personal use of e-mail will convert -- while conducting business as secretary of state. host: good morning on this thursday, march 5. here are your morning headlines. the senate failed to override the president's veto of the xl pipeline following five short of the votes needed. also, justice department cleared the white ferguson police officer shooting of unarmed 18-year-old michael brown. but also called for sweeping reform of practices it calls by us. -- a calls biased.

we want to know what you have to say. the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us a tweet. or you can go to facebook and send us also an e-mail. we begin with the front page of the "new york times" in their true stories on what police said yes -- on what the justice department said yesterday.

the second story calls for reforms from the justice department. and the "new york times" reporting on wednesday -- we begin with eric holder yesterday, the attorney general, at the justice department outlining this report. [video clip] >> records show a really disturbing history of unnecessary force against people with mental illness. the overwhelming majority of

force, almost 90%, is directed against african-americans. this deeply alarming statistic points to one of the most pernicious aspects that our investigation uncovered, that these policing practices disproportionately harm african-american residents. in fact, our view of the evidence found no alternative explanation for the disproportionate impact on african-american residents other than implicit and explicit racial bias, no other basis. between october 2012 and october 2014, despite only making up 60% of the population, african-americans accounted for a little over 85% of all traffic stops by the ferguson police department. african-americans were twice as likely as white residents to be searched when they were stopped

to leave though they were less likely to carry contraband. between october, 312 and july, 2014 35 black individuals and zero white individuals received five or more citations at the same time. during the same time african-americans accounted fully 85% of the total charges brought by the ferguson police department. and african-americans made up over 90% of those charged with a highly discretionary offense described as "manner of walking along roadway." manner of walking along roadway. and use of dogs by ferguson police appears to have been exclusively reserved for african-americans. in every case in which ferguson police records recorded a person -- the race of a person bit by a callisto, that person was african-american.

host: attorney general eric holder outlining the justice department report that found the justice system in ferguson missouri racially biased and unconstitutional. and the "new york times" reporting that if they don't make changes they could face a federal civil rights lawsuit. i want you to weigh in on that. betty in hollywood, florida, a democratic caller. you are up first, go ahead. caller: they need to make wholesale changes. jackson needs to go to the police chief. the mayor, they need to get rid of everybody and start a new. -- start anew. it is just blatant. host: all right, that. robert in henderson, kentucky you are on the air. what do you make of that? caller: i live in henderson

kentucky, which is not very far from ferguson, missouri. about four years ago committee group of us were pepper sprayed by the police for no apparent reason. the findings by the justice department on the ferguson police department comes as no surprise. this is indicative of historical activities i law enforcement. if you look at the pictures of people trying to vote, john lewis was bit by police dogs. recently, president obama made a reference to the crusades to my but he also made a reference to jim crow. -- to the crusades, but he also made a reference to jim crow. fox news and a bunch of them have tried to talk that doubt and say, oh, welcome to the crusades were 700 years ago. i'm 52 years old and police dogs are still biting people, police are still attacking people. racial profiling in the system of jurisprudence is tainted. you going with the same type of

charges if you are black or if you are white, and you will get more time if you are black. this is indicative of a problem in our system. host: robert, what is to be done? the justice department is saying if you don't change we will bring you a civil rights lawsuit. this goes on -- you are saying this goes beyond ferguson, missouri. what needs to happen? caller: this is almost like ice is trying to bomb isis. you can not long enough -- not bomb a a mindset. it will not change people's hearts. what will happen is people who claim to be the intellectual, or those at the bottom rail claim to be christians but spiritually immature, if these people never rise to the level that christ claim to be, representative of all people, --

there is no jew, no greek, no bondsman, no free, all are one -- then there will be a change. but we cannot do it through legal remedies. you cannot legislate a mindset. just like isis said, you cannot legislate a mindset. you cannot blow away and mindset. host: ok, robert, we got your point. democratic caller, go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. can we -- can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: unfortunately, i'm not surprised. unfortunately since these events that happened last summer or so, staten island, ferguson missouri at least with the grand jury elements of -- it was in orlando.

it is a little tangential, but i will get back to ferguson and the police issue. if you go on pbs and you watch documentaries, and i am an ardently liberal democrat. it is not lost that i'm a caucasian american, that's not lost on me. african-americans and other minorities in this country rather enslaved, descriptor -- were either enslaved discriminated against and many of us have no idea what that is like. there are so many in the washington, d.c. where i live, you might want to call them ghettos, you might want to call them easily enclaves. and it's almost like everybody speaks of the blue wall of silence.

well, that is internal affairs. but there's a great mistrust of law enforcement among african-americans and he goes back decades and decades -- it goes back decades and decades from when police in the south and they were enslaved in the south during the days of chin grow -- june grow. -- the days of jim crow. host: i'm going to get some other voices in. tonya in martinsburg, west virginia, independent color. caller: hello, greta. i saw 30 years ago the police gunned down an unarmed black man in the bronx, new york. it was three squad cars and the police officers on the passenger

side in the middle car got out. this man was so drunk that the officer came up and said, don't make a step. the black men stepped off the curb to come over and i saw them -- the police officer bring up his gun and i screamed, "no!" and he shot him. there were -- there was a street full of witnesses. 11 people, including myself came forward and said that we saw. another date, debbie swanson from florida and the senator from florida, they were taking money from the people who wanted to build these prisons. the democrats hands are not clean. that man, he's a democrat mayor. in 2010, they treated charlie

wrangle like he was the only one involved in any kind of correction. host: ok. let me show you and others the reaction from capitol hill. sheila jackson lee tweeting out a democrat from texas, the doj report on ferguson finds blacks account for 85% of traffic stops , 90% of tickets issued, and 93% of arrest. pass hr 59, my build trust act. and then senator roy blunt republican from missouri -- now that doj has released its ferguson reports, i'm very hopeful to community and our state will have a chance to heal and forward. lacy clay, a democrat, disturbing findings in the doj report demand urgent amenities must be lamented with out obstruction or delay. gerald independent -- democrat

from indiana. what you have to say about this? you have to listen through your phone and not your tv. go ahead. please go ahead with your comment. caller: i was calling about the ferguson issue, whatever. where they are talking about this -- the police disproportionately target african american. no one is talking about the fact that the demographics are heavily different -- heavily african-american, so the numbers would be skewed either way. host: so you think it is relative to demographics. you heard that "new york times" laid out. 57% of the population is black. vehicle stops, 85% black. 90% of arrests are black people. the use of force 88% toward black people.

in the cases with arrest, 92% for black people. and jails more than two days, 95% black. the justice department is saying it's not proportion. -- not proportional. caller: statistics, you have to look at every individual incident. you cannot just go a big correlation across the board and say, oh, this is indicative of what is going on. you have to look at every case individually. you cannot just look at an aggregate of it. host: do you think there is not a problem here? caller: i think there is always going to be a problem as long as people are saying there is a problem. it is the mindset of the people involved. if you are looking for problem you will find one. you can take statistics and make host: them say whatever you want them to say. the "new york times -- you can take statistics and make them say whatever you want them to say. host: the "new york times" also

says this. willie in memphis, tennessee, independent color. you are next. good morning to you. caller: let me just respond to the idiot that just got off the phone. he said, if you are looking for a problem, you will find one. well, i guess we are looking for a problem with iran, south korea, china. if they are not doing anything wrong, we are just looking for a problem with those particular countries. that is how stupid he sounds.

but with the ferguson situation you can look at reports all over the nation. municipalities are using this as an opportunity to get revenue as opposed to taking -- raising taxes. these are republican strategies. these are the new jim crow republican strategies. don't tax the rich. tax the poor, especially the black community, and make sure we take money out of their pockets by unnecessary traffic stops and finds. if you -- fines. if you go to the court system where i live, every monday there are over 1000 people packed in my call was waiting to pay on some simple traffic violation. in not even on a simple traffic violation. i have been stopped five times in the past year. the new driving while black is "you were all over the road."

host: to your point in one -- in the "new york times" -- and then inside they have this chart. we will go to bubba in dallas texas, democratic caller. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: good morning to you. african-americans constitute some 80% of the population of ferguson.

and where 90% of dust and 90% of the arrest by police graphic and americans. if you look at the national statistics, blacks constitute some 23% of the population of this country, but the prisons have a 55% population of blacks. so you would say that blacks commit far more crimes than whites to percentagewise. so the percentage of blacks -- the justice department says 80% ticketed 90% of the tickets written to blacks. i would say that the ferguson the police department is not

performing their duty. blacks should be closer to 100%. go to washington d.c. and you will find these statistics the same as i'm quoting. thank you. host: all right. maliki leak in arlington, texas, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: not only was it the lease -- police bias, but the judges, prosecutors, all involved in the same practices. and it's not just in ferguson but all over the country. most police departments operate in this fashion. what if that is when you are a black person and you go into court, it's already stacked against you. many white people say that is not true and we have the best system in the world. no, we have the best system in the world for each other. it's meant to protect white people. the court system represents the

white power infrastructure in ferguson. this report is highlighted that in detail. i'm not caught up on the statistics as much as i'm caught up on the practices of what the police, the attorney general the prosecutors and judges were doing. the people were considered less than human, second-class humans, -- second-class citizens, and they were treated as such. blacks need to mobilize and act differently than just to march in protest. we need to have a more aggressive approach with these people and deal with them the way they deal with us. we do not need host: to have sympathy for them anymore. host:are you calling -- we do not need to have sympathy for them anymore. host: are you calling for aggression against police? caller: much more. host: how would that solve the situation? caller: i can guarantee you that if more of them have to go home and grieve, they will leave us

alone introduce more justly. if we just march, they will come out and beat us over the head. if we act a differently, they will leave us alone. host: ok, in other news this morning we will keep getting your thoughts on this justice department released, but i want to share with you this "washington post" story about hillary clinton and her personal e-mail account. we will talk about that coming up here in the "washington journal" in our last hour. and also this morning sticking with the front page of the "washington post" and it's their headline.

robert burns saying it could hinge on justice kennedy and chief justice roberts. i want to show you reaction yesterday. the lawyer for the plaintiff came out to talk with reporters michael carbon, and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i have to accept the court's decision now that is low of the land. it needs to be neutrally and fairly introverted, and that is why we are here. >> [indiscernible] >> not at all. you've seen the property of the press. the leaders in congress are well prepared to deal with any

transition issues. and i assume the states are able to go ahead and create the exchanges that they would have created. host: michael carbon outside the court yesterday, the attorney for david king challenging the subsidies. there are three others in the case. the supreme court is likely to announce their decision at the end of june, maybe early july. the cameras also caught up with the former hhs secretary kathleen sebelius yesterday outside the court. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> i met with governor starting at day one. i don't think there was ever a hint [indiscernible] >> you would argue this is a matter of semantics. >> i think it is a matter of semantics. as established by the state -- "as established by the

states" seems to be the hinging language. host: also giving a nation there would she was hhs secretary of what was put into the law and how she views it. -- also giving an exclamation there when she was aged just secretary of what was put into the law and how she views it. more on that to come as the justices are likely to announce their ruling in early june -- june or early july. harry reid in the senate is telling his democratic colleagues not to gloat after their homeland security win. we have a lot of things we have to work on it we have to be able to work with senate republicans who control 54 seats. that is what mr. reid told in an interview in his capitol office

on wednesday. on the issue of trade, the "washington post" has the story focusing on senator ron wyden democrat of oregon, saying that the white house is counting on him to deliver -- help deliver a trade deal. 's's

so far, it has not inspire confidence in republicans. senator orrin hatch was sold to finalize the deal -- senator orrin hatch told reporters that his plan to each his legislation would be delayed until april. for those of you that follow the trade deals on capitol hill, a little bit more for you. walter what you make of what the justice department had to say yesterday? caller: what the justice department had to say is very alarming.

