looks at the status of women in 2015. and later gawker's john cook talks about access to hillary clinton's personal e-mail accounts. "washington journal host: it's friday, march 13. we have more political coverage later today on c-span. welcome to "washington journal." you are reading about the stories online. this is how you can join the conversation. if you are a democrat you can call% (202) 737-0001. four republicans (202) 737-0002

. and for independencets (202) 628-0205. lots of issues in the news to talk about including the unrest in ferguson. the fallout from the fraternity at the university of oklahoma. hillary clinton's personal e-mail use. the letters sent by republican senators to the leaders of iran. what are you interested in this week? on the ferguson issue the front page of the "usa today," how to fix ferguson is the headline. the "washington times" has the

same photo. this is what the "st. louis post-dispatch" is writing about. here is their headline. the ambush is still fresh. in a spot yards from where two police officers were shot hours earlier, the shootings escalated and already jittery city. it was an issue that the president addressed. this is what the president had to say. >> what has been happening in ferguson was oppressive and objectionable and was worthy of protest. there was no excuse for criminal acts. whoever fired though shots that should not detract from the issue, they should be arrested.

what we need to do is make sure that like-minded people on both sides, law enforcement and people who want to not be stopped and harassed, we are able to work together to come up with some good answers. host: that was the president on abc's jimmy kimmel show. one of the top stories related to the president and the white house is the secret service. it this is on the front page of "the washington post." agent drove up next to a suspicious package. it was offered by the reporter who broke the story.

we are asking for your stories of the week. it we have a tweet on that. the secret service, are you pro-drunken driving? brenda is a first on the democrat line. caller: i have two. nice to see you, bill. we don't see you enough. my top story are the 47 senators that sent the letter to iran and humiliated america. i want charges run up against

them. if the democrats don't do this, i will leave the party. the second is the ferguson situation. that was someone caucasian who did that. thanks, bill. host: rod is next up in florida. he is on the republican line. caller: regarding that charge of treason coming from the democrats, treason can only be leveled against the sovereign. that goes back to old english times. you had to challenge the authority of the king. under the united states constitution, the people are the sovereign. for democrats to charge 47 senators with treason for interfering with obama implies that obama is the sovereign of the united states.

that is extremely dangerous. the constitution charges the senate with advising the president when it comes to treaties. this is silly and a of these people to charge senators with treason. host: ralph is in washington dc on the democrat line. what is your top story? caller: the biggest issue right now is the 47 senators who signed that letter. they are trying to sabotage negotiations with the iranians. they want to win the presidential election. they think they are going to do that by seeking favor from israel. what they want us to do is be there attack dogs and start a war with iran. if we do that, russia will stay

out. they've got $1 trillion in u.s. debt. all they have to do is send over a few tactical nukes. israel has 200 nukes. they have three nuclear submarines. you could start world war iii with this. this is not going to work. thank you. host: it wasn't just the republican senators. a number of other politicians have weighed in. this is mitt romney with a piece in "usa today." obama should say no deal to iran. agreements with tyrants have a short shelf life. our agreements with north korea the agreements did not work. they look tougher than what we

are hearing about the negotiations. the north to korea -- korea deal was tougher. those are the comments of mitt romney this morning. we are looking for your top stories this week. jack is in rhode island. go ahead. caller:all right, we will move on to ryan in new orleans. caller: i think the oklahoma the rant at oklahoma is the biggest thing. i think it's horrible for you to have young kids like that that are racist like that. it tells you about the south. it tells you about all of these states in the south. it tells you about the police.

you never know who you are dealing with. you don't know who the police are. you don't know who these people are. these are college students. they are racists. i just think it's a crying shame. it's horrible. it's just horrible. host: the fraternity itself is considering suing the university of oklahoma. that is sigma alpha at salon fraternity -- at salon -- ep silon. the act by the president to expel was worse. let's go to the republican line. it is built in new hampshire. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have come up with a little ditty. the first verse goes like this. you don't need your obamacare just remove your head from your derriere. host: we believe it stand like that -- we will leave it stand like that. caller: good morning. i would like to make two quick comments. one is about ferguson. i saw on tv, they were explaining about where the shooter was. that makes me think it was somebody who had training to do that. it was wrong with they did to the police officers. my son is a police officer. it's good police officers -- then the letters to iran. they should be working together

for people with unemployment, transportation and jobs. they should help the old roads around our country and help these bridges. they should be working on stuff like that in steady not -- sending out stupid letters like children. host: to follow up to a couple of comments, the ferguson story is front page of "the atlanta journal-constitution." the attack was called an ambush. to her issue john kerry testified this week before the senate foreign relations committee. we covered it and you will see it again this weekend. you will see it on our website www.c-span.org. >> by reaction to the letter was utter disbelief.

in my 29 years in the senate, i never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed, something comparable to this. if i had, no matter what the issue or who was president, i would have rejected it. no one is questioning anybody's right to dissent. any senator can go to the floor any day and raise any questions that were raised. to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation, particularly to suggest that they are going to give a lesson on the constitution, which was incorrect. it's quite stunning. host: john kerry talking about

the letter written by the freshman senator from arkansas and signed by 46 other republican senators. we have posted that on our website. that is on www.c-span.org. randy is in illinois. what is your top issue of the week? caller: my topic that i would like to bring up is the issue of the cable companies. they are getting away with so much increases. they are just increasing. i started with $24 for basic cable and now it's $89. i would like to see our senators and the house get together and put a cap on that. or else pay as you watch. i am only watching 20 channels and i'm paying for 200 and 80 channels.

-- 280 channels. no one is watching these cable companies. directv had a thing going on. this is a big fraud charge. you have to sign up for a two-year program to get the low prices. host: how long of you been watching cable tv? caller: i have had cable since it came into effect. that is the thing. it seems like they are sliding by with these increases. host: have you tried to get just a basic package? caller: that is the basic package now. the basic p package wanted of $289. -- went up to $280. host: the sec is beginning work

on the net neutrality rules. "the new york times" writes about how they would regulate broadband as a public utility. this sets the stage for a legal fight. the release of the rules has been eagerly anticipated by advocates and lawmakers as well as technology companies. this is just some of what "the new york times" is writing about the fcc. we are looking for your top issues this week.

here is gwen in alabama. caller: i understand what secretary kerry was saying. the republicans anything obama wants to do they want to stand in his way. it is a shame. that is what is this belief, that the leader of the senate john boehner, they can invite netanyahu to embarrass obama but neither of them can go to selma for the march. that is utter disbelief. they can stand in this residence way.

you can hear some of this stuff that they say. they just talk disrespect. as a black person, i am offended by what is going on in america towards racism. we cannot sweep it under the rug. god will reveal you. you will get revealed in the eyes of god. have a good day. host: gwen mentions the ceremonies in selma, alabama. we covered that. we have live coverage this weekend on book tv. we have 48 hours of coverage every weekend. we are covering several author panels on topics like the supreme court, the environment immigration. this is at the university of arizona. this is going to be the tucson festival of what's.

