clear that the american military along the dmc has bogged down like the marines in the mud. >> then at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts will turn the national archives exhibit remembering vietnam and at eight on the presidency the 1967 president lyndon johnson vietnam war press conference. >> made our statement to the world of what we would do if we had common immigration in the world 94. we said we would stand with those people in the face of common danger and the time came when we had to put up or shut up and we put up. >> watch the vietnam war, years later. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. >> this morning washington journal went to the washington

dc examiner newspaper office to learn about the paper's journalistic mission and about the challenges facing print and online news organizations today. >> we are back on this friday morning, november 10, our cameras are over at the washington examiner, and online and print publication here in washington dc. we are going to be talking with reporters and editors over there this morning about their mission, as well as news of the day so call in with your questions about journalism and the topics that they are reported. putting us first is hugo, editorial director for the washington examiner. he'll talk about the publication, role of journalism today. let's begin with the washington examiner. >> guest: the washington examiner is a news organization, first and foremost, in its mission is to deliver straight news reporting to a nationwide

audience. at the same time, it's design and attention and its mission is to provide a coherent and sharp analysis and conservative commentary reflecting our values in a way that we look at the world. >> host: how is it in what way do you look at the world? where does that vision come from? >> guest: we have a forthright conservative view of the world and basically, based on freedom. we believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, freedom of association, freedom of religion. allied to that we also believe in american strength, american global leadership because america is the principal bastian and defender of freedom in the world. we believe that the united states is a shining city on the hill for the rest of the world

and we believe in those traditional values. >> host: media bias, back tech .com says thisa about the washington examiner. you have a center bias and would you agree with that and how to use where your conservative vision with reporting the facts? >> guest: well, here's the thing. i should probably give you a little background. the first half of my career came when i was at the daily telegraph in london and it was a conservative publication but it was well known for being read by the socialist mps in parliament. it's absolutely no incompatibility between reporting the news straight because of his, readers want to be able to trust the news they are getting and they want to know what actually happening and providing at the same time commentary about those reflects your view of the world. one of the things that is fascinating about this is that people think that your

readership will just be conservative if you have conservative views but the latest independent data from concorde shows that our readership at the washington examiner is divided almost exactly wonder democrat, one third will begin, one third independent. the pack, our readership is much more balanced than readership of our rivals in the washington space which are read by more than twice as many democrats as republicans. we know from the history of the publications and we know from data like that that straight news reporting, which appeals across the spectrum, is attractive to people and at the same time you can provide commentary that affects your values. the washington examiner has achieved and is growing because it's achieved that kind of balance. >> host: the media bias backcheck .com website says that

the washington examiner often publishes factual information that utilizes loaded words, wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotype toty favor conservative causes. factual reporting, they give your publication high. >> guest: they give the reporting hi, did you say? >> host: you get a factual reporting rating high. >> guest: well, that is true. we report the facts. look, we are interested in telling as wide an audience as possible across the united states what is going on in politics. we think that is an important role and we believe in diversity in the media. we don't think that there is any merit in passing the news. what we want to build up his trust with audience and we want them to trust that what they're getting from us when we report the news is reporting. we want to be breaking stories

and we do break stories which allow, which mean that the examiner needs to be read by people from across the spectrum but at the same time we are stand out f from a lot of the media by giving, i think, a fair hearing to conservative policies and conservative opinions. this is a news organization where conservatives can come and get their news and get their straight news but they also have commentary and analysis that takes their views in their view seriously and that makes us stand out in washington and stand out in the national media picture. >> host: what is the history of the publication and who owns it? >> it's owned by philip, colorado businessman who has a wide range of different businesses and he's in the entertainment business with the new orleans gas business and the

shipping and the cruise business and he is a wide range of interests and that's where the ownership is. the other part of the question mark. >> host: the history of it, as well. >> guest: it was launched a little more than ten years ago as a local newspaper. it was delivered in people's doorsteps in print each morning and about four years ago the decision was made that we would focus entirely on politics. initially, of course, a local newspaper we covered, the washington examiner covered local business and that kind of thing but we sharpen the focus about politics principally federal politics and we decided that instead of coming out in a newspaper we would have a website in weekly magazine and that reflects thews way the news

is moving. people want their news fast and they want to be told what is happening right now and they've had a tough time for ten years or more. at the same time people want to take ao deep dive into a subjet and they want to read at length. we have a website which operates 247 and every tuesday we come out with a magazine and that gives deep dive in the policy issues and provide leadership primarily up until now inside washington but the magazine is popular outside washington in what were doing now is producing a digital addition which were sending out to people in boxes all across the country. >> host: is it profitable? >> guest: we don't reveal the financial of our organization.

it certainly is at a comfortable level. after that we. >> host: let's hear what our viewers has to say. in chicago, first up, keith democrat, welcome to the conversation. >> caller: goodio morning. most of journalism students, i have a masters in journalism, class of 92. i would like to know from your audience because i am fed up with the conservative war on media. it's dangerous, it's been happening since the nixon in ministration. now, the thing i see -- no belief in the concept of objectivity. i would like to get his thoughts on the concept of objectivity because they don't believe in it. >> host: what do you think.

>> guest: well, i respect the caller and it's a fine question but i have to assure and he's wrong. we believe entirely in reporting the news straight. obviously, what we think is a new story will, to some extent, reflect ourin views the world. those are things we are interested like laborer law whih another news organization may not be interested but we have to regard it as our mission to deliver our news straight to our readers and as i say our readers are divided very evenly democrat, republicans and independents. so, we are not partisan but we have a set of values and those indeed put us on the conservative side of the spectrum and due to those values and we report the news and we comment on what is going on in the news and reflect but those

values. >> host: q go, is with the editorial director for the washington examiner and online and print publication here in washington dc, we are live from their newsroom this morning. we are taking your calls and questions about journalism and the news of the day. he will be with us for another 15 minutes and then we will talk with some of the reporters after publication as well. we want to encouragean our views to call in with their questions and comments about journalism but also what you are reporting on. let's get to the fullest. democrats (202)748-8000, independent (202)748-8002. what is on your front page this morning or the top of your website if they go to washington examiner .com? >> guest: well, i think the same story that is being featured pretty widely by a number of publications and that is the

