mueller report. lastly, i think they should include an article of impeachment for the occupation of syria without congressional authorization. that's about it. thanks. one viewer quickly responding to a republican caller in delaware, saying that -- feeling is mutual, pal "the feeling is mutual, pal."
gary, democratic line. good morning. caller: thanks for letting the get on, c-span. this is what i wanted to say. if they don't believe this, then what was the point of the mueller investigation in the first place question mark if the mueller investigation came up with the same conclusion, they still wouldn't have believed it. the other thing is this, have the democrats not done it, the republicans, when history turns against donald trump and history going to turn against him when all of the people in his administration start writing their books, these same trump supporters that supported him, the first thing they going to say is that it was the democrats fault because the democrats had oversight and they never impeached him. as the reason that we have stuck with him, we feel he didn't do anything wrong. if you like the democrats did the right thing this time and regardless of the outcome, put
it in the republican's lap. let them let him go. history will remember them. it's the third time in the last 45 years that a sitting u.s. president has faced impeachment. richard nixon, who resigned and 74. the impeachment of clinton over his liaison with monica lewinsky . he was of course not convicted in the senate. ,ow the impeachment inquiry public hearings getting underway this week. bill taylor, getting ready to testify at 10 a.m. eastern time on wednesday. with former ambassador you on a much. .- ambassador yovanovitch ronald, good morning. i agree with the last couple of callers.
not the one guy about hating his family. guess this media, i is what they like. on the streets of philadelphia, maybe you call them snitches, but they the same thing as whistleblowers. if i find out about guns on the .treet, i make sure i tell you can come for me. but a lot of these people, they have families, stuff like that, you going to make all the people who are whistleblowers, snitches, whatever you call it, testify before the trial? have a good day. ronald, thank you for the call. the associated press confirming that john bolton is working on a new book with a deal estimated at $2 million. of course, he is also among those that democrats want to see testify on capitol hill.
john bolton was forced out shortly after the revelation of the call that took place on july 25. john is joining us from michigan. democratic line. hearings getting underway this week. will you be watching? will it change your view in anyway? you are on the air. caller: yes, thank you. i'm a concerned american. watching everything going on, where are our $7 billion? where did they go? that's what i think about the ukrainian thing. i'm a simple person. i'm very simple. but we lost $7 billion. where's our money? that's where i think we should all should be asking. all of this rhetoric about who did what, who did what. where is our $7 billion? host: where did you come up with that figure? caller: i watched it on "the
blaze." this is all factual. war in, will go to ohio. jackie is next. good morning. good morning, good morning. good morning america. god bless you, everybody. how is everybody doing? i was calling to let everybody know i used to be a democrat. when i started looking around my neighborhood and best friends going to prison, doing 10 doing 10 years, 15 years in prison for a light charge and stuff like that, and when they got out of prison, they had felonies on them. i'm close to 60 years old, i have that felony following me. nobody wanted to hire me. hired, i i would get would work in silence. six months or seven months with a company, they wouldn't hire me. they would say you do a hell of
a job but we can't hire you because you have a felony. i look for the democrats to help us black men, to help us with police felony charges, help us get back on her feet. i don't see one democrat trying to help us be productive in our life. the only thing they are worried about is the foreign people coming to this country illegally. i'm looking at flint, michigan. those black kids and those poor white kids with their stomachs all worked up from that water. water,'t hear about that nothing about this kind of stuff. host: thanks for the call. by the way, we are going to open our phone lines. we want to hear from democrats only on the idea of michael bloomberg running for the democratic nomination coming up in about an hour and a half. newsmaker is on 10 a clock eastern time. up next, we will continue our conversation with dan caldwell
with veterans day tomorrow and later, talking about the new po litical majority and the women's vote in campaign 2020. you are watching and listening to washington journal on the sunday morning. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> we are at the very beginning of building smart cities. we were fortunate very early on to convert our own telephone booth infrastructure into wi-fi kiosks and they are
strategically located across the city of new york. that, in and of itself provides a means of communicating that sets out a predicate for what can be done with sensor technology, how we can regulate our lighting system, there is so done.aht can be monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. networks live this week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee, led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three state department official starting wednesday at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span three. top u.s. diplomat in ukraine william taylor and george kent will testify. on friday at 11 a.m. eastern, u.s. ambassador to
ukraine will appear before the committee and head of the hearings, read witness testimony from the deposition. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back dan caldwell, senior advisor of concerned veterans for america which is what? >guest: a veteran grassroots advocacy initiative. we thought and sacrificed while in uniform. we educate veteran and military families on important policy issues so there voice is heard in the policymaking progress. host: let's talk about some of the news of the last couple weeks. the pullout of u.s. troops from syria. smart move or damaging to our security? in my view, we haven't
actually done a full pullout. we should go all the way just like trump promised to pull out of syria. i think it was the right move to palaver troops off the syria-turkey border. we didn't have interesting in being in a fight between turkey and our local partners who are connected to a state department- designated terrorist organization. we did not have a dog in that fight. it was a good move to pull back from the border and start a larger pullout of troops in syria but i don't think it's in our interest to the troops andnd to guard oil fields what is eastern syria which are actually the worst oil fields in the middle east. i'd like to see trump follow through on his promise to withdraw all or troops. host: when you think that would happen? guest: i would hope that would happen as soon as possible. we've destroyed isis's
caliphate, we've accomplished what we set out to do. we should not leave our troops behind to try to engage in another nation-building exercise. host: but we've been hearing from democrats and republicans saying that this is damaging to american security. guest: i think there's a lot of hysteria around what is actually happening in syria. the fact of the matter is that we went into syria with a very specific goal, to destroy isis's territorial caliphate. think that the reaction that you are seeing from a lot of folks in washington was a from what is a foreign-policy establishment that really has nailed us over the past 30 years since the fall of the berlin wall in pushing a foreign policy that has cost us dearly in terms of lives and treasure and they are reacting to a president who, how they are imperfectly, is
challenging the status quo. host: mitch mcconnell, here is what he said on the senate floor. >> the united states has taken the fight in syria and in a stand because that is where the enemies are. that's why we are there. fighting terrorists in troubled u.s.ns and advancing interests around the world does not make us evil or the world's policeman. it makes us a prudent and responsible world power to stand up for our own security and the freedom of others. : should partners that u.s. forces have led in the counter-isis coalition, that is what we must continue to do. we must continue to provide support for local forces that carry the responsibility to defend their homelands. this effort must continue to include our allies and partners. host: mitch mcconnell, the
republican leader. to his point that the enemy is in syria in that region, we need to stay there, your response? all, i agreeof with mitch mcconnell on a number of issues. foreign policy is an issue where historically he has been wrong. invasion of the iraq, he generally supported the foreign policy that we've had in the post-cold war era. have thengs first, we ability to project power from afar, conduct long-range strikes and gather intelligence about a permanent presence in syria. agdhadi ways, the al-b raid demonstrated that. also, whether it is turkey, the inad regime, has interest assuring that isis does not reemerge. they learned their lesson by ignoring this thread for too long and it is not in their
interest to see isis establish a territorial caliphate or conduct terrorists in the region. as the president said accurately, it is in our interest to step back and allow those local actors to take care of their own security. too, ition as well, think a lot of our allies in the region and in europe also have a more direct interest in what happened in syria than we do. as i said earlier, the oil fields are critical to our economy and oil in the middle east is not as critical as it was 20 or 30 years ago because we have increased domestic production so much to more offshore drilling and things of that nature. asreally shouldn't be engaged and concerned about the middle east as we once were, because it is simply not that important to us. it is regions like asia and south america that are now more important to our national security been the middle east.