this is keith in baltimore. caller: good morning. host: height, keith. -- hi, keith. caller: he mentions that part of the documents that were leaked i snowden noted that the israeli secret service know that iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon. benjamin netanyahu knows this. the president knows this. the american people need to check this out there it --. please make reference to it. host: what got you reading the daily banter? caller: i saw it in a country that is reliable on democracy.

they covered the thing about benjamin netanyahu coming here and it's just a farce and everybody is all startup about nothing. his own secret service knows that iran is not near capable of making a nuclear weapon. host: we are going to explore the issue more in the next segment about 7:45 a.m. on the issue of nuclear threats this is not a nuclear missile fired, but north korea fired a missile into the sea amid tensions. the bbc reports that they fired seven missiles into the sea. this comes on the last day of the military exercises. michael, welcome to the conversation. caller: it's good to see you again.

it's laughable to hear democrats talk about treason when the party that founded the ku klux klan, if you read history. i just want to say i remember distinctly hillary clinton chiding us, saying there are people who they can disagree with this administration. you are unpatriotic. we have the right to dissent and disagree. when it was bush it was the highest form of patriotism, now it makes you a racist. host: i appreciate your comments. patricia is on the democrat line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call.

just a couple of comments. going back to cpac convention everybody came out for the republicans. it was down with obama and down with everything, down with the government. it sounds like they were looking for a call to war. then the republicans invite benj and not in yahoo! to speak -- benjamin netanyahu to speak to congress. that is another insult. then john boehner needs to step up and take control of the tea party. i don't know if it's more than a 47 boehner needs to step up. what is he doing with all of this? thank you. that's my comment. host: we want to hear what your top stories of the week are. this is facebook from jerry the

gop hates the president more than they love america. one says obama fans the flames of racial hatred. having to pay doctors because insurance won't cover since obamacare. mary judith is in virginia. caller: hi, sir. it's the shooting in ferguson. this is hideous. those officers were not even from ferguson. they came in to protect the citizens and the protesters. what i am disturbed by is the fact that white racist reactionaries are very ready to

assign collective guilt to the protesters in general. it's really silly. what should they do? should they pick up quarters to hire a shooter? of course they did not. we don't even know at this point who. this was a sharpshooter. this was somebody very skilled at what they do. somebody with military background. you cannot say that all of those people -- peaceful protesters are responsible for that. i am appalled by this. i can see where it's going. don't be that stupid. host: we heard from the president yesterday afternoon. the attorney general spoke to reporters and made a statement about what happened in ferguson.

this is what he had to say. >> i am committed to ensuring that the plant we put in place do not impose risks on our law enforcement officers in an already hazardous environment. there should be no situation in which an officer's life is in jeopardy because of concerns that by appropriately defending themselves they might he viewed as committing a crime. that is not something i will allow to happen. host: eric holder yesterday on the shootings in ferguson. your top stories of the week, the house has been out all week. the senate has been in. this is the headline they are reporting in "usa today." a bipartisan senate bill to

combat sex trafficking has hit a snag over abortion language that threatens to derail the popular registration. -- legislation. this would increase legal protection and restitution for domestic trafficking victims. part of the reporting of susan davis in "usa today." they will move forward with that legislation in the senate. they were supposed to get to it next week, the nomination of loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. that needs to be seen if that will happen. the house will be in next week.

a tweet from jim who says has congress been made completely unworkable? can america survive without a workable congress? john is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my top that the -- pat ppet peeve has been a letter from the 47 senators. in my opinion, my humble opinion, i think each one of those people -- as far as i am concerned they were wrong in sending that open letter. i believe they are trying to undermine president obama and each one of them -- i'm not

saying to take him to jail because that would make them martyrs. i will say this, this country don't underestimate the power of the american people. the people they represent can recall each and every one. i wish they would recall each and every one and have a recall election and let each one of them be replaced at it that is all i have to say this morning. host: anthony is on the independent line in lawrence, kansas. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was shocked watching it all unfold. the shooting happens and instead

of trying to resolve it, the next evening they interview the citizens and they say that it doesn't other me that this happened. one of them said and i foreign i. --eye for an eye. if we don't keep an eye on this, it's going to get bad again with the national guard. it's really shocking that the president hasn't ordered something like he did before. that's all i have the say. thank you. host: let's move on to tulsa oklahoma. the story you are paying most attention to? host: it's the sae fraternity

house at ou. i don't think it's a good thing. the athletic department and students on campus are putting their input in. who is ralph nader? host: who is ralph nader? the former presidential candidate and political activist? caller: what does he do? host: that is what he is. he is an environmentalist and eight medical activist -- political activist. host: back to your issue on the fraternity at oklahoma, what has it been like in the state in terms of the reporting on that story? caller: i was in the tulsa courthouse today. they said some attorneys that

went to tu -- host: that is told the university? caller: i would guess there are other houses that are under investigation. i really don't know. it was just a regular hate song that they sing at all the parties. they got caught. host: we appreciate your perspective. this is a front-page story from north dakota. the collapse of crude prices takes its toll on north dakota. the gas price has ticked up a bit lately. the epicenter of the oil boom, this was a magnet for lou koller jobseekers. -- blue-collar jobseekers. this is not the land of opportunity that it was.

jerry is next in massachusetts. he is on the independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i just wanted to ask whether you have ever done a segment on the legal definition of a treaty. it seems to me the republicans would have a point if this was in fact a tree that was being negotiated or whether it's just an executive agreement. be helpful to have eagle scholars on that could, for example, discuss when an executive agreement meets the status of a treaty. has the supreme court ever dealt with an issue between the senate and the president on what is a treaty? has it ever been adjudicated?

i think that kind of segment would help the public understand whether the republicans in fact have a realistic point. host: that is a good suggestion. i'm sure it's an issue that we have covered in some form or another. you can go to the video library and find lots more. you can type "treaty" into the search box. we have coverage at 1:00. we will hear from rand paul. he is just outside the washington area. jeb bush will be attending a party at the home of the former chair of the new hampshire republican party. we also showed you rick perry yesterday. he was talking in new hampshire.

he had -- here is what he had to say. >> i think americans are sick of the gridlock in washington. people are talking past each other. they are not getting anything done. they are walking away and taking their toys and leaving. that's not acceptable. one of the reasons i do think our nominee, i am obviously i asked about this, the executive experience of having to get things done, governors don't have the luxury of giving a speech and walking away. there was not one big thing that occurred in the state of texas not education reform, not those major budget issues that we have

to deal with that was done with just republicans. there were democrats and leaders that we had to work with. i think the next president of the united states i am critical of the president and the divisiveness that we see pitting individual against individual and gender against gender and economic groups against each other. we need to be working to bring this country together, to reach across the aisle. host: that was rick perry in new hampshire yesterday. that is all online at www.c-span.org. we have about 10 more minutes of your top stories. this is tweeted from carol. she tweets that the secret service deal and hillary's noncompliance with rules are all a disaster.