but you know, not to pick on missouri, but missouri has a history of things like that going all the way back before the civil war. host: ok. caller: they would kill people when they came in from kansas and that sort of thing. you look at the headline of the news a few days ago where the auditor general of missouri killed himself because they leaked he was jewish. we have deep problems in this country. host: what the answer, walter? caller: i don't know. there is deep, embedded racism and anti-semitism. host: ok. here is the opinion of the "wall street journal" editorial board.

this is usa today. and benjamin crump, lawyer for michael brown has family -- for michael brown family says he's disappointed, but not surprised.

in failing to indict them for excessive deadly force against unarmed individuals is unjust. go ahead. caller: maybe we should consider the obvious, that blacks are committing 93% more of the crimes. if you go in and find out how many are driving without licenses, without insurance i think you will find out there is a lot more crime going on in the black community. i know that is not politically correct, but it's true. host: frank, do you think that could be related to economic situation, education? oh, we won't know. frank is gone.

lizzie, independent color. caller: it's called personal responsibility to some degree. we have personal responsibility and we have she pull reaction from blacks. you have al sharpton and others feeding this, making people -- my people look like absolute idiots. and then you listen to the people who call in on your phones here. mostly are not democrats. the original ku klux klan, all democrats. you have robert burns sitting in the senate with his finery. he was democrat. it's ridiculous. i don't know where we would be even now -- i know we have history. it's pretty bad. we have progressed so much until this president got in and now my people are starting all over

from the bottom. i've never seen a president or a country put illegal immigrants in front of american citizens. everyone gets representation -- gives reparations to the blacks. now you want to give $35,000 to illegal immigrants. i consider that a former -- a form of reparations. where is my 30 acres? i want the mule, greta. and i'm tired of people acting like she pull s the --heepol. and i wanted to look the word up. --want them to look the word up. host: ok. independent color. going -- independent caller, go ahead. caller: all you have to do is look beyond the united states to get a little bit of an idea of

how the average african-american male is treated out here. it is sad that slavery never ended. it never ended for our people. how will we deal with that problem? that is what republicans need to ask themselves. how will they deal with being oppressed for 500 years? i don't think they would be marching. host: ok. more reaction from capitol hill, representative harper lee, democrat from -- barbara lee, democrat from california, saying this on her twitter. senator barbara boxer, also a democrat from california.

that is just some of the reaction on twitter from members of congress. you can go to our website -- go to our twitter feeds and find our list there if you want to follow more closely what members of congress are saying on social media. the "new york times this morning -- "new york times" this morning, their story about the officer the -- that killed michael brown, they write this. that from the new york times this morning on that. the justice department report on this goes into specific details of all of those 41 witnesses that they talked to and their

timeline. if you are interested in that, you can go to the justice department website and read this entire report. crystal in chicago democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. first, i want to complement you on your outfit. i just love it this morning. and second, i want to compliment you on how you are so calm and collected, because i'm listening to some of these comments and my stomach and my heart is just looking. and i met you and you are doing the same thing but -- my heart is just slipping. and i imagine you are doing the same thing, but you have to keep your composure. two things. number one, racism has never let. black people have to fight for jobs and justice for close to 300 years. on the black community's part, and minority if you want to sum it all up, they have failed to go out and vote.

when you don't vote and put the right people in office, you lose your seat at the table. if people continue not to vote and continue not to take the initiative to take part in what's going on in the world in the united states, this is going to continue to happen. i feel bad for the people in ferguson, but this should wake them up and let them know, go out there and vote and put the right officials in. we are facing the same thing here in chicago, illinois with the same racist police officers etc. it's just disgusting. the key thing to resolve this problem is to get out and vote and voice your pain. don't blame it on anyone else. stop pointing a finger. let's all work together. he stayed less, sweetheart. -- you stay blessed, sweetheart. host: let me show you a picture of the task force that president

obama put together to look at 20 or century -- 20% three policing. what needs to change -- 21st century policing and what needs to change.

rich, kingsport tennessee, independent caller, what are your thoughts? caller: thanks for taking my call. if i start to ramble, please cap me off. host: [laughs] that is a first. caller: i have to identify myself as an american european since this is all about race. one quick thing about other c as far asall racismers ot --her callers as far as racism, or one day someone called in and the suggestion was to kill all white people. i have not forgotten that call. the fellow today advocating violence against the lease is an

example of that. the best call -- against the police is an example of that. the best call i've heard today was a young black woman who is saying to educate men and that is the overall solution to the problem of combating racism. i do want to mention statistics. if you go to an all-white neighborhood and look at who is arrested most often, who commit violent crimes or those crimes that tend to be noticed i think statistics will bear out it is among the -- those that have less income. and the same thing, i think, would apply to a neighborhood if you go to ferguson. 67% black, i would think if you probably compare the white and black incomes, he would find lower incomes -- you would find lower incomes among blacks. i find the same pattern

regardless of race. i also note that the doj cleared officer wilson emphatically, specifically on the witness accounts. some of the officers that had made racist e-mails had been disciplined or fired prior to the investigation, or after these things started to come out. i think the solution is what levelheaded people of all races have called in and said, including the caller who said it's the problem of the heart. but as far as legislation, it's going to be a tricky problem. we just need to keep level heads and keep working together against racism. i'm starting to ramble, so i'm going to leave it off. host: self-imposed.

let me reference one part of the "new york times" article that you were talking about, and this is the justice department report and the case they took up where they said there was no civil rights violation by this police officer. they interviewed over 40 people. this is what they write in the "new york times." let me go to garrett in illinois, a republican. go ahead. caller: hi, greta.

i'm african-american. and if you talk to my african-american friends about civil rights, i get into an argument with them, too, because we keep saying these are civil rights, civil rights. i'm in type of guy and these problems are human rights. you have to bring these problems -- i'm a malcolm x type of guy and these problems are human rights. you have to bring these problems to the u.n. and let the world decide if we have been violated humanly. michael brown may have been wrong in what he did, and the police may have did write shooting him or whatever -- did right shooting him or whatever, but leaving him out in the hot streak like roadkill, -- in the hot streaet like roadkill, that

is a human rights violation. i get in arguments all the time with my own people about civil rights. because we've been doing this since martin luther king died. eight nothing ever changed, but you might -- ain't nothing ever changed, but you might get a little piece here or there. but these are human rights violations. host: ok. joe, independent in new jersey what do you have to say? caller: some of the recent phone calls explained a lot of my views, but i just want to say this. it is a war on poor people. it has nothing to do with race. the police department make their money off of the easiest they can. they make their money off of those that do not have the

wherewithal to defend themselves. it is easiest for them to go to the poor communities and kick at them. everybody has it wrong, because we are all of the same race, the human race. host: i would like to take more of your poem calls on this, but as we told you earlier, the house -- more of your phone calls on this, but as he told you earlier, the house committee on benghazi said they would subpoena more of hillary's e-mails after revealing that she had a personal e-mail account and that is what she used during her tenure as secretary of state. it was set up in 2009. hillary clinton responding yesterday over twitter to all of this, saying that she wants the state department to release her e-mails. hillary clinton responding to all of these headlines over

twitter late wednesday responding for her calls to answer and calls for her to cough up more of these e-mails. for more on that on the "washington journal," we will get your thoughts on her potential 2016 bid. let's go back to your calls. pat, democrat, you're on the air. caller: i think people are missing a big picture. there is another like to public safety. the police and the other like is fire department and other emergency medical services. what is frightening is as someone who works there for the past 10 years, the same kind of system is set up in the fire department that has even less diversity. and people think because police have a gun and can shoot somebody or beat somebody out

that they are safe, but they are not. during the day, if medical people don't give you fair treatment, or equal treatment, if they are basically throwing you in a truck and dumping you in the hospital, you are just as much danger and getting the same type of damage done to you. i don't see anybody talking about that. if you look at the fire department, you will find there is no diversity. they will use the black community's property taxes to pay for the fire department, and yet refuse to hire any blacks to the fire department. host: ok. sorry, pat, i favor finish with that point. san antonio, independent caller. caller: i am an agent person -- ancient person right here and i'm spanish raised. i'm a world war ii veteran and korean veteran. and i'm a resident of san

antonio, texas. and believe it or not, have to say that the white people are still having this problem, the racial. let me just say furthermore it's not because of the black people here in america. believe me, the white people will be number 10 in the world. and i'm here to tell you that without the black in the world america would be number 10. if you look out in the world everything that is important is black people. host: kevin, good morning to you. you are on the air. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: your call from maryland

earlier, i assume she was african american, and i think she had a spot on. what surprised me is the african-americans in this country they seem to continue to vote for the democrat party. which all of these city councils, these mayors offices these governors of democrat states that have all of this racial strife, they are made up of democrats. and they continue to vote for democrats. the democrats keep them in this continual state of dependence and they use them. they use them to retain power and they blame the republicans. the republicans are the ones that wanted to get rid of slavery back during abraham lincoln. we are for equality of all races , the people that i know in the republican party. i have many african-american friends and they believe that the democrat party continues to just hold the african-american down and use them. they are the master of the african-americans.

i just think the african-americans need to broaden their horizons and look to the area where all of this racial strife occurs and they are all democrats controlled. democrat city councils, and the democrats control the city -- the police force. if there is racial bias in the city cap -- in the police force then you need to get rid of the city council. host: alice, democratic caller. caller: i think until we have reconciliation these things will continue to be there. it was never resolved. might -- my great great grandfather was lynched. his murderers were never tried. my father received bronze stars and was lost behind enemy lines in the battle of normandy. he was born in south carolina and he never went back after he joined the army. those wounds festered and he

never talked about it, but it hurt his life. we were raised as middle income. we were raised to be responsible. i am telling you we need truth and reconciliation because here we are again in 2015 and our people are really hurting. and our young people are really hurting. we need to see that. we keep looking past it. they are human beings. we are human beings. i think -- they heard the president because they know it hurts us. they can't get to him, but they can get to us. we need truth and reconciliation. host: ok. joe, democrat color. go ahead. -- democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i think they've got it wrong. as a simple mathematics. if you take all the white people who arrived here on the vote --

on the boat, we are the immigrants. hispanics and native americans we were here. why people need to realize there will not be another nelson mandela coming down the pike. you want to know what will happen in this country people don't change their attitudes take a look at the avocados. that is what is going to happen to the white people. -- take a look at the africans. that is what is going to happen to the white people. are we going to have the streets of america flowing with blood? if you keep militarizing the police department and excusing their actions, then you will have it, because that is exactly what happened in africa. wake up and take a good look. white people are the only immigrants here. we were born here. we were here when you came here, and you call us illegal immigrants. come on. host: that was joe in lewis, colorado, a republican.

we will leave it there for now. we are going to take a look at the challenges in foreign policy with former secretary of state nicholas burns -- former undersecretary of state. and then later we will look at the controversy with secretary clinton's e-mail system and the regulations around and what agencies thing to do when it comes to their e-mail. we will be right back. ♪ >> here are some of our featured programs for the weekend on the c-span networks. david morris on the history of posttraumatic stress disorder.

and sunday night, former navy seal sniper scott taylor talks about the obama administration and how it's hurting our country. and then bloody sunday in selma alabama 50 years later. we are live from selma on saturday beginning at noon eastern. and then on sunday, our live coverage continues from the historic brown chapel ame church, the starting point for the selma, montgomery marches. finally complete schedule -- find the complete schedule at www.c-span.org. but us know what you think. call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter.

>> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session. new congress, best actress -- best access. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back. we will now turn to foreign-policy challenges facing the united date and joining that discussion from boston -- the united states and joining that discussion from boston this morning is nicholas burns diplomacy repressor at harvard kennedy school. let me begin with the headline in the "wall street journal" this morning on the steel that the united states is trying to broker with iran, being helped with five other countries. and the headline is "iran said to near deal on nuclear fuel limits."

what do you make of this, mr. ambassador? guest: thank you for having me on your show. i'm pleased to be here. the obama administration has done a good job of trying to negotiate with the iranian government from a position of strength to my because as you say, we have european countries as well as russia and china on our side of the table all saying to the iranian government, we will not permit you to become a nuclear weapons power. what we are trying to do is get the iranians to limit themselves to civil nuclear power, to construct nuclear power plants and have a limited amount of enriched uranium and have that verified by the iaea and to keep iran away from a nuclear weapon. i served in the bush administration as undersecretary of state. i was one of the people working on the iran issue. we tried very hard to sanction iran economically and to try to

persuade it not to become a nuclear weapons power. i think president obama has pretty much taken up the baton from president bush. i see a lot of similarities between the two administrations on this issue, and i hope will that there might be a negotiated agreement. secretary of state john kerry was in switzerland earlier this week trying to negotiate a steal. it is not ready yet, but it looks like iran and the other countries -- negotiate this deal. it is not ready yet, but it looks like iran and the other countries involved are close. two days ago, benjamin netanyahu addressed a joint session of congress on this issue. he was very much opposed to what the u.s. and other countries are doing. we can talk about that as well if you would like. host: i do want to talk about that and show our viewers a little bit of priming mr. nishiyama's speech before congress and have your reaction to -- prime minister netanyahu's

speech before congress and have your reaction to this part. [video clip] >> at come here to tell you we don't have to that the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. first, stopped its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. second -- [applause]

second stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [applause] host: mr. burns, what do you make of what the israeli prime minister is saying, outlining the case of why iran should not be allowed to do this, or have some sort of deal with the country echoed -- with the country? guest: if you look at the entire

speech and i did it was very powerful and effectively delivered. and if you were a supporter of prime minister netanyahu, you have to say it was successful from that perspective. but two other points, i'm sorry that he gave this speech in the u.s. congress. we have a tradition in the united take that when congress invites a foreign leader to address a joint session, the president has to agree to that invitation. in this case, and for the first time in my memory and several decades, the republican leadership invited prime minister netanyahu against the wishes of president obama. i thought that was a problem and i'm sorry congress made that invitation. secondly, as an american citizen and someone who worked for our government, and i work for republican as well as democratic administrations, to see a foreigner come into the heart of our capital and really denounce the president -- now, he said the nice things about the president at the beginning flowery language, but he took

the president's policy against -- about iran and really eviscerated it. i don't think you for leadership come into the capital and try to denigrate the president's policy on arguably the most important policy facing -- most important issue facing country. and thirdly, it was a speech that offered no alternative. it was a speech that said no. it wasn't a speech that offered instead of the president's policy, the we should do this or that. that was the great weakness of the speech. in essence, we have the entire world with us. we are sanctioning iran. we are isolating the iranians. and we have partly been successful in doing that because we have been working with the europeans and the russians and the chinese. we have the south koreans and the indians and japanese buying less oil from them because we asked them to. there is pressure on iran. and lest we get into a third big war in the middle east, inc. it

is best to trust diplomacy to see if we can negotiate -- i think it is best to trust diplomacy to see if we can negotiate an agreement. if we agree to let them have civil nuclear power, but i think that is a better deal for the united states and i think that may be the deal that president obama is able to negotiate. so i didn't like this betray much from that perspective. host: and an editorial yesterday saying that the prime minister's concerns are worthy of a response. then you have the "wall street journal" this morning. it is not just israel, arab allies also fear president obama's deal. the rhetoric is that saudi arabia come other countries, egypt, they fear that -- they worried that the nuclear deal may enable of ron -- enable i ron -- enable iran and the middle east. guest: some of the middle

eastern states are very much opposed, it appears, to a negotiated agreement with iran because it feel they -- it will strengthen iran's position. i oppose all most everything they are doing, but they are the dominant power. there are one of the dominant powers, unfortunately, and negatively, in syria to the iranian revolutionary guards fighting there, and through their proxy, which is fighting in syria. so we have to deal with that. for the gulf arab states, you can't make peace with iran on a nuclear issue because we have our own problems, the united states has to do it is best for the united dates. what is best for our country is to try and stop a ron -- iran from being a nuclear power. it is better to do that to diplomacy, if you can do it, and try diplomacy first. rather than resort to military a

-- and war. we are just coming out of two big land wars. our troops have been fighting for 14 years. in afghanistan, we fought for eight years in iraq, and now we have several thousand special forces back in iraq to combat isis. i think the president is right, we should try for a diplomatic solution. and i really think the prime minister and the critics in the gulf -- in saudi arabia, emirates come and elsewhere -- should wait for this deal to be finished before they start opposing at the way they have. we haven't even seen what the terms are yet, those of us outside government. so i trust the president and secretary kerry on this one. host: when you say we need to deal with it, and you're talking about the conflicts between sunni and shiite, how? you said earlier you were a part

of that negotiating team under the bush administration. how do you deal with that? guest: well, you know, we can't resolve all the problems of the muslim world. the muslim world is very badly split, particularly in the middle east, between sunni and shiite islam. it is a big part of the problem in syria. we can't be the kingmaker. i think president obama has tried very hard, i think, to decide where the united dates can use its influence and where we can hold back. my own view is i think we should obviously be supporting the iraqi government to try keep iraq together and american air power has been striking isis for the last six months. i think that is appropriate use of american u.s. force. we have special advisers in iraq, but they are not in frontline combat. they're trying to help the iraqi government to reconstitute itself. so that the iraqi government can take backmosul.

i do think, greta, that the artist dates and president obama could be more assertive in syria . i don't mean that we should go to war there, but there are 11 million homeless in syria and a population of 22 million. we have to do more to try and help the homeless there through refugee and humanitarian assistance. and i do think we should be arming the moderate syrian rebel groups. not putting american troops in but arming them so they can fight isis. host: ok. let's get the calls. we go to florida, a democratic caller. jj, you're up first. caller: yes, i just wanted to make a statement. the statement that i want to make is the jewish leader came here before. and made a big stink about saddam hussein. and we jumped on that. and we got them riled up like when over there and we ended up

getting into a war that started all this here -- conflict that is going on right now. i think the president is very wise about to see what is going on. because we don't want to jump into something like that again. just over what you think about when he came and made that big stink about all the mass destruction with saddam hussein and the nuclear weapons and all of that. host: ok, got it, jj. guest: thank you very much for your comment. i think the prime minister and the israeli people have a right to be concerned about iran. the iranian government is a very irresponsible government. it is aggressive. the iranian supreme leader, the top official of the country, has vowed to destroy i ron -- excuse me, israel, on several occasions. so you really have to look at that problem very carefully.

and you have to defenders of but having said that, i think united states has to be very careful here to see if we can get our way through intimidation economic sanctions through the threat of force, but mainly through diplomacy. all of that comes together sometimes when you are dealing with thugs and the iranian government is thuggery. i think president obama and president bush before him, in the second term, felt that he had to try to at least see if that negotiated agreement was possible before you resorted to war. that is exactly where we are. if the negotiations fail, and if i run -- iran heads for its nuclear weapon, we might have to use airstrikes to knock the program back. but if negotiations succeed and we can keep them away from a nuclear weapon, i, for one think that is a better deal for the united states. and that is why supportive --

why i am supportive. host: why is it a better deal teco guest: you have to -- a better deal? guest: you have to weigh the pros and cons. i think that freezing the iranian program in place establishing and international verification regime to inspect what they are doing keeping enough sanctions on to pressure them to implement the agreement -- you don't want to take all the sanctions often the first few months. to me, that is a better deal for the united states than risking a confrontation in which we get involved in some sort of a third big military conflict in the middle east. you have to weigh the pros and cons. i weigh them on the side that president obama has also weighed them. host: jim, richmond, texas. hi, there. caller: hi, there. host: go ahead, jim. caller: ok. the simple fact is there is only two groups i can settle this. the sunni and shia.

we have no business there. we arty lost the middle east. there is no need for us being there. until those two religious groups can settle the differences there will never be peace in the middle east. host: let's take that point. guest: thank you for your question and comment. i respectfully disagree. the sunni and shia have been at odds with each other since the seventh century, since mohammed -- since the word of allah was revealed to mohammed. and i think the united states has great interest in the middle east. we have an interest in the free export of oil and gas through the persian gulf out across to the -- to europe and the big economies of asia. we have an interest in the survival of israel, what does a great ally of the united states. recently have an interest in the survival and health and welfare of our friends like egypt, the

gulf states we talked about before. so, we are the strongest outside power. if the united states just leaves the middle east politically, i think the situation will worsen. i think we have a possibility here on the eye ron -- on the iran case to give them away from a nuclear weapon and key them limited to a civil enrichment program. so i would say the united states is very important, but i would agree maybe what is implicit in your question -- we are almost always better off waiting diplomatically. trying to protect our business and economic interests. we can use military force sparingly. we got into big trouble in iraq in our eight year occupation there. a lot of young men and women from the united states died, were wounded in that conflict. we don't want to repeat that exercise. so i think the airpower that president obama is doing against isis in iraq is the best way to do it. host: let me show the front page

of the "wall street journal" on that point. blow the full time with the headline, i ron flexes new clout beyond its borders. they had of our runs -- head of iran's elite troops, now he services and i -- in iraq to bolster the morale of iraqi troops and to -- guest: well, i have long been opposed to a the iranians are doing in the middle east. the iranians support hamas. they created hezbollah. those groups are both anti-american groups. in iraq, when our troops were there, the iranian supported some of the shia military groups that shot at our troops and laid roadside bombs that killed our american troops. i don't agree at all with what

the iranians have been doing trying to expand the powers. and i think united states obviously wants to be powerful enough that we can crowd iran out of some of the situations, like iraq. here is the irony. we are trying to help the iraqi government get act on its feet and take back his country from the islamic state. we haven't talked much about them yet this morning did oddly enough, the iranian government wants the same thing. they are the primary military supporter on the ground of the iraq he government -- iraqi government. i don't believe we are even talking to the iranian government much about this, it just means that we are supporting the same government in iraq. it is a strange to have events in the middle east. at the same time, of course, we are opposed to what iran is doing in syria and lebanon and the palestinian territory. so a lot of the big problems for

the united states -- and that is why i want the united states to remain involved in the middle east so that iran doesn't become a power. host: robert, texas, a republican. caller: yes, good morning. ambassador burns. i am sure you know neville chamberlain. i think if you listen to the news this morning -- and i haven't heard the full details -- but nbc's ann curry has interviewed sharif. he has obviously been carrying on negotiations with john kerry. when post with the question two how does he feel about the statement about destroying israel, he supports that. he openly supports that with the -- with his interview. how can you not believe that what he says that the most

