president obama's release of guantanamo bay prisoners in exchange for bowe b ergdahl. live now to "washington journal." good morning, everyone, on this wednesday, june 4, 2014. yesterday was primary day in 8 states. thad cochranenator was fighting the political race of his life yesterday, locked in a nailbiter against keep writ -- tea party-backed chris mcdaniel's, too close to call this morning. the back-and-forth between congress and the president over the release of captured sergeant bowe bergdahl heated up yesterday, with republicans and

democrats saying that the president should have given them 30 days notice. we will get your thoughts this morning on the prisoner swap deal. hosthost: join the conversationn facebook, and you can also e-mail us, journal @cspan.org. the president began his 4-day of europe and was asked about riticism of him that he didn't give them 30 days notice. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the united states has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is we don't lead our

men or women in uniform behind. dates back to the earliest days of our revolution. we have consulted with congress for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover sgt. bergdahl. we saw an opportunity. we were concerned about sgt. bergdahl's health. we had the cooperation of the qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity. the process was truncated because we wanted to make sure we did not miss that window. with respect to the bergdahl'ses of sgt. captured by the taliban, we have

sgt.een interrogating bergdahl. he is recovering from 5 years of cap tiffany -- captivity wit hthe taliban. he is undergoing a whole battery of tests and he is going to have to undergo a significant .ransition back into life he is not even met with his family yet, which indicates the degree to which we take this transition process seriously, something that we learn from the vietnam era. but let me make a very simple here, and that is regardless of the circumstances, but over those may turn out to be, we still get an american soldier backed if he is held in captivity. warsaw,esident obama in poland on tuesday responding to the criticism by which the president released -- exchanged

bowe bergdahl for 5 prisoners at guantanamo bay. here's what speaker john boehner treated that yesterday -- tweeted out yesterday. host: that was the speaker of the house, john boehner. the chairman of the armed services committee on the senate democrat of levin, michigan, put out this statement .

host: but the ranking republican on the senate intelligence committee, saxby chambliss, yesterday had these tweets over the past few days. host: the senator also said host: it is not just republicans. senator dianne feinstein, chairwoman of the intelligence committee, as quoted by the daily beast saying she had concerns about this, that she hadn't been notified about a possible swap for 2 years. senate intelligence committee

chairman dian feinstein says it has been more than 2 years "since she was consulted on the issue, adding that the exchange was greeted by the senate intelligence committee with dismay.' and lettersre normal to expressing -- 2 letters expressing their views, to secretary of state yearly clinton and to the president himself. thattein said in a letter a 30-date warning was necessary for any prisoner exchange and promising future consultation with congress. feinstein said there was no additional consultation until ."dday saturday what are your thoughts on this? independent caller outside of washington, what do you think? caller: good morning, greta.

i'm a veteran. it's like you should have a 2 lines for non-vets and vets. hl from idahoergda is worth 1000 talibans. freedom,who fight for our people that we sent out there, especially at the beginning of this war, it was a phony war for george bush and all is oil people. they should all be in jail for what is going on. host: so you believe no matter the circumstances of his capture, whether he was captured by the taliban or was a deserter , doesn't matter to you? caller: they say he is a deserter already. that is republican talk right there.

you are not a deserter if you are going for 30 days. he might've walked off the post. he might have been on a mission. nobody is going to know until the military sorts it all out. this guy is a hero and all you americans trying to make him a to be something different, walk a mile in his shoes. you will never have the guts and the heart of this man. traded 1000 palestinians for one israeli. the motion administration traded -- the bush administration. thousands of detainees. there is no other things to say about this man. he is a hero. you always bring the last person home when the war is winding down. host: you are a veteran. when did you serve? 1967-1971.

i helped the u.s. embassy when it was attacked in saigon him and you cannot stop an attack. morenly way is to add money to guarding the embassies, but the republicans took 300 million from that. i mean, come on, republicans. host: congressman, you said we won't know until the army does its review, and that is the , "army reviews desertion charges against freed soldier." >> the new investigation comes amid mounting allegations that bergdahl deserted his post and put others at risk when they .earched for him the army completed an earlier investigation into bergdahl's actions that included interviewing other soldiers and

witnesses. the pentagon said the investigation remains classified a defense of the show said investigate us believe he walked off his post without authorization before he was captured." you are not considered a deserter until you were gone for 30 days. bruce, what do you think? caller: well, everything is up in the air, and it is going to be like benghazi and every thing else. we are never going to get the complete information. i just thought it was an astute political move by the president on friday with the news release that they always do, and the veterans administration debacle is, you know back burner news now. we are going to be indignant and everything but basically, the president broke the law. he was supposed to inform congress, which he didn't.

now we have the dancing of the words of what you did tell them, what they were going to, blah blah blah, but he still broke the law and the has done it before. we're finally getting around to benghazi, and then the debacle at the irs, which, you know, nobody gets fired, nothing happens. it is standard politics in washington. we just moved onto a new political thing that everybody is going to bash for 2 or 3 weeks. host: tk, republican caller. you are up early. go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. i was shocked to hear that we made a trade for pow. alive long as i've been and a citizen of the country of the united states, and has always been a non-negotiating union with terrorists, and that

was a blatant, staunch, don't cross that line type attitude. obama broke it. you didn't break just that law. -- he didn't break just that law. he has been flirting with just breaking the law, so to speak, just to doing things you should -- he shouldn't. i don't know if it is arrogance, or if he can, but this is foreign policy. this is what people should think five yearsemember ago when everybody said, you know what, maybe obama doesn't have the qualifications or the knowledge or the experience to deal with foreign policy. look what happened with israel, with netanyahu. look at what we have here with the hostages. look at benghazi. host: let me jump in at this

point, because our guest coming up on "washington journal" is charles stimson, a former secretary of detainee affairs, former deputy assistant defense on that issue, and he was quoted the other day that this whole idea we don't negotiate with terrorists is more of a mantra that fact and all administrations have negotiated with terrorists. caller: of course we have, but not all the terrorists throughout the region know about it. this is a big public statement and circus. 5 of these detainees who were , and that isrgets why they've been in jail for 10 years, to let those go publicly like this and then have the news and the press have the nerve to bergdahland badmouth or whatever for how we got captured, give the guy a break. he served the country.

that's get down to what the real problem is -- let's get down to what the real problem is here, and that is terrorism and the president we have. we have got to get him out and get somebody in there like -- that has experience, because this foreign policy of the president has been a disaster. host: let me show you and our other few years -- our other viewers the "atlanta journal-constitution" front page. some say these are graybeards and will not go back into fighting, and that the qatari government is going to watch them for a year, and that the u.s. didn't negotiate with terrorists, they did it through the qatari government. what do you think that argument? caller: i find it to be a fine argument. these detainees are not going to go back onto the field. the're going to go back to families and little respect for life, i hope. they're not going to go back into war. -- and have respect for life, i

hope. they're not going to go back into war. feel bad when these detainees were grasping and embracing the people when they met them. that is human nature. sorrow and, you know, most gratitude that these people are actually have some heart in their soul. but for us to do this is just absolutely insane. was saying that it is not going to be just kidnapping after kidnapping, state officials, terrorists -- 5 terrorists, 5 negotiating tools. times"n "the new york today, an opinion piece. "a prisoner of war, but not a hero." "now that this man is on his way home, what do we do with him,"

referring to bowe bergdahl. "the white house clearly erred by pretending that sgt. bergdahl was an ordinary prisoner of war and that his return would be cause for unalloyed celebration. it should have brought him home as quietly as possible with no fanfare. i don't see how the pentagon can avoid re-examining what happened on june 30, 2009. if sgt. bergdahl is proved mentally competent to stand trial, 80 users a few years in the north to reflect on -- maybe he spends a few years in leavenworth to reflect on his dereliction of duty. but the anger seems somehow fitting -- a messy and inconclusive and to award that went on far too long without a clear purpose after the rout of al qaeda. bowe bergdahl is going home. so are the taliban." lydia, you are on the air. caller: i have to take a deep

breath, because i can understand why president obama didn't inform congress. republicans would've rushed to fox news and blabbed everything and probably sabotaged the release of this soldier. wonder if he'si served in military. if you've never been in combat, you don't have a clue. my late husband was a korean war veteran and he said combat was hell and he never recovered from that war. we don't know sgt. bergdahl's mental status. he was 23 when he was captured. he probably volunteered when he was a teenager. 19-year-old 18- and kids and send them to afghanistan and iraq and when they come back they are never healed. leavenworth is called for, and i'm very disappointed in john mccain.

he has always been a statesmen and inspiration to me. if anyone should understand what this soldier is going to come it should be john mccain. 5 years in a north korea prison camp -- host: because he is a prisoner of war himself. caller: yes, and he knows what it's like. and some of the soldiers accused him of being a traitor, saying he collaborated with the enemy. if you are being tortured, you would say anything. we don't know if this young man would ever be mentally fit or rushingand the people out to condemn him have never served in the military. bill kristol and all these "eople running to "morning joe, running their mouths and they don't know what they are talking about. these people have never had a trial, never had charges brought against -- they were also prisoners of war. that place should be closed. we are wasting $500 million in your keeping a place open and

that money should be given to the veterans administration to take care of our wounded and maimed soldiers. host: ok, lydia, to your sentiment, hear from "the new york times" this morning is from john ballenger iii, at top lawyer at the state department under george w. bush. to facergdahl will have military justice. we don't leave soldiers on the battlefield under any circumstances unless they have actually joined the enemy army, mr. bellinger told fox news on tuesday. 'he was a young 20 year old and young 20-year-olds make stupid decisions and i don't think we say that if you make a stupid decision we leave you in the hands of the taliban.'" leo. caller: hello. good morning to you. republican caller that you had, you gave him an extensive period of time and i would appreciate if you allowed me half of the

time you gave him. first of all, i'm a military veteran, i served overseas. and i was in my 20's. let me tell you something, and people might want to hear this. by the time a person leaves -- i left from louisiana, i live in , andeep south of louisiana i'm in the military and i heard about racism. i never dealt with that until i went in the united states army. second, and you get to these places overseas and you find out the atrocities, the lies, the horrible things united states have done in this world, and you are part of that are just like , sodahl told his family

many lies, and you are 20 years old, you might walk away, too. host: ok, leo. glenn, republican caller. caller: good morning, "washington journal." thanks for taking the call. you can always find a lot of callers on the left that hate america and try to justify everything against america and like to remind callers that there is a law on the books called the valor law, and it seems like the last caller was a soldier and you can tell by his demeanor but the first caller this morning, you could tell by his demeanor, he said he was a vet, wasn't a vet. host: why do you say that, glenn? caller: well, i don't have a crystal ball and i can see behind these caller's phones and their lives but i would be willing to bet that 50% or 40% of everybody that calls in and says they're a veteran are not. the percentages of people who

serve are less than 3%, yet 40% of every democrat calls in and says they are a vet. i want to remind them that they are breaking a federal law by doing so. if they claim they are a veteran and they are not they could be in prison for that. host: what do you think about the criticism and the circumstances behind the release bowe bergdahl? hostcaller: the president should never have discretion if he is breaking the law. if you go to colonel allen west's site, he is calling for the impeachment of president obama over this. president obama sanitinegned the ndaa, national defense authorization act, and any people commented on -- judge olitano says we have a federal statute that makes it a felony to provide assistance to

a terrorist organization. money, any asset whatsoever, including human assets. even ask the question, why these 5, the top 5 taliban officials were released, when they have plenty of other low-level detainees that could have been exchanged for bergdahl. i just question the president's not only legal authority but ethics in this. why should one man or woman be able to decide who gets released when the law is on the books and congress has to make this decision? glenn, let me jump in and get your reaction to general martin dempsey, who posted this on his facebook page, and then the white house was alluding reporters to it. to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of sergeant bowe bergdahl, the

questions about this particular soldiers conduct are separate from our effort to recover any u.s. service member in enemy captivity. this was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. as for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we'll learn the facts. like any american, he is innocent until proven guilty. our army leaders will not equate from his conduct if it occurred. in the meantime, we will care for him and his family. finally, i want to thank those who for almost five years work to find him, prepared to rescue him, and ultimately put themselves at risk to recover him." general dempsey is saying in there, though, that they will go to any means to get an american soldier on the battlefield. and that they think this was the last opportunity because as the war winded down, sergeant bergdahl became of less value to the taliban.