this is dire. let's go to calls. harry is in maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to touch on benjamin netanyahu coming to the united states. basically, this is a pattern of israel coming to the united states in a time of hard times. they did that with saddam hussein. they said he had all of these chemical weapons and we did not get anything. we destroyed the country. now we are in a mess. we did that in libya. we destroyed libya. now we are on our way to syria. we are trying to destroy syria. all of this is for israel. they make these statements. host: do you think some of this

is for our own national security? caller: no. it is for israel's security interest. nobody has said because of your actions, we are having all of these problems. you start these problems with your neighbors and you are stronger. you are capable of beating them. that is what happens. host: robbie, good morning. caller: good morning. my call is about other areas. iran is very capable of making a bomb. trust me. they have vowed to get rid of israel. i want everybody listening to know that there are three equal houses of government. it's not just the president running washington.

congress has to approve any treaties that are made. he even stated himself that it's not binding. so why is he doing it? this is putting future people in a trouble. it's allowing iran to make a bomb that will kill your children and your grandchildren. you should be worried. he has spent three tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan. he is a good person. i want to mention the ferguson protesters. i don't know how many people have read that george soros is paying these people. he is flying the men. summary has got to be financing this group. host: where are you reading this news about george soros? caller: that have been talking about it on the news. it started on the news. they have done some

investigation. i don't remember the group. they did some investigation and they said that george soros is flying people in. i want to know who is paying these people to be road testing. people have to live. somebody has to be paying for the hotel rooms. host: let's get a couple of more calls in. james is in oregon on the independent line. caller: actually this is the civic city of oregon. i hear a lot of people talking but nobody is saying nothing. people should be drinking some decaf coffee. the world is a good place. i live on a beautiful beach. i can take a walk. life is good, but people get wound up.

your last caller could not quote a source. people repeat bs. love is the answer to all of our problems. equality love, google it, figure out how to do it. thanks, america. have a good day. host: this is from "the detroit free press." the state is ready to ask on the worst schools. snyder is the governor. the worst-performing schools are on notice. if the plans for improvement are not working, able take action. steve is in texas on the democrat line. what is your top story this week? stephen texas? are you there? here is deborah on the end and

dependent line. she is in illinois. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: hi. this is deborah. i just want to say something. i am so fed up with our supposedly representatives in congress and the house. that letter they wrote to iran was trying to overthrow the principal, it was a high school stunt. they need to step up and acknowledge that. had it been addressed to the people of the united states or to a specific group they are

expressing their opinion. they have no right to express their opinion to the overseas policies. they speak specifically to them. host: a number of mentions this morning on that letter written by republican senators. we have linked to it on our website. that is www.c-span.org. this is steve in texas. oh ahead. there you are. go ahead with your comment. all right you need to your television or radio when you call in. john is in new jersey. go ahead. caller: i just think when the republicans go to las vegas and they talk to that guy who owns the casinos, he would be behind them with the letter in bringing benjamin netanyahu in.

they go out there and they will kiss his feet, whatever they need to do to get money for the election. host: the headline in "the boston globe," the captive recounts the fear and his escape. there is a picture from the closed circuit cameras that is being used in evidence. after 90 minutes as a captive of the bombers, he saw his chance. one of the men had gone inside a convenient store and the other was fiddling with the gps with his gun in the car door next to him. he counted down in his mind. this was the most terrifying moment, the most difficult decision, he told a federal jury. i dashed onto the street. i could feel he was trying to grab me.

he recounted his ordeal on the sixth day of the testimony in the trial of the boston bomber. he faces the death penalty. this is north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. why don't you have some of those survivors the people that survived the ss liberty. the 200 people that were killed or wounded that israel blowed up. what you have them on an asked them about that? israel killed 200 of our soldiers. host: we have covered different views on that. if you look on our seas --

website. we are going to joe in on the independent line. caller: i wish everybody would look up the logan act. the senators wrote this letter not realizing that there is a law on the books that prohibits anyone interfering with the government the president represents the government, in negotiations. they have broken the law. you wonder why the new york daily news called them traitors? it's on the books. look at a. -- look it up. host: the case deals with the subsidies in the affordable care act. the south has much to lose as the court looks at the health law. the supreme court rules that federal run can't give

subsidies. will the writing of "the washington post" this morning. this is jerry.

he is on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on the air. caller: i am calling to express my feelings about how the congress has treated president obama. they are very disrespectful. they will do anything, anything including a deal with satan. it's not going to work. god is on obama side. thank you very much and have a blessed day. host: we appreciate your comments. in our next segment we will be joined by trita parsi from the national iranian american council. we will talk about the negotiations. later, a discussion on the progress women have made.

all that is ahead. earlier this week, the senate foreign relations committee heard from senator -- secretary of state john kerry. marco rubio questioned him on iran. >> much of our strategy with regard to isis is driven by a desire not to upset iran. tell me why i am wrong. >> because the facts contradict that. i am not at liberty to discuss all of them here for a lot of different reasons. in a classified session i could. i'm not sure that's advisable. >> for the record, can you state that iran's feelings about our military presence in the region -- could you tell me today that under no circumstances is how iran would react to any increase of military action against isis

-- they are not fond of us bombing isis. is that a nonfactor in terms of how it would impact negotiations? >> they would welcome our bombing isis. they want us to destroy isis. isis is a threat to them and the region. i think you are misreading it if you think there is not a mutual interest with respect to every country in the region. >> if we sent more military or smell to iraq, they would support that? >> they are not going to openly supported and they would be nervous about it. they are not going to object. you've got bigger problems than that with that particular scenario. the shia militia might have something to say about it. other people might react very

adversely to that. what's important is to understand this and i think this is been a misread a lot of people. there is no grand bargain being discussed in the context of this negotiation. this is about nuclear weapons potential. that's it. the president has made it absolutely clear they will not get a nuclear weapon. the presumption by a lot of people on the hill here has been that we have somehow are not aware of that goal. our negotiation is calculated to make sure they can't get a nuclear weapon. it's really almost insulting that the presumption is that we will negotiate something that allows it. host: john kerry earlier this week before the senate foreign relations committee. you can see all that on www.c-span.org. more about the congressional

role in the nuclear negotiations. we are joined by host: trita parsi. we heard a lot about the letter from a seven republican senators. what is the proper role of congress in these negotiations like this? guest: congress does have a role and it's always had a role. when it comes to the final deal that is currently being negotiated, not just i the united states, this is a process that involves seven countries. there are five countries from the un security council as well as germany and iran. this is seven countries that are negotiating this. the goal that is undeniable is part of the deal down the road

once they have lived up to their obligations under the deal, congress has the responsibility to lift sanctions on iran as part of this larger deal. they have an ability to say at that moment. what we are seeing is beyond ride to have a role. it's trying to undermine the negotiations. we have to keep in mind, these are complex negotiations. this involves seven countries. that is complex enough. if all of those countries had their own parliaments try to play the role that congress is trying to play right now, there would never be an agreement. host: your group the national iranian american council, tell us about your background and why you started your organization. what are the goals of the council? guest: this was started right

after september 11. it was a response to september 11. we felt that the community did not have a collective voice. we wanted to voice our opposition to the terrorists attacks. we realize that part of the reason for that was the community was politically apathetic and we wanted to raise the engagement level. over the course of the last several years, we are one of the largest iranian grassroots organizations. we play a visible role between the united states and iran. our goal is to make sure that there is a peaceful solution between the conflict between the united states and iran. there will not be a nuclear weapon in iran. on the other hand, there will not be have -- a war with iran.