allegations that judge roy moore, the republican senate candidate, had some sort of rinappropriate relations with girls were much younger than he was when he was in his 30s and indeed, on one occasion caused him to according to allegations with a 14 -year-old girl. we are reporting on that and we had a rather extraordinary scoop yesterday on the subject. we were talking to one of the judges supporters down in alabama who said and who actually compared the 14 -year-old relationship and children more as like in that between mary and joseph the mother of jesus, which got very wide coverage. it's a rather extraordinary comparison and made people,

raised their eyebrows. >> host: we read about that story yesterday and when you say it got quite a bit of a reaction what did you see on social media in reaction to your story? >> guest: well, it lit up social media and there was obviously a lot of people thought this was an outrageous comparison but as some of your guests earlier in said we alsoave saw that there were those who believe that this is a hit job on thent judge and i'm certainly not going to step in. i think the only people who know this truth about what happened and the 14 -year-old who is now in her 50s and the allegation is a very serious one, members of congress from the republican party have said that if it is

true, he should step down. i believe the only one i've seen said he should step down without saying whether or not it is true is senator mccain. >> host: let's go to john who is in northport, florida. republican. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i understand you want to report the truth about roy moore but are you going to report the truth when it is a hit job or if it is not just like when president trump they had so many allegations against president trump when he iran and they were all false. i believe that was a hit job and i believe that the media and you want to speak the baby about the news which is true but you were to have cnn and fox and overseas you have other tv stations that are not speaking the truth. it will get worse before it gets better. the media, the reporters are out for the money and they are not out for the truth and i'm just

telling you because i've been through it. i reported a lot of things in the past and i just wanted to let youe know that i hope you will report on roy moore when it's a hit job and not just report on allegation of a 14 -year-old and roy moore because the democrats on the left don't want want a person in office will do whatever they can to make things bad. >> host: john, got your point. >> guest: i think the caller has yet, they've hit upon a very important point. the media is now, the medium are now making up the biggest story and when i say making up, they are the biggest story themselves of perhaps thee last year. the focus frome the president on downward has beenth on the truth and trust that the media either is worth giving or has squandered.e

obviously, he talks about a great deal about big news and indeed there are people in the media who said that it is their job to oppose the president. the caller has hit on one of the subjects innt america right now and that is how much can people trust the media and how much should they mistrusted and assume that they are actually politically biased. that is one of the reasons why we at the examiner are determined to report the facts. what weree doing news reporting we are being absolutely straight. of course, we will report when we think something is false and we do have a media right and a meteor commentator withr. a coue people who are writing about the stuff constantly and finding problems in certain reports and finding the biases the news reports and making sure telling people about those things so the roy moore story is now only 36 hours old or so and there's a lot more that will come out and

we will beth following it, justs others will be following and we will report those things which we find has been said, untrue and we will report the backstreet wherever those faxed me the. >> host: anthony las vegas on the line for democrats. morning. morning.: good i want to say as a democrat i actually follow the washington examiner and in my past history i probably would have never followed them but after our 2016 primaryri i was desperately looking for the truth in media so i started following liberal sides in conservative sides and if you won't cut me off here i can give you an example of how independent media could even be better then the typical sources that we looked at. for instance, i'm a member of a

group called crowd sourced the truth. we do independent media and we do our own investigations and "the washington post" actually wrote a story about debbie wasserman schultz it aid and in that piece they said there is no evidence of espionage. well, our group found that that is not true because we went to the homes of two individuals that were printing the residences from him and we found outside servers that were located in the garage that had one bunch of i clean plans and there were routers in the basement that one of the tenants is not even paid for. he was paying for it. "the washington post" left this out of the article and in the

title there was no evidence of espionage but they did not include that and they did not include also the second person that they interviewed which we interviewed for which was african-american democrat marine who found smashed hard drives and smashed computers in his garage. they also don't say -- >> host: i'll leave it there because your point is citizen journalism. you think it can play in the media industry. >> guest: first of all, i'm grateful that the caller is now in pursuit of fact checking the washington examiner. citizen journalism should be encouraged. i think and encourage would continue his reporting but this is one of the problems and one of the benefits of online journalism.

if anyone can publish anything really, really, the cost of entry into media is low and you get people to go into it independently who are very well motivated and they want to honor and they think they've got something to add and contribute to the sum of human knowledge. there are also other people and obviously congress is investigating this, russian bots, trying to influence the 2016 election who are deliberately feeding false information into the news cycle. it used to be thought 20 or 30 years ago that the communications revolution would make it very difficult for tyrants to stay in power but now what we're seeing is the fact that online journalism is actually a tool for nasty people to express their views and to influence elections et cetera.

there are pros and cons to citizen journalism and the pros and cons to the fact that anyone can get into reporting and that is one of the reasons why organizations like the washington examiner are determined to build up trust with theirto readership. given that anyone can write whatever they want on the web and given the opinions are at a discount, everyone can give their opinion, the thing that is valuable and the thing that is at a premium is a new source that you can trust which you can go to and you know that if you will read it it will be right or if on occasion there is a mistake, that the news organization will correct it. in fact, what has happened with online journalism is increase the amount of bad journalism but has also increased the merit of the good news organization and made sure that -- they realize their business model depend on being relied upon interested.

>> host: what is your process at the washington examiner for fact checking a reporters piece -- how many stages does it go through before it is published well,up the peaceful baxter is supposed to be the reporter. one hires people who one trust to go out and do a good job and to check the fact. actually, the story goes through a number of different stages. the reporters have supervising edifices and each editor has five or six reporters who report to them and they talk about the story in advance and the editors will monitor the way the story is going and talk to the reporter about how the story is coming along and what they found out and whether what they found out from the need for further ghquestions and then the story will be written and come through

to the editor. once the editor has finished editing the piece he or she will put through to the web producers and the desk and that will be where it is copyedited and prepared for the web and from there it is published to the web. there are three different stages and at each stage the staff who are handling the story will be checking the facts and checking the accuracy and in checking the clean copy to. >> host: the owner of the publication bill, according to forbes 37 were just american is about $12 billion and owns the washington examiner as well as weekly standard. does he have a say in the editorial content? >> guest: no, he doesn't -- to speak to him. occasionally and he respects the

editorial independence of the publication. clearly, before i joined the organization i spoke and we talked in colorado about our views of what journalism was in our views of politics and obviously, he decided that i was the person he wanted for this job. ine part, because he saw eye to eye on almost every issue. to that extent he has control over the publication but on a day-to-day basis or week to week basis he allows us to get on with the job and expects us to do a good job and he's pretty pleased because the more than doubled in size and last couple of years and more and more people aretr trusting us. >> host: how do you -- sorry, how do you measure success? >> guest: we certainly measure it in part by the people who read us.