host: dan caldwell with another issue. david shulkin out with a new book titled "it should not be this hard to serve your country" and he is taking aim at your organization and you in particular saying that you want to privatize the system which was one of the reasons why he was forced out by the president. guest: well, i think the former v.a. secretary's book is a great work of fiction. if you are into fiction i would encourage you to pick it up. --have never advertised advocated for privatizing the department of veterans affairs. period,. --. ,period, full tstop. should not be their only choice and community providers should not be their only choice. that is what secretary shulkin expressed privately and in public. i think one of the former secretary's problems is that he
has had a problem telling the truth and has been caught multiple times talking out of both sides of his mouth. he would tell groups like us and people on capitol hill that he believes one thing and then he would go tell another group that he believes another. he got caught engaging in unethical behavior and that is the real reason why he ultimately had to leave his position, not because of some conspiracy to push him out. this is an unfortunate attempt to rewrite history. i think it's good that he's no longer be a secretary and since he's been gone, the v a has made some good progress advancing good reforms to the institution. host: he also takes aim at the coke family that fund your organization. how much influence do they have in the policies that your organization puts forth? usst: nobody has ever told you shall do this or support this policy. what we have done is come forward with ideas and we've been fortunate to be funded by a large of supporters and donors. host: who is the largest? guest: as you said, we are part
of the stand together community which is formally known as the coke network. we have been very blessed to have the support of his family and many other donors around the country. again, secretary shulkin completely misrepresents our views. for the first year or so of his we were very positive towards secretary shulkin because we thought he was on board with what we wanted to do. it was really up until the issues with his travel overseas which the office of inspector general found he had misused , when wet funds started to have issues. guest: he said he was there for a conference. host: that was his point, that he was already over there for a special visit. guest: he took tickets improperly, his chief of staff at the time, the nature of was. trip wasrtion of the
for sightseeing and not business related issues. the office of inspector general who found these issues and ultimately said that he engaged in unethical behavior was an obama appointed official. he was appointed by the obama administration and he was the one who found it. this wasn't a trump administration appointee, this is somebody who is appointed under the last administration. "the v.a. was once thought to be the only part of the federal government above politics and the environment in washington had grown so toxic, so chaotic, so subversive that it became impossible for me to accomplish the important work of our veterans need and deserve. ultimately, his own staff did him in." guest: my response to that is in many ways, it's a good that the v.a. is becoming more
politicized. i know some people might find that statement shocking. thisoo long there is bipartisan consensus in washington that the only thing you can do is dump more money into it. it didn't need fundamental reform, it did not need to have the way it was operating challenged in a substantial way. was really above any type of real examination. the fact that you have people that are nowials being held politically accountable for what happens in the v.a. is the reason why we've seen reforms like the v.a. mission act being passed into law. it's worth noting all those bills passed on a bipartisan basis but there was intense political pressure from groups like concerned americans for others to pass those bills. and had that pressure not been there, you would have seen congress and both republican and democrat administrations dumping
billions and billions of dollars into the system without any real reform. wilkie, the current v.a. secretary spoke to reporters friday at the white house. let's listen. >> i spoke with the veterans in florida, maryland, virginia, kentucky. they say that wait times are still around this and that the claim that you make have not actually taken place. can you address the concerns of those members who say that we haven't made those strides? >> i would say that in an organization of 400,000 with 9.5 million people, there will always be a hiccup in the system. one of the things that the president has done by pushing the mission is that when those wait times are complicated and they are overly long, he now gives veterans the option of calling it the private sector to make sure that those wait times are not a burden on that veteran and just in the last few months,
we've sent well over one million veterans into the private sector. we haven't met in those wait times. there's always going to be hiccups in our position. i come from that world, i understand it. i think mission is a great step forward when it comes to addressing the kind of concerns that you print. host: he spoke to reporters friday at the white house. dan caldwell, of concerned veterans for america. guest: i think that overall, secretary wilkie is doing a great job, he's definitely an improvement over secretary shulkin who as i was saying, revealed himself to have issues with honesty and integrity. secretary wilkie is a major step up in that regard. there are still significant issues and there has been progress in terms of passing the v.a. mission act, the accountability act, and improving the culture and improving how it operates. it was one of the most
substantial reforms made in the department since the 1920's. it is still being implement it but there are some good first steps in expanding health care choice for veterans to the new veterans community care program, but there is still a lot of work to do. do asset need to infrastructure review, look at where the facilities are, which ones need to be closed, which ones need to be scaled up. you still need to rule out the electronic health record system. there is still some cultural issues. this is a major organization, the second-largest government agency in terms of personnel after the department of defense. larger than the active-duty navy. it takes time to make changes to an organization that large. as we havecontinue over the past couple years, but i'm optimistic about progress being made especially under the
current administration and the current v.a. secretary. host: our guest is dan caldwell, our phone lines are open. if you are a veteran of the wars in iraq or afghanistan, (202) 748-8000. for all others, (202) 748-8001. dan caldwell is a marine veteran from 2005, happy birthday, by the way. 244 years old. guest: again, happy birthday to any other marines out there, and semper fi. host: let's get to those phone calls and thank you for your service. maryland, good morning. caller: i just wanted to state to mr. caldwell, my cousin is a navy veteran to the v.a.. bureaucracy and a slow process. i think they are going to make improvements. in west virginia, 11 veterans that were killed. spokesmen saying
something is going on fishy inside. i commend the president on bhagdadi. one that i want to emphasize is with all the troops it's notthe world, going to end with this thing with turkey. turkey is a treacherous nation. host: your response? guest: working backwards first, i think turkey is a nato ally but they are an imperfect one. term it isthe long worth having the discussion whether or not they still belong in nato but in the present, there still a nato ally, we have a defense treaty with them and a lot of people in washington are calling the kurds our allies area we don't have a treaty with the kurdish. against they worked
fights, particularly the kurds in iraq who are associated with the kdp. the kurds that i met when i was in iraq in 2008 in 2009. and so, when we are talking to our allies are and aren't, ally is a very specific term that usually refers to books that we have a treaty with. that is something that we should be examining whether or not turkey should be in nato, that's an important conversation to have. host: the caller mentioned the death of the isis leader, and this may seem to trite, but would it be compared to the whack a mole were you might kill one isis leader and another one pops up? guest: there will definitely be more leaders of isis or a different islamic radical group topping up in the near term if they already haven't already. dhadi was actually hiding in northwest syria, likely under
the protection of al qaeda groups. how theseshows you groups evolve over time. it is likely that isis will be diminished. already been diminished significantly but it is also very likely that they will morph with other groups and they will remain a threat. we will have to keep an eye on them but going back to my point earlier is that the governments in the region, whether it is turkey, syria, you have iran involved, russia, these are not perfect governments. they all have interest in ensuring that islamic radicalism is in groups associated with isis and al qaeda do not gain significant territory or do not pose a larger threat to the region. that they can play a major role in managing those threats. host: for those listening on c-span radio, dan caldwell, we also welcome our listeners.
every sunday morning, as well as our international audience. it is sunday afternoon, we welcome you as well with your calls and comments. ray is joining us from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have a couple questions. getting back to the pullouts that you say are happening in i do think that we pulled a soldier out of the middle east the three years that trump has been president. i don't know if you could name any troops he's brought home, but i think the answer is zero. in fact, we are sending more troops into syria as we speak. we are sending troops into saudi arabia. if all these countries are fighting each other like you said in syria, we don't want to be in the middle of that. why are we getting in the middle of iran and saudi arabia? why don't we pull all the troops out? you mention oil, because right now, we are the biggest oil producer in the world.
we don't need the oil, why are we there? why aren't all the troops coming home? second thing, as far as the administration and the v.a. being privatized, i'm sure that you and the coax would love to , whateverze the v.a. social security, medicare. that's a big thing to get in on for the private companies and i'm sure they would love to get in on that gravy train. i could tell from the first time you spoke when you spoke for five minutes that you are a trumper. i'm sure everything that donald trump does is ok with you but it ain't ok with me. host: thanks for the call. starting off from the first part, in regards to our foreign policy, he is actually right. it is disappointing that we haven't pulled more troops out of the middle east, we haven't completely withdrawn from syria or afghanistan.
that said, i do think the president deserves some credit for questioning our overall involvement in the middle east in a way that you haven't seen in the post-cold war era under both republican and democrat administrations. obama ran on getting out of criticizing the iraq war and was some ways probably elected on that. deepened ourays he involvement in certain parts of the middle east. i don't like the fact that we have troops back in saudi arabia. saudi arabia has the fourth-largest defense budget in the world, about three or four times larger than iran. they should be more than capable in defending themselves against iranian attacks work deterring them in the first place. i think more needs to happen. we'veards to the v.a., been very clear we don't support privatizing the v.a. we don't think it should be dismantled. we want to give veterans a choice.
we need to have a strong v.a. host: larry joining us from tuscaloosa, alabama. caller: good morning, how are you doing? and good morning, dan. how are you doing? guest: doing fantastic. caller: first of all, i have three questions to you. if you but let me give those three questions. my comment is that i've been 1983 andv.a. since i've been calling c-span since 1984. it's the first time i have ever in my life seen the secretary of the v.a. not show up on washington journal. all other presidents. the executive office of the president including the secretary of the a have showed up on washington journal except for this time. my question is dealing with you,
which my claim has been pending since 1991, and they've been fighting and i'm glad they have, my question with you, how much money is the coke brothers donating to your organization? the second question is, what is smc, and what is the highest level of smc? and my third question, my third question is pertaining to, oh bo thes dealing with whoetary of the -- v.a. has the power to administrate the backlogs like in my case from 1991. host: thanks for the call. smc, do you know what that is referring to? guest: i unfortunately don't know what smc is. i obviously know what usmc is. regarding the issue with the back law, his issues are not unique.
there have been veterans who have literally been stuck in the appeals or disability claims backlog for decades and it seems like this is the issue with the caller. there has been recent legislation passed designed to deal with it, to hopefully start clearing the backlog. one of the biggest issues has been some of the ways the v.a. process initial claims. they were still doing a lot of and sendingourier stuff back and forth via mail instead of electronically sharing certain things. there were some rules implemented prior to the iraq and afghanistan wars that made processing claims more difficult. ort's why since the late first decade of the century, you've had a lot of issues of backlogs and claims. when i was working for a member of congress, that was one of my jobs, to help veterans with those issues. hopefully we are in a better
place with that, but still a lot of work to do. host: a story in the new york times, the president's opposition to endless wars appeals to those who off them. in that reporting among the polling numbers among veterans, 64% saying that the war in iraq was not worth fighting. you served during that time, agree or disagree? guest: first of all, i am proud of my service in iraq. i think most veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan are serving without committing any war crimes or engaging in dishonorable behavior and would say the same thing. i think that the marines, sailors, soldiers and coast served in these conflicts, they are on the same level as those who fought in places like normandy, iwo jima. we are at a 15 year anniversary of the battle of volusia and in my early years in the marine corps, they trained me.