what do you think? caller: well, i agree to a certain extent that the to bring allegiance is back any soldier, and i think we all agree that any soldier in the battlefield is the most valuable person that needs to be brought back. so i agree with his assessment. everything is a matter of negotiation and timing, and i would even contest with the war winding down -- our troops are to be taken out of afghanistan, but the caliban is is running down -- taliban not winding down. they are winding up. i see documentaries on "frontline" and stuff. if the president has violated this law he is primed for impeachment. host: glenn, on that point, inside "the washington post" this morning they have this.

"the national defense authorization act of 2014 requires the administration to notify congress at least 30 days before releasing the premises and are -- releasing a prisoner from guantánamo. but obama, in what is known as a signing statement, forecast that he may disregard the role because he believed it unlawfully restrained his presidential authority. senator dianne feinstein said that deputy national security advisor anthony blinken called her monday night to apologize to failing -- for failing to notify her of the lease before it was discussed publicly. a senior administration official said blinken told feinstein 'that we regretted we were not able to reach some numbers personally on saturday.' 'we have been very clear that about the reasons we did not notify congress to today's in advance.'

house republicans center 2 letters to the administration on the more information possibility of an exchange, and another briefing with the administration followed on january 31st, 2012. gop aides said that the next time commercial republicans spoke with the administration about the issue was saturday, went to nagano officials called an advisor -- when pentagon officials called an advisor to john boehner." that was "the washington post." back to the daily beast. one of the last so this piece is "-- one of the last few paragraphs in this there wasn't a week that went by that we getting get a briefing on the soldier whereabouts. feinstein said that the last healthent of bergdahl's had been made in december.

'he was undernourished, not necessarily malnourished, so unless something catastrophic happened, there is no reason to believe he was in danger.'" that was an expiration given by secretary of defense chuck hagel on the sunday shows that it was a matter of itself -- matter of his health. we will go to marry in fort washington, maryland, democratic caller. caller: good morning. what you just read roof the tigers didn't know it seems like they were upset that congress didn't know about the release date. well, the policy is that no one is left behind. that is still number one. if you did anything wrong, that will be found out and he will be necessary heand if will receive the necessary punishment. demand is it -- the man hasn't even come home to be with his family yet.

furthermore, please bring up the fact that president bush released 500 al qaeda for po w's. and i don't know what john mccain is talking about, but it looks like once again the president, trying to make him look bad because he is black, i'm sorry, that's how i see it. don't come me off, i'm not finished. it would be nice if c-span would put information out about all the presidents who have released prisoners for pow's. host: mary, that's what i'm about to tell you, that our guest coming up was quoted talking about the history of negotiating with terrorists and that this is happened before. we will dig deeper into that in about 15 minutes away hope you keep watching. joining us on the phone is washington editor at "usa today " to talk about the president's trip to europe. headline today --

what is happening here between the united states and ukraine? guest: president obama met with the new president of ukraine. they talked about a variety of issues, including this new package of assistance for the ukrainian military. it is not weapons. it is help with military exercises, support to help the ukrainian military get better at what it does, building capacity in terms of how you do logistics and things like that. host: what do we know about that meeting with the incoming president? what does he want from the united states? guest: what we have seen are basic for reports that come with the traveling press with the oroshenko, mr. pro

talking about support for the ukrainian army. ukraine gets a bulk of its energy, particularly in natural gas, from neighboring russia. that has long been a bone of contention between the 2 countries. military support come and general moral support, letting knowkrainian government that the united states and various other governments are behind it. host: the president began the trip and warsaw, poland, and the article talked about the president wanting $1 billion for security in eastern and central europe. why? what would this money before? -- be for? guest: help with military exercises, it just to get to get eastern europe and seek with the united states and other nato countries in terms of how they do things.

a lot of times you say, for example, here is an incoming enemy fleet. how do we mobilize, what kind of weapons do we prepare? bys has to be approved congress. it goes above and beyond some of the military packages that we already have. we reported in march that is one aidram that funds similar to ukraine was said to be cut before the problems happened to there. this is restoring money that was going to be cut in the upcoming budget. the thing with ukraine is the military is in that big, it isn't that strong, it needs a lot of help to get up to speed and western standards. even if it does not, there is no move to incorporate ukraine into nato, so it is kind of in this weird, nebulous area where it

needs to help but it will not be absorbed into the western military sphere. gave aresident obama speech on day 2 of this european trip and we will show our viewers a little bit of what he had to say. it came in this money, 5:30 a.m. east coast time. what is next on the president's agenda? guest: he is going to brussels, belgium, where there will be a meeting with the g7 economic summit. it used to be the g-8 until russia got bounced when it took over crimea. , russia, the scene of the olympics, which seems like it happened when million years ago. they will talk about european economies, helping the ukraine government, particularly as we discussed with energy. there has been a lot of talk of how we can increase natural gas

ukraine and places in eastern europe that are so heavily dependent on russian energy. be the main things. also, security issues. how do we help eastern european countries bolster the military in case there is any potential threat of a russian move on them? host: president obama will be in france for the 70th anniversary of d-day in normandy. issian president mr. putin expected to be there as well. do you think their paths cross? guest: as they say in the white house now, there are no plans for a meeting. it does not mean they are not talking about it. interesting things happen when world leaders gathered in one place. as you remember, the yuan general summary in september in new york, -- the un's general assembly in september in new york, the white house engineered a phone call with uranium president -- iranian president rouhani.

anything can happen. it would not be surprising if president putin and president obama somehow encounter each other. in the eyes of the white house -- and theion russians, maybe that would be advantageous and they could make some moves that lane the tension. host: ray locker, thanks for your time. guest: my pleasure. thanks, greta. the white house decision on the prison swap. in other news, want to catch you up on some of the headlines. front page of "the washington the fold, is about the vote in syria. "syrians voted in a tightly controlled election yesterday that reinforced bush are all sad's- bashar al-as tenacious hold on power. brutal after assad's

suppression of nationwide protests flanged syria into a vicious conflict that became the civil war, the election seems certain to deliver him a third seven-year term, defying president obama's 2011 call for assad to step aside." and primary day in 8 states. ine clariion-ledger" mississippi with the headline, "it's not over yet." there were 2 counties that had still not reported results. it is too close to call. likely headed for a runoff on june 24. we will talk about that more on "washington journal." star-ledger" "the as one, courtesy of the newseum,

"jeff bell wins the gop nomination to face cory booker." "the wall street journal" has was stateine -- "i senator joni ernst one of for thean nomination senate seat, setting up for a showdown with bruce braley that looks to be among the roughest in the country. ernst had nearly 60% of the vote. she won backing from republican leaders and the tea party wing. if humans commission. -- if she wins, she would be the first female elected to congress from iowa." that in "the wall street journal" this morning. logan, thanks for waiting on the line. what do you think of the release of opera doll -- of bowe bergdahl in exchange for the release of apple five prisoners from guantánamo bay?

caller: i think all the information we have available right now, would it be enough to make any good, informed decision about this? host: ok. caller: trying to guess the long-term effects of something more analyzation than raw data about -- host: do you think congress should look into this? the military said they are going to do a review. should congress, the intelligence committees? caller: anybody who can do a review should pursue that. is, whoever is in charge of this whole thing at the very bottom is only going to disclose so much. host: ok.

well, logan, there is an all-senators briefing at 5:00 for east coast time today senators to get a briefing from the it ministration on the release of bowe bergdahl. -- the administration on the release of overkill. "the washington times" reporting that bowe bergdahl could be in texas by thursday. -- he could at the be at fort sam houston in texas as early as thursday. also, "the washington times" has this headline -- "obama uses gray area for prisoner swap position." "for most of the war obama has been content to deem the detainees at guantánamo enemy combatants. now his administration has taken to calling them prisoners of war, eligible for for swapping at the end of a conflict.

analysts said the decision to treat prisoners with a group such as the taliban is fully defensible from a legal perspective, but the deal for sgt. bergdahl fails to take into account that mr. obama himself has said the nation is still at war. comes prisonere exchanges previously seen during the twilight of the american evolution, the civil war, and world war ii." that is the headline in "the washington times" this morning. steve in florida, republican caller, you are up. go ahead. steve, good morning to you. you there? caller: good morning, how are you? host: good, go ahead. caller: i criticize the swap, but it's more than the swap. i believe it is to empty guantánamo bay. i don't think it has to do with bergdahl. i'm sorry for what happened to the man, i really am, but he

deserved it and he awol'd. i'm not saying his treatment was 5 ofct, but we released the worst, of the worst criminals in the world with so much blood on their hands. he is using this release as an excuse. o before heng gitm leaves office, that is the way i believe -- i see this much deeper. you are not going to give up 5 iban for one man. this is a bunch of garbage. host: steve, i want to get your thoughts on this latest video that showed boberg all, the actual release of what was happening. apparently this came from the taliban, this video. they showed no bergdahl getting out of the truck and the between thepening u.s. military and these taliban officials. what do you think, steve?