we average about 8 million unique users each month and that, as i say, has more than doubled in the past couple of years. we expect to grow vary considerably more than that but they also measure it by respect and perhaps less, a matter of metrics, and more a matter of anecdotal feedback. we see ourselves fighting more and more of the media and we are linked to more and more by them and we also measure it by the excess that we have and we have actually good axis both with the trump administration and at capitolpi hill and both with democrats and republicans on capitol hill. when we become an important competition under publication with trump politicians need to

pay attention and need to give you a degree of access. they can't ignore you and he has a very good relationship with capitol hill and with the administration. we measure success to a great extent that way. >> host: will talk to reporters who cover washington coming up. hugo, editorial director with the washington examiner. thank you for kicking off today's conversation. we appreciate it speak and. >> guest: thank you want washington journal at the washington examiner, online imprint propagation here in washington dc we're talking with the reporters. coming up we'rere talking with laura lopez, a political reporter for the washington examiner. she covers the democrats will talk about that party ingt campaigngn 2018. let's begin with what you wrote earlier this week. the next few months will be capital for the party at the dnc struggles to maintain its relevance and what do you mean? >> guest: well, so, there is

actually a lot of internal strife among democrats, specifically at the dnc. while this week was a really big success story for democrats and they are excited about painting the arguments they have for tuesday still stand after tuesday and they have an upcoming meeting in december where there are a lot of people, specifically within the burning wing of the party and want to see perform and they want to see the dnc make changes when it comes to reducing superdelegates and when it comes to the presidential primary process and everything that happened in 2016. >> host: what are you hearing about this december meeting? what is likely to change. >> guest: the december meeting is the meaning of the unit the perform commission. the commission created at the 2016 convention specifically to address these concerns about the primaryy process and these

committee members are meeting to formally finish all of their proposals, like i said, superdelegates, opening up the caucuses, trying to make it a more transparent process and dnc members really want to see the budget of the dnc and that's people as high as the executive board aren't allowed to see and given everything that we have learned about what happened in 2016 that is something that we really want the dnc to move forward on. >> host: how are dnc officials reacting and the leadership over there to donna brazils new book. s,e let the dnc the summer and took over for debbie wasserman schultz, led to the campaign and they have a new dnc leader tom perez but what is the reaction

to? >> guest: she the dnc chair has dismissed allegations that she that brazil outlined in her book saying i that it was not illegal in the agreement that the clinton campaign had with the dnc looks unethical but perez has said that's in the rearview mirror and we want to move forward and we don't need to be focusing on this and this is a new dnc and under new leadership and it will not help us keep relitigating 16 as we try to take back the majorities in the house and senate. that being said there other members of the dnc who "them and they were agitated the book came out and they said it validated what i thought all along and others also said that they were glad that brazil is out there now let's handle this right now

and let's talk about it and let's move forward but with form. >> host: washington examiner headline has the. laura, what is the reaction from democratic leaders in congress to donna brazile and what impact could she have on leadership? >> guest: i'm not sure that donna brazile will have much impact on leadership. pelosi has a good grip on her conference and that being said there is some within the conference, linda sanchez most recently, was about this in line in the democratic house and she did also say recently that she thought policy, along with

minority whip lawyer, should move on and let new, younger leadership, and butd to be honet there aren't that many people that the caucus, conference can envision and replace pelosi. in response to brazil and schumer have dismissed those allegations as well and they said that is not something they want to focus on. they are worried about and there primary priority is whether or not they will take back the majority. >> host: linda sanchez, those comments that she made that laura is referring to our honor newsmakers program. if you want to look it up go to our website at c-span .org on washington journal this sunday our guest donna brazile will be here to. take your questions and comments about her book and that she claims that she makes and it at 8:00 a.m. eastern time this sunday and laura lopez, what is next for the democrat in

congress on tax reform? what is their strategy on this legislation politically to frame it ahead of the 2018 election? >> guest: they are trying to re-create what they did during the affordable care act. during the multiple times can try to repeal it, democrats were successful. there was a lot of anger across the country when. that debate ws at the forefront and democrats are hoping they can to create that energy that they had in a debate but with text. tax reform is tricky and complex and it's not as interesting to a variety of voters but are hoping that they are cutting taxes for the rich, and upper-middle-class and they're hoping that by framing it that way they can

actually defeat these bills in congress which will be hard. it's a pretty strong likelihood that willt actually be able to pass the house. >> host: we want to hear from our viewerst is 20. what do you think about democrats and their chances in meeting and the strategies they are taking on capitol hill to start telling it now. we will get to those in just a minute. laura lopez, let's talk about healthcare. you mentioned what do democrats see out of the virginia and maine election results and when it comes to healthcare and what does that mean about their strategy before november 2018? >> guest: well, they will definitely plane up. they saw that in virginia while [inaudible] iran on i will cut taxes for you the other candidate iran on a message of

that i'm a doctor and will take a doctor a to feel everything ad i will protect your healthcare and so, because of that democrats see a lot of potential for them heading into 2018, really playing up everything that happened this last year on healthcare and saying that we aren't the party that is going to repeal this but we want to fix it moving forward. >> host: on the line for democrats, gonn ahead. >> caller: i was in a minute later in the us government and i have healthcare through the va oror whatever like that but i jt wanted to say that the democrats and i'll talk about the healthcare later but democrats make a comeback just by regrouping their strategy on how they talk to people and stuff like that and send a stronger

message on what they want to do in america in the face of america and what they should do when they have to put a formula together to get an exact result with the economy or whatever like that. as far as the healthcare goes i would have trouble trusting the va's and they put a biological internal science device in my body and took over my life and this policy has been part of the government and i wonder if i'll have healthcare [inaudible] >> host: i'm going to have to leave it there. elroy with his thoughts in

tennessee. let's talk about the direction for the democratic national committee and this is washington examiner piece thate you wrote, laura lopez, over the dnc's direction is nearing a flashpoint. what did you mean by that? nearing aha flashpoint when his accomplishments. >> guest: that was earlier when i mentioned the meeting in december and a lot of the bernie folks within the dnc are saying that if they don't see these reforms implementeddo then whats the point ofis the dnc and what are we doing report. the dnc has also been struggling with fundraising so they see this as an opportunity to show donors and to show voters look, we're taking all the concerns that are voiced during the 2016 primary seriously and were looking at these reforms and hopefully more people will start getting involved and donating to the dnc again.