we also believe that that is the best way of making sure that the developments in iran go in the right direction. the pro-democracy movement will get more space to do what only they can do. no one else can do that job for them. if we have another military confrontation, the biggest victim will be the pro-democracy movement and national security will be the second biggest. host: what's happened to the pro-democracy movement in iran? it seemed to be burgeoning and blooming there. what do you know? what does the united states know about it? guest: they lost in the beginning. the regime engaged in a fraudulent election and suppressed the people who were trying to get the votes counted. four years later, you could see that those elements came out in

massive numbers. they secured a victory of the new moderate president of iran. that has changed the dynamic inside iran. the distance between the population and the government has reduced to a certain degree. there is a lot that remains to be done. a lot of people from the pro-democracy movement are holding their breath right now. they want to see if a nuclear deal can be solved. that is the moment where they will increase their demands and push forward further to try to promote democratic change inside the country. until a nuclear deal is signed, until this issue that casts a huge shadow, until that is resolved, the ability to push forward and advance the cause is limited. host: trita parsi is our guest.

we are talking about the senate's role in iran negotiations. "the new york times" spoke of senator corker's efforts. on thursday, he urged president obama not to seek the united nations'endorsement. this was the latest twist in an increasingly tense standoff between the white house and congressional republicans. on the issue, the legislation that they are proposing, any deal would undergo a full congressional review. there would be no suspension of sanctions for 60 days.

the assessment of compliance would be required. what issues would you have with that? guest: more than anything, point number two about not lifting sanctions, that is changing the terms of what they have been negotiating for the past two years. that is the problem. it is legitimate for congress to have oversight and they have the power of the purse. when you start to intrude and include variables the changes the variables that have been negotiated, not just between the united states and iran but other countries involved in the process, that is when you have a situation in which the united states puts itself at odds not with iranians, but with its allies. that is something that the administration is very concerned about. the question is is it not possible to have an oversight role and pursue the power of the

purse without introducing variables such as stopping sanctions relief for the first 60 days. they have been working on this for two years. they want to figure out the schedule for sanctions relief. if this came in and tried to change the terms, that would not be accepted. many europeans are coming out and expressing a lot of irritation at the role the congress is trying to play right now. host: with the time tables, where are we? caller:guest: we don't know. they feel that they may not have been receiving enough information about exactly what is happening. i think that is understandable. i also understand the perspective of the administration. these are extremely sensitive

negotiations. every time something has been leaked about the details of the talks, the talks have been undermined. if you pay attention, you will see that it's remarkable the discipline that has existed in order to make sure that as little information as possible is late. it's not too put congress in the dark. it's to make sure that these fragile negotiations can succeed. this is a matter of war and peace. i understand the perspective of someone in congress wanting to have more information. sometimes the nature of these negotiations is the more information that is shared, the more difficult the process can become. host: a couple of weeks ago when the israeli prime minister spoke, your group put out a full-page ad on that. what was the purpose? i will show our audience.

what was the purpose of your ad? how do you think the reaction to the speech went? guest: the purpose of the ad was to point out that at the end of the day this is about national security and this is a matter of war and peace and the president has been pursuing what he said he would in 2008 when he ran for president. he said he would try to resolve conflicts through diplomacy rather than do it the previous administration did which was to first look at military solutions. we know what that has done to the united states and the world. the prime minister of israel comes and uses the congress as a platform to undermine the president, we thought that was quite negative. the way it ended up working was the prime minister undermined his own cause.

there are some who find sympathy with some of the arguments he was putting forward. the idea that he would come and make that speech in congress turned off more people. congress turned off more people and it also turned this issue the issue of iran into a far more harder issue in the united states than it had been before. that ultimately undermines the prime minister's own objectives, if that is to have an impact on the iran deal. it became increasingly difficult for democratic members of congress to sign against the president once the -- once this became partisan. i do not think they consider this to be an outcome, but it is. from the perspective of israeli security, his visit and his speech was highly problematic. there are plenty of voices in

israel who have said that, senior voices. one example, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single incident where n is really prime minister speaks to the u.s. congress and that a single member of congress decides to boycott the speech. but when the prime minister came out to speak at this crucial time 58 members of congress decided not to go. host: should the prime minister and other israeli citizens be concerned about repeated threats from iranian leadership over the years about so-called "wiping israel off the face of the earth" and the potential for nuclear agreement between the united states, iran, and other nations to expedite or put a lid on that? guest: absolutely. there is a threat picture the israelis face from iran. the question is how to best handle it. do you pursue a policy of

putting yourself at odds with the united states, mindful of the fact that the united states is the most important ally and relationship israel has. you have now a situation where the israelis face a threat from iran and face -- and are faced with a difficult relationship with the united states because of some of these things. the biggest mistake israelis have committed is by going as far as prime minister netanyahu did in opposing and undermining this deal -- what she has done since 2009 -- is that it has made it more difficult for the united states to include israel in this process and make sure that israel he concerns were listened to and met to the extent possible. by becoming negative and adamant about undermining the process the president has no choice but to keep the israelis some what out of the process. that is a huge mistake from the israeli perspective. if they had taken a more

flexible position, he would have had a stronger influence on what would happen with the deal and what the details and variables would be. this is a criticism you will hear against netanyahu from more people inside israel. people from the security establishment have made that case that this could happen and open much better and given israel more influence, rather than having a scenario where the prime minister and -- primus are of israel is a conflict with the u.s. host: let's go to calls for trita parsi, founder and president of the national iranian american council. we hear from new jersey. democrat line. go ahead. caller: hi. as the parsi, before i ask you question, i would like to ask you what you supportive of the democratic movement in libya and egypt? guest: in libya and egypt?

caller: yes. guest: my organizations take no position on those issues. caller: that is what gives me concern about you, because in libya, the movement, needed in the assassination of cut out the -- gaddhafi. in egypt, it was the displacement of mubarak. everywhere your organization has been, isis appears to grow and become stronger and those areas where you have been. what is it that you can save that will end that trend? guest: i think you confuse my organization with another. we have no involvement in egypt or libya. host: let's hear from ralph, tennessee. republican line. caller: my comment is that this

president has done everything he can to undermine the new congress ever since they got elected. he does not seem to want to work with them. if you had kept them more advised from the beginning on this whole thing i think it would have gone a lot smoother with this nuclear arms deal with iran. he has undermined this congress since they took over. he basically snapped israel since -- snubbed israel since he has been an long -- in office. i understand why netanyahu wanted to speak with republicans. basically those who did not go to the speech were democrats. they do not seem to want to take care of our allies, which is israel. we should be looking after them. obama does not seem to want to work with them or the republican congress. if you had done that, i think these negotiations would be

smoother. host: your thoughts? guest: i think the obama administration has looked after israel quite a lot. this deal ultimately will be very good for israel. it may not be good for benjamin netanyahu's personal political career, that it will be good for israel. at the end of the day, israel has been concerned about an iranian nuclear weapon. this deal ensures that all pathways for iran to get a nuclear weapon would be closed. there would be more inspections than almost anywhere else in the world in iran. they would limit their activities that the extent of other nuclear enrichment countries have not been limiting it. iran would also have other constraints imposed on them. this is the best realistic outcome. that can be achieved. the outcome that the netanyahu government says they do not want