important thing he has to do with is the open and willful destruction of israel -- how can you sit there and continue to be a pacifist as our president is? guest: well, you said some sort -- some strong things, and i certainly disagree with the last thing you said in that i'm a pacifist or that president obama is. president obama went after osama bin laden and killed osama bin laden. he has led a very vigorous work against al qaeda. so i think you have to be careful with the charges that you make, the inflammatory charges. the ones you just made on television. we all need to be careful about historical references. if you open up your statement by implicitly saying that either me or president obama is guilty of acting like that for a timberland -- guilty of acting like neville chamberlain, mark twain said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes --

i think we need to be mindful of these lessons, but i wouldn't say that the situation in iraq is similar to the threat that adolf hitler posed to the world in 1938. the fact is, we are much stronger militarily, politically, and i was safe morally than the iranian government. i disagree vehemently with the iranian government. and i detest the government with its repeated threats against israel. if you have been listening, i very much sympathize with the israeli leadership. if you have a foreign country in the middle east threatening to destroy you, and the have been such statements by leaders, you have to defend yourself. so i don't criticize the prime minister for that. i criticize him for coming into our capital in -- in the capital city of the united states and criticizing president obama. as a patriotic american, i don't like it when a foreign later comes into the capital and come in a act, doesn't give the

proper deference to our president. we will continue to be the best and that israel has ever had but best friends -- my experience in diplomacy is that if you have a problem and you have a disagreement, you can argue that behind closed doors. you don't try to the for the president of the united eights in a joint session in congress. host: we go to wallace, michigan. a republican. you're on the air. caller: hello. mr. burns. guest: good morning. caller: i noticed he can do for my did me of president kennedy. in a sense, demanding the doctrine. president kennedy would not allow any nukes in the neighborhood. should president kennedy have negotiated for some enrichment in cuba? in the same sense, i noticed that israel says that it would

actually defend itself. it didn't ask for american boots. but i wonder, can you answer a question? has a obama threatened israel for doing any kind of strikes against iran to defend itself? guest: first, i agree. i think that one of president kennedy's greatest agreement -- achievements was to raise the -- remove soviet missiles from cuba in 1962. in this case in the middle east president obama is not threatening the state of israel. president obama's tech to support the state of israel. there is a big disagreement between the israeli government and the american government and how best to do that. i have been a think that, as someone who has worked in the u.s. government a long time, someone ought to take the lead here. in support of israel, obviously. but i would think it would be quite ill advised for the israeli government to get ahead of the united states and to try

and use military force on its own. the fact is, we have equities, too. we set to the iranians, both president bush and president obama, if you get close to a nuclear weapon, we will threaten military force. we iranians have not gotten that close yet. we are now at the negotiating table. i think we are almost always better off hard to deal with things peacefully, if you can do it, but from a position of strength. and we are in a position of strength. i think israel should trust the united states on this issue. host: his piece about the speech to congress. what he chose not to say signals a slight shift. while he condemns president obama's nuclear deal as dangerously lenient, one word was missing from his expensive speech. zero. it is aware he likes, what he has used before to describe his bottom line when it comes to the sectoral -- two acceptable

iranian nuclear programs. zero whatsoever. guest: well, i haven't read the peter baker article. he is a really fine journalist but it is interesting he should point that out. here is the heart of the negotiations between iran and a western power. the united states and the other western powers are trying to limit the number of centrifuges that the iranians could adapt to enrich uranium. enriching uranium to a weapons grade quality is one of the essential ingredients of a nuclear weapon. we are trying to keep them below enrichment for weapons grade uranium, and trying to limit the number of centrifuges. previously, administrations have said years ago that iran should have zero centrifuges spinning. obviously, in the cover my's -- in a compromise of the type that obama is negotiating, the iranians would have more than

zero. it is interesting that he, in that sense, do not insist on zero enrichment. if you adopted that as a policy, it would be unworkable. negotiations cannot succeed. so we are talking about a compromise here, greta. i think it is a compromise if the negotiations turn out the window newspapers say they will. the problem with compromised is, in this case, you are dealing with a bad government, you're dealing with the government with which we vehemently disagree on a number of issues, and yet when you are a diplomat, if you're the president of the united states, you have to judge whether that kind of compromise is in the best interest of our country. will it keep us out of a war and limit iran's nuclear program? if that is the case, and might be a sensible deal for the united date. he is a very tough leader of israel, who lost his life in 1995.

he said you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with a very -- with very unsavory enemies. we are negotiate with a very unsavory adversary in iran. host: by the way, the "wall street journal" this morning also reporting a vote on whatever comes out of these are run -- iran negotiations. they said they will block any effort by the majority leaders to bring this legislation to the floor next week. mike in pennsylvania, an independent caller. you are next. good morning to you, mike. go ahead. caller: ok. it is obvious to me that the kurds are by far the best, most effective group fighting isis in iraq. and they always end up always think i'm -- always being on our side. i was wondering why we don't work more directly support the kurds than what we do.

i will is not tv. guest: thank you very much mike. it is a good question. i think both the obama and bush administrations have been very close to the kurdish regional government in iraq. you are right, the kurds have been great friends to the united states. they have been loyal friend. the peshmerga have been a good guerrilla fighting force. they haven't been as effective in mechanized warfare against the islamic state. they don't have that kind of heavy weaponry, but they are very effective forces. we have supported autonomy for the kurds, but the u.s. has not supported independence mainly because we think that would be, you know, the jury is -- extraneous to the state of iraq. it might actually encourage greater instability to that process. so i think they are important to the fight against isis in iraq but the captured by themselves. the iraqi army has to be rebuilt.

the iraqi army, as you know felt a part in losing mosul last june and july, and had to be a much what effective fighting force with the peshmerga against the islamic state. but one more point on this greta. the islamic state, isis whatever you want to call it controls about a third of syria and about a third of iraq. they're based in syria. all of our efforts have been to try contain most of them in iraq. i think with the obama administration should do now is have a more assertive policy in syria. non-american troops, but to arm those troops in syria with which we agree, and try to build up account of force against the islamic state in syria itself. if you take out your map or google it at home, you will see that isis controls part of syria, part of iraq. it envelops both borders. and, therefore, we have to have a policy that is effective in syria as well as in iraq.

i have said a lot of nice things, and i meant them. but i don't think he has been strong enough on the serious side. host: we were just showing our viewers, that yesterday iraqi's announced that they want the lead role in driving prices from moul. a democratic caller, you're up. caller: yes, good morning. i remember when president obama was running, he also said that i am not against was, but i am against dumb wars. i believe in diplomacy, and i believe everything, ambassador, that you said is true, is right. as far as saudi's are concerned, i could care less about them. saudi's were pilots on 9/11. and i want to know something off. i saw the speech and i looked at the tv and the jews were outside -- and some of them said go back

to israel. i saw that on one channel. so, i don't know what that was about. host: i will have ambassador birds respond. guest: i don't know, beverly, if you are referring to his speech. host: she was. guest: ok, listen, it is one of the great things about israel. i deeply admire the country. my wife and i and our two kids lived there in the 1980's. it is a deeply democratic country. if you go to israel, it looks a lot like the united states. you have left, right, and center on the political spectrum. you have liberals and conservatives. you have influence of outside groups trying to get their voices heard. and i deeply admire the fact that israel, since its founding in 1940 at, has been able to sustain its democracy within israel. so if you saw some of that here, i think it is why we are so close to the israelis. host: by the way, the wash --

the "washington post," a modest impact and razor a -- impact in israel. reporting this morning that it will give him a slight bump, but could speed over the next few weeks before voters go to the polls in israel. in north carolina, a democratic caller. no ahead to you. fayetteville, that is right. caller: please let me make my points, please. 52 years ago -- 52 years ago i was sitting in germany. we were worrying about the russians coming across the check -- the border. we were worried about the north koreans coming across the 30th parallel. and i was told back then, 52 years ago, that those countries were not our threat. and i was told, right now, we

don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. israel has nuclear weapons. and we are closer right now to a nuclear war than we have ever been in our lives. and israel don't have but a handful, but if they throw one, they will start a world war. and all humanity is going to be wiped away. host: ambassador burns. guest: i would respectfully disagree with you. i think that 53 years ago, we were much closer to a nuclear war. and that was the cuban missile crisis of october 1962. fortunately, president kennedy was able to deliver us from that , protect us from a nuclear war. and he made a compromise diplomatic deal. sometimes diplomacy can do great things. i would say this. i wouldn't point the finger at israel. israel wants to live in peace

with its neighbors in the middle east. israel has been continually assaulted by those neighbors over the last 60, 65 years since it came into existence. and that is why israel has a strong military, and that is why the israelis have to be tough-minded. so, i think we ought to be supportive of israel. defendant when we can, but as good friends in any family come any friendship, you are going to have differences. you saw that this week within the prime minister and president obama. i would have preferred come as i said before, i would have preferred that disagreement behind closed doors in the oval office. instead, it had to be a television. one more point, greta. my friend david i really find journalist for the "washington post," he did say about the speech and his column, i figure was yesterday, he said that the prime minister raise the bar and

president obama now these to meet higher expectations. what he meant by that, i think was that that was a very powerful speech. and he raised a number of questions about the wisdom of a nuclear -- about a deal with iran. and it really demand that president obama and secretary kerry goes out and explains this to the american people. and defended in a way that they know is convincing. i think that david is right that the bar has been lifted, and prime minister that yahoo! -- the prime minister lay down a number of questions. host: garth in midland, texas. a republican. good morning. caller: he is right, he needs to look out for his people. i mean what part of this do we not understand? religion is cause for deception. and they don't do any better job once -- if they get an agreement

side, then they are doing now. this gentleman here, i were to caution one of the callers on what they say. they're trying to caution people not is as it would be what to say. well, i'm saying what i want to say. i do not trust making an agreement with iran. i think this guy is just a mouthpiece for it. now i can caution me, as well . caller: i wouldn't dare caution you, sir, but as americans, you have the right to say what you just said. i have an equal right to respond. if we have a disagreement, that is just a part of what our democracy is all about. let's go back and look at the interim agreement made with the iranians with the united states, britain, france, germany, china. that was about a year and a third ago. that agreement froze the iranian nuclear program in place. so they have not made progress in the last year and a third.