if they aren't seeing these things implemented and if they don't see press come out and endorse these reforms they will put forward in december and as early as january possibly february is when they will start moving through the rules committee and the entire dnc is expected to vote on it around these aren't adopted and significant changes are made within the structure of the way the dnc operates and allowing more transparency then you will see very public outcry by these bernie folks and some people may just say we will go it alone. >> host: you have the internal divisions over the structure of the party. what aboutut divisions over the politics? you have a headline from november 2nd in the washington examiner: leadership does not seem to be on board with this

idea of pursuing impeachment. >> guest: that is correct. pelosi, hoyer, all of democratic leadership has said look, let's not talkhi about impeachment rit now because while impeachment doesn't rile up the democratic the' are afraid it will also rile trump and express them out to the polls come 2018. leadership is trying to put a control like let's not talk about this but at the same time there are up until the point at which i wrote that piece there were a number of individual house members bringing up articles of impeachment or resolutions and some say that they want to force a vote on that house for but now we're seeing the house judiciary committee, specifically the democrats on the judiciary committee, not the public, democrats are saying we should be prepared if either the house flips in 2018 or a bigger

bombshell dropped from robert mueller'sl investigation into russian meddling and so they are currently meeting and weighing all of the options when it comes to what they could possibly do if theyt gain the majority. >> host: pittsboro, missouri, republican. good morning your guest said that that woman to dismiss what happened to the dnc in the 20166 election that that was in the past and move forward will, what they've done is what [inaudible] >> host: laura lopez? >> guest: i'm sorry, itt is difficult to hear what he was saying democrats he was repeating what you were saying earlier that some democrats want to move on that they wanted to

move on within the party but they don't want to move on from 2016 whendo they currently bring up republicans and the role, russia and the role that russia played. what do you make of what he sees as a contradiction? >> guest: well, the thing is robert mueller is currently investigating and that is an independent, special counsel. so, he is going this investigation low. it's not aa partisan investigationsi and he is lookig into russian meddling in 2016 which we know happened. whether or not there was any collusion between thes trunk campaign and russian officials is something that muller is still investigating. we have seen indictments recently but the one against manafort and manafort's

associate had to do with money laundering and had to do with words specifically directly tied to the camp so the reason democrats keep bringing it up is because there are ongoing investigation. even once be led by republicans in the senate and in the house. the senatee intelligence committee investigation led by republican richard burr isn't done yet. the same with the lunch led by senate judiciary committee led by senator grassley, a republican as well. those investigations are ongoing and that is why democrats are going to use it politically. >> host: stephanie from highland, california, a democrat. >> caller: good morning. i think basically that the democrats are going to win by default because everyone, including republicans most of them, are scared of what happening in the white house and who is control of the white

house isru vladimir putin runnig the white house. everyone is scared of that and what donald trump could possibly do and that is why the democrats are not necessarily going to be strengthened with the infighting or anything that in the democratic party but the whole united states the majority of people are scared and it's like in the adult please stand up and make sure that this place don't fall apart. everyone is scared 170, let's get laura's reaction. >> guest: well, so, that fear she is talking about when it comes to who is in the white house when it comes to president trump and that is very real. we've seen a number of candidates, specifically in virginia house of delegates on the democratic side step up. these are people who have run for officeeo before and they fet

the need to run for office because of trump and that is helping democrats out and it's helping them headed to 2018 and there are a lot of candidates springing up out of nowhere that have never desire to run for public office before and that is in reaction to and so you will see more of that. one downside to that though having so many candidates for democrats is that it leads to just primaries and went up coming out of those primaries could end up coming out a little battered as well as the worchester pleated and they may not be as well prepared for a generalti election. they could be just. put that color said that is something that is making democrats excited about their possibility to win back the majority. >> host: go to richmond, virginia. independent. you are on the air, jim. >> caller: good morning. glad to get to you.

i have so many items that i will try to limit. first off i don't think the democrats have to do anything they would be quiet because republicans are self-destructing. they are taking away my health insurance and i got a pre-existing condition and i'm good enough to get my health insurance or not afforded the way that the state of virginia has done with the health insurance anyway. all we've got to do is sit back and wait i and they will self-destruct. now that they willtr take away all of my tax breaks and all my interest on my house and all the things i can't even count on my taxes, i was way back to reagan's reporter and when i believe in trickle-down economy but iam am still waiting and hasn't trickle down yet. were telling me it will happen again. let's get the first trickle down to meet first and then i will

believe the second one jim, are you truly an independent -- how have you voted since you once voted for reagan. >> caller: actually, i voted for george allen and: governor and that didn't work out too well but i don't want to go there what did you vote for president trump? >> caller: no, i did not. i never put. when laura lopez, what you make of this, the democrats just needs to keep quiet. >> guest: well, that is definitely a strategy that they are slightly using. when it comes to these big bills, democrats are saying will not help you unless you're willing too talk to us so they weren't going to lend the informal care act h and the are going to on the tax overhaul the republicans are attempting right now. there is a very real ability that we could end the year with no substantial republican when

and with the democratic wins, not only because they successfully killed efforts. feel the affordable care act but we are entering number or nearing december which is when the year and spending bill is supposed to be passed if the government opens and democrats have some pretty big things on their list thatt they want and t really isit likely that house speaker paul ryan will be able to pass a year and spending bill without democratic vote.ut it's difficult to get the republican conference on the line and pelosi has this list of we would like certain things when it comes to a path to citizenship for dreamers and there's an entire list of things the democrats canen walk away with. what riverton, wyoming, in-line, good morning good morning. how is everyone at c-span? >> host: doing well. your question or comment here for guest three i do believe

that democrat are going to lose everything they lost before because they don't know how to keep their mouth shut and trump is trying his best in all they do is stop everything he wants to do. i believe they will lose again. they will lose a lot of seats in the house and the senate. >> host: what if the president strikes deals with democrats like he did recently with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer? are you in favor of him taking that strategy? >> caller: no, i am not. i think the republicans need to get off their dead butts and do something. they are needed to do this. they do not need to depend on the democratsho because they wot help them. >> host: so if the president takes that t route, you blame hs party for not getting behind him? >> caller: that is right.