i look up to them in a lot of ways and they should be proud of what they accomplish. i don't think anybody can say with a straight face that iraq, the iraq war was a good thing for foreign policy or national security. lessdisputably made us safe, has led to a massive expansion of islamic radicalism across the middle east and across the world. we've been talking about syria today. in many ways, what is going on in syria is directly linked to our decision to invade iraq. baghdadi was radicalized by the iraq war. still been in power, it's very unlikely you would have seen a group like isis or al qaeda emerge. not a lot of people around town still defend that decision, there's still some that do, but i think we may look back in 50
or 60 years and review the iraq war as our worst foreign-policy mistake. host: that trend from isis and other leaders is what chuck schumer warned on the senate floor last month, let's watch. >> what we do know is that the situation has rapidly deteriorated from just a few weeks ago. and what caused this? one thing. abrupt decision to withdraw u.s. troops from the region after a phone call with president erdogan. degraded and been more than 10,000 detainees, many of them hardened isis fighters were under lock and key, to undo that? that is putting american security at risk. that is what trump has done. warrior"alled "tough backed off in a call. before.one this we don't know how many of these 10,000 detainees and their families have escaped.
we don't know where they've gone. nor if there are any plans to get them back to detention facilities. these are dangerous people to our homeland. dangerous to new york and chicago and miami and dallas and denver in los angeles. we don't know where they are or what they're do, all because of president trump's precipitous actions. get excited about this. angrily sandite. negatively excited. because my city has suffered. terrorists 7,000 miles away, small group who did such damage. as the "new york times" reported after isis had been on the run, "now analysts say that mr. trump's pullout of u.s. troops from northern syria has handed the islamic state its biggest win in four years." president trump has handed isis its biggest victory in four years. how can any american support that? how can so many of our
republican colleagues and republican supporters of president trump shrug their shoulders? let me repeat. president trump's pullout has handed the islamic state its biggest win in more than four years and greatly improved its prospects. host: that speech by the senate democratic leader, chuck schumer of new york, and caldwell of the organization concerned for america, your response? guest: to be frank, i think that what senator schumer said was very hyper bolick and not based in reality of what's actually occurring in the history of the region. i think that it's interesting that you had both senator schumer and senator mitch mcconnell, albeit in different ways, criticizing this decision, and this just shows how entrenched this interventionist, neo conservative, liberal interventionist, whatever you want to call it, foreign policy consensus is in washington.
that you've had both major parties support a more aggressive policy in the middle east and more interventionist policy in the middle east over the past 30 years that has not made it safer, and i go back to what i just said about the iraq war. it had bipartisan support. you had democrats tripping over themselves with few exceptions, people like senator bernie sanders for one, who i disagree many things, but he was right about the iraq war. supporting that intervention. and we would not have the problems we have today in the middle east had we not invaded iraq in 2003. i think that's indisputable. and you have folks that want to ignore that, want to pretend like that wasn't the original mistake, want to say that, oh, we won the war in 2011, had we stayed, we wouldn't have had these issues. a lot of the folks saying that don't really have the credibility to talk about foreign policy, because they've been wrong about just about every -- just wrong on just about everything on foreign policy in the last 30 years.
host: quite the key player in the war in iraq was then-vice president dick cheney. a regular tweeter with this comment, hope dick cheney is watching this morning. reaction? guest: well, i hope he is as well, too. and i hope that his daughter, who's currently the house republican conference chair, is also watching as well, too, because she seems to be continuing his foreign policy legacy in the house republican conference. guest: hope a lot of people are watching. guillermo is watching from texas, a veteran. good morning, thank you for watching. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can. go ahead, please. caller: i got a couple of questions. first one is to mr. caldwell. i want to know if he's a veteran. my other question is why now? why pull out now? is it because of the elections? and the third is that, you know, if they were going to have us pull out, why go over
there in the first place? terrorism, they have no rules of engagement, and that war is not going to end now. it's not going to end. host: thank you, guillermo, and our guest served in iraq. to his second point, do you want to respond? guest: well, i think we should have pulled out earlier this year in regards to syria. i think that president -- i wish the president would have followed through on his first order to pull out at the end of 2018 and that we would have pulled out in a more orderly manner. that would have allowed the kurds to make a deal with either russia or the assad regime, which would have allowed some of the issues we've seen emerge in northern syria be prevented hopefully. but i would just say that just because we don't have an on the ground presentation in a country, whether it's afghanistan, iraq or syria, that we would lack the capability to deal with terrorist threats emerging from
those countries. as we saw with the al baghdadi raid, as we saw pre 9/11 with some of the plans to go to afghanistan and take out osama bin laden, we have a lot of strike capabilities. we have a lot of intelligence capabilities, and we have a lot of new surveillance capabilities. i keep going back to this saying it's important. there are a lot of actors in the region that share our interests to ensure that there aren't terrorist threats developing in their backyard. we might not have a lot of shared interests on other things, but with countries like pakistan, with countries like the assad regime syria, even iran, which is a state sponsor of terrorism, but of the shiite variety, and shiite and is lame variety, they have an interest in ensuring that isis doesn't reemerge as well. that doesn't mean we should become best friends with them, but we should recognize that and work, use that dynamic in our favor. host: a survey was conducted
back in may of this year from pew research on the military campaign inside syria, whether it was worth it or not. we can put the information on the screen and show you, among veterans, 55% saying it was not worth it, 42% of veterans say it was. that mirrors, among all daurblingts 58% saying it was not worth it. 36% of those adults saying it was worth it. let's go to kevin, joining us from rock hill, south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. ok, and hello, dan. it's nice to see you and hear what you have to say. ive a couple of points i'd like to make. one is, you remember eisenhower, when he left office, his faye wl speech was beware the industrial complex. well, you keep hearing about wanting the president's tax returns and things. i feel like anyone in congress, anyone in the senate or the house, should have to provide their financial portfolios and
stock portfolios. due to the fact that i wonder how many of them have stock in lockheed martin and other defense contract companies. i'd like hear you think of that. states can make a law to do such a thing. and the other is, people need to learn how to listen instead of just having their opinion, because like the man just a minute ago, game early owe from texas, he wants to know if you're a veteran. i've heard you mention about 10 times you're a veteran. that's the problem in this country now. people do not listen. they're so busy forming their own opinion or being brainwashed by the people that they don't listen to what anyone else has to say. host: kevin, thanks for the call. we'll get a response. guest: well, in regards to the defense contractors and the military industrial complex, i think it is right to question the amount of influence they have in washington, and there's definitely, you know, members of congress that make votes
that are more influenced by what they view as the interests of defense contractors and manufacturers in their states as opposed to what is best for the overall national security of the united states. that's why you see congress year in and year out forcing the department of defense to buy things that they say they don't need, to keep open facilities that they don't want anymore, or are under capacity. that's an unfortunate die natural that i can needs to change. but to be clear, -- dynamic that needs to change. but to be clear, i'm pro defense innovation. we believe that there is some room to reduce military budget, but we still want a mill air tear second to none, and that is still the primary function of the united states government, to provide for our security. we think that actually, in many cases, the wars in iraq and afghanistan has caused us to neglect our defense budget, which is navy and air force. you've seen during the height of the iraq and afghanistan
ars, we believe about 2000 and 2009, the navy shrunk considerable. you have 500 tactical aircraft between 2007 and 2012 retired, in part to pay for f-35's, but also in part the air frames are just being overused in iraq and afghanistan. the d-1 bomber fleet, for example, has a very low readiness because of our endless wars in places like afghanistan. i think it's a balance. we want an innovative defense industry, but we don't want our foreign policy influenced by what is best for particularly -- for a particular industry, should be influenced by what's best for the united states of america. guest: you've been to the mission act. what is that? guest: the v.a. mission act is a comprehensive v.a. healthcare reform bill that was passed in 2018, signed into law by the president on june 6, 2018. i was fortunate to be standing in the audience, actually standing behind the president when he signed it. it's something that our
organization lobbied for very hard, both on capitol hill and in the states through our grass roots army. it is intended to do a few things. first and foremost, expand healthcare choice for veterans, give them more choices in the private sector and the community. it created an urgent care benefit for veterans, so now that they have the option to walk into the urgent care clinics, places like c.v.s. and walgreens, just to be sure, if there are any veterans watching, they can't use every clinic, but it's still a great benefit. it also mandates that the v.a. do a better job at paying its bills and make some changes to how it maintains records. and another big thing it does, it mandates the v.a. conduct what is called an asset infrastructure review, which i talked about a little earlier. they will go in and do an assessment of their entire medical center footprint and see which facilities need to be