they have not made progress in terms of the number of centrifuges spinning. the program has been, in essence, frozen in place. that is a good deal for the united states, and that was negotiated by president obama. i am not about these for the administration. as a career diplomat in the u.s. foreign service. i worked in the reagan administration, the george h.w. bush administration, and the george w. bush administration. as well as the carter and clinton administration. i try to see things objectively. i'm not perfect, but i think on this one, i would give president obama a little credit. i think he has intimidated the iranians. president obama turned up the strengthens -- sanctions. he also threatened twice in 2012 the use of military force. so i think so far so good. and i think david, the journalist of the "washington post" is right. have to hold our government to a high standard. when this deal is presented to

the american public, the obama demonstration have to defend it. i think they're headed in the right direction. host: on the timeline for these negotiations, the wall -- "wall street journal" reporting -- the talks broke up on wednesday, and they are to resume march 15. it also says that iran and the six powers are aiming to complete the framework by the end of this month, and seal a detailed agreement by june 30. ron in d.c., an independent caller. caller: hi, how you doing? host: doing well, sir. caller: i am really impressed with mr. burns. what i would like him to do for all of us, myself included and i am an lawyer, but i don't know this area too well, is to show with us white is that israel's existence in the middle east and why it is a such a problem for

its neighbors. and i would like mr. burns to comment on -- i don't have any issues with the prime minister but why it is -- and i agree with him -- that someone who is not from the united states to come here and criticize our president that we voted for. i will take his answer off line. guest: ron, thank you. on the second question you asked, i think a procedural grounds, the congress and the executive branch, no matter which party is controlling this institution, they are to be agreed on who we abide -- invite to a dress. it is a huge platform. you saw that millions of people watched that speech. and the fact that for the first time in my working career, congress would behind the back of the white house, i just thought that was wrong. on procedural grounds. on the first part of your question, boy, we could create a

whole course where i teach at harvard university on your issue. but you know the history. you know that you the united nations create a jewish -- created a jewish state in palestine, that began in 1948. and immediately, five countries attacked it. they fought wars against each other in 1956, 1967, 1973. there have now been big struggles between iran and israel, which has resulted in war yet, but israel has been in an embattled state. and president truman made the decision that we would recognize israel and support israel. and it was really president nick, president ford, present carter president reagan who built up the security relationship between the two states. i think we have an obligation to help israel. as the only jewish state. if you think about what happened in the holocaust and the second world war, more than 6 million jews killed, murdered in the

most brutal fashion in the death cap's by the nazis, i think we have a moral obligation to support a jewish state. and here's what i like about his speech. he began by talking about the fact that there is no question that democrats and republicans most americans do support israel. but israel's upon -- israel depends upon that. host: there is a lot of discussion aboutc i -- about iran and israel and that discussion there. and the discussion between israel and palestinians, can you address that? do those two situations tie into each other? guest: well, they are related, but they are separate. you are right, greta, for many, many decades the israeli-palestinian dispute -- now with the iranian threat, and i do think it is a threat, and

the threat from the islamic state, and that is a real threat, our attention is elsewhere in the middle east. unfortunately, it is not a lot of good news to report about the israeli-palestinian relations. the palestinians in the west bank are not free. they are living under occupation by israel, and i think that is a real problem for israel going forward to occupy another people. in gaza, the situation is worse. it is more crowded. the standard of living is worse. and they are governed by an irresponsible palestinian group named thomas. -- named hamas. unit palestinian leaders who are focused on peace negotiations to even begin to have hope. secretary kerry has tried very hard to bring them together. he has not yet succeeded. i think we have to keep at it but right now, i think the more critical short-term challenges are stopping iran from becoming

a nuclear weapons power, and stopping isis from murdering innocent people. they have murdered five americans in the most brutal of fashion. they murdered christians in libya. they have murdered thousands of syrians. and they murder anyone who opposes them. they murder shia, they murder christians. this is a sunni, radical group. and away we met look at it analytically is this is a battle for the sunni world. isis is an extremist, brutal group that needs to be stopped. which is why i have supported with the president is trying to do and that is use air power to try and stop them in iraq. host: let's talk about the isis threat. and the headline, no clear way forward. the president's plan doesn't plead either democrats -- please either democrats or republicans. guest: the efforts here is to

see if congress can pass a solution to, in essence support what -- and draw some conditions on with the united states is trying to do against the islamic state. i think this is important because we do have american aircraft in combat right now against isis. we have american special forces on the ground, and other military personnel in iraq. it is always good if you have american forces forward deployed in a place like the middle east. congress should have a say and have a vote to hopefully support what our troops are doing, and what our pilots are doing. so i would hope congress would find its way forward to do that. it is going to be a long fight. we do not have the capacity right now, or the will right now, to defeat isis. we are not going to put 100,000 troops. should it. we should not do that. show -- so, we have to rely on the margins to contain ices.

if the iraqi state, they are going to have to take the fight to them. they are going to have to do the majority of the fighting here. it is going to be some military action. it is going to have to be good judicial actions to try and arrest some of these people who are supporting isis in other states to dry up the sources of the economic financing. it may take years to ask the defeat isis. host: i am going to try and squeeze in her one last call. mary from pennsylvania. hi, mary. caller: hi, how are you doing? listen, i have two comments. first, i want to know since the new administration in iran came in in 2013, is it harder or easier to negotiate with them than it was to negotiate with the administration before 2013? the second thing i want to say is, although i agree with everything you said so far, i don't think we should have any groups, any american boots on

the ground because now recently iran and the tribes are fighting iso- -- fightingisil. they united the middle east against themselves. host: our time is running short, so go ahead. guest: to good comments -- two good comments. certainly, we have to be there to help the arabs push back against isis. they have not combat boots, but troops to train the iraqi army. on the first question, this is a difficult dilemma for the obama administration. we are dealing with reformists and the president of iran. they are the people negotiating with secretary kerry. they are very different from the other government. but remember this, the supreme power in iran is the supreme leader. he is a radical. he is anti-american. i don't think we can trust him as a, and he is backed up by the

revolutionary guard, which has been a menace to the united date and abilities. so this is a dual government in iran. will they keep their word and implemented? that is the question the obama administration will have to answer. greta, thank you very much for having me on the show this morning. host: yeah, absolutely. mr. burns, the former undersecretary of state. and now a professor at harvard. we appreciate your time, as well, sir. thank you. when we come back, we'll take a look at federal record laws and the growing criticism of hillary clinton's private e-mail use. john wunderlich of the sunlight foundation will join us for that. and later, we will get to your thoughts on what this personal e-mail means for potential bids by the clinton in 2016. we will be right back.

>> the c-span's cities tour takes to the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about the history and literary life. this weekend, we partnered with comcast to a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising water certainly drew them. i watched in amazement as both of these factors that are the beachfront structures. at that time, we had wooden bath houses out over the gulf of mexico. and we also had peers -- piers and a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity, the speech structures

literally -- ebach -- beach structures were literally turned in a match six -- sticks. the storm began at noon increased in dramatic intensity and then finally tapered off toward midnight. this hurricane was, and still is, the deadliest recorded national -- natural event in the history of the united states. >> what all of our events from galveston, saturday at noon eastern on c-span's "booktv." and saturday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back with john wunderlich to talk about regulations for the agencies for personnel who have personal

e-mail accounts. let's just begin with, why? why would the former secretary of state create this personal e-mail account that goes back to a personal server, her home in new york? how much effort would that take? guest: i think that is part of why come when the story first came out a few days ago, it was met with widespread shock and surprise that she went through so much trouble to set up an account that was completely separate from the state department systems. and that she opted completely out of the official e-mail. and the most likely explanation is that she was avoiding accountability laws, and that she was making it so that he could personally manage access to all of her communication record. host: what are the accountability laws? guest: some of the mechanisms we rely on our the freedom of information act, where any citizen can request access to any record.

i then has recourse and access to the course to enforce their rights to access records. there are the federal records act that requires any official record to be permanently saved at the national archives. there are also to internal regulations and guidelines and then there is also congressional oversight. and internal agency oversight from bodies like the inspector general. host: the clinton camp has said there is nothing but various here. and the state department has said that she did make any loss. guest: so, it is not clear whether there were any loss that were broken. i think that is dull and active subject for debate. and we don't know all the facts about what happened. i think we can assume that, in the coming weeks, we can find out more about who it was and who the accounts were used for. i don't think we know enough yet to say exactly. there were probably guidelines broken. host: the former secretary of

state tweeting out that she wants the public to see her e-mail's, and she has asked the state department to release them. is there a security risk with having your own personal him a system? guest: there is a security risk. some of the preeminent security experts to look at what was happening and said that this was pretty ridiculous. to have a completely parallel system run out of her home, that is not how security works. even if the state department had it was a kitty issues, that is something that should be dealing with head-on. as of last night's news secretary clinton did request that the state department release the e-mails that she shared with them. that we don't have any guarantees that what she shared with them was the nobody of e-mails that she should have shared with them. we have no ways of verifying that those 50,000 or so e-mails are all of the relevant e-mails. host: would there be a way to verify that? guest: as far as i know, the

only way we could get to it would be through certain -- congressional subpoena. but then we are stuck saying, are there any missing minutes on the tape? either any missing parts of the e-mail? since the whole thing happened on her private system, it is not clear that we will ever know for certain. host: the special committee that was set up in the house to investigate what happened in benghazi in 2012 said they are going to subpoena her e-mails. guest: so, that will be -- interesting to see where it goes. i would assume that is something she would fight, if they are asking for every e-mail, let say, that was sent from that server. she says there was many personal e-mails. there may have been clinton foundation business done on that server, so that will be a legal battle. host: this is the "washington times" from yesterday. a ruling from a judge in d.c. on a different case said that agencies cannot be forced to find e-mail sent from personal accounts.

a federal judge ruled tuesday that federal agencies cannot be forced to go track down e-mails sent by employees from a personal account. guest: so, this is a really significant concern. if we have top officials using rational e-mail addresses for professional business, and at the same time, the court is saying that the freedom act cannot reach those records suddenly there is an incentive for the most senior officials to create off-site, parallel service for the information so that they don't have to be bothered by the press or congressional oversight. now, the federal records act is supposed to present that. if any records are afforded to the official system. but i think that points to a growing, urgent need for reform so that we can have security that are top officials are using the condo -- using systems that have accountability. right now, we have a lot of

doubt about the way top officials are using e-mail and managing their information. host: when the -- did this regular to go into place that have officials need to be handing over their e-mails to the agencies so that they can archive them? guest: there was a long-standing set of regulations requiring that e-mail, or records, that were managed through personal systems had to be afforded to the official system so that they can be properly archived. what changed after secretary clinton's term as secretary of state and it, or her time and it there, is that that became a law. so the question of did the law happen after she was involved? the law requiring that 40 process when into effect after her term, but there was a regulation already stipulating that that should be what happens. so that is part, i think, on why there's so much back-and-forth. it is a bit complicated because there are guidelines regulations, and laws that have all overlapped and changed. host: so does that mean the previous secretary of state's

had personal e-mail accounts, and now they are required to bring -- to transfer over those e-mails? guest: they did, occasionally use personal e-mails or a hybrid . people suggested that secretary rice do not use e-mail, or very rarely used e-mail. so that is an important question about where the historical record stand. what secretary clinton did though, still stands alone a bit because it was much more explicitly designed to be a parallel system. and she opted completely out of the system, and did it presumably with full intent of avoiding or personally managing who could have access to her information. host: the headline this morning the tally of clinton's e-mail accounts disputed. here is a quote, by our account

there are at least 18 lawsuits that are directly impacted by this. and who knows how many have requested to -- that how the lawsuit wednesday seeking e-mails from clinton and her jeopardy's -- deputies chief of staff, saying these a department failed to respond to its request. an out the associated press is considering a lawsuit to force the release of clinton e-mails. guest: one of the things that was so disconcerting when the news came out is that the white house didn't immediately condemn it. and then when they were pushed the white house was in this awkward position where if they say that is really not what we expected of secretary clinton, then that is a political statement. the white house being unable to see anything definitive has muddied the waters about what used to be a fairly clear expectation of public officials using official public channels for their work.