they are not behind him. they just cause trouble just like the democrats have and the american people are, at least in this part of the country, tired of it when laura lopez? >> guest: it is interesting because it is true what he said. there are a lot of republicans that will notot fall in line behind trump and the issue that is okay, who is left for trump to work with because these things needt to go through congress and they can'tht just e executive orders that he is doling out left and right. republicans will go in line with thatt either. if he doesn't work with and repentance don't get in line and democrats are the only option. we have seen how that goes before. one minute trump will make a deal with the democrats on daca as an example in a month or two later he says, nevermind, i'm with begins and we aren't going

to give them the pathway to citizenship. it's difficult for both parties in congress to know where they stand with the president, given that he and his advisors around him tend to change their mind. we will more likely trump is one changing his mind but it is difficult for botht parties to figure out where they stand. >> host: dave in irvine, california. line for democrats. hello. >> caller: i wanted to make a comment. worst thing the democrats did during the last election was they wanted to get rid of all the guns and outsource all the jobs. they've got to work on keeping their mouth o shut about getting rid of the guns because people out here need their guns. everyone needs their guns. i'm telling you. knives kill more people than guns and you had that strategy in las vegas but you had a bigger one when clinton was the

president where they went into waco through aco picture's house and they took [inaudible] on his property andop killed those kids but you don't hear that on the news media very much. people need their guns so get off that kick and also, on social security the democrats need to work on people that have social security for the last 50 years they've taken out millions of dollars from social security and they need to put that money back. >> host: dave, we'll leave it there. laura lopez on gun control, there is some discussion that republicans may agree with democrats on some issues that have been related to the recent attacks that we see. >> guest: yes, that is right. i would say that democrats don't want to b take people's guns awy but democrats would like to be able to research gun violence and they would like and republicans as well to hold hearings on a bump stop which is something we saw that came up

after the las vegas shooting and so, there is expected to be a hearing on that on the senate side and those are things that they would like to get conversations going about what can we do to make these mass shootings less frequent and what aremi we missing and we should e talking about it shouldn't just be saying that there is no policy solution to this. >> host: laura lopez, covers the democrats for the washington examiner, previously at the huffington post. you can follow her at washington examiner .com or on twitter. thank you very much for your time this morning. >> guest: thank you speak. >> president to talk about trade during economic summit in vietnam. he addresses the business leaders and president trump said he will not allow the united states to be taken advantage of anymore. he went on to say that he will always put american first the same way i expect all of you in

this room to your country's first. during the summit president trump shook hands and spoke with russian president, val american. he's been visiting several countries in asia. ask a couple of days. yesterday he met with china's president and has also met leaders from south korea and japan. next he will visit the philippines. >> on saturday to watch the wisconsin book festival starting at noon eastern. between best-selling historian doug stanton and pulitzer prize morning at ten. washington post staff writer on the fall of the closing of the dn plant in janesville, wisconsin. ...

>> we are talking about the legislative agenda on the "washington journal" as we continue to be live from the "washington examiner", and online and print publication in washington, d.c. we've been talking to the reporters and editors of the publication all morning on the program. joining us now is their chief congressional correspondent for the "washington examiner", a familiar face to our viewers as well. what was the reaction by house leadership and the ways and means committee leadership to the senate passed bill yesterday that was unveiled? >> guest: good morning here it

was interesting because both chambers have been working together loosely for months on a tax plan ass well as in officials fromth the white house because it did want to be too far apart over all. there are some fundamental differences between the two bills. i thinkls the one that will perhaps end up changing because there's a lot of disagreement over is the corporate tax rate. i think republicans in both chambers want to lower that rate to 20%. that's the agreed-upon level. you see that in both plans. the corporate tax rate is reduced immediately beginning in january 2018 whereas the senate bill delays it until 2019. the senate bill does this in order to create more money in the treasury, more offsets by delaying that, you delay reducing money come into the treasury. that's part of the reason they do it. on the house side they consider that to be a gimmick and they

don't think it's a good idea because they believed cutting the corporate tax rate will more quickly. >> wrote in wages, jobs and economic growth over e all. my thought initially on this just in talking to house lawmakers will learn of the plan was they feel that corporate tax rate needs to happen immediately or faster than in the senate bill. when i talked to senate lawmakers when it first came out of the briefing yesterday morning about the tax plan, many of them told me the same thing that they want corporate tax rate to happen sooner and that they're hoping that can be accomplished somehow by playing around with thehe tax plan and reduce costs elsewhere. that's my initial perception from talking to lawmakers yesterday before you left town for the veterans day holiday. >> host: susan ferrechio, what are you hearing about. the boat? do house republicans have the boat? boat?republicans have the >> guest: it's a good

question. these things can beau twiggy because there are members to win a member so lose for their districts in this tax plan. right now i think the people that may not vote for the tax bill in house republicans from wealthier districts and higher tax districts. many of them have gone on the record to say they can't support the plan because their constituents would be paying more because tax rate go up slightly for some joint filers and because of the property tax deduction changes, the mortgage interest tax deduction change and elimination of state and local tax deductions over all. in the house bill. however, these lawmakers do not constitute enough of a faction to block the bill in the house. i thinkit the majority of membes including the big conservative factions who can sometimes cause problems when the house is trying to pass bills with republicans only, they appear to be on board with this now. my initialal thought is it in gd