caller: first of all, the video shouldn't have been shown. this is another part of the obama administration showing good to the american people to make them feel good. seal team six is there. andrcover american agents their being blown for this man. that's their coverage is being blown for this man. our men died on the battlefield man.pture this this is horrible, this is disgraceful. as for my three of 20 iranians paraded the british soldiers -- this reminds me of when the iranians paraded the british soldiers during the iraq war. this is about emptying guantanamo of the worst criminals and the next president is going to catch a lot of flack. host: steve, that video we were just showing you and our viewers was put out by the taliban and at the end of that they put out "don't come back to

afghanistan." that video was not put out by the it ministration, apparently. hi, latoya. go ahead. caller: i really want to say, greta, i don't understand why you would show that video, too, because it seems like you are acting as though -- good morning, greta. host: good morning. caller: ok, you show that video right after there was a republican who said that president obama let people out. it is all most like the media is like trying to make it seem like the president did something wrong. let me tell you something. i watched c-span all the time but i have never, not once, heard a republican talk about george bush taking us into war. this happened because of him,

but don't nobody question what because of this mess that president obama is in. and you've got to acknowledge it, because we see you, too. body stupid to know more. you have to show 2 sides. you can't let people call in and make real wrong accusations about what is going on because the truth ought to matter, greta. when we look at c-span, all we see is that c-span seems like it is going against the president, too, because if you tell the truth you have got to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- not host host: ok, so what is the other side that we haven't talked about? caller: the other side that you haven't talked about, greta, is you didn't see all of these hearings where we went to war in

iraq from the republicans, right? we didn't see that either. now you see this from all them and releasing a prisoner of war. everything now is a hearing. we didn't have a hearing when we went to war in iraq. republicans -- they like war and they like sending poor people to war. how can you say that this man -- he was 20. he was in his 20's. when you send somebody that already don't have stability in their minds to war, there is no telling what is going to happen. and everybody calls him a traitor? host: that is something that we talked about, his age, read a quote from a former military officials saying he's a 20 role that he might have made a stupid decision.

but the beauty of this show is that you get to call us and give us your take on that and that is the purpose, to go outside of washington -- washington is debating this and weighing in, but we want to hear from all of you outside of washington and what you think will stop senator john mccain yesterday was unveiling veterans legislation, but at the end of that news conference, he responded to the administration's deal to swap 5 gitmo detainees for the release of go for goal. bergdahl.we [video clip] >> after one year, according to the qatar spokesman, they will be able to reenter afghanistan. criminals,anted war one of whom supposedly is guilty of murdering thousands of shiite muslims while he was in charge outside of, i believe, kandahar. so this decision to bring sgt.

bergdahl home, and we applaud that he is home, is ill founded, it is a mistake, and it is putting the lives of american servicemen and women at risk, and that number me, is unacceptable to the american people. senator john mccain yesterday on capitol hill, republican of arizona, as many of you know, and a prisoner of war himself, talking about the circumstances by which the administration agreed to release those who were five detainees in exchange for sergeant bowe bergdahl. joe, what do you think? caller: i just want to say that that guy is a sergeant so he must've done something right to be, sergeant -- host: let me stop you there. the papers have reported that he was promoted while he was in captivity, and he is scheduled to be promoted again, but

military officials said they are going to hold off on that until they do a review. caller: why did they promote him if he was a deserter? i don't understand that. i was in the military for 15 years. they don't promote easily in there. you have got to be a good soldier in order to be promoted. my son is in the military. he is a specialist. while to become a sergeant in the military. he must've done something good before they promoted him to be a sergeant. why don't we-- hold that the rhetoric down until after we find out all the facts? this guy is a prisoner of war. we would do anything -- i hope we do everything and anything to bring our soldiers back. host: ok, joe, we're going to be

talking about that coming up next, the history of the mantra "we don't negotiate with terrorists." we will be talking about all that with charles stimson of the heritage foundation. there, a look at campaign finance law with bob biersack from the center of responsive politics. but first, president obama from earlier today was talking in europe and he talked a little bit about the 25th anniversary of canon a -- tiananmen square. [video clip] >> on the same day 25 years ago that poles were voting here, tanks were crushing peaceful democracy protests in canon menswea -- anin tiananmen square. the blessings of liberty must be renewed by every generation, including our own. this is the work to which we

rededicate ourselves today. be -- ouracies must democracies must be defined not by coup or what we are against , a politics of inclusion politics that welcomes all of our citizens. our economies must the liver broader prosperity to create more opportunity across europe and across the world, especially for young people. leaders must uphold the public trust and stand against corruption, not steal from the pockets of their own people. our societies must embrace greater justice that recognizes the inherent dignity of every human being. and we have been reminded by russia's aggression in ukraine, our free nation cannot be complacent in pursuit of the vision we share -- a europe that is whole and free and at peace. we have to work for that, we

have to stand with those who seek freedom. [applause] i know that throughout history the polish people were abandoned by friends when you needed them the most. todayave come to warsaw on behalf of the united states, on behalf of the nato alliance, to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to poland's security. article five is clear -- an attack on one is an attack on all, and his allies, we have a solemn duty, a binding treaty obligation to defend your territorial integrity, and we will. we stand together, now and forever, for your freedom is ours. [applause] poland will never stand alone. poland.just >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are back with charles , who served as the assistant secretary for detainee affairs and is now a program manager at the heritage foundation. thanks for being here. guest: absolutely. host: let's get to the details and what we do know about this deal. , as has beeneal widely reported, involved a swap 5 talibane highest people we had in captivity in guantánamo, had been there for a long time coming for one american pow. the deal is that we got them first and i credit the obama administration for making sure we had him in our custom meet before -- in our custody before letting the wheels go up at guantánamo. for aguys are in qatar year. we have heard that they can travel around the country but they have pulled their passports

and they are monitoring them. what happens after that year, we don't know. host: who negotiated it? guest: the administration, probably through the state department, negotiated it, and some folks in my old office in the pentagon probably had a big candidate. at this high level it had to go through the state department and probably secretary kerry. but i don't know. host: what about the role of the qatari government? guest: we don't know that either, other than that they accepted them and we have to come from the -- have to come from it them -- compliment them. many other countries have accepted the road detainees back. they have, one, accepted them, two, agree to security measures, most of which are not in the public eye yet, and the ones we do know are pulling their passports and monitoring. with the detail of that

monitoring is, we don't know. host: other governments have agreed to accepted them, but have they kept them? tracks, and has for a long time, receipt is -- recidivism rates for guantánamo detainees. is 149, and the bush administration transferred or released -- we did the releases first for the people who did not need to be there in the first place, transfers of folks who we thought were still a threat but were asking the receiving country to mitigate the threat that they post. the bush administration did 500 transfers or releases before obama took office. meama has done 50-so transfers. the easier case is likely i'll island -- the

easier case is left of the island first. host: what do we know about the 5 that were released? some have called them graybeards. guest: we know a heck of a lot. interesting when you hear congressmen say that we want a classified briefing who these guys are. wikileaks has done a job -- whether you agree or not about what we do because done -- what leaks has done, you can look in a newspaper and see mugshots of these guys, but these are senior taliban leaders who, if returned to afghanistan right now, would clearly represent a threat to americans, and may indeed still be able to call the shots from the sidelines from qatar. host: how would they get involved? is this about having a political presence in afghanistan as we wind down that war?

guest: think of it this way -- these guys were not low-level fighters, not mercenaries. these were the heads of afghan troops, the deputy minister of intelligence, a personal friend of mullah omar. the reconciliation process is starting to work, or the people are working towards a reconciliation process. in the run-up election this summer, 2 candidates are going to run off and then one would be elected and the new president to succeed karzai. this has been said by many afghan experts to have a destabilizing effect, because if these former guys come back to our leaders in the militant , it could the taliban destabilize the situation now. john mccain and others who have made this point across the aisle have a point. host: former taliban, current taliban leaders, but it was the haqqani network that had over

-- that had bowe bergdahl. how did that happen? guest: don't know. i don't believe everything i read in the newspaper -- i know that is a shock in washington. but i don't know how he ended up in the haqqani network. there must've been cooperation at some level, people involved in the capture. network deemed terrorists by the united states government. what about the mantra we have heard, we don't negotiate with terrorists? when did it begin, and is it true? guest: the president that made it crystal clear to the american people is obviously ronald reagan. he said it many times, he made it clear. we have seen countries like negotiations. thea the israeli -- gilad,

israeli prisoner taken by the palestinians, was exchanged for several hundred palestinians. a lot of people who criticize this deal said that look, we are america, we just don't do it and we have not done it for a long period of time. we are negotiating now with elements of taliban, we are negotiating with other people , becausesketchy ties we have to. the general principle is that on the big issues we don't negotiate with terrorists, because we don't want to create incentive for future negotiations. this negotiation wasn't directly with the taliban, because the qataris were intermediaries. but let's face it, we were negotiating with the taliban, because 2 years ago they asked for these 5 guys and we said no because of the political uproar. the thinking of the administration 2 years ago,

greta, was that this would help process,ciliation smooth things for further negotiations. that was scuttled. they asked the same 5 guys over the years and we gave them the same 5 people that they asked for. host: did the bush administration negotiate with the taliban or other terrorist networks during those years and release gitmo detainees as part of deals? detaineesulations of at guantánamo -- the big three populations were saudi's, and afghans. transferured a deal to detainees back to afghanistan into repatriation programs.

we repatriated a number of them. the same with a number in saudi arabia. it was meant to be a rehabilitation program. it preceded the war against terrorists that started on 9/11. the sticking point are the you many's. -- yemenis. a have not been able to have level of satisfaction that they would mitigate the threat that those detainees would pose if we offloaded those 90 plus detainees to yemen. host: have these programs in saudi arabia and afghanistan, have they worked? guest: people who are critical of any detainees leaving guantánamo say, no. people who support guantanamo through attrition say, yes.

there is no perfect rehabilitation program. somebody isow that going to go back to criminal activity or terrorist activity. you have to do something. there is a fierce debate about something like that. concerns yesterday expressed on our show. 104 have reengaged into the battlefield, killing americans, killing afghanistan freedom fighters or military and children and who knows who else. 104 went back to the battlefield. these five, who are now in qatar, where are they going to be in six months or one year or year and a half? of was the vice-chairman

intelligence for the taliban. -- you knowry high -- these are terrorists with a great deal of concern for all of us. secretary of defense was against this back in 2010 and 2011. i am concerned about where they will go and will the care americans?- kill host: this is a headline from the london daily mail pointing 'st that some in bowe bergdahl platoon said that he should face court-martial. that: there was a report six soldiers died searching for him. their families continue to grieve for them.