downsized, which facilities need to be scaled up, and some facilities probably need to be shut down altogether, because the v.a.'s infrastructure is completely out of alignment with the current veteran healthcare population. host: this is the headline from the "new york times," you can agree or disagree, early problems with the healthcare plan is rolled out. officials administering the plan saying they were unable to guarantee a large network -- or a network large enough to accommodate all the veterans who may seek care. guest: that's another story, we talked about two of her stories today. host: agree or disagree? guest: she's doing a great job covering these issues, by the way. she's identified and wrote about a serious issue that needs to be resolved. i think that if this contractor can't -- the issue with the contractor being able to manage the community care or private sector care networks, whatever you want to call them, aserious
issue. and if they can't do it, then the v.a. needs to reassess whether or not there's a right company for the job. and these are the types of things that the v.a. is going run into as they continue to implement the v.a. mission act. it is auch a substantial and fundamental reform to the agency that there are going to be hiccups along the way. it's important the v.a. doesn't cover them up, doesn't down play them, address them head on and fix the problems, hopefully in conjunction with congress so that we get to a place where veterans are getting more choice and better access to care. scommoip one of those veterans is on the phone, carl from kansas city, missouri, good morning. caller: good morning. i got short message. first of all, i applaud all the veterans, and i think they're being used to some extent as a ping pong ball in the political process. and they're not responsible for what decisions are made. they just go and fight. the next question i have, and i'll get off the line, what
about trump collecting $6 million in iowa and then diverting it to his own private use? will you answer that? thank you. guest: well, i think that any time a foundation or a charity collects funds to help veterans, they should actually use those funds to help veterans. regards to the specific issues of the donald trump foundation, i would just say that it's important that if you are fundraising on behalf of veterans, they're actually using those funds to help them. i don't know a lot of specifics about the recent court case or things like that. i understand there's recently a settlement, but beyond that, i don't have much to say about that. host: what do americans think about -- what should americans about tomorrow on veterans day? guest: starting with veterans first. i think veterans should be reminded of their service. they should take a time to reflect on their own service and how they can continue to
serve the country. i don't think that a veteran service should stop when they take off the uniform, and i think that's one reason why you have groups like veterans for america, friends of vets who are more left-leaning exist, and you have the veteran service organizations, like team red, white, and blue that encourage veterans to serve again. veterans day shouldn't just be chili's e fajitas at or applebee's. so for verkts i think that's important. for the population at large, i think it's important to be reminded that the veteran population is actually getting smaller, and the burden for defending our country is falling on a smaller and smaller group. and we need to make sure that we're recognizing that sacrifice. but at the same time, making sure that there's a sacrifice of this group that's honored through good policy, through not sending people overseas to
wars that aren't in our national interest, that aren't making us safer. i'm sure we're reducing our national debt, which is a threat to the country that we fought for as veterans, and ensuring that veterans have access to the and air benefits they earned in service by reforming and fixing the v.a. host: the organization is oncerned veterans for america, cvfora.org online. dan caldwell, thank you. for all those who have served or serving, we thank you for your service. live coverage of the ceremonies here in the d.c. area tomorrow at arlington national cemetery. the president scheduled to be in new york for the 100th anniversary of the veterans day parade. you'll also see it on our website at c-span.org. up next -- we turn our attention to 2020 politics and the role of female voters. jess morales rocketto will join us, the co-founder of super majority, supermajority.com. back in a moment.
>> monday on "the communicatetors" -- >> we're at the very beginning of building out a smart city. we were fortunate very early on to convert our old telephone booth infrastructure into wifi kiosks. and they are strategically located across the city of new york. that in and of itself provides means of communicating that sets out a predicate for what can be done with technology, how we can regulate our lighting system. there's so much that can be
done just from that platform alone. >> yvette clarke, monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. tonight on "q&a" -- a journalist discusses her book "the great pretender" about a 1973 experiment led by stanford psychologist david rosenhan testing the legitimacy of psychiatric hospitals. >> because there was a wide now so much of what we contend with today, sotcht mental health crisis we see today, was touched by this study and a lot of public opinion about psychiatry, about its institution, were in part shaped by the study. so i think that in questioning it, we have to go back and request some of our assumptions. and i hope that this gives us an opportunity to go back and reassess in a way to move
forward, because you can't move forward. and if this study wasn't up to snuff, in it wasn't legitimate, we have to rethink some of the conclusions it pretend. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we would like to welcome jess morales rocketto, the co-founder of an organization called super majority, which is what? guest: it's a home for women to take action around issues in politics that matter to them. guest: realizing that the women's vote is not a monolithic group, but in terms behalf we hear from the president and other republican candidates and from democrats vying for the white house, how are they addressing the issues important to you? guest: one huge thing is that we have more women running for president than we ever have in history, which is making a big difference, because we are seeing that women candidates are raising women's issues.
but what i'm really looking for from every candidate, especially if you're not a woman, is to really recognize that 8 in 12 women in our survey, we have 75,000 women from across the country fill out our survey about what they care about, what keeps them up at night, and 8 out of 12 women told us that they believe that women's issues, things like paid family leave or child care that are generally recognized as women's issues actually affect everyone. and i think that's one of the most important things. you were saying before the break that women are not a monolith, and that's 100% true. so people who recognize candidates, who recognize that women's issues affect the entire family, and that women are helping women, they're helping all american people, to me what's going to make the difference between getting women's support and being left in the dust. host: next year marking a milestone as women get the right to vote following the suffrage movement. it has been 100 years am it's only been 100 years. guest: exactly. what's really important about that, it's only been 100 years
when some women got the right to vote. white women did at that time. it's been even less for black women, and we have a long way to go. i think on the 100 anniversary, we'll be reflecting on everything that's happened and all the accomplishment that is women have made, but also taking action. that's what we really want women to do. we've seen over and over again that women are not content to sit on the sidelines. they're ready to answer the question of how do i help and to take nacks their community for candidates they care about, for issues they care did. host: have you studied the suffrage movement? i ask that, because i'm curious, what was the argument on the other side? [laughter] host: to keep women from voting? guest: that's a really good question. i do think a lot of those arguments are the kind we see still about women's policy today and whether or not it should be enacted. there are arguments like, you know, it's taken care of in other arenas, arguments that are 100% rooted in sexism and
racism. that legacy does continue around policies like paid family leave that are long past overdue, and what we've seen in history since those 100 years, and even at the time is those ideas were about fear. and in this age, i think it's really easy for people to be afraid of the future, to be afraid behalf they will lose, but what we've seen, when we give women rights, when we make women eke tpwhal our society, our whole country gains a lot more. host: let me put a couple of hypotheticals, because we don't know what next year will look like, but if a former vice president, joe biden, or a mayor pete buttigieg, or secretary julian castro or any of the other democrats, senator wins, bernie sanders, how important is it for them to put a woman on the ticket? guest: well, i think that it's going to be important for them to make sure that they're appealing to women no matter what. in all of their policies, in all of their campaigns, message, staff and ads.
whatever they can do to be able to demonstrate that they understand women, that they will have women in their cabinet in their government, i think it's a really big deal. obviously, if there's democratic -- whether there's a democratic nominee and they pick their vice-presidential candidates, they're going need somebody to appeal to a wide variety of people. and a little bit different from them. having a woman would be a really big stefment we would be really excited about that. but mostly we're just interested in the person who's actually going to put women's issues at the forefront. host: i'm curious of the optics. if you have a male candidate at the top of the ticket on the democratic side and don't select a female candidates with so many female candidates running for the nomination, how would that play out in the democratic party? guest: i would definitely say there are a number of really exciting women they could pick, certainly any of the women who are currently rung, if they are not the nominee, would be
excellent. and you're looking at lots of other people. i could imagine a stays abrams, others would just be incredible v.p. picks. but i'm, frankly, really excited for the day when women are not the v.p., but they're actually at the top of the ticket. i'm hopeful that that could have happen this year with so many women running for president. but i do think that it will be necessary for any democratic candidate to really look at how they're reflecting the diversity and inclusion that is the hallmark of the party these days. one way of that certainly is by picking a v.p. that demonstrates that. but i think way is also making sure that you're really talking about the issues that matter to women. host: conversely, if it is a woman at the top of the ticket, so let's say it is senator elizabeth warren or senator kamala harris or senator amy chobe char, and they select a woman running mate, how do you think that would play out in this country? guest: really exciting.