it is disheartening to me that the media and requesters and congressional overseers are also of rallying around the idea that we, in a democracy, expect to have fundamental accountability. even if you are wealthy or powerful, you don't get to create a little law of garden where you get to personally control who gets her information. congress has that power. the freedom of information act has that power. these are all systems we have designed to help safeguard our accountability. so it is heartening to me to see that. host: let's go to our first call. a republican. good morning, harold. caller: good morning. good morning john. yes, this is complemented -- complicated. but may god bless and love america. the whole world. the clinton family, and the clinton global initiative to win friends and influence people. with these initiatives

including the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if hillary clinton does become president, it would be her third term, according to bill clinton who said we were lucky to get two for one he was president. if elected, would president clinton support our founding documents of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all countries in our world? host: ok, harold. we'll move on to john. go ahead with your comment or question. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think hillary clinton made the biggest mistake of her life. if the law changed, then she should follow the law. you can't tell us that i'm using the previous loss. that doesn't work. if i apply income tax today, the irs, i can't tell them i'm going to use last two. the law changes lasted, i'm not -- can't say i'm going to use it this year. hillary clinton is not speaking

up. furthermore, i am worried about the lawyers that she just hired to defend this thing. there's something going on here. she should do a very simple thing, but she didn't. she abuse the power, and she is trying to -- she already gave the republicans a welcome to use that against her right now. guest: so, it is a fundamental concept that we should have access to information from top officials. and i think it is correct that the laws should govern how we have accountability and transparency are a work in progress. so my hope is that we have an opportunity to improve those lost we can avoid situations like that, like this, in the future. we have seen this across the states, as well. governors have often deleted huge piles of e-mails or have used aliases.

there are a lot of concerned. i think it is something that needs to be fixed through new laws and strengthened expectations. host: what more do you want to see on the books? guest:? so, what comes to mind for me that we need new, very clear legal requirements. not just guidelines. the white house has guidelines. we need legal requirements for how top officials used e-mails. we need investigative authority, so that if -- so that someone is in charge of how that is happening. and we need authorities that come if it doesn't have a, there is enforcement. it is likely that the national archives is the right place to do that. they already have some level of that authority. but the mandates need to be much clearer. what is to stop you from doing this again? it is not clear there is anything. so i think clear laws and oversight and investigative authority. host: diana, a democratic

caller. caller: yes, i would like to make a comment. i believe that you guys are doing this just to put something out there so that you can bring up and ghazi again to her. i believe that these laws are already in place, they were in place just after she left office. i don't see why you need to make her a spectacle. if you want to do, than half congress work on it. that is what the job is. to make laws. you don't need to have a person like her as an example. host: ok, diana. so it is political. guest: well, i think the caller is certainly right that this is going to be viewed with presidential politics. there are many evils stories but because it is hillary clinton, we'll have that amount of attention on it. but hopefully that also makes it an opportunity because when there is a low-level story that people don't pay attention to on imo, congress is not going to be

motivated to act. so the political discussion hopefully elevates the problem so that we fix it. host: have they been other examples echo -- examples? guest: in terms of e-mails andrew cuomo in new york is currently the leading the house of e-mail right now. there was the sarah palin story about using many different e-mail addresses. the epa used aliases during -- aliases. during the bush administration, there was a scandal in the later years of the bush and ministration. and all of these different things were smart people in positions of power say, how can we design a communication system that meets our needs and reduces risk, political and professional risk? we shouldn't be designing it around avoiding risk or avoiding

public exposure. we should be designing it to maximize public interest. host: after all of those examples, how has the law changed? guest: well, through all those examples, the law has not changed for a much. we have the fundamental federal records acts that requires them to be approved -- to be preserved. the freedom of information act is a sort of bedrock, foundational law that says we can access records. there hasn't been much of a change to that although there is constant litigation and questions at the federal level and the state level. that is sort of a patchwork of different court decisions. i think it is time for a legislative solutions that we can make decisions together about how to access and accountability laws should work. host: in independent color, good morning to you. caller: good morning, how are you doing deco -- doing?

with the executives coming in, they had a meeting, and i think congress wanted information in regards to that information. and there was never any indication that that was ever revealed to anybody. so to this issue about information and so forth and so on, it is the same old way. it just keep going both ways. iq. -- thank you. guest: the cheney task force was another egregious example of something that should be transparent. that ended up going to, i believe, a supreme court case between the head of the gao and the executive branch fighting over whether this arm of congress for the presidency had more power. in that case congress saw its powers slightly diminished because of the transparency issue. or at least amber riley diminished. i agree, these are fundamental fights over power and who gets access to what. host: paul in seattle, in

independent caller. go ahead. caller: thanks c-span. and the guy just basically took the wind out of my sails previously. how is this any different than the dick cheney situation? that was my question. host: let's dig into that a little bit more. what did the bush administration claim? guest: so, there are a lot of different transparency scandals left from the bush presidency. i love this question because it demonstrates a bit help partisan these lines are. but the rhetoric on the right day is actually very similar to the rhetoric on the left 10 years ago. when looking at the bush presidency. so there are fundamental questions on when is something official. in terms of the cheney task force, this is a question on whether it was an informal chat between france, or whether it was something that should've been covered under the federal

advisory committee. in terms of the rnc e-mail scandal under the bush presidency, my understanding is that that was a question of the line between political a federal records act question of one official records need to be preserved. in both cases it is a fundamental question of how do politics and power in the white house and top executive branch positions, how does that fight against public access and accountability? those lines and of being important lines that we draw. the end up informing how we understand a second of power and democratic accountability. it seems like it is on a tenure artisan cycle -- a 10 year partisan cycle. depending on who is in power people become interested in accountability. we have a periodic motivator.

host: a couple of tweets for you. guest: i think that is a great line of inquiry and a great question. you should be naive to think that when we say every e-mail should be public that the e-mails don't happen in the middle of the night. it is not a reason to thought our hands and say we don't want to drag them into the shadows so let us give up on the idea of records. there is still a very important fundamental set of things to protect like the historical records and the ability of congress to do oversight.

the fact that e-mails are saved on small, and hard drives so easily is a real gift. sometimes it is tricky to say every message should be on an official e-mail account. that is a line we need to figure out how to protect. with secretary clinton did was not in that gray area. it was the opposite. it was exquisitely setting up a completely parallel system and opting out of the accountability mechanisms. that is a line we have to police. host: john a republican in oregon. caller: was hillary using -- with hillary using her personal e-mail as secretary of state it seems like no one is bringing it up that there could have been a security breach. if any information that she was using on her e-mails regarding

security about the united states of america, she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. i do not understand what she was thinking. shia secretary of state -- she is secretary of state. there should be no private e-mails used in the government for government business. host: should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. what does that entail? guest: unfortunately, a lot of the law at these points there is not a prosecution yet. there are some penalties but that will be a conversation congress has very quickly as to whether or not there are any criminal penalties that apply to this case. i am not sure we know enough to make a determination about that right now.

it is a very serious question. even if there wasn't classified information in these e-mails everything that a secretary of state says in the e-mail is personally sensitive. there is a question about whether the e-mail was insecure or whether it was ever inappropriately accessed in a way that caused harm. host: victoria in virginia, a republican, you are next. caller: i was calling to also comment on clinton's faux pas when she set up her own server in her home. even though her house is protected by the secret service there are ways these e-mails can be retrieved by hackers in china or russia or north korea. not only that, but national security is at risk and so is

the clinton foundation and her suppose itd contribution to foreign nations. that is a national security issue as well. i wanted to put that out there. guest: i agree that is a concern. if there was one e-mail address secretary clinton was using with out using a distinction between her personal life and her life as secretary of state or her involvement in the clinton foundation, you have to wonder whether she was making those lines in terms of the substance of her work. is there a conflict of interest? thereat is a question we will hear more about as the campaign heats up. host: is there more transparency to be had when it comes to the clinton foundation? what are you looking for? guest: there is a concern that a large foundation or charity is intended to have a public

function. at the same time, when you have very powerful people, one of whom is presumed to be running for president and another is a former president, then the idea of public interest gets muddied a little bit because donors are not just thinking about the best way to help with outcomes when they make a donation. there is also a subtext about. we will not make a lot of us as former presidents cannot have charities. that will be something that draws a lot of scrutiny. host: to the former secretary of have a government e-mail? guest: i don't think we know that. from the reporting we have seen, the state department spokespeople were asked whether she was given an e-mail address at all and i don't think they knew the answer. it is stunning. host: randy in iowa, a democratic caller.

go-ahead. caller: i want to go back to a few years to when president bush signed the patriot act. in that patriot act there was a part of an executive order that protected government archives and the president's papers. it was retroactive. they covered clinton and all presidents and future presidents. what it said as i understand it was that the american people, if the president did not want to make their archives available then it was up to the people to sue the president and get them. the people would have to pay for the legal defense of the president.

basically what they did was protect they work archives. people were being mistreated or being withheld from. i will let you answer. i am sorry if this is often a -- off note. guest: it is a good act that the presidential act reforms you are referring to and also the records management programs is an active area for reform. and doesn't usually get a lot of attention but it is relevant. it ends up being the window through which we understand the fundamental history of the country. that is another reason the work of groups like the national security archive that works through tools like mandatory declassification review is so important. that is why we understand the history of things like the bay of pigs some much better. groups with legal

expertise can fill in the gaps in historical records so we can understand what our country did and where our country is better. there is a lot of important work being done. that is one reason we need to take advantage of opportunities like this to strengthen our laws. host: john wonderlich as director of the sunlight foundation talking about the secretary of state's personal e-mail. we will go to terry and west virginia, an independent color. -- an independent caller. caller: i want to see a woman president hopefully in my lifetime, however, i do not want to see that at the cost of integrity. i am not prepared to say about prosecuting to the full extent of the law. i do think these people that are public servants have a responsibility to the public for character and integrity and all the things we hear on tv the

shady things and the pinocchios. we should not have to pass laws for that. we should be electing people that already have that. we cannot make anybody accountable because we roll from one scandal to the next. we sweep the last scandal under the rug and our young people are watching. guest: i certainly agree that it would be great to have a woman president. i agree we need to have accountability in our public officials. one of the concerns is people with enough wealth and power and up often writing the rules for themselves. whether that is something that happens naturally and a market system is something that should not happen in the government. that is why we need to take this seriously. all cabinet secretaries should

abide by the same requirements. one comparison i keep imagining is a past secretary said they will build their own office space and higher private security and manage public relations through their own private firm. no one would accept that. that is what is happening with cabinet secretary information policies. they are building their own privatized systems that have their own rules. as people realize that, that will be a motivator for reform. host: stephen mississippi, a republican. good morning. caller: thank you. i have one quick comment. the comment is since miss hillary will probably indicate and claim she spent a lot of time on her e-mail talking to the president about top-secret stuff, could it be possible the president will eventually claim executive privilege for these

things and we will never get to see anything? guest: i share your curiosity about whether or not the white house knew. i saw an ap report claiming that the white house counsel said they did not know that secretary clinton was using a person al e-mail. i believe the white house will refuse to acknowledge who knew what. i would assume congress investigates and they would claim executive privilege at that point. host: what about claiming classified information? she was the former secretary of state. it is a national security risk to making these available. guest: on the question of publishing these certainly. they work of the secretary of state is not something that can be published and tone online. there will be sensitive material. whenever want to have the release of those things. some things have to be protected

and kept private forever or for a long time. host: andre in new orleans, a democratic caller. caller: i was wondering about the server. do you know when it was installed? hillary was also the senator of new york. are they going to go back to those e-mails as well? guest: the server i believe was installed just before her senate confirmation or before she started as secretary of state which adds to the sense that this was an especially planned out way to have a separate channel so she wouldn't have to worry about e-mail access during her tenure. as far as being a senator and the congress, the law does not apply to members of congress the same way. we don't want to empower the executive branch to crack down on what members of congress are doing. that could be a dangerous situation in terms of separation of powers.