all of the needs to be sorted out going forward. again, those five terrorists, what will become of them? 104 of those released went back to the battlefield and that is the official mumble -- number from our government. host: what do you make of that? thet: he is right that director of national and security has number that have gone back. 16.6% have been confirmed to reengage in terrorist activity. likei took office, i facts. i was concerned that the criteria for determining whether

they had really gone back to the fight was solid. we had a series of discussions within the administration, we tightened the criteria. the criteria has been ever so tightened since then. there is debate over whether or not this number is true. we don't even know in this country how many criminals, career criminals go back to criminal activity until they are caught. to quote my old boss, it is an unknown unknown. exactly how many until you catch them or kill them. several of gone back to senior leadership positions in yemen and elsewhere. several have engaged and killed americans. several have been recaptured. there is never a risk-free transfer from guantanamo. there was not from iraq or afghanistan. happened during

the bush administration and it is happening now during the obama administration. the release of detainees going back to the fight. guest: that is right. i was just a lowly federal prosecutor and military lawyer when i was appointed to the position. the bush administration determined that you have to release the folks who should not have been there in the first place, who were not enemy combatants. but that over time to me you but overansfer -- time, you should transfer the lower-level detainees off the island and mitigate the threat that they pose, but that we should do that. over 500 went during the bush administration. 50 have left during the obama administration. host: you are on the air. democratic caller. the taliban are a

terrorist organization. that is a great question. there were some confusion. wereber that the taliban the ruling party of afghanistan when 9/11 took lace -- took place. when the bush administration determined that al qaeda was not a country and they do not fight for a country and therefore they cannot be legally classified as prisoners of war -- three countries around the world have recognized the taliban as the legitimate ruling party of afghanistan. afghanistan itself had satisfied -- ratified and signed the geneva convention. administration decided that captured taliban fighters would be afforded pow status if

they follow the rules of war. wearing arms openly, uniform with distinct emblems, following a chain of command, they did not do that. they were not treated as pows. changeda administration the definition. same difference. president obama has been calling them enemy combatants. he is now calling them prisoners of four. yet it says in the "washington times," obama said that america is still a war. legally, what does that all mean? that: remember back to proud day when obama was sworn in as the president the first time. he said in his first inauguration speech, we are at war. for lombards like me who hear dsrds like that -- for law ner who hear words like

we recognize that he understands that we are in a state of armed conflict. i'm not aware that this administration has decided that the detainees of guantánamo qualify for prisoner of war status. they have not decided that. that is not the case. that is more of a euphemism or an easier way of explaining it to the american people. host: what is the mean legally if they found out that bowe bergdahl was a deserter? he is not aan prisoner of war? guest: these are great questions. people are fired up about this. people have an opinion about this. and they should. veterans like me have lots of opinions. people on both sides of the aisle have strong opinions. the folks that served with bowe bergdahl have been very vocal.

that is the big surprise of the obama administration. that those folks came out as strongly as they did and shed some light, and their opinion, on who he was. host: let me read this tweet from jim. guest: it is a good point. people throw around that he is a traitor, a deserter, etc. let me put on my old military judge at. -- hat. to prove somebody is guilty of desertion, and the military will do a thorough investigation, you have to prove four elements. the other reasonable doubt -- beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused absented himself from his unit. that is for sure. -- such absence

was without authority. that is pretty clear. this is the sticking point. that the accused, at the time the absence began or sometime during it, intended to remain away from his unit intentionally. those who believe he betrayed are going to say, of course he was going to remain away permanently. he wrote these notes and facebook posts. that is specific intent. a defense lawyer would say, we don't know that. he changed his mind when he saw some nasty stuff, he was on his way back when he got captured. , i reviewed all of the charges he might be able to be charged with. desertion. unauthorized absence.

that is a slamdunk. that is clear. enemyhavior before the with a possible death sentence. that is a hard one to prove. aiding the enemy, possible death sentence. misconduct of a prisoner where you could get life. another term, treason. we don't have a charge in the military of treason, believe it or not. that behavior with other charges. it is a crime under federal law. government would have to prove that he owed allegiance to the united states, clearly he did, he took an oath when he became a soldier. that he levied war against the united states or paid comfort to the enemy. that is a minimum five-year sentence, maximum death.

,he spokesman for the taliban he has been the one person indicted for treason since the war on terror that i'm aware of. this legal process will take place. all soldiers suspected of the crime have to be read their rights. in addition to maranda. interesting to see when the care and treatment ends and when the interrogation begins. ont: he could arrive thursday for phase two of his treatment in texas. you are not considered awol until you have been gone for 30 days -- is that technically true? it is. but there is unauthorized absence that can happen in a matter of minutes or hours. if you're not muster in the morning, you could be considered unauthorized absence. host: punishment of being

absence? usually being yelled at by your drill sergeant or some superior. would not the taliban have announced that fact if you were a traitor? guest: that is a great point. they have been very sophisticated in their communications and deployment strategy. they would probably try to exploit that. host: we will go to an independent collar in wisconsin. caller: thank you. . have a question i am looking at desensitizing the prisoners of guantánamo bay. ideas.some i grew up in virginia. i was born in d.c.

you go too to school, the smithsonian for a five times per year. i think desensitizing them with history and education would put more of a ease on letting the prisoners go. we can't keep them. we have to let them go. what is happening with these detainees at gitmo? keep them do we occupied and educated during the time of capture? he is right. you cannot keep them forever. you can only keep them until the end of hostilities. that is under the geneva convention. early on, before my tenure at the pentagon, we realized that idle hands, trouble comes.

people have criticized this. we have offered them training in history. -- i am aven them soccer fan and played in college and a new a lot of detainees would be interested in watching the world cup -- will play the world cup games on a delayed basis. they now allow them to skype with the family under the obama administration. they have always been able to send and receive mail. there is a library with a lot of books. tom clancy and a lot of books are rather popular. we censor the stuff we allow them to read. there are other educational classes. some people think that is wrong. others say, absolutely you want to keep them occupied, so they don't riot like they did back in june 2006, and try to attack cards.

-- guards. ,f they were a prisoner of war there would be even more educational opportunities. both administrations have tried to take a middle ground to make sure that they are not completely idle with too much time on their hands. host: if the administration is starting to call them prisoners of war, does that give their lawyers some argument here that you need to be treating them better? guest: i doubt it. thelawyers of butter on block many times. they look at what has happened -- the lawyers have been around the block many times. they look at what has happened. i don't think there is a change in legal status. there was a terminology issue. host: jack in new hampshire. republican caller. caller: good morning. a couple quick notes.

during the vietnam war, the viet were basically acting as the taliban, they did not wear uniforms. we did not classify them as terrorists. war inwas a prisoner of the vietnam conflict. some of the things, guys are tortured. you name it. , i don't that understand how this country can hype up this whole ordeal. fox news was going haywire

yesterday. we don't know if he had any mental defects. [indiscernible] theas brought back to united states. guest: one thing that really strikes home from his comment is that this notion of ptsd and the stress on prisoners. --don't know whether he will willingly left and want to be captured or protested his capture. the fact is, he was in captivity for five years. then tell you that me and other military judges who have had the privilege of serving in military courts since 9/11, we have seen a lot of people accused of crimes, who stand tough us, they want to be

, they want to accept responsibility, they want to plead guilty, and you see after the second and third combat tour , sometimes after the first, they have seen horrible things come and you have to question whether they have a mental disease or defect that either negated their ability to commit the crime at the time they did it or willingly participate in the plea and work with their lawyers. combat, it is a big deal for people who go there. we know that this administration and the previous administration have dedicated a lot of resource to that. we owe our vets that, at the very least. let's take deep breaths here. let's let the facts developed. i think everyone wants to know what accountability is going to happen for bowe bergdahl, if any, after that investigation. host: how do we know he got captured by the taliban?

here is another tweet. maybe he was mentally ill. when will those questions be answered? my understanding that there already is a classified investigation at the time he left his post and dropped his pack. whether it has been updated or they have updated it along the way, i don't know. saidecretary of the army yesterday that there will be a thorough, complete investigation. that tells me that they will make sure it is completely updated and they will get new information that they need to have, perhaps reinterviewing members of his squad. we don't know. i heard one guy on the news, one of his squad leaders say, bowe bergdahl said to him the day before he departed, can i get to china through those mountains? that is an odd thing to say. either he is geographically

challenged or he has something going on. i mean, i don't know. people are certainly entitled to this opinion -- their opinions. i have seen the phone lines lighting up like nothing. this is serious business, though. i don't want to make light of it. if the row, dispassionate, objective analysis needs to take place. thoreau, dispassionate, objective analysis needs to take place. he might be found guilty. then you have to get to what the sentence would be. with the fact that he served five years at the hands of captors factor in? you absolutely know that it would. it may result in no punishment. one way or the other, you can be fairly confident that he will not be at the army -- in the army at the end of this period of time. the question is, how will he get out? by administrative process?

will he be allowed to retire and collect backpay? will he be court-martialed? i don't know. host: robert, democratic caller. caller: i want to know what happens if sergeant bowe bergdahl had died in the hands of the taliban and this administration not have gotten him out? what kind of scrutiny would the administration be under then? alreadyf all, they have convicted this man in the court of public opinion all over the media. they convicted him of treason and howg a traitor could he have a trial in this country at this point? excellent questions.

talk about the political blowback the administration is getting now. if the guy had died, you know how this town works. the political accusations would be flying left and right. you could have done something come you did not do something. i don't do politics, i do policy. i think the first point has a lot of merit. the second is, i agree with him also. people are entitled to their opinion. about oj, about these other controversial cases that come up. where accountability happens is administratived and criminal proceeding. what has to happen first is a oroughu invest -- th investigation. could be administratively processed out of the military.

i think that will happen. host: what is the military court process like? it is not like he is going through jurors in a civilian court to rid -- civilian court. guest: we don't know that. i don't think he will go to civilian court. we don't even know if the investigation is going to thatmend to the commander they even file any charges against the sky. -- this guy. i think it is way premature to think about whether he is going to a court-martial. nerdlaying it out as a law and a former recovering judge. i think more likely than not that he willpen is be administratively held to account, and that means discharged from the military through an admin board, but we

just don't know. it is not wise to guess. host: the "washington times" is was key to agdahl plot in afghanistan. the last proof of life video they reported showed bowe bergdahl looking haggard and bruised. they believe the soldier may have been ill -- made to look a lot as a ploy. i don't trust anything coming out of al qaeda. i have a high degree of 'kepticism of our enemies propaganda. we don't know what they were up to. the administration and intelligence officials might. host: we will go to carl next. independent caller. caller: good morning.

i love c-span. but i wish that the program moderator would let us know what their political affiliation is, so we can ask what kind of angle you were going to come from with your question for your guest. what a breath of fresh air. somebody come in and try to tell us exactly how to be. we don't leave anybody behind. it don't matter what the guy did. he didn't shoot anybody. there are always going to be people who want to kill americans. that they of the fact got the guy out. if he was a millionaire's son, we would have turned the world upside down.

we have these guys a volunteer to go into the military to make a living. war. in the i am a veteran. i would do what i had to because i raised my hand. thank you for your service. thank you for your compliment. that is one of the nicest things anyone has said to me. call was a tough call for the president. he is receiving a lot of blowback because it was not adequately stage-managed at all. in "the washington times," it is a timing issue. , as a legalpolitics matter, at the end of this war,

like all other wars, we have to release the detainees, unless there is another way to detain them for mullock prosecuting them, likeaining prosecuting them. or if congress passes a law. everybody who raises their hand does it for a variety of reasons, most likely because they are patriots. we don't know what turned bowe bergdahl into the man he was when he dropped his pack and went away. it is not totally uncommon, but that common. the fact that he did it is only angering his squad members. imagine the feelings of those people whose sons went out on patrol to find this guy and now their son is not going to come home.