i think some people would be upset about it, but more women and frankly men would be really excited to see the kind of progress we've made. next year is the 100th anniversary of suffrage, and what a statement for us to have two women on the ticket against a president who has been one of the most anti-women presidents we've ever had, which is really saying something. i think it would definitely be a surprising choice, but one that would be really welcome. host: our phone lines are open. we will get to your calls. you can also send us a tweet or join us on facebook. you work for secretary hillary clinton in 2016. in some circles, there's speculation she may jump into this race, although those closest to the former secretary of state saying that she would not. how would you advise her? guest: i would say she's an incredible stateswoman, one of the most important figures we have in the party, and what she's doing now, really paying attention to and making people pay attention to our democracy, what's at stake is the best
role for her. she deserves a chance to be celebrated, and, frankly, to take her time to comment on other folks. i am forever grateful to have worked for scommer been part of that campaign, and i think it was kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. host: i would take that as a no, up don't think she should run again? guest: i think she should do whatever she wants, but i do think that we have so many exciting candidates in the race. and it's a little late to get in now. host: let me get your reaction to this from karen pence, the wife of vice president mike pence. she told "usa today," "if women looking at whether or not to vote for donald trump, one of the things she has to look at is jobs. she has to look at the fact that this is someone who impairs women reaching their full potential, about women being empowered. to me that is a very strong women's issue." guest: i think that women's empowerment is sometimes used as a buzzword, but you can't talk about women's empowerment if you're not talking about
policies that actually help women. the trump administration has done everything they can to take all types of women down, transgender women in the military, immigrant women who are crossing the border, and at every step, they have shown that they don't appreciate the valuable contributions that women are making in our society. so i agree with the second lady that it's really important for women to be empowered, but that word actually means something. host: our guest is jess morales rocketto, the co-founder of supermajority. she was on the clinton and obama campaign, graduate of rosemont college. let's get to phone calls. tim from wisconsin, independent line. good morning, tim. caller: yes, thank you. i was just calling in because i was listening to this lady talk about people that basically oppose scommer people of other political ideology as
anti-woman or sexist basically. and what a lot of people like me -- i'm in all favor of women being promoted to the tops of the corporations, moving women ahead in the military, but when it comes to women being able to kill their children in the womb and calling that somehow sexist if i oppose that, that's just a bunch of mularkey, and you know it. please stop with it, just because you oppose abortion or something you're sexist. i mean, it's really getting old. guest: hi, tim. really great to hear from you. you know, i think that wave lot of agreement. i too think that women should be at the top of corporations, in the military, in our politics, and i think that when women are in charge, we can make incredible choices that affect everybody. and then also i think that every person should have control of their body and should be able to make decisions about their body. i think we can agree that we're the ones who know our bodies best. so i do support a women's right
to choose, because i do support women making our own decisions and making sure that those decisions reflect our experiences and our needs. host: jim in tucker, georgia, democrats line. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. good morning to everybody on c-span. great show. thank you guys for this, and hank you for taking my call. i would like to say that regarding the race thing, i mean, i really wish this country would move beyond the race issue. i mean, we spent so much time nd effort on it that it's -- it's challenging some of the issues that really face this country. regarding mrs. abrams, i mean,
i appreciate her efforts and her educational background. it's really quite impressive. but when i hear her speak, i ust wonder if she's really interested in some of the problems and things that are facing our country and in my state, which is why i didn't vote for her. but i mean, she just has -- it doesn't seem like she's addressing the issues. it's more like she's addressing the race issue. and i think that's just -- it's -- and i don't necessarily blame her, because i mean, the ace history is just abysmal, really. but i really wish we could move past that and get to some of the real issues like schools and inner cities or in poorer parts of our communities or road conditions.
things like that. and so that's -- i don't really necessarily have a question for ou, but i would like to know how the non-black community and the black community can bridge that racial divide. i mean, i know when i'm out and about in the community, there's a significant african-american pulation where i live, and i constantly feel like i'm discriminated. host: i'll stop you there. we got 9 essence of your comment and point. we'll give our guest a chance to respond. guest: thanks so much for calling. i think about this a lot. as a person who is working really hard to get as many women as possible engaged and knowing that all types of women will hear i have to say or i
hope hear what i have to say, d as somebody who works with communities of color, you know, i do think that i understand why people sometimes think we're focusing too much on race or we're talking too much about race, and one of the things we talked about is our country's history. and i think one of the most important things to remember about this discussion is that that history isn't just in the past. it's still in the present. the way that our country has treated immigrants, the way that our country treated people who used to be slaverbings the way that our country treats anybody that isn't a white male is actually reflected from the past still in the present. for me, i really try to think about, what's the kind of future that i want right now? what do i want to keep working for? that's a future that is inclusive, that is good for everybody, that is equal. that's why we founded supermajority, because we realize that we needed a multigenerational, multiracial
democracy that really listened to everybody and attempted to create a really equal future. and equality doesn't mean that some people have more and some people have less, and it also doesn't mean that people get taken away from. i know that sometimes it can feel like all we're doing is talking about race, but that's because race shows up in so many different things in our country, even today. you talked about stacy abrams. one of the things that is so unique about what she's doing is really living her truth, living her experience, telling what's real about her life. but also really making clear that she'll be somebody who works for everybody. that's what inspired me about her candidacy and something i think about as i talk about these issues. we were talking about schools. when you're talking about education, that really is an issue that's about race, because when primarily black schools have -- are closing down, like the chicago teachers who just went on strike because of that, they're really talking
about what's affecting african-american students over white students, and i agree. we need to bridge our divide. and one of the ways we do that is by acknowledging what's happened in the past and attempting to rectify that. now in the president, for whatever policy we make in the future. host: we're talking with the co-founder of supermajority. to want get your reaction to the recent resignation of representative katie hill. she was on the house floor saying essentially there is a double standard for men versus women in congress. she, of course, was forced to resign after pictures were posted on a number of web sites of her with another woman. she was openly bisexual. she was naked in those pictures. and, of course, then was later announced her resignation. is there a double standard? guest: there's definitely a double standard. there are plenty of men in women who have been accused of -- and it's been clear they were sexual predators who still snemb congress, democrats and republicans. host: any names? guest: no, those folks deserve
to be held accountable at the same level that their female counterparts are. i think the katie hill story is actually agent bit different than just sexual relationships. it is true that it's not appropriate to have -- and it's actually not allowed for congressional members to have relationships with their staff. and representative hill has made clear that she regrets that choice. but also, and i think this is something that all of us should know about in this day and age, what representative hill was the victim of is called revenge porn. those pictures, as you talked about, those compromising pictures, were released her abusive ex-husband to a right-leaning blog called red state, and then sent out into the world. and that is not ok. it's something that we really need to protect everyone from, and it's the reason why she has resigned today. what i think is really incredible about what representative hill did is she realized that our democracy is so much bigger than one person and did something that
resigning something really difficult, putting this painful thing out in public, because it was really important to her that she not be a distraction. and i think that that's much more commendable than some of our male colleagues, who should have resigned and haven't, and i do think that although this is a complicated story and she made some bad choices, revenge porn is something we really need to understand, something we really need to take actual policy steps to rectify, and that double standard is something that's going hurt women more and more. host: so this from the "new york times," women running for office have to worry about one more thing. their phone. for groups training the next generation of women in politics, the main message is do not post anything. it's not fair, it's not the same for men, but anything you post will be fair game. we saw that with crystal ball, a democratic candidate for congress in virginia. guest: yeah, as a young woman who's very i have to social media and has spent my life on
social media, i do think that it's really -- i always think about would my mom be ok seeing this? sometimes my mom would be a little, you know, feel like something is edgy, and sometimes she might not, and i think it's a good rule for candidates and for anyone. i do think that women's social media is more scrutinize when had they're running for elected office. it's really important that in all our communications, in everything dwee, we don't apply a double standard to women, because they're penalized when we do. host: dearborn heights, michigan, john, you've been patient. thank you. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i got a quick question, and i think it's quite interesting the times we live in political ell the identity politics. i don't run away. i think women are a distinct group obviously, if you want to be more specific, black women are a distinct group, so forth and so on, from ethnicity to
race to gender. my question is, with women engaging in identity politics for good reason, abortion by vote, other issues, transgender issues, is there going to be a backlash where white men, as you say, start to engage in their own identity politics? each race, each ethnic group has their own legacy from their family, through blood and treasure. they have their own interest groups. malcolm x talked about this. so are you worried about a major backlash with white identity politics? thank you. host: thank you. guest: thanks for asking that question. i do think we're already seeing a backlash of white identity politics, the rise of white supremacy and of white power hate groups. it is like nothing we've ever soon in the last few years. hate crimes are on the rise and are marbleely motive ate.
they've led to school shootings, to latino men being beaten, even though they were united states citizens, if you just saw that in the news a couple of weeks ago. so i think we are already seeing a white identity politics backlash. but i also think it's important to recognize that white identity politics has been practiced for a really long time in this country. that's what our systems, our institutions are built on. and so i don't think about it as identity politics as much as i think about it as everyone really exercising their full power in our democracy. some groups, like black women, like latinx women, like transgender people, have been marginalized in our society. i can see why it maybe feels like they are taking up too much space. but i like to think about it as a right-sizing and giving everybody an equal amount of space. host: we are taking your text messages at 202-748-8003. we just ask you tell us your first name and where you're texting from.