shape for the house next week. going forward with the exception of some of these lawmakers from the higher taxed districts who at this point don't appear to constitute enough of a faction to prevent the bill from passing. >> host: we talk with senator david purdue, republican ofda georgia yesterday, former fortune 500 eeo. he has the president you. the president relied on him for tax form andm he told us in the newsmakers interview that he believes they have 51, 52 republicans two republicans in the senate and he said if we reach 50, he said you could see up to six democrats coming with us and voting yes. susan ferrechio, what do you think? >> guest: well, that's the outstanding question is what will democrats to do? the democrats we have our eye on our democrats up for reelection next year in states that were won by president trump in 2016. we call them the red state

democrats in the senate. none of them is committed to voting for this tax blinker at document of them individually and they are opposed a lot of what to the bill including the state and local tax deduction. i think what it will boil down to at this point is whether they calculate will benefit their constituents. if they determine i look at the details of the bill that will be a lot of savings for the majority of the constituent i think it may be difficult for democrats in the states to vote against the bill. however, that's not a guarantee. none of them have committed to doing it. the president has gone through with lots of outreach for democrats have talked to the president about a bipartisan cooperation that they say could lead to their collaboration. th these loose talks that they're aving on capitol hill occasionally between white house administrators and key democrats. think that but i senator perdue brings up a good

for , it may be hard red-state democrats to vote against a tax plan that benefits th constituents if they calculate it to turn out that way. with susan g ferrechio, chief congressional reporter with the washington xaminer, here to take your questions and comments about the legislative agend a. tax reform can call ic, but you on other public policy issues, as well. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002.nts, call in now, we'll get to your in a minute. susan ferrechio, you wrote a weaver, long with al g.o.p. election route haunts tax reform push. in what in what way? >> guest: it was pretty interesting that results in new jersey and virginia less so the governor races but these individual races that knocked out a lot of local lawmakers out

in the suburbs. the suburbs are where the state and local tax deductions are very popular. those are limited in the house bill. it had a lot of lawmakers talking on capitol hill about the impact of that on their reelection prospects in 2018. 2018. because those deductions are popular. the tax bill overall would lower rates but does get rid of the so-called loopholes or these things people use to pay fewer taxes. that's what a lot of lawmakers on capitol hill nervous about how that will look and what the constituents will think of it and how it will impact their election prospects next year. they certainly i think were, felt warmth of what happened on with these big wipeouts with local elections. i think particularly in virginia where you saw the state legislature nearly flipped from very strongly republican to now

just a barety republican majori. there was ae day where it wasnt quite sure the majority hung in the balance. lawmakers are paying attention. they always say these post election contests don't reallyte inn anything, especially states that have turned blue, but they do pay attention to them and i think they do feel wary of the impact of what tax reform will do for the individual constituents. the interesting thing about this bill more than most that i've covered on capitol hill is the way lawmakers are talking about how they perceive it will impact their constituents. they are now going to individual constituent property rates, tax rates. they want to know, they are going house by house to see whether people are going to win or lose from this tax plan. that's how they will decide whether they will support it or not. and there being very careful about it. the republican leadership

contends in the in the vast majority of their constituents will benefit from this plan. they are counting on that because that's going to make a break whether or not makes it through congress. >> host: susan ferrechio the other story up from earlier thir week, conservative push for obamacare mandate repealed in the tax bill. what do they want to see their leadership include, and how is leadership responding? >> guest: it's a persistent theme right now, is a way to repeal the individual mandate. don't forget they attempted to repeal and replace the healthcare law earlier this year and they were not able to do it. there's still ast question get t or another. you do it have an opportunity to get it done with just 51 votes, circumventing at democratic filibuster that would block it. it would to create $400 million in tax savings which would be a

help to maybe eliminate some of the other loophole closures that are unpopular. so there's chatter on capitol hill about is there a way to put this in? i think republicans are tempted by. i know the president has talked about it. the president has encouraged it. key leaders on the hill are discussing it. but i think they are on the fence because it also has the potential to thwart the entire thing because there may be some real unease with doing that among some senators who they believed in the senate to pass the tax bill. moderate senators. i know there's discussion. i think they are tempted by it but don't see any real commitment right now toco do it but it's not off the table. we were talking to republican leaders yesterday afternoon before they left ten. they are still talking about it. they will not rule it out and i think it's something will be to keep our eyewe on next week when the markup comes around in the senate and the houseboats. even if if it doesn't make it into the house-passed bill,

should ask the house next week or the senate markup it could come later on because as you mentioned both chambers are going to probably have to get together and work on a compromised bill since each chamber is likely to pass a tax plan. >> host: , let's see what our views have to say.o sarasota florida, your first. >> caller: i thinkry most of the public support doing away with the state and local tax deduction as a way to compel residents of say, new york and california to really look at how their tax money is spent. instead of receiving a federal deduction for their state and local taxes, they will have to take a hard look how the state and all the counties in their state areta actually using their money. it will hit them in the pocketbook and it will compel them to pay attention to how their money is being used.

the other point thati i have is that, according to the u.s. census,he only about 27% of the adult population of our country is college educated, and that's all the way from an associates degree to professional degrees, doctors and lawyers. now, why should the majority subsidize student loans for quite a minority? and when we really need skilled tradesmen training in this country. we need people to be able to be job ready and to make a decent living, yet everything has been focused on college education. and i can tell you from paying for my own children, every penny for them to go to school debt-free, many of the classmates use their student loan money without any care that

they were going to have to pay it back. they went shopping. they got spray tans. they got her nails done. is not something that we taxpayers should subsidize. m >> host: all right, mary. susan ferrechio? >> guest: well, two answers, interesting topics both about deductions. there's f definitely a fight on capitol hill amongst lawmakers about the state and local tax deductions. you have lawmakers in statesavfr like texas and florida would say why are we subsidizing state and local tax deductions for high tax states? why can't come why are we doing that? and you have the people who are from the high tax states who feel they are doing the subsidizing because they put more money back into the federal government which then distributed distribute to the rest of thehe country. you have a quarrel going on amongst the lawmakers over whor really is paying more and who is owed more.