members of congress have a lot more leeway. they can use whatever e-mail address they want. they can throw it out. when a personal office or when their tenure ends, they can burn all the records if they wanted to. no one would recommend that. we prefer they would preserve them and make them part of a historical record. members of congress themselves and their personal offices have are more leeway under the law. the freedom of information act does not apply and the can do whatever they want with the records. host: bill, in miserymissouri, a republican. caller: good morning. my question is the timing of the release of the information. the clintons are very smart. the new york times helping them that the timing was released during the netanyahu speech. it was about sharing the headlines and putting it behind us. each of these incidences is a

speed bump that she is getting behind her as she moves forward with the coronation. i will hang up and listen to your comment. thank you. guest: when you get to the point of presidential level politics, who knows? it is always fun to speculate. you have to wonder in every direction whose motivation and why things come out when. unfortunately, it is probably impossible to know. it is fun to speculate because there is a lot of money and power on the line. host: john wonderlich, we appreciate the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will have you continue to weigh in on what you heard here and what this means for a potential 2016 bid for president. if she decides to run, woody a make of this personal e-mail story and everything that goes with it? the ramifications of and whether or not that impacts a potential campaign run.

we want you to weigh in on that. you can also send us a tweet or e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. joining us now from the "washington post"." less begin with when this e-mail was set up and why. guest: she said this up after the campaign ended in 2008 when she lost the nomination to barack obama. there already was an existing e-mail system which way think was very similar -- which we think was very similar to what she has now.

it was privately owned and run with individual accounts that were all controlled by an arm of what was then the clinton campaign. there are two of them. one was a friends of hillary domain before her 2008 campaign officially began and there was a campaign e-mail. that is not at all uncommon to have a whole separate e-mail system for a particular enterprise. they are usually hosted by a large commercial company. not always. what clinton decided to do as we could figure out is after she already had this system set up, they essentially transferred it to her new job as secretary of state. that is highly unusual.

she had basically the same e-mail abilities she had all along. she had a private system. although she could certainly e-mail out of it, she could e-mail anyone she wants. those e-mails would be recorded when they went to government addresses. e-mails among members of the private group might not be. that has never happened before certainly for a government official. as your last guest was referring to, that raises a whole set of legal and privacy issues surrounding who controls and owns the material, how accessible is it to journalists and historians and republican committees or any committee.

to any member of congress investigative or otherwise who wants to find out things that were happening at the state department. there is a whole set of legal questions that flow from that. lawsuits have targeted the state department over the four years that clinton was in office. in many cases, e-mails and other records that were turned over are now shown to be in complete if they didn't include any e-mail addresses with the domain name clintonemail.com. they were not capturing at least some of the e-mail traffic that may be pertinent to those cases. host: this raises political questions. heller a clinton was in washington on tuesday after this

story first broke. she was receiving an award from emily's list, an organization that tries to put women in public office. she did not address this story. she did send out this tweet last night. she asked the state to release her e-mails and they said they would review them for release as soon as possible. what else is her cap saying at this point? guest: nothing. absolutely nothing. personal and released -- her spokesman released a statement monday night or tuesday morning in response to the "new york times" article. it was the same set of points that had been given to the times as they prepare the article in response. you had a color a moment to go suggesting there was perhaps collusion between the clinton camp and the "new york times"

about the timing of the article. nothing i have seen is suggesting that at all. this is not anything the clinton camp wanted out at all whether it coincided with netanyahu's speech or not. then they went silent for a day and a half to the consternation of a lot of democrats who wanted to see this thing go away. it doesn't seem like a huge deal. there could have been any number of perfectly plausible explanations from security to convenience and everything in between for why the system was set up this way. in the absence of information about why it was set up the way it was and how it functioned and how transparent and accessible it was yesterday and the day before, a whole lot of dust was kicked up.

none of it good for hillary clinton politically i think she recognized that they were trying to decide how best to respond and in what form. it is an interesting technological and social media development that their response came in the form of a tweet directly from her as opposed to an e-mail from the spokesman to the reporters covering the campaign she is able to do that herself. she is able to go directly to reporters and go around reporters to anyone following her on twitter. it went everywhere instantly that is a real new kind of power that candidates or potential candidates have that is

developed in full since the last residential campaign. host: democrats not just in d.c. but also in iowa and other places are saying that the secretary of state needs to give the public some answers. guest: absolutely. i heard from a lot of democrats yesterday who were smacking therefore heads saying how hard is this. this isn't a big deal, then just say what it is and isn't and get it over with. every hour that went by, it looked as though she might be hiding something. there would be a lot of people who said she was. she may not be hiding anything. from the perspective of a lot of her supporters yesterday, it was in helping. her tweet last night may help a lot. host: anne gearan, thank

you. will there be any impact at all on potential 2016 bids? tom, are you involved in politics in iowa during the presidential year and the caucus you do out there? caller: i work with a lot of different people and have helped a lot of people sign up for it. i had a few things i wanted to say. host: go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say that christie hid all of his e-mails. walker hid his e-mails. bush has like 3 million mo re e-mails out there. host: tom in delaware, a republican. your take. caller: i think in the

long-term, it will be a cover up , just like it has been in the past. it is very frustrating. i can't believe the way this administration gets away with everything. the coverups -- the transparency is nonexistent. it is a shame. i would never vote for another democrat as long as i live. host: in virginia and kentucky a democratic caller. what do you think? caller: i was addressing my comment to a previous caller that talked about the patriot act and president bush issuing an executive order that would protect records and e-mails from

the administrative branch. i believe president obama issued an executive order that repealed that part of bush's executive order. while i was waiting to make a comment, i was getting online to see if that was the case. there was one that he proposed in 2010. that was -- host: i would ask you to stick to the topic. we have a democratic caller, jim. what do you think about heller clinton having a personal e-mail account system as a former secretary of state? >> i don't -- caller: i don't think it is a problem. i used to give quarterly security briefings to the president's staff. we were required to inform them that a secure means of transmission for sensitive or operational materials.

i think all the staff understood that every time they received a briefing. i think what is going on is more political than anything else. i do agree with your previous speaker. the gentleman said maybe congress should look at the problem again and maybe think about defining the law and the requirement for records keeping purposes. host: all right. the special committee that was set up to investigate benghazi they held a news conference yesterday announcing that he would subpoena e-mails from this personal account. take a look at what he had to say. [video clip] >> many became aware of secretary clinton's use of personal e-mail for business.

the documents were turned over to the benghazi committee in these documents had never before been produced to any other congressional committee examining benghazi. more recently, we discovered former secretary clinton relied exclusively on private e-mail accounts to send and receive e-mails. it was not as if she had an official and a private e-mail account. she did not use personal e-mail account in addition to government e-mails. she was personal e-mails in lieu of government e-mails. in other words, she used only private e-mail accounts. she had more than one private e-mail account. which is the point i referenced but did not make explicitly during our last compliance hearing held with the state department. throughout all of our discussions with the state department about productions compliance, and timing, the

state often neglected to state this fact until asked about it recently. the state department cannot certify they have produced all of former secretary clinton's e-mails because they do not have all of her e-mails. nor do they control access to them. as the leader of the safety department, the secretary is this possible for setting the standards for preserving records. knowing this does raise the question that if the secretary was doing what she was supposed to do under the law, why would the safety department have to ask her for her e-mails? the state apartment is relying on secretary clinton herself and her attorneys and advisers to tell us and you what e-mails they think ought to be preserved. congress has raised bipartisan concerns about personal e-mails in the past. it is frankly nothing short of

incredible that any official in the current administration would engage in a practice such as that. host: south carolina republican trey gowdy heading up the investigation. he says the next move by his committee is to subpoena these e-mails from this personal e-mail account. we will get your thoughts on this. doesn't have an impact on a potential bid for hillary clinton in 2016? host:lori in florida, what do you think? caller: i think it of milley has an impact on her bid. this is something that would never happen in what we say the real world or commercial world. you would never have an employee take a server at their own home, do their own business on it through a corporation or private industry. it is unacceptable.

i feel like i am living in two universes. there are two different standards. this is something obviously planned out and has been carried on in more than her circle of associates. a lot of people know about it and it has been going on for a long time. for people to say this one did and that one did it, clinton has a role in trusted to her by us in the united states of america. she broke our trust. how can you trust somebody who takes their place of business to their homes? she had no right to do that. i don't understand how a person can do that in the capacity she did. i feel she has totally lost.

if people think this is ok and let us look the other way, what are the standards anymore of this country or us as a people? how can anyone say this is ok? host: let me show you a wall street journal headline from last summer. take a look at this. on the issue of trust there is a deficit there in the survey taken last summer. caller: as a lifelong republican

, i will obviously go for the other side in the presidential campaign. i think it is brilliant of hillary to have done this. one thing is it seems to have been legal because the law has been changed. secretary of state kerry will have to use the government e-mail system. which i what happened to congress. the cia when in their computers and removed items. i think hillary is being sophisticated. she realized people would get into her e-mail and things would be leaked and it would be hard to be a secretary of state. it is terrible to say, but i think she was being smart about the state. on tuesday netanyahu knew what kerry had in the agreement. how did he know that? everyone is hacking into everything. i think they will change the law.

your earlier speaker said something about senators not having to have open records e-mails achievable at all to the government. i i just think it's people going after hillary. i think it is sophisticated of her to have realized what would happen when she became secretary of state and good for her. host: to that point, let me show you a video that surfaced from a 20/20 show in 2001. you can see what she had to say back in 2001 about having e-mail. [video clip] why would i not want my own e-mail? host: you can hear her say why would i have my own e-mail for as many times as i have been investigated. that was surfaced yesterday

after the stories came out. in new york times first reported this earlier in the week. we will keep getting your thoughts on what this means for a potential campaign by the former secretary of state. first, we want to take a little break from this conversation and talk with dahlia lithwick, a supreme court reporter. she was also happened at the court yesterday. what did you make of how the justices reacted to the arguments for and against the subsidies in the health care act? guest: it was a really interesting morning because i think it is safe to say this is a very partisan ideological case. anything that has to do with obamacare will always be partisan and ideological. it broke down left and right in ways that are hard to see an accord. the court issue was whether the states that did not create their own health-care exchanges the

ones who are on the federal exchanges, will not get the tax credit that makes obamacare work because of four little words in this legislation that suggest only those states that created their own exchanges are eligible. what you saw was the four liberal justices really beating up michael corvin. when the solicitor general got up to defend the obama administration and the affordable care act, to justices -- the conservative justices beat him up. not one glimmer of bipartisanship or a willingness to look across the aisle. just very partisan arguments and questions. host: a lot in the papers today about the questioning from justice kennedy. what did you make of it? what was his questioning like? guest: that was a remarkable

moment, especially in the context of when the u.s. supreme court ruled on obamacare in 2012. justice kennedy not only voted with the conservative bloc, but he was very angry at chief justice roberts for defecting and bloating with the liberals to uphold the law. it was said that kennedy hates obamacare and he would be happy to see the whole thing invalidated. that was the feeling going in. his questions and arguments were hard questions for the solicitor general. the moment everyone is fixed upon was about 20 minutes into the argument went michael is making the argument all the states that don't have exchanges have to throw their citizens off the rules. suddenly kennedy stopped him and said this is a huge federalism. problem it is a big constitutional issue. states can be coerced by the federal government. he said the work

constitutional problem leading folks to believe that he may not be in play, but he may also have a problem with the petitioner's argument. host: you mentioned that the chief justice john roberts ruled with the liberals last time this health care law came before the court and ruled that the law is constitutional. what did he say yesterday? guest: almost nothing. it was fascinating because in the run up to this case, you could google john roberts and see dozens of allopeds on either side of the aisle trying to coerce him. some said you did the right thing last time so do it again. the whole world had their eyes on roberts and he said virtually nothing yesterday.