their son is not going to be a father and a grandfather. they are rightfully angry. host: the front page of "the new york times lowe's quote digs into whether or not the six lives that were lost can be tied times" digsyork into whether or not the six lives that were lost can be tied to bowe bergdahl. they say it is not so clear-cut. we will go to bj next in annapolis, maryland. caller: good morning. let me set the record straight. there is a precedent for leaving soldiers behind. , pows the korean war wanted to stay in north korea and did. what documentation is there that bowe bergdahl wanted to come back to the usa? i have no idea.

that is why there will be an investigation. mates --ave his squad believe his squad mates and take his commentary at face value, he was dropping his pack literally and figuratively. he may have been in tempting -- attempting to renounce his citizenship. he was still an american soldier. this administration thought it was a good idea to get him back. i think this has been stage-managed very poorly. i think they honestly thought that this was going to be a good story, that it was going to grease the skids for more transfers from guantanamo. is that the political reaction to that has been the exact opposite.

now they are trying to recover from that. host: critics are questioning a miller can -- american military credo of leaving no american behind. guest: i don't know who those critics are. i don't know anyone in the military who thinks we should leave our people behind. i would like them to name their sources. that is a bizarre concept. what they may be getting at is that the critics are the very same people who say, look, this guy is not a hero. this guy is not somebody who served with honor. this guy literally dropped his pack and walked off post and abandoned his fellow soldiers. that may be what they're getting at. but in terms of the general ethos, you do what you do for your country, god, and family. but you don't leave your soldiers behind. frequently is that

reinforced inside the military? at the last four or five medal of honor recipients that the resident and previous the nation'stowed highest honor on. these guys dove on grenades, recovered people who were injured or killed. this is part of our dna. it is who we are as american service men or women. bush how many times did went on his own without informing congress? guest: i have no idea. i will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional statements. president bush used more signing statements.

president obama has issued over 30 signing statements. research found that almost all presidents have used signing statements. obama is no different. even though he has used less than bush, he used them for the same types of things. make did president bush deals in secret without notifying congress similar to what we are seeing? guest: i don't know. in the context, it is a big government. tot: just on the comes detainees, the transfer of them, dealing with the taliban. was that done in secret? guest: let me set the stage and try to answer the question. off, after the horrific events of abu ghraib in iraq, were people tortured and mistreated detainees, and this happened on our watch before i

came into office, and set -- it set in motion a whole series of things. much more oversight by congress on detention matters, culminating in the mccain amendment. one of the internal mechanisms we arranged with congress was that every quarter, i or the previous deputy secretary or my successor would go up to all ofs and show them the international committee of the red cross correspondence. they are the international body that goes into places of detention and talks to detainees and has a confidential dialogue with us. itill not go into what consists of because that would violate confidentiality. we would show congress that and how we responded. we clearly notified congress before we brought the 14 high-value cia detainees of fighting -- out of hiding in the

cia to guantanamo in september 2006. congressmen and women have been to guantanamo and places of detention from the very beginning. i had the privilege of taking many myself from both parties in 2006-2007 timeframe. congress pays attention to these issues. sometimes they do not pay attention to detention issues. there will be a senator briefing today at 5:00 p.m. with the administration. the details on the release of bowe bergdahl. is this considered in all of branch from both sides? guest: too early to tell. gets closer to fulfilling obama's promised to fulfilling -- closing guantánamo. it brings our last american g.i. home from thick to the -- captivity.

it is an excellent question that we are not able to open right now. host: charles stimson. the deputy assistant defense secretary for detainees from 2005 2 2007. now with the heritage foundation. we thank you very much for your time. coming up next, we will turn to reform.aign finance first, a news update from c-span radio. president obama continues his trip in europe, heading to brussels shortly. earlier today, he spoke about ukraine, saying that the u.s. is providing ukraine with $5 million worth of body armor, night vision goggles, and communication equipment. this as the battle against pro-russian separatists continues. president obama announced the eight after meeting with president poroshenko. both were in warsaw poland.

another anniversary is being observed today. since then 25 years protests in tandem and square -- ienamen square. press secretary jay carney said the u.s. will always speak out in support of the basic freedoms the protesters at the square sought. china has never issued a complete, formal accounting of the june 4, 1989 crackdown in which soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed protesters and onlookers. there is heavy security today in beijing on the 25th anniversary of the protests. scores of police and paramilitary troops are patrolling the plaza and surrounding streets, stopping vehicles and demanding identification from passersby.

anniversaryark the on c-span. the program begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. includesys at eight" financial journalist michael lewis. >> we are living through a really dramatic. . -- livingreally through a really dramatic period. there are real central problems. i am not an economic forecaster. everything you read suggests we will be living through an unusually high level of unemployment, a lot of pain from over indebtedness, a quarter of the country is on food stamps.

it is not a great depression. exactlyot reprising what happened in the 1930's. but we're on the verge of that. >> read more of our conversation in "sundays at eight." now available for a father's day gift at your favorite bookseller. on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of france, the air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon's. at dawn, on the morning of the sixth of june 1944, two hundred 25 rangers jumped off the british landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion. to climb these sheer and

desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. the american rangers began to climb. tv will markistory the 70th anniversary of the d-day invasion of normandy. watch this year of commemoration on the world war ii memorial in washington. that is followed by craig simon. at 12:30, mr. simons will take your questions and comments live. a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day. that is un-american history tv -- is on american history tv. host: welcome back.

hour isc for the next the issue of campaign finance and the 2014 campaign-finance cycle. running is on the phone is byron tau. "politico."for byron tau, what was the hearing about and why? >> the hearing in the senate judiciary committee called to examine and discuss a proposal by senator tom udall of new essentiallywould amend the constitution to permit congress to regulate campaign-finance. the proposal is neutral on the policy congress would adopt, but would put the authority and give constitutional muster to any campaign-finance effort that congress might want to pass. host: why do the democrats want this amendment? democrats are

increasingly concerned about the amount of money that is pouring into the political process. enough money is pouring in on both sides, i should add. reid notedr harry this fact, the democrats have their own billionaires. the argument should not descend to whose billionaires are correct. that theybelieve mccutchen versus fec case were poorly decided and really tilted the campaign-finance claims for the wealthy. host: let's listen to what the majority leader had to say at the hearing yesterday. [video clip] >> outside groups spent more than $1 billion. that is a conservative estimate. that is about as much money as was spent in the previous 12

elections. but this spike in the mentor amount ofmoney -- shadow we money is not surprising. recent decisions by the supreme court, citizens united and mccutchen, eviscerated our campaign-finance laws. the cynics may scoff at the idea of us working together on an initiative. that long ago that the issue of campaign finance reform enjoyed support from democrats and republicans. likelihood orthe when when this amendment you voted on? what is the process? guest: constitutional amendments are a huge undertaking. in two thirdsotes of the houses of both congress. thes no surprise

constitution has not been amended very many times in our history. and this is a huge uphill battle for supporters. you've even heard mitch mcconnell, who also appeared on say that this is a political stunt and would never pass into law and this is more designed to help turn out voters in the november elections, rather than actually legislating. mcconnell,to senator this is a huge undertaking and unlikely to happen anytime soon. [video clip] all walks offrom life understand how extraordinary, extraordinarily special the first amendment is. like the founders, they know the free exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize their government are necessary for our democracy to survive. thatmin franklin noted

whoever would overthrow the literate -- liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedoms of speech. the first amendment is the constitutional guarantee of that freedom. it has never been amended, ever. the firsto weaken amendment, such as the proposal before this committee should therefore pass the highest scrutiny. the senate joint resolution falls far short of that high bar. incumbentmpower politicians in congress and the states the right to rule. the right to rule on who gets to speak and who doesn't. the american people should be concerned. host: that was senator mitch mcconnell before the senate judiciary committee. if you missed the hearing on the campaign finance amendment to our website, c-span.org.

joining us on the phone is byron tau, a reporter from all of the co-bank." -- "politico." politically, what is going on here? listening to democratic rhetoric, it seems the democrats are positioning major republican donors as the villains in the fall election. on the constitutional election dovetails the political agenda. senator reid has been very vocal in his criticism of two republican donors, charles and david koch. lit into them and accused them of trying to buy the political process. it is interesting for the democrats. they would like to rally their base, their small donors, their

grassroots supporters to come out and vote. they would like to counter the effects of the money pouring into the republican side. to be fair to the republicans, democrats have their own billionaires who are donating and giving lots of money to super packs and outside groups. this is a political positioning tactic in a lot of ways and it is one with an eye toward november and turning up grassroots supporters. host: why did mitch mcconnell agree to testify? guest: he has long been a proponent of further campaign finance restriction. he sued a number of times. he has filed with the court in a number of cases and has positioned himself on this issue as someone that firmly believes that money is speech, it is a protected activity of the first amendment.

that attempts by democrats to regulate it our attempts to curtail the first amendment. he is quite passionate about this issue. he speaks quite frequently on it. he speaks with a lot of authority on it. he has been involved in these issues for about a part of a decade or two decades. that was the reason for his appearance yesterday. this the papers noting morning that it has been over a decade since the majority leader and minority leader appeared together to testify before a committee on a policy matter. byron tau, thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: waiting patiently here on our set is bob biersack, a senior fellow for the center of responsive politics. let's talk about how we got to this point of having a hearing on a constitutional amendment. isst: one of the reasons

that congress does not say much choice as far as other legislative remedies. what can you do to change the system? the courts have been pretty firm and pretty consistent and moving down a path of more and more open use of money. decisions, they are structured in a way that makes the normal legislative process difficult to work. to some extent, some people think they're -- that there is not really much choice other than a constitutional amendment to make much change. that is part of the reason why that passed. to novemberg ahead and the election cycle so far, what changes have you seen because of the supreme court's decisions? guest: the most paramedics change are the levels of outsides pending that are happening in this campaign. in congressional races,

especially in off years, usually the spending is a little smaller and the candidates become the focus of attention. this year there are fairly dramatic increases and how much outside of it he is taking place. -- activity is taking place. the easiest way to describe the process is that we are running two systems in parallel. there are a set of rules for candidates and parties and old-fashioned traditional political action committees, where people have limits on how much they can give to them and how much can be passed back and forth among those kinds of groups. the law has not changed much since it was created in the 1970's. evense of the decisions before citizens united, there is a separate parallel that takes place. if you say, i am only going to spend money independently, i just want to do independent

expenditures, i just want to express myself and advocate for or against a candidate -- the courts have said that that kind of spending cannot be restricted. restricted for individual people, companies, corporations, unions, or other types of groups. you have one system that is pretty regimented with specific rules and limits and another company that has a lot more flexibility and freedom and freewheeling. it is not surprising that that is where the action comes. as time goes on. what we are seeing more and more is a lot more attention there. host: bob biersack is here with us to help take a look at the 2014 spending cycle, the election cycle. what is happening post the supreme court decision. a senior fellow at the center for responsive politics. he was at the federal election commission, where he served as the statistician. he served as a special assistant

working to redesign the disclosure process. we're going to show the viewers some numbers here. 2014 fundraising when it comes to democrats. in the house, $225 million. in the senate, $157.8 million. let's go to the republicans. house, almost $300 million. in the senate, $131 million. what are those numbers say to you? guest: that this is a fairly traditional cycle, in terms of what the candidates themselves are raising. it is not out of line with past

election cycles. it is focused on really competitive races. there are a number in the senate, fewer in the house. those tend to draw attention and they tend to draw money. the other thing buried within the numbers that is a little hard to pull out, it is absolutely true that individual contributions represent the majority of what candidates spend. contribution numbers are focused on incumbent members, almost exclusively at this point. it is almost equally balanced in both parties, especially in the house. andributions from pacs contributions from individuals for incumbents. , pacs arengers generally less involved at this point, especially. host: for the challenger. guest: for even in open seats.