but is the logical conclusion of the policy they are recommending is to end up in a military confrontation between the united states and iran. we know what war in the middle east has done. not only to the middle east and also to the u.s. the president of the united states has the ultimate responsibility to safeguard american interests. the will of american people have made it clear that they do not want another war and the middle east if it is avoidable. and with iran it certainly is. host: is oak park, illinois. mike on the independent line. caller: i wanted to ask mr. parsi if he believes the state of israel has the right to exist? guest: absolutely. it does have the right to exist and live in peace with its neighbors and hopefully that time will come. if there is a nuclear deal

between the p5+1 and you run and it is successful and leads to a situation in which not only war is avoided a nuclear bomb in iran is avoided, but also the incentive structures 40 ron are changed so that much of the venomous rhetoric coming out of the round against israel and vice versa do not have utility. i think there will be a scenario where israel will be much more safe in the region. host: the washington post editorial writes about that issue. what will happen after an agreement. will there be an end to you iran's containment? they say that the administration reason turns is -- reassurances go against the actions. they say that mr. obama has refused to support military action with the a side regime in syria. his administration has tacitly

blast and ongoing iranian-led offensive in iraq's sunni heartland. it took no action to stop the ouster by an iranian-backed militia of a pro-u.s. yemeni regime. nor has it reacted to you ron--- iran's deployment of thousands of shiite fighters to southern syria near the israeli occupied golan heights. that record raises the questions of what the administration cost response will be to further iranian. would you think the response will be to the deal? guest: situation in syria and other regional matters have not been part of the negotiations. it has not been part of the negotiations by the demand of the united states and its allies. the nuclear negotiations have been sufficiently complex that it would be disastrous to expand the agenda. that does not mean the issues will not be addressed.

but the notion that the nuclear negotiation led to the situation in syria has no evidence. i think the situation in syria has become more complex due to the emergence of isis, which is now seen as the main threat. it has led to a situation where the u.s. is more cautious about which direction to go because the situation is more disastrous and the isis that is more significant. with iranians in iraq, iraq is under control of the iraqi rubberneck. the iraqi government requested the help of the iranian government with isis. the complaint from the iraqi government is that the u.s. is not doing enough because there are not putting ground troops there. the only people who are put ground troops is iran. this creates a new geopolitical

situation where the united states and iran have common enemies, particularly in isis. there is on comfort -- uncomfort that that is the case where it the u.s. and iran is on the opposite side. but if you are concerned about isis and think that what they are doing in that middle east and what they do elsewhere especially the attacks in europe when he see something that is disastrous and a real threat, i think it is necessary to look at the various options the united states has to defeat isis. the iranians are fighting with iraqis in order to take back territory from isis. that is why the pentagon is looking at this, on the one hand, if they think about what this increased iranian influence may mean but it seems to me they are somewhat pleased they are beating back isis.

host: them a cut line. caller: i would like to bring up two things about this letter that i have not heard anyone mention. the republican party is financed by the oil industry. if this deal goes through, a rainy and oil will be on the market. it would impact the profit margin of the oil industry. the second thing i would like to bring up this letter gave the iranians an excuse to say we will not go through with this deal. if this happens, they can go back to building a bomb. if they do that, they should send those 47 republicans a letter saying that since you are so in tune with mr. netanyahu over there, please tell him we will stop making uranium enrichment for bombs as soon as you guys create a palestine because that is one of the big issues in the middle east. thank you.

i hope you have a nice afternoon. guest: thank you. after the latter comment about the iranians finding an excuse, this is one of the biggest concerns when it comes to not just the administration but also the other countries in the negotiation process. the p5+1. it is critical to have unity in the key five plus one in order to effectively negotiate. it is also critical that the international community has the edge of credibility on its side and the iranians have to prove themselves. now, according to the foreign minister of germany who was in d.c. yesterday, he feels the letter is shifting the credibility edge towards the iranians. now it is the west that has to prove themselves. what the letter intended to do was say "do not trust our

president. do not trust the united states will live up to their commitments on this deal." that is an extraordinary statement for some senators to make. it makes it easier for the iranians to walk away from the table, put the blame on the west and then continue, without any restrictions, on a nuclear program. it would lead to what some describe as the worst-case scenario. i do not think we should underestimate the amount of anger that will cause amongst u.s. allies that have been part of this negotiating process, put so much of their own political credibility and capital into this process to end up having had the rug pulled out underneath their feet, not by the iranians, but by the u.s. congress. this is creating a lot of tension amongst the allies of the u.s. host: your mention of the german

ambassador, there is a piece in the washington times, at least online, about the german envoy hits the republican letter to iran on the nuclear talks. let's go to a republican caller from washington. caller: i think you are basing everything you're saying on the fact that the iranian leadership, the true leadership, is an a rational actor. with that be correct? guest: they are rational actors. iran would not be in its powerful position if it was not. this is the track record of a rational state. the irrational does not mean we agree with them. it means they calculate moves to maximize interest. their conduct is something on acceptable to the united states -- unacceptable united states and many areas. but we make it worse if we paint them as something they are not.

we underestimate them if we think them irrational. this is no longer debate. iran is a rational actor. that is part of the reason negotiations have come this far. if they were not this wouldn't have taken off. host: are you still there? caller: their constitution calls for the destruction of another country. guest: it does not. there is nothing in the iranian constitution that says that. there's a lot of problems with the conduct of the iranian government. the question is how will you change that. by repeating the problems you will not solve it. you're using the behavior of iran in the last 35 years as justification to not change behavior. anything that has been done in the past has not worked. if it had worked, this issue would have been resolved 20 years ago. it is not until now that true

diplomacy has been tried. it is only when that diplomacy has been tried and have seen that some of the behavior that you ron has done and is pragmatic has begun to change. no other policy has half this track record. host: what would you say the relations were like between israel and iran before the revolution in 1979. guest: in the past, israel ease iranians were strong allies. during the time of the shah, alliance was open and strong. it was based on different factors. there was an extensive intelligence collaboration. then the iranian revolution happens. there is the impression it changed everything. it changed a lot, but the geopolitical context the countries found themselves in which divided the basis and justification for their alliance continued for 10 years.

it was why the israelis lobbied washington to talk to iran, sell arms to iran, and not listen to iranian rhetoric because it was not reflective of their policy. it was the israelis that pushed the reagan administration to sell arms to iran, with the promise it would help rain -- rein iran back. the situation did not truly change until there was a dealer -- geopolitical shift in the 1990's. it intensified a dormant rivalry into a hot and confrontational rivalry we are seeing now. host: our california caller talked about iranian -- iranian leadership. the ayatollah. what do we know of his state of health and who would replace him? guest: we know very little about his state of health and

certainly who would replace him. we know he has surgery recently. it seems that was not entirely successful. it has been rumor about him being on his deathbed, but those have gone around the last 10 years. none of them have turned out to be true. we know very little about who potential he would replace them. it will be a very intense debate and eventually conflict in the iranian elite about this issue. they survived the succession crisis before. most likely they will try to prepare from -- prepare themselves much better for the next one. but whether that will happen now or two years or five years from now is difficult to tell. part of the reason we do not know is that prior to this process, there was almost no contact between the united states and iran. there is no u.s. embassy inside iran. the amount of intelligence and

information that could be gathered was far less than could have been because of the absence of a relationship. if these talks are successful in leads to a more normal direction in of their dealership, and there would be the presence of americans and iran, we would have a much better understanding of what is taking place there which is very valuable for u.s. national security. host: democrat caller from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. when they were making the nuclear reactor, three different nations helped build that. it was different over periods of several years. when you have different engineers making something, you possibly could have a fault. another thing is, look at chernobyl. they reactor they had in japan.