hay kind of made the trains run on time. he was careful to silence justices talking over each other and make sure they took turns. to give the advocates 10-15 minutes each extra time. nothing was said that suggested one way or another where his head was and to the extent that he might have been that fifth vote with the liberals. there was no evidence he felt strongly one way or another. host: you think he was intentionally not trying to tip his hat? guest: there is some sense that what he worries about most, and this is just bread in the bone which on roberts and he talks about this a lot, is that the court not be seen as a political ideological driven institution. it is important to him that people see the court as a transcending politics. to give another speech talking about that. this is his cause and the reason he voted to uphold obamacare in 2012.

it is a part of him trying very hard particularly in a case deemed so ideological and german driven bipartisan anger on both sides. it is important for him to be above the fray and not give soundbites that make it sound as though he has been listening to talk shows. that is a piece of it. it is possible based on the fact that we do know he changed his vote after sinking through the obamacare case. it is possible he is still undecided on this and simply really was trying to listen and keep an open mind and figure out where he wants to vote. host: the court will be releasing the audio from yesterday's arguments tomorrow afternoon. c-span will air them friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. the justices will also gather on friday for a conference. explain that to our viewers.

do they vote on this case? guest: they will not vote on this case than. it is not uncommon that after an argument they do a straw poll to get some sense of where people are heading to just have a general sense of how the voting will go. that happens soon after arguments while the ideas are fresh. they will not vote on this. they will probably start drafting the various justices may start drafting memos. this is one of the cases that will take a long time until the voting is done and the opinions are written. we will probably not get a decision in this case until the very end of the term in june. host: thank you. guest: my pleasure. host: back to our question for all of you. what you make of the secretary of state having a personal e-mail and server and does that have any potential influence on

a bid? michael, let me show you the headline on a website yesterday. michael, go ahead. caller: i read the article and it is good. thank you for taking my call. i think this will impact her bid. i am not troubled by the fact she had a personal e-mail address and conducted may be official business from the account. it seems not uncommon. i feel what is important is the fact she used time and money and effort to install servers in her home. what that action suggests about her personality, i feel it suggest a heightened paranoia that is troubling. and average person using a normal thought process i don't think would consider that to be a real option.

i read the first biography "living history," and it seems she was motivated by power and ideology. she had this insecure paranoia. i think voters will see the on the trail. they will struggle to relate to that personality. this incident shows her paranoid desire for secrecy but the length she will go to secure and maintain power. if she does run, many voters will be turned off because they know she is the type of person that keeps servers in her home. that is not someone we can trust. host: in other political news, politico is breaking this.

many of you may know that chris van hollen announced yesterday she will seek the seat vacated by barbara mikulski. kathleen matthews planning to run for a congressional seat. lynette in pennsylvania, a democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. the comment i have to make is it seems like in the world of politics, someone feels threatened that ms. hillary will run. that is all. host: you think she is still formidable? caller: yes ma'am. host: are you planning -- you want her to run? caller: yes ma'am. host: if she did, how enthusiastic would you be? caller: very enthusiastic.

she is a down to earth lady. the scandal she had with her husband, she showed that true american woman that you stand behind him no matter what. host: let us show the former secretary of state. she was in washington on tuesday receiving an award from emily's list. there were celebrating their 30th anniversary. here is what she had to say about running for office. [video clip] >> when i look at this room, i see leaders. my hope today is that whatever you have done, if you are in that basement all those years ago or if you have just discovered emily's list and are a first-time member, that you will redouble your efforts in the next month. don't you want to see more women running for school board 205 rebuttal schools for our kids?

that you want to see more women running for mayor and governor who will put our family first? [applause] don't you want to see more women running for congress who will follow in the footprints of equal opportunity? i suppose it is only fair to say don't you someday want to see a woman president of the united states of america? [applause] well, in many ways all of these questions can only be answered by you. host: get former secretary of state riling up the audience at emily's list's 30th anniversary

here in washington dc on tuesday. she was talking about having more women in elected office. there has been a response to the headlines this week about the personal e-mail account system. [video clip] >> she shouldn't run for president. >> reaction coming in after a bombshell. new reports of hillary clinton this morning that the former secretary of state may have violated federal record keeping laws while in office. >> sometimes you can't make it up in office. turns out the secretary of state used a personal e-mail account for official sensitive business or four years. convince me this is ok because it is terrible. >> this reinforces the narrative that the clintons are secretive and always preferring to hide rather than shed some light. >> this is a stunning breach of security.

>> it was said this morning that there is not one nation for this. >> it is getting a lot of suspicion that the content are far from transparent. >> hillary clinton has some explaining to do. >> china has read all of the secretary of state's e-mails. >> this is par for the course for the clintons. they are mysterious and secretive. >> in addition to that, they have been giving the storm over benghazi and other events while hillary was secretary of state. these e-mails could be the beginning of a major headache in advance of her resumed announcement to run for president of the united states. >> can you give me one good reason why she would have done that? host: that is rnc's web ad they put together this week after the headlines were made the hillary clinton had a personal e-mail. what do you think? does this have an impact on her

potential bid for 2016? caller: i don't think we'll have an impact on her because those who will vote for her will vote for her. she has shown herself to be a formidable person and knowledgeable of what is going on in washington. what i have an issue with is the democrats have a problem with their messaging. instead of getting in front of the story, they allow someone to control their story. if she has any kind of messaging, she should come out or her people should come out because we know she is running. i would like to see other democrats jump into the ring because i don't want to just be hillary. i like her, but there are some things i don't like about her. i don't like she has to be hawkish for foreign affairs and things of that nature. overall, i think she will make a good candidate. right now, republicans are showing they are extremely afraid of her because they are

jumping the shark. they are trying to be her up in the press and she hasn't even said she is running. they want to bloody her up. with his benghazi stuff, it has been proven. they need to stop wasting our money and move on. if they did not find it before they will not find anything. that's what i have to say. host: let me share susan page's piece today. to be sure, she remains the most dominant front runner for a major party nomination.

follow that up with a perplexing disclosure first reported by the new york times about the e-mail. the report was surprising given her extensive resume at the white house. she is all too aware of the demands of oversight panels and independent counsels for scrutiny of things like official e-mail. susan page goes on to write host: debbie and alabama, a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: i'm not a republican i'm a democrat. host: sorry about that. caller: i just wanted to say this is a witchhunt. i have listen to several different used in's the last couple of days and all of them say as far as her him as her

e-mails are concerned that none of this was against the law. is that it has anything -- they didn't pass anything until she left office and she turned and 55,000 pages. not e-mails, pages. i don't see what the problem is. i think all of this is a joke. people listening to this junk is a joke. host: beth in vermont -- jeff in vermont, what do you think? caller: i think the hypocrisy on the left is outrageous. they keep saying bush did in this year, but i remember in 2007, clinton was hammering down on the bush administration for the same thing. i would like to know why nobody is talking about the legality of this. general petraeus barely pleaded guilty to the same thing she had going on with a server with all these e-mails in her own house. a lot of hacking going on. the security that is not there

compared to being in the white house seems to be lacking. if anybody does this, they must be fearing something. they must be thinking someone is out to get them. that tells me that person is not ready to be the president of the united states. also, i would like to say that the people who say the republicans did this or this person did that, i was taught a long time ago i just because somebody else comes off a bridge doesn't mean you do. host: washington post editorial says if people are inspired to look service, they should behave as stewards of a public trust and accuracy records. and independent color in san antonio, good morning. good morning carol. caller: i have a very small theory about why mrs.

clinton had her service. i believe she did not want the nsa or cia looking into her e-mails and finding out about her extracurricular activities or getting donations from foreign countries while she is on our dime. i don't trust her. i wouldn't vote for her. that is my opinion. thank you. host: gym, democrat and philadelphia, you are on the air. caller: i would like to say to all of america that hillary does not hide her skeletons in a closet because she has filled a warehouse. i believe there is not a democrat in america that cannot transfer in a primary exit for joe biden. it is time for hillary to retire and enjoy her newfound millions. host: joseph in birmingham, alabama. your turn to weigh in on this. caller: it doesn't surprise me with this administration that you have more secrets trying to be kept. you had benghazi.

i think records were refused to be turned over. the attorney general was sanctioned by congress, which nothing came of. you had the investigation into the turning over of firearms to organize criminals in mexico which wound up eventually killing americans and our allies in mexico trying to stop the drug trade. if nixon could have his own private server and refused to turn over his case, he would still be in office. well he wouldn't be in office but he wouldn't have lost his office. host: patrick in brooklyn, a democratic caller. caller: thank you for c-span. it seems that there is so much

bickering going on that there are two sets of people in america, republicans and democrats. the need to work as americans. at this point, must clinton and her position is more qualified like in tiger woods and michael jordan's heyday, they are so scared that they would knit and pick at everything to take her down. i think in the end, the best person will be chosen to be the next president, whether it be a woman or a man. god bless america. we will continue to pray for whoever is in position. hopefully they have a wonderful time. be careful out there. that bless and have a wonderful day. host: dave in pennsylvania, a democratic collar, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i appreciate your call. it really upsets me that when you look at how they are attacking hillary clinton on

this minor situation. if you look in the past about what dick cheney and george w. bush -- it is a disgrace. it is apples and oranges here. i am not all about nitpicking. i'm about my interest, not my party. if there is a viable person out there be at republican or democrat, i would vote for that. i vote by interest, not by party. host: several democrats in the papers are quoted today echoing this headline from the wall street journal. clinton urged to break her silence on e-mails. we showed you the tweet she sent out. this is the first and only thing we have heard from the former secretary of state about having a personal e-mail saying she wants the public to see them. she asked the state department to release them.

they said they will review and release as soon as possible. some democrats are saying she needs to explain more of what was going on here and what was the thinking behind it. quotes in a paper from democrats all over the country. al in florida, a republican. good morning and you are our last on this. caller: yes ma'am. i used to really love hillary. since benghazi, she hasn't come out and really gone under of and saying what she was at her what she was doing when those guys were getting slaughtered. president obama went to las vegas the next morning. that is what irks me so much. i never get over that. that is something i would not vote for. she has to come before a committee under of and say what -- under oath and say why she didn't come out and tell us

after it was all over. host: we will leave it there. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time with more on your e-mails and calls. we will talk to you then. thanks for watching. ♪ >> a live picture of the u.s. capital this morning, as much of the atlantic coast is getting hit with a substantial snowstorm today. the federal government is shut down. congress went home yesterday. and most of the schools in the area also closed. due to the weather, all of our life programming scheduled for today has been canceled.

tweeting this morning snow begins to regulate on the roof and grounds of the white house. for -- 4 to 8 inches to go. he has a private lunch with joe biden today. tomato soup and grilled cheese. supreme court justices will gather in private tomorrow to cast the first-round of what could be many votes of the challenge of health care law subsidies. they heard oral arguments yesterday. it could affect people of subsidized health insurance in the 34 states without their own health exchanges. the court plans to release the audio of the or argument tomorrow. and you can listen to it tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. here are some of our future programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span two "booktv," former marine and war correspondent david morris on the history of posttraumatic str