typically represent businesses or other kinds of ,nstitutions, organizations they want access to members of congress. they want to be will to communicate with the people on the hill about proxy choices and legislative gains and express themselves, make sure that their positions are well-known. one way you do that, incrementally, is to make sure that you are in touch with the congressperson in the context of fundraising. incumbents still have an advantage. guest: absolutely. and that part of the process. what of the things that makes members nervous about this new parallel system is that there are all these other avenues, the people who really want to dramatically change not just the way a particular member thinks about issues, but who the member might be have lots of tools available to them now, in terms of these outside groups and much

for your spending process, then they had before. that makes members of congress pretty nervous because this is a binary situation. host: take a look at the fundraising in 2014 for the senate. raising $238.7 million. raising 68 $20 million. , 69 million. you can see the incumbent advantage with these numbers. numberthat is because a of those incumbents will not be seriously challenged. there are several who will be. the balance will be much closer to the challengers will place -- raise much more when i have a chance to win.

-- they have a chance to win. seatsyou have these open where there has been $100 million raised on the house side. more of the house members are really pretty safe. the districts are closely aligned with their party and they have been there a while. they are not going to be seriously challenged. there are a couple of dozen races that will be competitive. host: let's go to tom, a republican caller in texas. wondering,as just since all these democrats in the senate, these 40 or 50 or so democrats in the senate insist that money is not speech and the corporations are not people entitled to constitutional rights, i was wondering on what basis would all of these democrats in the senate object to putting strict limits on the amount of money spent each year

in the media? i would say "the new york times" only allowed to pay $1500 a year to produce its worthless product and pay its worthless employees. what would you say to that? systemsvery one of the that have tried to limit campaign contribution, there has always been public press exemption. same kind of press exemption language is in the amendment presented today. editorialscan write and television stations can advocate on their own. presumably, not in the news coverage, but on the editorial pages, but who they think should win. that has been a protected press

right. also constitutionally protected -- protected, also protected in the first amendment. aether or not that gives significant unfair advantage to those organizations who happen to own news outlets, as opposed to companies who do other kinds of work, there have been examples in the last few years of groups or corporations who have chosen to get into the business of communication and media activities, perhaps because they wanted to do just that. host: alfred on twitter says that a big chance of campaign money goes to the media. here is another tweet. aren't these house and senate campaign funds controlled by the leaders much worse and more effective than the super pacs? byst: a lot are controlled party leaders and even some of

the super pacs are staffed by people who used to work on the hill. they have the same kind of viewpoints, the same kind of focus. the distinguishing lines between the rules-based systems on one side and the open system are beginning to dissolve. that is sort of inevitable. the parties are fairly well represented now. among groups that are in the outside game. gym ine will go to lansing, michigan. democratic caller. -- caller: with our relaxed laws and position taken by the supreme court, think about this, al capone, if he were still alive, could control

government with the blessing of our supreme court. second thing, we keep hearing about corporations are people. well, why don't we turn around and say people can be corporations and if they are, are they privy to all of the advantages of corporations? cayman island addresses and hiding their money in swiss bank accounts and doing all the kinds of things corporations are privy to do? why don't we afford that luxury to the average american citizen? host: mr. biersack? guest: those are two separate issues. the idea of corporations are creations of the state in the first place. they really wouldn't exist unless it were some type of government action that created they will.

and it's often to limit their liability and take advantage of tax policies that are a little different than they would be for individual people. so that's a conference indicated process and an issue. the idea that you can buy the government, that one person just because they have a lot of money could buy the government, i think i would tamp that down a little bit. it's certainly the case that the system we have now puts focus and attention on a small number of people that have the kind of financial resources that can play in this game that the level. millions and hundreds of millions of dollars from single individuals participating in the election process, so the focus of attention shrinks to a much smaller pool of people. and i think a lot of people think that's problematic but you know, money can't buy you love, for example. we've seen a lot of races where

a candidate has a lot of money but they don't succeed. so money is necessary to be able to make your points and get your message to the people who can vote for you. it's critically important. but it's not necessarily determinetive. so there's a little bit of hope for a viewpoint like that where you think maybe the money can overwhelm the system. so far we have not seen clear examples. at least at the national level, where that's happened. >> peg on twitter. host: not knowing who the donors are. >> we have not talked about that yet. at the center we're very concerned about that. guest: if you go to open secrets.org you can see in a section on outside spending how much of that money is now coming from organizations that don't disclose their donors. and in that case it's

significantly more spending in this 2014 cycle with no presidential campaign than it was in 2012 when we had an active presidential election. so clearty path that people prefer seems to be the one where you can not have to say where the money came from and who the donors are. and we think that's problematic. and the courts have never supported that kind of decision either. in citizens united and mccutcheon throughout this period the court has said by much bigger jorts, even 8-1 jorts that disclosure woff who is behind this spending is a critical factor in allowing it to take place in the first place. host: a tweet says, i get it, but seems to me a reasonable compromise would be to disclose

donations in exchange for no cap on the donations. >> that's one where it would probably with stand constitutional muster, the courts based on what they have done so far would probably not object to those kinds of contributions butal as long as there was full disclosure. the dilemma is twofold. we have a process now where there's an opportunity for a lot of people to be involved in a very small level. a lot of people giving $25 or $50. we saw that in the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. there's nothing unique about president obama that means he is the only person who can take advantage to that situation. he raised hundreds of thousands by -- in that way. there's less incentive for on? try to reach out of the in that way to larger populations and

really the people that will actually vote for them. it focuses even more attention on this small number of people with resources that can do that. that would be the tradeoff. but there's a lot of discussion now about ways to reduce the limits and expand disclosure. but the over thing there is if disclosure is the only restriction and the only thing that gets in my way, then it becomes a big problem. and there's a lot of snofse get around it, and we've seen people succeed at that. so i'm not sure that system can be perfected. host: on twitter, you can't stop it in a free society. good or bad, that's why there are courts, etc., otherwise it would be mob rule. jody says exemptions and an oles give rich advantage over our politicians. they are bought and paid for.

caller: has to be disclosure and ted cruz who normally don't admire too much, but him using the words of ted kennedy to go about changing the first amendment was something to see. host: at yesterday's hearing you're talking about? caller: yes. then quoted kennedy from 10-20 years ago when that he had a similar proposal i guess. host: what was your take away from is that hearing yesterday? caller: i just -- also there was mr. abrams i believe. i don't want the change the first eat. what is reasonable when you're controlling free speech that i don't think we should go down that road, not when we can require disclosure. that's what the supreme court has said can protect us. host: well, if you're like eric and interested in what ted cruz had to say at the hearing

yesterday, go to c-span.org and you can find the whole hearing there. mr. biersack? guest: yes. there's a whole lot of ways that process could work out. but to do any legislative change that the point would be a challenge. and the boundaries that the court has laid out are not necessarily as draconian and specific. there are ways to interpret them that will allow, for example, more disclosure. there's never been really a rule or established and put in place that allows for these outside groups to end? money without disclosing. the problem has been that the administrative agency, the federal election hasn't been able to come up with a rule that four members of the committee could agree on. but there could allow more -- there are also other kinds of proposals to increase the pools

of finance that could be strible other candidates that could not be there for others. for example, if you live in new york city and you want to support a candidate for city county critical, if you make a small contribution, the city matches it not dollar for for but six dollars but very $6, a dollar. maybe in a system like that, it could even what wealthy people might have. host: independent caller, hello? caller: i see a lot of people in california who are really thrache lost the governor's race. guest: that goes back to

something i was trying to say before. california you had a couple of drooment races in recent years where senate candidates and gubernatorial candidates had real wealth of their own and invested huge amounts of money but weren't successful because at some level voters get to decide and i've seen cases where the more someone exposed to people, the less they like them so, it could be disadvantageous to have that much money and exposure. host: one writes smount matter if ethical politicians existed. expand ethics committee oversight and transparency for all to see. guest: even the supreme court has held consistently over the last 40 years that the exchange donor and ween a candidate opens up the

possibility of corruption or appearance of corruption. i'm giving you money in exchange for something you can give me 2346 terms of public policy. the 's set up to protect politicians g of and even the courts have consistently said that's a problem. host: a viewer tweet -- how much money is directly or indirectly from foreign governments buying elected office? >> well, legally, the answer is none, because foreign citizens can't contribute or participant n any election at any level. the problem with limited disclosure. one of the problems is that at the end of the day we just don't know necessarily where those funds are coming from, from these outside groups. there's no reason to think they

are coming from overseas, but it is conceivable and opens up some risk to the process. host: republican caller, you're next. caller: good morning. unless i messed something you all haven't read the actual proposed amendment from the senate democrats. i'd really like to know exactly what shimmer and reid are proposing. i mean, i don't trust these guys. i'd really like to know exactly what they are trying to pull here. thank you. >> the language in the proposal is -- intentionally a little bit vague i think. guest: in terms of what actual result they want. what the proposal says, is that the congress shall have the authority to make changes to the financing system that could impose restrictions on how much could be raised and spent. but in language in the proposal doesn't say anything about what those specific restrictions

might be. what it really does is give congress more authority and therefore the courts and the constitution in fact in some respects. less authority over how federal elections would be financed. here in washington, d.c., democratic caller. caller: hi, why don't we explore the norwegian example where everybody gets the same amount of air time and you have a season that's no longer than six months in terms of election season. it also would save a lot of time for the congress people that are supposed to be writing legislation and not raise funds for their next election. thank you. >> one of the things that courts have been skeptical of is the idea that there should be some sort of value placed on equality that everybody should have equal access and equal

capability in terms of financing their campaigns. the supreme court has been pretty specific about that. and said that that's not a condition under which they would evaluate these proposals. so they don't think that equality of resources a value that's considered at all in the constitution. so they are skeptical of it. also in western europe and in other parts of the world, there are lots of systems that say the election will -- the campaign will cover a particular amount of al and the their funding rules are draconian in a lot of wise during that time. but outside of those windows whether it be three months or six months, outside of those windows they pretend there's me to politics at all and very often i think what happens is a party organization in most of those western democracies have

a lot of flexibility outside of the campaign windows and raise a lot of money and do a lot of spending and things in advance of those things. so we as americans tend to be pretty skeptical of the idea that you can flip a switch and all of a sudden we'real conducting politics and then you can flip a switch and all of a sudden politics disappear. we're 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. it's politics 100% of the time here. we think somebody might be trying to gain politics in another way. host: this from ronald that says are there various forms of campaign disclosure, and if so, how would they be enacted? are there disclosure laups on the books now? the ones that are considered, how would that go?