i think the state and local tax deduction is at the heart of that right now, and they are in the house outnumbered by people who don't like the state and local tax deduction. you have places like new york and new jersey, california, pennsylvania within higher taxes, and the rest of the carcass to say hey, exactly the argument the caller is making, which is thatt why don't they take it up with their own governments? these high tax rates. that appears to be where the debate is headed on capitol hill. then we pi go back to the second point of the caller was making that individual deductions and the fight over that. it has brought up a a debate or what really the government should subsidize the people feel angry about the mortgage interest deduction. they believe it favors the high income earners over everybody else. are people who do not favor these other little individual itemized deductions and think they should be fewer

of them. one is the student loan, the other, could be anything, child tax credit, anything would people feel like why we subsidizing any of this. that is part of the issue. the republicans have argued why do we just lower the rates and get rid of all the deductions and then when t you calculate yr taxes you will keep more of your money up front rather than getting bits of the back through the deduction process. it's really in spite of the whole debate onal capitol hill d you receive lawmakers talking with how to deal with this because everyone has their pet deduction there trying tog save. for example, deductions that are taken out and house have been restored in the senate. among them the student interest deduction that the caller was talking about. it's back in the senate having been taken up in the house. another one iss a medical expene deduction which is gone and the house, restored in the senate. the house yesterday voted to restore the credit for those who

adopt children up to 13,500 per adopt a child. that was restored. it's because people are attached to these deductions and a favor them oruc don't favor them, and it's created a a big fight on capitol hill over them and it's not clear what will make it up in it that we are very much in the beginning of this process. just churning through the house now i just beginning its journey in the senate, and a lot of the work may ultimately happen behind closed doors when the house and senate are working out that final deal andl you may see even moreea changes in terms of which deduction may get in or out. >> host: waterbury connecticut democrat. >> caller: hello. can you hear me okay? >> host: we can. >> caller: i'm just calling because i am very unhappy with the current administration and find them to be quite cruel.

even the tax plan itself. i mean, to take away medical write-offs, it really seemsit cruel. and they are replacing it with people that are making billions and billions of dollars. they are going to get tax cuts. that seems very, very cruel. and, of course, a big concern of mine is we seem to be headed right for world war iii at our own accord that we seem to be pushing this.k i think it's really important for parents and grandparents to realize that it's going to be their children and grandchildren have to fight if we have world war iii. and it's very serious. and i'm concerned. those are my concerns, you know, the write-offs of the tax went just as another angle of cruelty in my opinion. >> host: okay, rose.

susan ferrechio? >> guest: i think where the caller might be talking about is the estate tax. it's always a point of contention on capitol hill between republicans and democrats. democrats want to preserve the estate tax, whereas republicans want to get rid of it. in this case you see two approaches by the house and the senate., the house phaset out the estate the capric the senate keeps the estate tax, preserving a lot of that money come into the treasury. i happen to think that estate tax is probably going to stay in. because they need the revenue, one, and two, because i think republicans are hearing the sentiments of callers like the one we just listen to what if you like they don't want this to be a t tax cut for the wealthy. i know that the priority for republicans writing this plan in both chambers is to make sure

this this is a tax cut for the middle class. they don't want any with of this benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. i think you'll see all efforts to prevent a tax plan from looking that way. i think overall people on the middle and lower ends of the income earners are going to actually see savings, and that those who are b paying more are going to be the higher income earners. i think the estate tax will probably stay in at this point if i had to guess. because mostly it was left in by the senate. they will have more of a say in this whole process because they have a small majority and so it's going to be harder to get anything through the senate and so the need of more influence over it because they are the tougher chamber to get this thing past. i think that's how we will be addressed. they will try to preserve the estate tax. maybe they will raise the cap on how much they will end up

reserving cap on who pays it. but it will still be in place by the time this process is over. >> host: brenda is in california, republican, as far as judge roy moore is concerned, the comment the stories have been corroborated, but you know what? i think they could corroborate and then make up a story. that would be pretty easy for them to do it as far as the estate tax is concerned, that takes away family farms and agribusiness moves in with all the pesticides, and so if you want less pesticides, you need to let people keep their farms. >> host: susan ferrechio, let's take the comments about roy moore fornd anything new on that? and also what is the political fallout, if any, from this story for republicans and their

agenda? >> guest: well, you know, there's now a threat they could lose another seat so that's terrible for the republicans because they are barely scraping by with a 52 seats in the senate. they were not able to pass a health care bill because the majority wasn't big enough. they need more padding so they can lose the few people and still pass things. if they in fact, lose the senate seat from alabama, they would be down to just a bare majority of 51 votes which means they can only lose one vote on any given gop majority measure, which there are not that many. that's a problem for them at a think there'shi a real fear amongst republican leaders that this could be a political disaster for them. they have called on roy moore if the allegations are true for him to step aside. roy moore was never an establishment pick. he did not have full backing of

the republicans in the senate to begin with. he won his primary, , don't fort president trump endorsed luther strange who was the hand-picked replacement for jeff sessions when he left the center become attorney general. roy moore is claiming the allegations are not true. the way it works in the state is his name will remain on the ballot. so republicans are in a tough spot right now. this is the candidate and they don't like it, and it's not clear what will happen. it's a red state. it's not clear what happens if he wins, what would be the fate of his seat in the senate. and r i i think it's a real prm for them right now with a lot of uncertainty at this moment about what will happen in general with the seat. and i think democrats may see an opportunity for themselves

politically to think of something but it's a very red areas was not clear that's going to happen. but it certainly hit senate very hard yesterday. this happened when they were all in the tax briefing, and they came out about tax briefing and all of usit reported awaiting wh the news, this breaking story, and within 20 minutes they had all kind of read it and digested it. even the majority of your and so schema of the o chamber to talko reporters, which is very unusual. he almost never does that, to say they the thought that the allegations were true, that he should step aside. i think there are some conservatives were angry about the timing of this story, and feeling that itng was somehow there to prevent republicans from winningng or prevent roy moore from winning. so it really created, really created a big explosion on capitol hill yesterday, at a

think the library distraught over it at this moment and there's a lot of uncertainty about the seat. >> host: mike in ridgecrest california independent. you on the air with susan ferrechio of the "washington examiner." >> caller: good morning, america, good morning, greta. the produce journalist on era. >> host: thank you, mike. what's your question or your comment? >> caller: i have three very questions for susan and the examiner. but you know, out here in the far west it's a moot point for california is lost. the federal tax cut of $1282 for a poor -- informant fell is a joke. i spend that in two months, credit, chasing down work for my contracting business in california in thisia slow econo. with republicans showing us how great this was i almost fell out of my truck. that is a joke.