if they would have an accident like either country had, what would happen to the iranian people? how far would they go? i am not trying to be scaring you, but this is the truth. check with the russians -- host: we will let you go there. a couple questions. why is nuclear power so important for the iranians? guest: both questions are very good. i am happy those are raised. there is a significant environmental concern about these reactors. one of them is on the coastline of the persian gulf. it is in an earthquake-prone area. it is a dangerous thing. that concerns not only iran but also some of their neighbors. they would also face the fallout of a potential earthquake that

would cause a disaster in the nuclear facilities. you ron itself is highly prone to earthquakes. there is a high expectation there will be a major earthquake hitting tehran the next 20 or 30 years. that is the reason there are plans to potentially move the capital the cause of this. there are significant reservations. those concerns are valid in almost every nuclear program. they are particularly valid in the iranian program because a) it is earthquake-prone. secondly because of the lack of national involvement in the iranian nuclear program. the safety measures that there are quite below what is optimal and international standards compared to other nations. that is another thing that i think some in iran hope will be fixed if there is a nuclear deal and a nuclear program is normalized.

another thing is that there will be more open debate inside iran which leads us to what extent is this actually necessary? by now, the nuclear program is an unquestionable issue in the iranian debate. it is seen as a national security issue. as a result, there is not a lot of open debate. there are courageous voices, but there is not much debate. after a nuclear deal perhaps some of those receptions will be lifted and there can be more open conversation. will it be scrapped, i doubt it. there is an economic justification for an iranian nuclear program. this started back in the time of the shah. it was the u.s. to convince the shah that you ron would not become a nuclear program. and of course u.s. companies

would be intimately involved in developing a nuclear program. the idea was that you ron should sell more oil instead of consuming oil domestically and use nuclear energy for domestic concerns. that was in -- when you ron was producing far more oil. it is a valid calculation today as well. it does not mean energy is likely the only motivation or the nuclear program. that is why it is important to get a nuclear deal so what -- so we have the inspection so the national community knows what the iranians are doing that minimizes risks for cheating and eliminates the risk that iranians can cheat and build a bomb. host: what is the population of iran? guest: around 80 million. one of the most educated populations in the region. also one of the most

pro-american populations in the region. the desire of the people in iran to reconnect with the united states is overwhelming. there is anti-american sentiment, which tends to be larger directed at u.s. foreign-policy, not at america as a nation or a people and culture. host: mark in clearwater, florida. republican. caller: good morning. two quick comments in a question. when you have a country that has hundreds of thousands of people chant death to america or to israel and when people rise up against that they are killed their own government kills them and puts them in prison, if you can tell americans what treaty has iran had with us that they have followed to the letter. what in the 1960's, 1970's,

1990's, that we have come to an agreement with you ron and they have followed to the letter. can you name one? guest: yes. it is important to remember their have hardly been any negotiations between the u.s. and iran because people have opposed the idea of negotiating. that means there is not a lot we can look at. but there is one important agreement that was signed november 2013. that is the joint plan of action. the iranians committed themselves to reducing nuclear activities freezing some parts of it, rolling back some elements of it. that has been in place for the last two years and has been successful. it has been verified by the international atomic agency. they have concluded that the iranians have lived up to everything they committed themselves to. so have the u.s. and the p5+1. beyond that, there was

collaboration between the u.s. and you ron and it came to defeating the taliban. the united states and iran under torch bush collaborated and indicated extensively with iranians because they had been fighting the taliban for nine years before the united states joined the fight. iran had intelligence assets and other assets on the ground in if ghana stunned that were used. later on, iran became more important when it came to establishing a new constitution in afghanistan. together they quarter ended the bomb conflicts in december 2001, when that constitution was established. six weeks later, bush put iran and the axis of evil and reignited a disruptive relationship between the u.s. and iran.

it has been negative for u.s., of donna stone -- afghanistan and you ron. host: we talked about the letter from letters. a house republican from utah, a former you one pilot during the start treaty, part of his statement as a former air force pilot says that iran made it clear it that it wants to be a leading actor in the middle east and nuclear weapons are a paramount means to achieving this goal. for that reason i do not believe the regime would give up billions of dollars in admits -- investments. a generation of sacrifice and ambition as part of a deal with the u.s. independent line. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: all this rhetoric and everything of traders and everything, it plainly says and the constitution, article two

section two, the president should be the commander in chief. the second paragraph says that should have power that with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties. that is plain as day. why does everybody want to keep trying to do away with the constitution? host: ok. trita parsi? guest: the caller is right. the constitution is clear on that issue. but this is not a treaty. the vast majority of agreements the united states signs with other countries or in multilateral agreements, more than 90% of them are not treaties. as a result, it is left to the executive branch to handle those. otherwise there be 535 plus one commander in chief's. if there was a treaty, it should

actually have to go to congress. the start to agreement, and arms control agreement that the united states negotiated with the russians a couple years ago under the obama administration was a treaty and did go to the senate and ultimately the senate approved it. because it was a treaty, it followed that procedure, which it should have. the current negotiations with you ron is not a treaty, and therefore goes through a different path. some of these concerns raised last-minute by some folks in the senate are of a curious. they have known through all of this that this is not a treaty. it comes across a little of that they never thought negotiations would succeed. they did not bother raising issues before. but now when they see that there may be a deal and then next couple weeks, they are raising these issues last-minute. if they really got a problem, it should have been raised much sooner.