guest: well, candidates, parties, packs file reports every quarter or every month. listing all their contributions these outside groups whenever they do things that expresley say you should vote for this person or vote for this candidate tmblings spending gets disclosed at the time it takes place. so there is fairly significant disclosure except to the glupes aren't normal packs or super packs that are doing this outside spending. other jurisdictions. there's some that require disclosure at the state level. some states are getting more aggressive in terms of trying to ensure that the actual sources of funds do get tivity that act

have would go on. there was groups trying to man inflate system in california, and it led to legislation that is much more substantial in terms of disclosure there. >> independent caller. good morning, detail. caller: good morning. question. why do they want to remain undisclosed on the donors? it gives an impression of who is putting that money in? because i mean even a drug hair win all the and stuff that's coming from afghanistan and when the taliban had shut down the poppy growers. now, after the united states nt in, it's like poppy growers full bloom. and the chinese.

look at how many politicians have close ties to communists. xample, mitch mcconnell. father-in-law, a big chinese shipping magnet. you mean to tell me that he is not allowed or does not contribute to his daughter's husband's cam pain? host: all right. let's talk about family money there. >> it would absolutely be against the law if he is a foreign citizen and doesn't have a green card or isn't a u.s. citizen, he cannot contribute to an american election. spouses can contribute up to the limit but no more than that. mitch mcconnell is not using his own money to run his re-election campaign even though it's going to be extraordinarily expensive.

there may be $100 million spent in that snat race alone, which is really extraordinary. host: kentucky tops the list for the most expensive 2014 place in the senate. $33.5 million right now. guest: it was a competitive primary. he fought back and defeated. and the races are going to be close, so there will be plenty of attention in kentucky. host: take a look at the house numbers 2014. ohio ice eighth district topped the list at $13 million. guest: well, he also had a challenge in the primary, but it wasn't very serious. what happens with leadership, especially in the house is they are able to raise money in significant amounts and what they are doing is giving that money to the political party, other organizations around the country to support candidates

are going to use. it's money that republicans around the country will need when the vote comes up for the speaker ship. host: these other races that have been deemed the most expensive, you have south carolina's first where the former governor there sanford just won a special election in 2013. guest: right. so it was a special election, so we had the whole process in that chunk of money there. host: then you've got henry waxman, at $6.2 million. > again, because paul. is an active member to raise money for his candor delirium tremens around the country. i know this top spender for 2014 for the house you've got,

as -- excuse me, this is the senate, ed markey. special election. so that makes sense. corey booker and mitch mcconnell and john cornyn who is one of the top fundraisers in texas with $9.1 million. >> also one of the things that's been different this cycle is that republicans in particular, where they were challenged by surprise in some ways in 2010, 2011. primary and nusual professionals in the party felt like they weren't getting the best nominees for the general election. so they have been much more aggressive in terms of spending money and paying attention to races early on so they could get the kind of nominees that they thought would be the most viable in the fall. groups like chamber of commerce for example have been very

involved in spending money. certainly pro business candidates, but not necessarily the tea party kind of very ideological candidates that you see sometimes succeed. >> host: the top spender, the speaker of the house, john boehner happens to list with $11.6 million and then the second lieutenant eric cantor, the majority leader from virginia at $5 million and then democrat one, the from new jersey at $3.2 million. guest: they will raise money early, because the ability to raise money for an incumbent member of congress is pretty flexible. they are able to go back to those packs we talked about before and sometimes supporters nationwide.

if they have that kind of name recognition and status around the country, they will take those funds and either use them to help their colleagues or look to the future and maybe a bigger look down road. good morning, steve. maybe you can explain this to me. caller: before citizens united i guess citizens were pleased with how much none unions spend in our cycle. didn't they spend over $475 million in 2012? and i think karl rove was demonized because his group spent $175 million. in the federal government supposingly the there are 550,000 hours working for the taxpayer was spent on the union side and 9% of that money is

given to the? the i.r.s. people when they called and came in? i think the democrats got nervous when the republicans and other groups could give money to further their positions. the unions have been doing this for centuries, donating in unlimited amounts? host: mr. biersack? that y are not donating -- guest: some of these ideological groups, the unions support democrats and 0% of what they donate is focused on that. hey don't have the traditional -- that's u, po that

where donations come from. but unions have been active for a long time 23457bd other ways they will very often conduct mobile campaigns where they will go out into snabeds and talk to voters and make sure these people get out to vote. that's an activity that's considered differently under the law, so it doesn't really a very ffect a raise in specific way, so helping democrats. if you look more broadly than jest packs and see where individual people who give contributions, where they work and what their careers look like and how focused they are. how much n terms of it's given relative to unions. puts absolutely threw union members often pretty active politically and union leaders

and usually on the side of democrats. to the extent that that gets evened out now, because company -- involved.of host: citizens must take sfobalt for what they say. marilyn, democratic caller. weigh in. caller: first of all, thank you for allowing me to speak and thank you for c-span. your focus today about citizens united and the following supreme court decision has mainly been on the federal government. but there is an untold amount f money that goes into campaigns and the various states, and recently in the campaign w jersey

and over $2 million in outside funds went to one of the candidates. there's outside money coming into school board elections and to other elections not on the federal level. and we know that in west virginia several years ago one of the judges voted the way his campaign contributor wanted him to vote. i believe in the golden rule. he who contributes the gold writes the rules. host: ok marilyn, i'm going to jump in, because we're running out of time with mr. biersack. o ahead. >> and sometimes those candidates are more well known your not familiar be level and -- host: appreciate the conversation.

thank you. guest: it was my pleasure. thank you. host: coming up next, we're going to open the phone lines. our weigh-in on the release of sergeant bowe berg doll and whether or not the president should have given congress a 30-day notice. opening up the phones. >> 9:27 a.m. eastern time. k34ick news the commerce department stays u.s. trade deficit jumped to a two-year high in april as sales of exports declined and imports surged to a record high 26789 deficit rose to $rose billions up 6.9% from a revised march deficit. a wider trade deficit can adds a a drag on growth, because that means u.s. workers are

earning less. meanwhile, the labor department says u.s. productivity fell even more than previously thought in the january to march the first 37.2% in the beginning of the quarter is the weakest showing since 2008 but it's seen as a temporary bump caused by the unusually harsh winter which caused the economy to go in reverse. a voub is expected in the current quamplet >> and secretary of state john cary is in beirut. the unannounced visit aimed at showing support for the lebanese government and of course president obama continues his travels in europe headed to brussels for the g-7 summit and while he is away michele obama is at the white house where today she will

welcome dozens around the country participating. they set a goal of ending homelessness among veterans by 2015 and that homelessness has dropped by 24% since then. you can they're white house at 1:30 p.m. and watch it on speen c-span television or listen to it here on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on espn radio. >> on c-span radio. >> we wanted a building that was very accessible to the community. it needed to be able to incorporate a future that we didn't, you know, you can't predict the future. part of the trouble with the old library is that we were tapped out on the amount of computers and wiring that we

could fit in that structure. so the new building needed to have a lot of flexibility and movement into the future. one thing we liked about this design he combined different geometric features. we have the tray angle lahr part of the auditorium and circular building and a rec take ever tangler and crescent wall that thugs library on the north and east side. and all of these different geometric features are bridged together with sky lights. so light flows through the building. at all levels we have a 360-degree view of our urroundings. >> i think it is vital for the community to have a library that brings people together and that particular space was geared into bringing the

community together. it was an opportunity to have the things that told city together, the public safety officers and the mayor and his various departments work together to build the city, and i like that we have physically done that with our architecture. >> this weekend, learn about the rich history and literary life of salt lake city, utah. on c-span 2's book tv and on c-span 3's american history tv. for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events and briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the house. we're c-span created by the cable the industry 35 years

ago. atch us at -- watch us in h.d. "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back for open phones here for the last half-hour of today's "washington journal." you can start calling in now. we'll get to your phone calls in a minute. but first joining us on the phone is cameron joseph to talk about primary day yesterday. and there were eight states with primaries. alabama, california, iowa, mississippi, montana, new south new mexico and dakota. what's the lateest? >> well, it looks like there's going to be a runoff in the most highly-contested senate runoff. it's probably going to g ugly going to be another three weeks looks like and start cochran did not manage to win. he is trailing his opponent daniels, state senator but looks like we are going to have

another two weeks of the two of them beating the heck out of each other and mcdabble finished a little ahead of cochran. cochran had very little momentum. he managed to kind of stop mcdaniel's momentum with a couple of local scandals and a local blogger who filmed his wife is in a nursing home and that they were trying to tie mcdaniel's hand and what he had on that. and it's going to be a really nasty race. host: state senator chris mcdaniel backed by tea party groups. what happens now with outside money? >> well, both candidates are basically broke. and they are already being the y heavily dependn't on rest. cochran has very little money and bailed out by really haley barbour's family.

austin, who is running his ampaign and the running of chris mcdaniels going to have to lean heavily, more broke than he already has been and other groups have been helping out. this is really a race that is, yeah, one of the few this year that really shows that the tea party establishment in a very clear contrast that the establishment is winning most of these because cochran had a i start and a local guy think it's going to be tough for him to pull out in the next couple of weeks. host: let's go to iowa and what happened there in the open seat for the retiring senator tom harken and the republican primary. >> well, first-term snart which is really unknown going into this had some backings early

on. t didn't look necessarily like she was ready for the primary and had this add with hog cass strapings and made a pig squeal andied with over 50% of the vote in a crowded primary vote sand going to be a nomination that's going to be a very tough out and is going to be facing off against congressman bruce who had few gaffs where he basically den grated a farmer who shouldn't have a degree and so this is going to be a race that even couple months ago democratics were feeling pretty good about, and really doesn't have much of a record. going to go after her on the campaign and trying to define

her as this harsh person but it's you have to make those arguments against a woman and do it against the working versus the rich people argument that democrats have done successfully. because she is a grandmother and farmer and member of the army. so it's going to be very vaccine interesting to watch this race. host: well, if there were some comeback bids in mississippi and california. let's begin with mississippi. >> travis childers is the democrat and going to be the democratic nominee. think he is happy with how things worked out last night. obviously mississippi is not the easiest place to win for a democrat statewide but mcdaniel i think still has a shot in this race.