[inaudible] to offset the federal taxes. in high-tech states it doesn't matter the governors will just raise taxes. and take more money from you. on the radio this sunday night at 7:00, they will expose the house of congress is 98% corrupt. and in the pockets of wall street. this is my split question. number one, are the democrats corrupt inner efforts to lean toward socialism? and are the republicans corrupt inner efforts to lean towards fascism? as an example of soros funding a black coat protests. >> host: okay, susan ferrechio, what do you make of hisma questions? >> guest: well, there are people talking about the amount of tax savings, whether the amount of nearly $1200 for family of a family of four

making $59,000, whether it really amounts to much for people. and in a lot of the country it does. it does amount, certainly california is a very expensive place to live, and it does have very high taxes. so you're right, though states may not benefit as much. i think that is an argument hill nowppening on the about the winners and losers in this thing. they try to write a bill that at all winners. but you can't do that because if you cut taxes one place, you need to find the money elsewhere or else the deficit may grow too big which also damagesam they ce and eventually hurts everybody. so they are trying to find that delicate balance. this this is a number the housee up withup for savings. i think the call is talking up something that other people around the country may feel as

well that depends on where you live, you know, , where it's vey expensiveis or where your propey taxes are high and that deduction will hurt you, or where your mortgage interest is pretty high and because of the housing costs, now you're going to lose money on that under the house plan. where you may not be a winner under this thing. and oftentimes in congress it's about the math on how you pass legislation and how to get things through with 218 votes in the house, and in this case 51 votes in the senate. and they built a legislation eventually, if it turns into legislation, that can win the right amount of votes and that's what a lot of the dealmaking comes in. that's at play with this tactic they want to make sure middle income americans are going to benefit at least most of them. but as the caller point . sãoée novena for everybody and i think in some cases other people may end up paying a little more. >> host: let's get a couplea

more calls in. bob in michigan, republican. good morning. >> caller: hello. i'm not a happy republican. those republicans in congress i are a disgrace. i mean, my god, that republican bill in the senate looks like something the democrats would write. this is ridiculous. >> host: why do you sayth that, bob? >> caller: they would keep the estate tax for one. they certainly would. are putting off bringing the money back from offshore for a couple of years. you know what? if we're not in power in a couple years they will get rid of that. this is total craziness. we havera the power to use. i think those guys don't like donald trump andnd i don't think they like being in power. i think they would prefer to be in the minority. i'm sick of this identity politics business. >> host: bob, , i want susan ferrechio to jump in. what do you make of his comments? >> guest: will come he sounds

like some numbers on capitol hill where there's been more of a divide amongst mores pseudo-populist republicans who say that lawmakers should move more aggressively on this tax plan. it should be no delays ine anyf the cats, and that they should rely on economic growth to bring money to the treasury to allay fears, including the estate tax which does affect down the farms, family-owned businesses. it's not just for thed rich. however it does often benefit the rich. there are a lot of republicans were very angry at the slow pace particularly in the senate where they have a tiny majority and often require 60 votes with the help of democrats to pass most legislation which pretty much stalls a lot of things. and they would like the senate to now that they have the green light, which is the power of the majorities in the entire congress and the white house,

that they should be moving faster and more aggressively while they have the power and that they're not moving aggressively enough and will soon become who knows, back in the minority and the a democrats will be in powerat and then they will use the power more aggressively than the republicans are doing it right now. that is a hot at debate on capitol hill and thehe caller is reflecting a lot of people want the senate, for example, to get rid of the filibuster rule so that all legislation get past with only 511 votes and not 60 votes. it's a lot of discussion particularly in the house picky like the senate to do that. the house passes a lot of bills to move forward a conservative republican agenda, and it senate is able to pass and because democrats use of the filibuster. that's always under discussion. i don't see much changing this congress, not it under discussionon and its part of sot

of a populist tone of some republicans in the house and some innocent as well. >> host: we would go to john in virginia, democrat. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to say to susan, i travel to other countries and i've seen people when they pay taxes have improved the country. this is the only country that i know people want of a good service at the don't want to pay for it. and the bottom line is i have my own house. i get something back every year. if that goes to my community and i see some roads being changed, i don't mind getting this money at all. i can do my own. i only get $1000 something to get back every year. but the bottom line is this. people calling, complaining about the congress. we have 40% republicans and with 40% democrat. people who involve this thing sit out there and start complaining. if you don't vote and you don't engage the politics of the country, you are going to end up

something like more. and i just what to say something about the alabama, thehe man whs running for for senate. i think mitch mcconnell has no basis to tell albanians how they elect to represent his i think this is wrong and this is attack about people who don't like that guy. >> host: thanks, john. susan ferrechio? >> guest: well, you know, the tax debate is kind of never ending on capitol hill, how much you should pay and how much you should keep in your own pocket. just two different philosophies, each party argues, democrats believe that you need to pay more into the system so government can provide more for you along the way in terms of services, particularly helping people who may need more help, the poor and disabled and people who just need more help. whereas on the republican side

they think individuals should choice about what to do with her own money and that they should keep more of their own money. that's their governingng philosophy. you see that reflected in the tax bill where they want you to keep more of your money by lowering rates and letting you keep more of it upfront rather than having to use these deductions to reclaim some of it. but again it's just two different philosophies. it's one of the reasons why you are saying this bill so on h capitol hill have all the republican support. because the divide is pretty big over howow each party approaches taxes. democrats definitely believe that more government is needed to help and that more money coming in that they consider it an investment. they call the investment, be it in the infrastructure investment that would create jobs through government j programs or in

education through government funding, medicine, through government funding, whereas republicans want the individual to be more in charge and to keep more of their money and be more personally responsible for just two different philosophies and people who vote after the philosophies as well and is reflected in how they vote. and i think again that's what on capitol hill you are not seeing bipartisanship in tax reform. it's one of those things i think truly divides the two parties. >> host: our viewers can follow this debate and susan ferrechio reporting it to go to "washington examiner".com, go to twitter as well. susan ferrechio chief congressional correspondent for what you think you in the rest of your team at the "washington examiner" for letting c-span come into your newsroom this morning and chat with you about what you all do in your reporting. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you very much,

et