they cannot, last-minute and say you should have gone a completely different route. mindful of the fact that they have been aware of these negotiations taking place for the last couple of years. host: one last call. all the cookie -- albuquerque. caller: i want to say that i am a geek and watched c-span all the time. this person is very knowledgeable. you can learn a lot from him. people should take heart what he has to say. i have learned quite a bit from him. i do not understand what these callers, what the alternative is. we have to give this a chance. i think -- harmed with negotiations and also this letter does not help matters. we have to give this a chance. i do not think iran will be on a suicide mission. if they were to do anything to

israel, they know we would be right there. that would be a suicide mission for them. they know what the consequences would be. host: ok. final thoughts from trita parsi. guest: the caller is quite right. iran is well aware if they would do something against israel, it would be a suicide mission. they have not tried to commit suicide for the last 35 years. it is important to note that once negotiations started, the profile of iran vis-a-vis israel has changed. you do not have the rhetoric the previous government used. have a lower tone. that is very much part a consequence of these negotiations. the iranians want to deal. they know that if there are -- if they are antagonistic against israel, they lower the chances to get a deal. if they want less tensions with

the u.s., they also fully understand they cannot continue with their past policy vis-a-vis israel because the u.s. would never have that type of relationship with iran if they continue. that is why ultimately this is good for israel. it puts -- it puts constraint on iran when it comes to their behavior. host: viewers can find more on niac.org and follow trita parsi @tparsi. thank you for joining us. our program continues. this past week, two reports have come on on the progress women have made worldwide in addition to a united nations gathering. we talked to eleanor smeal president of the dumbest majority foundation. we talk about those reports and the action of the united nations. and long before hillary clinton's e-mails came to light

john cook of gawker had tried to get to them. we hear from him. also, live coverage of the tucson festival of books beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern each day. we cover panels on race and politics, the supreme court environments, immigration, and more. all on c-span two's book tv. washington journal will be right back. ♪ >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern c-span is live for the tucson festival of looks, featuring discussions on race and politics, the civil war, and colons with authors through the day. sunday at 1:00, we continue our

lives coverage of the festival with the future of politics and the future of concussions in football. saturday at 9:00 eastern american history on c-span, we are live in farmville virginia with the 16th annual civil war seminar. historians and authors talk about the closing weeks of the civil war. sunday morning at 9:00, we continue with the seminar and their marks of the confederacy. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org . or send us eight tweet at cspan #comments. this sunday on q&a, dr. adrian

berman, director of the watchdog program farmed out on how doctors are influence on medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of a drug starts seven to 10 years before a drug comes on market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug for it has been approved, it is not a legal market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a mechanism of a drug. and then blanketed medical journals and meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular job -- drug. and prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

and pacific on q&a. this week, c-span is in new hampshire with road to the white house coverage with several potential presidential candidates. tonight at 7:00 live. he take you to a party with former florida governor jeb bush. wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop. sunday night at 9:35 senator ted cruz at the lincoln reagan bigger. -- dinner. road to the white house on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york city is eleanor smeal, president of the feminist majority foundation, here with us to talk about the release of a couple reports on the progress of women, including the fool

participation report, the no ceilings report, from the clinton foundation and the bill and melinda gates foundation. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. host: what does this overall reveal about the progress of women. guest: it shows progress in major gains but also shows there are gaps, major ones, and our progress. it is encouraging. it shows with development goals there is improvement. it shows the need for goals worldwide. but we also have a lot of work to do. host: in terms of the timing of this report, how frequently does something like this,. what is the protocol for developing the research on it? guest: it is an important timeline. it has been 20 years since the fourth world conference on women that the united nations had in

1995. it measures the gains in that 20 years. there was a plan of action developed 20 years ago for all of the member nations. about 189 nations participated. we called the beijing conference because it occurred there. it had 14,000 people. a huge effort. what the gates foundation and clinton foundation did was they measured the gains. it was like an army of researchers they deployed. on each of the major goals. health care education -- health care education, economic gain, leadership. it is a fantastic report. also participating with the world center at ucla and the

economist-intelligence unit. really a large team. they look at all the data that could be viewed as reliable, country after country. for some countries the data is not there. but we have a great deal, a lot more knowledge of where we are. you cannot make knowledge unless you know exactly where we are. i found it encouraging and impressive. host: we open up the composition for our viewers and listeners. how much progress have you seen in women's rights? here is how to join. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence and others, (202) 748-8002. facebook.com/cspan and twitter, @cspanwj.

looking at the topline figures from the no ceilings report from the clinton and gates foundation. more constitutions and laws in countries protect women's rights but laws often go on enforced. women and girls health has improved but -- progress is uneven. girls still face obstacles and mistreatment. many gender gaps in education have closed but others remain and marginalized girls like behind. awareness of violence against women has grown. the areas to full economic participation remain. the report says woman remain underrepresented in leadership positions. what is the number one thing you would like to see in the next 20 years of progress in women's rights? guest: we have seen maternity health rates go up -- we cut in

half. now the primary education there is virtually between males and females. but there is a major gap in secondary education. that is an entire area needed for improvement. there are still areas where we need to improve health care. even though we have had really cut mortality rates, we can do much better. goal by goal, i think one of the most encouraging things, is the united nations will develop another 15 years of goals. we know one thing from the last 20 years. when you develop goals, things happen. in many countries. he said laws are not enforced, that is unfortunately true in some of these goals. but of the 56 countries that

have developed new constitutions in the 20 year period, 95% have an equality provision for girls and women. you'd be surprised. just having a goal helps. that is where we are out. we will keep at it. i am excited about what the new goals will be. host: let's look at the figure and number of women participating in legislatures and parliament. rwanda has the highest percentage at nearly 64%. bolivia with 53%. andorra at 50%. cuba at nearly 30%. the united states at 19%. this the number of woman in a legislative body translate to better legislation for women's rights? guest: yes. there is no question. the higher percentage of woman participating, the more emphasis on the social programs, health

care, and the quality of life. the more women that participate in the civil society, you have real gains. like an education. if you educate women, you have a multiplier effect. everyone wins. society as a whole wins. you have an increase in the gross domestic product. you're hitting poverty at a much higher rate. this is not just here -- berry, the data substantiates it. host: dave in north carolina independent line. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to know from your host, what president has appointed women to the highest position in american history?

which president has done that? guest: you want me to answer that? it is easy. the most appointments have come from president obama. almost 47% of his -- for example judiciary appointments are very high. it also executive positions. also he has done a great deal in improving representation from a diverse group of women. from more women of culler -- co lor as well as in every field. much more leadership has been appointed from president obama. host: obviously hillary clinton was one of these asset secretary of state. that was the backlog -- backdrop of the nine nations meeting that hillary clinton held her conference about her e-mail use.

on politico, hillary clinton releases her report on women at an awkward time. what is your thought on how she handles her e-mail and how will this work for her politically? guest: let me tell you why she was here. the u.n. had a women's commission meeting. it does this every year for about two weeks. that is why i am here. we have a delegation of girls. there is woman here from all over the world. the united nations women program is very extensive. that is why hillary clinton was here. she is one of the greatest advocates, worldwide, for increasing the status of women in all areas. the press conference she had was dominated by her e-mail issue now, but it should not overshadow why she was here. she is giving encouragement to women worldwide. host: next, we hear from derek

from michigan. independent -- good morning. caller: good morning. here is my question. since your organization has been around basically, let's talk from 1975 forward, the decline of the american family is in the worst shape it has ever been. we have more single mothers. that is one of my main points. the decline of two parent families. we have basically had 50 million abortions. my question is do you look at it as a failure that there is more single mothers? when you look in front of god do you see he will be favorable about your activities. guest: that's go with what has happened in the last 75 years.