also on our twitter page, this is from steve following up on representative katie hill, saying she took one for the team, put national interest before personal advancement, sorry to see her bullied out of office by her ex-husband and he right-wing conspiracy rise. georgia, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. as a black woman, the znd incidents of african that was stolen and brought to this land , to be of the basis of this financial, i resent the generalization of the word women, because all women are not the same. white women are, when we talk so-called white men, sometimes we tend to leave out white woman as though they didn't have any hand in slavery, in jim crow, in
presidents. they do. and but somehow we try to leave them out. and i resent that. and another thing that i do resent is also the term of people of color. please don't write me out. please don't make what we've been going through for hundreds of years and try to put us all in a group when our situations are not the same. and another thing, when sandra bland was killed in texas, i didn't see this great white women sisterhood, and i get tired of so-called white women trying to list black women for what their struggles against white men when, as far as i'm concerned, white women are just as bad as black men, white men, and they, to me, they're no different. they just struggling for power, where they want to get the white men out of power just so they can be in their power structure and black women still would be where we are. my sisterhood are brotherhood are other black women and black
men, because we struggle together. host: thank you for the call from georgia. your response? guest: you know, i really appreciate you saying that. i think that it's important for us to recognize that women are not the same. women from different places, different ages, different races , that's why we're trying to build a multiracial, multigenerational democracy. that does mean recognizing our differences. it means recognizing who has been at the front and who has been pushed to the back. it does mean reckoning the past and present. that's something we need to do and make sure we're doing, in any type of social work we're doing, but also in our work places and families, how can we make our relationships more he can quitable? host: linda, good morning to you, joining us from indiana. good morning. aller: good morning. i just wanted to say i've got
good friends that are black, and they are voting for trump because what all the democrats are doing. they realize what the democrats are doing. they care more about the atinos, does not come here legally than they do as american citizens. so go, trump. host: thank you, linda. we'll get a response. guest: i support all americans making their own choices and their own decisions. but because you mentioned immigrants, i just wanted to say, i am a fourth-generation american. my family grew up on the border between texas and mexico. and one thing that we don't know about is when we became american citizens. and the reason i mention that is because that's actually because the government -- the united states government, decided where we lived in mexico was a u.s. -- was now the u.s. and so i try to tpwhi that as i think about our country's immigrant history and as i think about how we welcome
immigrants today. it's something that matters a lot to me, because of my own american story, and i think that's a story that actually is really similar for many americans. they come from an immigrant heritage. host: let's go to sals bury, north carolina. go ahead, on the democrats line. caller: top of the morning to you, c-span and guest. look, i just heard a gentleman say that whenever dwhashe a black person say something about a white person, they want to pull the race card. come on, give me a break. you got to look at this. why is there so many republicans, white people, ain't saying all white people, i'm just saying some white people, they embrace gerrymandering when they always trying to take control of any kind of legislation or seat. they try to take control, then they try to do a lot of other preventing people
from voting. there is a race problem in the united states, and what the president doing, this president, he's continued to divide. now he's dividing the republicans and the democrats. so to all the white people who feel like there's no race problem in the united states, when we say something about a white person, first thing they say, we holding the race card on them. i wish the white people get off that and understand, you know, i wish 300 or 400 years ago, when they were thinking africans over to america, i wish they would have stopped that a long time ago, just like they trying to stop the hispanics from coming over. we don't need that. that's what they say. but at the same time, they use the help they receive from them for free labor. so it's just a lot of hypocrite stuff going on with the white people who believe that trump is the best president, how he down our veterans and all this. i can't believe you come up and here want to endorse donald trump as the epitome of
president when he just destroy, try to try our armed s. i don't know if you got any comment on that, but i do know that vets need to get themselves together and see this president is not for them. host: thank you for the call. guest: you know, i agree that president trump doesn't really represent the best of america. and i think that people say, oh, do i think that trump supporters don't represent the best of america? i think it's a really scary time in america. our country is changing. the world is changing. i believe that the politics of fear that president trump is putting forward are not something that really represent who we are as a country. and i think that's true for any group, for veterans, for immigrants, for women, and as i think about the future, i feel like we're moving forward in a way that is really exciting, and i wish that president trump was willing to be a part of that. instead he wants to talk about
the worst parts of our past and bring that back into the politics that we have today. and i'm really hopeful that in 2020, his lies and his corruption will be exposed, and that we'll be able to move forward in a post-trump world in a way that's more loving, more welcoming, and more inclusive. host: we discuss the women's vote on our podcast "the weekly," which is available on the free c-span app. we sat down in her office, kellyanne conway. there's this text message from west virginia saying what basis do you say that the president is anti-women? women have more jobs now than ever before. the wage gap is closer than it has been in the past. guest: i'm really glad you talked about the wage gap. next week is latino equal pay day. as a woman of mexican-american descent, i make 54 cents on the dollar for a white man. in fact, the reason that latino
equal pay day is in late november this year is because it took all the way to the end of november before l.a. lien awomen got the same as our white male counterparts. it's true that jobs are up and that those numbers are great. i want every american who wants to have a job to have a job. but it's not 100% the whole story, just to talk about job numbers. we really got to talk about who's making money, who's getting hurt by our economic policies, and for latina women like me, we're still getting hurt. and until we have pay parity, until every singe person makes an equal wage for the work that they do, i think we still have a long way to go, and i don't see president trump really addressing that. scommoip this is a tweet from carter russell to the earlier caller from georgia, the black caller from georgia is the call of the year. there's a term for these white beam try to grab power by protecting african-americans, the white savior industrial
complex, the caller was right on target. we go to missouri, republican line. good morning. caller: the guest, are you familiar with consumers financial protection act? guest: yes. yes, i am. caller: i think it's one of the greatest act. do you know who wrote that bill? guest: well, i know the consumer financial protection bureau was the idea of senator elizabeth warren. caller: yes, ma'am. and what they did when they went in to check wells fargo, they found so much fraud, waste, and abuse, and that's really what i think the consumers -- it takes care of all of us, black, white, whatever. but i would like for you to comment on that. i'm going hang up and listen. i'm 87 years old. i've got problems with my hearing, but i can listen to the tv. thank you very much for the guest. host: thank you. guest: thanks for calling.
you know, i really think that one of the things that's important for us to look at as we give out our financial services really how our money is being spent, what it's being invested in, and how we're protecting our finances. you know, i know in my savings account, that money is hard earned and hard saved, and i want to be sure that all of my investments, all of my money is ethical, is safe. i'm really glad the consumer financial protection bureau exists, because it's done things like take down big companies who are exploiting veterans, aren't student loan debt, and other really important -- credit card fraud, all these kind of things that the big banks have been able to do for many, many years. i really look forward to a time when our financial services are really about the people, because we're the runs who need the help. host: and this tweet from a viewer saying with regard to gender, race or religion, i
personally find this tone or use of these phrases to be counterproductive and politically divisive. the last thing we need is division in this country. we are ripping each other apart. it is dangerous and disheartening. guest: you know, i deprom a really big family. my dad is one of 10, my mom is one of 7. i'm one of 4. we're folks who don't agree on a lot things. my dad is independent. my mom is a republican. and we spend a lot of time talking about politics. so -- host: what's thanksgiving like at your house? guest: it's going to be something, it always is. and i say that because i think our family is like a lot of families. i think not everybody agrees. for me, that's why i always try to listen. that's why i always try to really build a politics of love, that listens to people and what their motivations are. so i agree. sometimes these conversations can be really uncomfortable.