and surprisingly did well considering he was a democratic and lost money and found some. but didn't quite make it to where he needed to be. i think u got to give him credit for running the way he did but didn't quite get where he needed. officially trailing by a few points. host: california's 35th district. what was the outcome? >> to be determined at this point. it's really looking like deja vu, a nightmare scenario for democrats. it's a democratic district and despite that because of california's unusual nomination rocess, so they let -- democrats lost an opportunity. this year they had the same candidate running. and they were really hoping he

wouldn't have the same type of democratic problem. congress marian joe baca was they n the race and and kind of stole some boats. aguilera is -- in fact right now a republican in first place and another republican just a few hundred votes behind him and looks like he will be able to hold an, but there's still a chance that -- third-place finisher but could end up creeping ahead. so looks like they barely dodged a bullet in this district. want to kell will get around this time around. host: winning the g.o.nomination to face corey booker. what's this looking like for

november? guest: like the 1970's. jeff bell was a regan speech writer and centerist republican. that means very different. -- liberal republicans looks like that's probably going to stay true. i don't think corey booker is going to lose the race. nd it's kind of -- i don't see how jeff beverly has any hope here. but it certainly is an interesting story. the party took the nomination twice. host: what about alabama? what are the headlines? >> crowded race. see if there's something open leading into a runoff. here's a rep dann can turned

democrat turned republican turned democrat. and i think it's an uphill battle for him. host: cameron joseph "the hill." just a recap there. the race out of mississippi, the incumbent bent, six-term incumbent bent is headed for a runoff. that is going to take place june 24th. republican caller kevin, you're up first. go ahead. caller: thank you for the time. one issue that bothers me all the time in every election is -- i er seem to account think citizens united gave everybody the opportunity to

spend equally, but i also wonder why federally-licensed media, like television is not provide -- tired provide free air time for open and honest debates. host: ok, donny, good morning. what's on your mind? caller: good morning. i want to go back to this sergeant bergdahl situation. i am an obama supporter. but i have questions and i think the questions surrounding this situation are fair coming from both sides, but i served twice and i can't imagine abandoneding my post. so it appears maybe this man was a desserter, and we lost soldiers trying to look for him and trying to search for him out there in afghanistan. and so i think these questions need to be answered and we need to keep the discussion going to get to the bottom of the truth.

host: have you steen latest video put out by the taliban that those release of bowe in a truck then handed off to u.s. military officials. have you seen this video? >> yes. saw it this morning on cnn. host: go ahead dhani with your thoughts. caller: yes, it goes back to the question i have. what's really going on? was he a desserter? was he going to defect to the other side? and like i said, we lost sole jerds looking for him so, i served time in the military and i can't imagine abandoneding my povements host: yes. on this issue of whether or not his fellow soldiers died looking for him, "the new york times" this morning on their front page above the fold has a

story. and the sunshine "can g.i. be tied to six lost lives? the facts are murky." ut did he cost the lives of six? it says a review of casualty eports and contemporaneous military lives show the factors surrounding the eight defeats are murkier than originally thought. in this province where they were looking in the movepbs after he disappeared was his fault. all across afghanistan that period was a time of ferocious fighting. so "the new york times" in this in-depth story takes a look at military logs and whether or not you can tie deaths of six g.i.'s to the search for bowe 13s bergdahl.

they say the p.o.w.'s haggard look was possibly staged. he was dee plot in afghanistan and stays last proof of video shows the sergeant looking tired and perhaps bruised. and one said he believes the soldier may have been need look make washington believe -- and and would prompted a mess thanl a change to try negotiate a deal for bowe. that on the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning. let's go to independent caller mike thompson. caller: hello. i was wondering, instead of adding an amendment, why not

just repeal the 17th amendment. host: campaign finance? caller: yes. host: why? caller: it gives the power back to the state. host: ok. greg in virginia, democratic caller. good morning, greg. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on -- first of all, as far as campaign finance goes, i believe that we should have public financing and have set amount and the plan to give equal time to each side but have a limit on it and you know, if outsiders want to spend noun get their point you , that's fine, but now that's public financing. maybe will he get people in here he knows from 2007.

host: thank youing greg. responding to the article we just read from "the new york times" saying the facts are murky about the deaths of these six g.i.'s but soldiers broke their n.d.a. otherwise stating otherwise to tell the truth. greg, what are you calling in about today? caller: i'd like to go back to campaign finance. ost: sure. if smun speech from the first amendment then we should be able to drive without search and seizure through the fourth amendment. we should be able to talk and go on the internet with our phones without punishment or records etc. we should be free from national state register industry, homeland security and the patriot act and all other

things. all this beats up the fourth amendment ok. fine. thank you for c-span. host: all right. we'll go next to -- let me go to may in canton, ohio, a democratic caller. may, good morning to you. caller: good morning. my question is to you tore have , how did military him classified? desserter or p.o.w.? host: this is from save stai today. the army says they are going to investigate again and it comes that unting allegations bergdahl put his fellow by iers in harm's way

desserting them. they say he walked off his post before he was captured. wlonet he changed his mind, we don't know. if you missed it earlier, may, a deputy defense secretary for detainee affairs and we talked about what happens next? if he goes to a military court, what happens? so go back to c-span.gov into our archives if you missed it. we'll go to greensboro, north carolina, independent caller. demitra? caller: yes. allow me to express my free speefment can you please line? me how campaign limits would limit free speech? because the way i see it, the ternet is free and blogs can

f -- can be free speech. i would love to see more public debate on tv, and that would let the networks do more. and that might could also be more free. it seems to me the money being spent is wasteful. that money could be spent to lower, for example, a deficit or feed the hungry or homeless if people are that interested in our country. and in the national level we have not seen how big money has affected everyone, but in north man ina, where i live, one has bought elections, and it seems that he has changed the state to his pro business, and i hate to say it, but maybe racist views. host: ok.

all right. couple tweets here for you. the point guard press secretary tweets this out. reviewing video allegedly released by the taliban showing transfer. rgdahl's this from the "l.a. times" correspondent. pentagon says it has no doubt berg aw then citiesty of daal's release. dahl with the berg taliban or officials and the transfer happening there with the u.s. helicopter touchings down. and you see the military personnel getting out and making the transfer happen there. one of the folks with bowe holding a white flag on a stick waving it as the transfer

happens. we'll go to linda. seaside heights. hi linda. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. after the senator spoke somebody from the veteran's hospital got up and was claiming that veterans have plenty of money. money is not their problem. so what i'm wondering is if the secretary of the v.a., deputy and all of them are supposed to be in charge, how did the their medical he coverage? shouldn't it be them making sure they can go where they need to with all the money they have? host: the way sergeant bergdahl appears very suspicious why president obama didn't work with congress on this. i think referring to the video we just showed you. the papers when sergeant

bergdahl got on the helicopter scribbled s.f., special forces and the person on the helicopter responded yes, we have been looking for you for a long time and then at that int it's reported sergeant bergdahl broke down in tears. hello, jackson. caller: i don't know why the president didn't give them more he glave them all the enemy troops they wanted he could have given them a nuclear bomb. >> ok. that republicans are supposed to be of patriotic but they are always -- the truth -- the truth that we're not supposed to invade a country until we're fired on and we're not supposed to leave a person on the battlefield, but they are going against every sacred trust and

truth that we hold in this country. host: this is from the washington examiner conservative newspaper some bergdahl's see bowe swap as a move to empty guantanamo. to see if he could begin releasing the 149 prisoners as the official process to ending the war in afghanistan. on this issue of leaving no soldier behind. the "new york times" digs into that this morning with the headline "critics are questioning the creedo, leaving no one behind." it's more important nan a paycheck or a meddle says he said a horseshoe

from the bergdahl's family home hung outside the command center and they had 500 people to conduct global operations to account for 83,000 americans still unaccounted for from past conflicts. meant ry 75th register must repeat the creedly never leave fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy. one said five years of captain i have the was punishment enough but then the secretary of the army stayed military would determine whether he had vy late rules by leaving his post nearly five years ago and posting his comments, they are on his facebook page if you're interested in that. to alabama.

tomas, republican caller. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question. host: ok. caller: what i have is i remember distinctly in 2008 when john mccain and barack obama ran against each other at year, that barack obama had received $100 million from the p.l.o. to support his campaign. i thought that was against federal law to be doing that, and why was that not addressed? host: we talked earlier about campaign finance and the question was posed by one of our viewers on twitter whether or not foreign governments can our guest said that is illegal. on twitter, the someone in the middle tax preparer is a deserter it's not our responsibility. we did not leave him behind. he left us.

you can weigh in on any public policy issue. john in north carolina democratic caller. caller: good morning. i want to make a point and see if you can understand what i'm saying. bergdahl was in the army. that means he is a sole jennifer and we don't leave them behind. and one more this economy would be in a whole lot better shape because all these bills that have been passed building bridges and roads have been vetoed by the republicans. the only reason is to destroy this country. one question, is anything way they can be charged with treason or be arrested for holding back the economy? because they are destroying this whole country worldwide by not voting on these bills, and they know they are doing it?

what do you think about that? host: so you sound like you think they should be. caller: they should help the economy grow. we all united states citizens but they are doing that just because they don't like obama? they don't like obama please don't hold the economy back. let the country grow. host: democratic caller. greg: first comment is about sergeant bergdahl. i think the president did the right thing bringing him home. whether he is awol or dergs is yet to be determined. under our constitution he is innocent until proven guilty. i think there should be a military tribunal and all the facts will come out then. also tried trading the taliban prisoners for him was right the thing to do, especially if we're downsizing this war and they are going to be released in a few months anyway.

about campaign finance i think it's ridiculous to allow municipal to go untraced to go into anybody's campaign without the government overseeing it. we don't trace the money. we don't know where it's coming from. host: bill beatty says in reality the u.s. military has not left a war zone without tracking and collecting up wol, deserters and p.o.w.'s. the -- more on the release of ergeant bowe bergdahl. caller: i want to say thank you to the soldiers who participated in these wars and i'm highly offended people are questioning bringing home a soldier home. i come from a family of marines

and army and navy and it's sad they are attacking this young man like that. the gentleman before kind of told stole my thunder but i want to reiterate what he said. i'm really heart broke than people are coming out of the woodwork and attacking this young man. can we bring him home first and then everything can be sorted out afterwards. host: and the western times reports this morning that saar intelligent bergdahl could be arriving in texas as early as texas for phase two of his treatment. that does it today for "washington journal." thank you for your emails and tweets. we bring you now to live coverage of the senate banking committee where they are taking up the servicing of student loans.

>>