they're especially uncomfortable with your mom and dad, just to be totally honest. but i also think that that's how we make progress, and that's how we get a more he can quitable future. so, yes, it might feel uncomfortable now. it might be a little bit device i have, especially at the thanksgiving table. but i think it allows to us understand each other better, to understand what the other side thinks, and i think also to realize that it's not about sides. it's actually about our sandri what we want it to be in the future, and a recognition that maybe we didn't do it perfect in the past and that we can keep striving for a better democracy. host: i think a great c-span moment would be to have doctors inside the dinner table at thanksgiving time. but that's a conversation for another time. eagle to nina, joining from us florida on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. been on hold for a little bit, but i want to go back to where the congresswoman had to resign because of her unethical
behavior. i thought i -- the guest to say other knew of other men that are doing the same thing, but won't resign. but until we have proof of all is, we need to quit just throwing things out there. if she does know of someone, then she should report it instead of aiding and abet it, and that was my comment. thank you, c-span. host: thank you. first to former republican active katie hill? -- representative katie hill? guest: gernings i think she's done something really difficult, and i really respect her for the way she's handled a situation that is a little twisty turny. , i think there's always a complexity in these situations. to the caller, i appreciate your comment. one of the things i always think about at supermajority,
we believe survivors, and we really believe women. people can feel like that is a tone of accusation, but actually, it's really a statement that we think that women are brave and courageous and that that courage should be supported. it's really hard. as somebody who works on issues of sexual assault and sexual violence, one thing i think about, for as many women are coming forward right now, there are so many women who have not come forward. and i think that that is something that i always try to think about in these situations, because it means that as much as we've had a reckoning around sexual assault and sexual violence in this country, there are still more women who are survivors of that violence, who you feel like they have to be silent. and who, like representative katie hill, would actually be hurt more than their male counterparts. so representative hill's
husband is abusive and vindictive, and he's not suffering in the same way that she is right now. that's why i always believe women and make sure to be vocal about that. host: we'll go to arkansas next. dave, good morning, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first i'd like to make a comment. before our president was even elected, has been after him in shameful ways, and since admittedly a coup and this has been going on. so when i keep hearing folks talk about the division being caused by this president, i don't understand where you're coming from. he didn't do this. the left has. they've been throwing so much mud out with the support of the mainstream media and their
propaganda. i just don't understand how you call can stand up and say that. that's my comment. i have two questions for your guest. one, you said earlier you were part of the clinton and the obama campaigns. two of the most corrupt, proven, with documents, corrupt political people we've ever had in our country, and part of the coup against our president, plus the actions such as the iranian and so on. so my question is, how can you stand up in good faith and be proud of supporting such two corrupt people? my second question, you talked about women's rights, touting two classes of women. the transgender in the military, they're not women. and i don't think that we should have to pay for their reassessment, reassignment of
their sex maybe we should pay for their psychological help, because they're obviously facing some deep deep psychosis. host: he put two issues on the table. we'll give our guest to respond in the are you make minute or two. guest: quick, on transgender folks, one thing that i believe is that everybody should have a right to decide what their life is like. that means their body, their opinions, their politics, where they want to live, what job they want to do, and that includes their gender. i think it's something that is none of our business, frankly, and people are who they are and they should be able to kind of live the way they want to live. i bet you would agree with that. and the second thing i'll say -- tom: to that point, should the military pay to undergo transgender operations? guest: i think that healthcare for all people is really important, and whatever people need to be able to live their life and thrive is really important. host: is that a health issue or a psychological issue? guest: i'm not an expert on transgender healthcare, so i'm not sure. but what i'll say is, for me, i think it's really something
that deserves all of us to educate ourselves a little bit more on. i believe that transgender folks should be able to live in the full expression of who they are, whether that means gender real estate signment surgery or dressing however they want or their names or pronouns, and that we should support them. scommoip then your support of the presidents, kobe and hillary clinton? guest: i'm proud every single die support obama and hillary clinton. i think they both worked their whole lives to make our country better. and whether or not you agree with their politics, i think they have attempted to be statespeople for the entire country. and i could see -- i can't say the same of president trump, who, in his few short years in office, has managed to erode trust in the presidency, erode our standing around the world, and is one of the most corrupt presidents we've ever had, all the way to the point that we believe that he may be impeached, which has only happened a couple of times in our country's history. i'll never apologize for
supporting president obama and secretary clinton. host: from massachusetts, sandra, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that there trouble in the service, as well as outside is men are being attacked as well as women. men can't step forward and pronounce what the heck's been happening to them, poor men are suffering in silence, too. we need to take and protect all. we need to also look at the opioid differences, what's going on in this country, too many people in my family have died, and alcohol, this we need to tackle. host: thank you, sandra. i want to get your response. guest: i really appreciate you saying that. i do think that there are a number of mental health and addiction crises that are happening in our country. and that needs to be addressed
in our public policy and in the way that we love and support our family and friends. i'm really glad you said that. it's something i'm really concerned about. host: let's go to larry, joining us from albany, georgia. good morning, democrats line. caller: yes. i want to tell you about some things that y'all are saying about the division. in the united states. and what's going on is this. i'm talking to the group of people that's 50 and under that wanted to vote for president obama in 2008, when they realized that we was losing all these jobs a month and that divide that you're talking about, during that time, my daughter was 18 years old. tchaurg old. daughter,t time, my democrat, republican, independent, all went down to vote for barack obama.
they voted for this man because of his character, his intellect, his intelligence. let me say this about racial we have over 60 years, been sticking together, and we million native2 americans in the u.s. host: thank you. guest: we have covered so many issues today. i know sometimes issues can be overwhelming. we are trying to be a source of information for folks so that they can cut through the fake news, understand what is real, so if you sign up at supermajority.com, we go over a ton of issues like this. folks want to follow you on social media, how can they do so? guest: you can follow us
@supermajority. supermajoribsite is ty.com. thank you. this headline from cnbc.com looking at michael bloomberg, if the election were held today, he would defeat donald trump by six percentage points. we want to hear from democrats only. would you consider voting for the former new york city mayor? you can dial in now. democrats (202) 748-8000. we want to hear from democrats only. would you consider voting for michael bloomberg? you are watching "washington journal." we are back in a moment. ♪ watch the c-span networks live this week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings.
they will hear from three state department officials starting wednesday on c-span3. william taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state george kent will testify. on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch will appear. transcripts at c-span.org/impeachment. monday on the communicators. >> we are at the very beginning of holding a smart city -- building out a smart city. towere fortunate early on convert our old telephone booths into wi-fi kiosks. they are located across the city of new york. means ofides a
communicating that sets out a predicate for what can be done with sensor technology, how we can regulate our lighting system. new york democratic congresswoman yvette clarke on the communicators on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael bloomberg getting back into the race. upsetting in some democratic circles what is going to happen in terms of presidential politics. we want to spend the next half-hour hearing from democrats only. would you consider voting for the former new york city mayor? the headline, bloomberg strategy is risky, but can he win with it? 2007,ng out that in tennessee senator fred thompson
jumped in the race late in the johnand only just lost to mccain. fred thompson losing 2008 2 john mccain. whether michael bloomberg is going to change the race among democrats. this is the headline at politico .com, what is michael bloomberg thinking? in god we trust, everyone else bring data. that is his longtime motto. six months after he was a definite no on running for president, he has apparently changed his mind again. heavy been running a data operation focused on collecting democrats -- electing democrats. the once front-runner joe biden was getting weaker by the day in early states. hands were the early
qualifying dates for presidential candidates to get on the ballot in states like alabama and arkansas. his team put his name in a failsafe insurance policy because it was now or never for inomberg who considered bids previous elections. only, we have some phone calls from you. whether you would consider voting for michael bloomberg. the phone number is (202) 748-8000. details on awith bloomberg presidential run, operatives on other campaigns push back on the prospect of an old rich white guy opening his bank account in a race that has been defined so far by a party hoping to recapture the obama magic.
senators elizabeth warren and bernie sanders quickly fund-raising. the sanders campaign writing to supporters, just what america needs, another billionaire using his wealth to buy an election. the response from the bloomberg team, he and his money are just what america needs to make sure sure does not get trump does not get a second term. let's get to your phone calls. from illinois, that he. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. my time is up. i always wait 30 days. i am 80 years old, born and raised in greenville, south carolina. anybody thatfor could get donald trump out. ever since donald trump anybodyt could get donald trump came down that elevator, this country has changed.
when i was born with the black and white this and the black and white bathrooms, i do not want my great grandkids to endure what i injured growing up. thank you so much. host: thank you. (202) 748-8000, from democrats only, whether or not you would consider voting for michael bloomberg, now pulling at about 6% among democratic voters. good morning, anthony. good morning. the only other person i would vote for instead of bernie sanders, which i have been supporting, i will vote for bloomberg. he is the best mayor we have had since john gleefully. he has done wonderful with the city, replacing bridges. he has kept up the work. he is a brilliant man. we need him.
--now that he will be trump beat trump, no doubt about it. bloomberg is the man. --ave been giving money to what's his name? bernie, $25 a month. i'm only on social security. i have been giving him money since 2016. bloomberg.switch to bloomberg is the man. call,thank you for the again from that cnbc story where michael bloomberg would defeat donald trump by six percentage points. in's go back to his polling the democratic primary. he is currently in sixth place. he has the highest unfavorable the rating, my 5%, of any democratic candidate among primary voters. next is great joining us from
texas. we are hearing from democrats only on whether he would support bloomberg in a democratic primary. what is your answer? would support him. you had him on c-span a while back. he made a comment one time. he said, why are we not collecting the proper taxes? we are the reason why not collecting the proper taxes, you can give businesses money, but you don't know if they are putting that money back into the business. they are putting it into other businesses. that is why you have foreigners coming over here buying these small companies and putting their money together. i sure appreciate you all. i tell you what. i had my cable went out because i am on fixed income.
i wish you could do something else. you need to be broadcast on regular tv. they are dumbing down the kids. i wish you all could do something better. thank you so much. i appreciate what you did this morning, that conversation with that young lady. this is the only way we are going to get freedom in this country. host: we are on the web and the free c-span radio app. you can follow us on facebook and twitter. anthony is joining us from san jose, california. good morning. i would support bloomberg, not because i really want to, but i feel like i would have to. it would be the only way to remove the current president because i disagree with him on mostly everything, especially how he is governing the country and dividing the country.
i just have one thing i would like to say to my republican brothers and sisters. i do mean that. i don't mean that sarcastically. if we go far enough back, we are all related. for the past 45 years, they have been voting for republican candidates. what do republican candidates believe in? they believe in cutting taxes. they believe in unionbusting. they believe in getting rid of social security or changing it. they were not in favor of pensions. we have a 401(k). people say my 401(k) is doing great. a recession is on the horizon. it is just what happens. do your history. when that happens, those of us who have a 401(k), we are going to get hit hard. those people we invest in are going to be ok. they can sustain it. republican voters, my counterparts in the country have voted for the demise of the
middle class because that is what led to it. i would vote for him, but my choice would be elizabeth warren because she is an advocate for the people. i know people are labeling her a socialist. she at least is a true advocate for the people and the working class. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. you can send us a text, (202) 748-8003. tell us your first name, where you are from. this is from a viewer who says, no, i would not support bloomberg. he wants to ban the big gulp. he should consider running for president in cuba. vox, the founder of amazon, jeff bezos asking mike bloomberg months ago if he would consider running for president as the billionaires made calls back and forth. we will go to vincent calling from new york.
good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: good morning, steve. to answer your question, give me a couple of seconds. i am a lifelong democrat. i don't always vote democrat. my answer to your question would be if bloomberg puts forth a theram that is related to base, the traditional base of the democratic party, which is black, african american people. i have not really heard any candidate highlight that. whether it is bloomberg, warren, bernie sanders, whatever. the first one that advocates the true african-american history to be included in the mainstream curriculum will get my vote. host: thank you. maggie from michigan, absolutely do not think number should run.
he has not put in the time and energy in this race. he obviously doesn't believe in anything. once you are a republican, an independent, a democrat, no moral compass. a series of public hearings on the impeachment great into president trump -- inquiry into president trump. c-span watch it live on three. it will be streamed online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. that is live this wednesday and friday at 11:00, the former ambassador marie yovanovitch, her testimony getting underway friday on c-span2 at 11:00. it's also on the web and c-span radio. it is all archived on our homepage at c-span.org/ impeachment.
alfred is joining us next brooklyn, new york. your former mayor running for president. would you vote for him? runs on the if republican party? host: why is that? caller: he was mayor as a run as an, why not republican? host: this is from a viewer. it does not say much for the democratic process. robin from colorado, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: thank you for allowing me to speak my voice. i am a registered democrat. i did vote for president obama, but i am now going to change to republican. continue to vote and fight for our president. i love my country.
i love the people in the country. because i am going to vote for president trump does not mean i am a racist. i may god loving woman. i love everybody in the country. i want only safety for us in our country you so we can continue as a freedom people. i do love our president. god bless him and god bless everybody. thank you. host: thank you. , essentially summarizing it this way, a bloomberg presidential run comes down to this question. you can read more at politico.com. sheila from california. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i would like to say that i am a democrat, but i always liked what bloomberg did. i think he is a very honorable man. thank you.
host: ted from atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you for calling. go ahead. caller: everybody say that with bloomberg entering the race, it is a good thing. it gives more energy to the race and the candidates, puts them on a different footing. i think if hillary does not get in, i am going to go ahead and support trump. if you look at it from the outside, not being partisan cap he really got a -- partisan, he deal. got a raw i don't understand why the media doesn't cover both sides of the story. they have a narrative on the republican side that the democrats cheated. they did a lot of nefarious things. we don't know whether it is true or not because they have not
reported on it. we have those investigations. we will see what is going on. host: thank you for the call. newsmakers follows "washington journal." our guest this week is democratic senator patrick leahy of vermont. check out c-span3 american history tv as they take a look at the 40th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. the 30th anniversary, i should say. it is available on our website and on c-span3. let me share with you what the washington post is reporting. house republicans on saturday pressing ahead with their efforts to move the impeachment inquiry away from president trump, calling on democrats to add witnesses, including former vice president joe biden's son and the whistleblower who kicked
off the investigation. california warned against what he called sham investigations of the bidens and other issues in a clear signal that many of the witnesses were unlikely to be called. the clash came as democrats were prepared to enter a new phase of the inquiry, which will focus on president's alleged efforts to dig up dirt on biden and other democrats by using ukraine.aid to caller: good morning, steve. definitely vote for michael bloomberg. i would vote for anyone standing on that stage that we currently have over president trump. i have to be able to respect the president. i do not respect this gentleman.
i cannot even call him a gentleman. i cannot respect donald trump. it is so frustrating. others have said how the community is invited. i see it in atlanta. i see it when i go on trips. i'm not saying all republicans are prejudice. i have voted republican myself sometimes. the main thing for me is the president of the united states, i have to be able to respect, and he has to be someone who is extremely intelligent. i don't think this president is. the perfect ticket for me would be biden and buttigieg were bloomberg and buttigieg. that is the way i am leaning. i will vote for the last person standing. host: i want to go back to the washington post. michael bloomberg is taking a rest by skipping the early states.
-- risk by skipping the early states. iny giuliani tried that 2008. he never settled on how the accident navigate iowa and new hampshire. florida aspointed to his breakout state. he had no momentum by the time of florida, and so his candidacy failed. james is joining us from new new, new jersey -- newark, jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am moderate. i hope you don't mind. i vote democratic most of the time. bloomberg, new jersey, i know what's happening in new york. whatever.
any democrat to take trump will be good. i agree with the lady. i agree with her. another four years of trump, let me give you a hint. if you have an accent like i do, make sure you carry your passport with you at all times because you will get harassed by the cops. carry it. thank you. host: thank you. this editorial from the new york times, the billionaires are getting nervous. when bill gates founded microsoft in 1975, the top marginal tax rate on personal income was 70%. tax rates were significantly higher than at present. the estate tax was a more formidable levy. none of that dissuaded mr. gates from pouring himself into his business or discouraged investors from pouring in money.
he is the latest affluent american to warn that senator elizabeth warns plan for much higher taxes on the rich would be bad not just for the wealthy but the rest of america. mr. gates suggesting that a big tax increase would result in less economic growth. mr. gates saying, i think if you tax too much, you lose the u.s. as the desirable place for companies to do business. ramona is joining us from new york city. would you vote for your former mayor? caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: how do you do? i would vote for mr. bloomberg. this situation is getting out of hand. mr. biden is no match for mr. trump. of lookingnd tired at the democratic party and seeing nothing. nothing is coming from it. i did not vote in the last
election, the primaries, because i did not feel like it. i feel like it is over with. i don't want to vote anymore. i am going to vote for bloomberg. i know that he is powerful because i have seen him in action. i saw a march go in front of his house. he told the guy, i don't want to hear that march. the black leader had 5000 people going down the street silently. bloomberg told them, don't do that. they kept quiet. i saw power in bloomberg. i am going with bloomberg. jd inwe are going to maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would possibly vote for bloomberg. i just think that the democrats need to show a narrative of how
they are for the working class americans, and maybe making voting a national holiday or having shuttles that take people to be able to vote. host: do you think michael bloomberg can convey that? caller: i hope so. something needs to be done. trump is tearing apart everything. there needs to be order along with law. he seems to believe that he can dance around the lot like it is not a big deal. people need the order and stability to survive and prosper. michael bloomberg, who would be your other choice? caller: elizabeth warren for bernie sanders to invest -- or bernie sanders to invest in our
future to propel us forward. host: thank you for the call. good morning. michael bloomberg, would you vote for him? caller: i would. joe biden is my guy. i would vote for any democrat that wins. every time you guys allow the republicans to get on this line and lie and say they used to be democrats, and they are now voting for republicans is alive. the woman from colorado who called in and said she used to be a democrat, now she is voting republican is a liar. if she wasn't a racist, she would not tell you she was not a racist. host: what about michael bloomberg? caller: not really, joe biden is my guy. if he was the last guy standing, i would vote for any guy that wins. caller: good morning.
, would not vote for bloomberg mainly because i feel like what he is doing now is he is disrupting the democratic process that is already in full gear. race, this late into the he can buy all this advertisement and everything with his billions of dollars, , thehe other candidates other people running for office are running low on funds because they have been doing this a long time. he has not had time to build up a base or explain to anyone what his policies are or what he is thinking about and what we need to do in the future in this country, such as health care and middle east relations. host: he is also going to skip iowa and new hampshire, putting a focus on super tuesday, march
3. i think he is coming into late. if he really wanted to do this, he should have started sooner. it that he ist trying to come in because he thinks maybe biden cannot get elected, and he doesn't want to see democrats lose the race due to that because the conflict widened as having with -- biden is having with trump. host: we go to brian for the last word on this. would you vote for bloomberg? absolutely. i would vote for any democrat. the problem i am seeing is everybody is missing the biggest threat to this country right now, and that is civil war. people need to understand history better, that everything 1960'sppened during the
was because we were about to erupt into a civil war. you don't want the war. billionaires and what is going on in syria, that man is clearing out everyone he does not want. host: thank you to all of you for your calls and comments. today commemorating the 244th anniversary of the u.s. marine corps. to all those veterans and although serving, -- all those serving, we will celebrate veterans day tomorrow. it is one of the more spectacular memorials here in washington, d.c. free and open to the public. tomorrow morning, we will start the program with leo shane and magazine -- stew stew magnuson.
this is part of our veterans day coverage on "washington journal." newsmakers is next. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, we facinglk about issues veterans with leo shane of military times and his recent interview with the military affairs secretary. cop discussesr her recent investigative piece
looking at the rise in cancer rates among veterans. national defense magazine's stu magnuson discusses the past and future of u.s. defense. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on monday morning. join the discussion. networksthe c-span live next week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. hear from three state department official starting wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. william taylor and george kent will testify. then on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch will appear before the committee. ahead of the hearings, read witness testimony, find the transcripts at