women's economic opportunities have increased. education opportunities increased. as far as single mothers, the president of the united states two of them, president clinton and president obama have been essentially raised by a single mother. three already is, the more opportunity for women, the more opportunity for their children. health standards have improved. the one area i am not happy about here -- there are others we are lagging behind in political representation though it is going up -- is the maternal mortality rate has increased. it is still low compared to the developing world, but it has increased. we should not have that. we are lagging behind. we should have paid family medical leave. if the feminist policies were

more followed, we have had opposition, as you know, constantly. we would have an even stronger family because paid family medical leave helps women take time off from work when they have children. it helps them take time off work when there is a sick family member. in the united states, it is the only advanced country without paid family medical leave. i totally disagree with you. we have made real progress for girls and women that have helped the entire country. host: that callers said to be clear, you are president of these them is majority organization. what is your current organization, what is the focus of the feminist majority? guest: we have been in existence

for 28 years. we have educational projects, a large college campus program, a program for girls six to 12 from sixth grade the 12th grade called girls learn international. they study human rights and help partner schools in developing countries. we do a lot of work on reproductive health care and rights. we work on violence against women. we have an extensive program project by project, working to improve the lives of women and girls. i believe the entire community as well. girls and boys once -- as girl's standards and opportunities increase, so do boys'. the entire society is benefited. host: comments on twitter.

this is from victor, who says there are undeniable improvements for women in the last 50 years, but also to many stagnant situations with no improvements for women. can you address a situation or to you would find in the u.s., a stagnant situation that has not moved forward in the last 20 years. guest: we do not have paid family medical leave. i testified for it in the 1980's. it is ridiculous that we do not have paid family leave. and it hurts. 48% of the workforce -- of woman who are working do not have one day of paid sick leave. this hurts not only them but their family. it is a disgrace. we have worked very hard for it. we have had persistent right wing opposition to it. and frankly, business

opposition. it has done nothing but hurt women. also, our minimum wage has not kept up. the bulk of the people at will minimum wage -- at minimum wage are women. to live in a big city and have a minimum wage of $7.25 is ridiculous. that is why there is a $15 minimum wage movement. when you look at minimum wage and the fact that women do not even have sick day paid leave, let alone family medical leave when they have either a child or a sick family member, this only hurts our society. we have to change this. this benefits no one. it is cruel and unusual. host: seattle, washington. amy on the democrat line. caller: i am not sure if you're talking about the u.s. are whole world, but i am wondering about progress being made on halting

female genital mutilation. guest: i cannot say that i have read that part of it. but there has been some progress. again, this is a scenario where it is slow. we wish it was stronger, let's put it that way. the clinton foundation report and the gates, it is on the whole world. we are talking about 190 countries. there is much area for improvement needed, especially in sub sahara africa, where example -- where, for example we increased health care for women word -- worldwide with half the maternal mortality rate. but sub sahara africa, the face of aids has become a young woman.

that means they have it at twice the rate of young men. this is an area we have to work harder on. it goes country by country. the united states does need its own improvement. that is why i also talk about the united states as well as key areas. there are some areas where i do not think the united states -- americans are so aware. for example, afghanistan, there has been a big improvement in the maternal mortality rate. the number of girls in elementary education has increased significantly. about 40% of girls who are now going to school there. there are about 8 million kids in elementary education or educational facilities. about 20% of college kids and afghanistan are now women. we hear some really bad things

and do not hear the improvements in areas like afghanistan. but there is a long way to go. and we know that. that is why it is so important that the united nations and multilateral groups institutions, are concentrating on we have to improve living conditions of girls and women in the world. host: spring valley, new york. republican line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i do not know the details, but i know that in the last two years since the changes in the insurance with obama care and everything, my friends that struggle with women's issues became a lot harder to get paid and everything else around it. guest: because of what?

caller: the insurance -- i think a lot of women's issues seem to be struggling more with insurance. ever since the last two years, a lot of changes and insurance companies, obamacare whatever. guest: the affordable care act has improved the number of women there are now covered. i think it is something like 14 million more people in the united states have health insurance run before -- than before. it also improved the number of people who love accessibility to medicaid, which is important. it is again, not a decrease. i would say most authorities would say that without question. it is important that continues. it is increasing the numbers of

people who have access to health insurance and to health care period. it is an important gain. and for women, a very big game because -- gain, because there is a health care passage that covers immunizations, annual visits, gives you access to immunizations, all for free and for family planning or contraceptives with no cost or co-pays. it even covers, domestic violence. counsel for that. it has counseling on breastfeedi ng and prenatal visits. the well woman package, it covers more than the people and their -- under the affordable

care act, it is not a requirement nationwide for health insurance. it is a very big advance. host: the true a section of the wall street journal headline that men in list in fight for gender equality. they write that about 60 mailboxes and three major employers completed a six month her grandpa organized by catalyst, a nonprofit that tracks and advocates women event -- about spent -- advancement. participants learned to improve women's prospects partly by building alliances with men. "guys listen to guys," notes catalyst president. the leadership consultancy the health catalyst to together its program, white men as full diversity partners, says a revised 17 fortune 500 companies. what sort of progress are we seeing in the private sector? guest: we are seeing an increase

of woman on corporate boards and a small increase of women in top leadership. i do think the involvement of men -- one of the thing about reports like this is that you can see in real terms, and if anybody wants to see the report, you can get it through the clinton foundation and they have an interactive database you can access country by country -- but you can see how the society as a whole is improved when conditions for women improve. i think everyone is a winner. it is one of those things where when data like this exists, it convinces more people that they should increase standards. more men get involved, the better. we are all for that. i do think that we are stymied

in some areas because we have made political controversy or made partisan things that are no-brainers. there should access to health care or trying to reduce maternal morality -- mortality. there are so many things we can agree on. ending violence against women. i mean, you have to have more involvement of men and you should not politicize these things. it took us too long to reauthorize the violence against women act here in this country. and we know that these -- to have legislation like this helps fight violence against women. and everyone wins. so i am hoping we can, through hard-core data and knowing more about these issues, there will be less partisanship and more gains for everyone. host: more calls. this is my low -- milo in iowa.

thank you for joining us. caller: thank you. yes, ma'am. i just had a question about -- are you for rights for all women? you just made a statement about -- not to politicize things. i am just wondering. i am totally independent. and i am watching things on both sides. of the political issue. i am just wondering if you are for all women. are you those for those who disagree with you on, say, on abortion tackle if you are, -- abortion? if you are, or are you on if some of these ladies get hammered like a sarah palin? and do they have to agree with you and your political views? your foundation? guest: let's put it this way. when we talk about political leadership at increasing the

numbers of women in political leadership, we are not talking about one party. we are talking about an overall increase in leadership. but basically, when you said an issue like abortion and family planning we are not think everybody should practice one thing or another. we are saying it should be available legally and safely so that we know that if you want access, you can have the access to modern contraceptive care. so, we are for more traces for women. and basically think that when you have, for example, a peace negotiation, women should be at the table. when you have policy discussion, women should be at the table. right now, we have about 19 percent to 20% of the senate -- 90% -- 19% to 20%

representation. that is not representation. we know that when there are more women at the table, there is more concerned about childcare education, health care issues. host: what keeps that number at that 20%? which is higher than it may have been before, but certainly lower than some of the countries we pointed out earlier. guest: well, in the united states right now, a cost so much to run for political office. it is a very big barrier. you are talking for the united dates senate millions of dollars -- united dates -- states senate, millions of dollars. even for the smaller states, it is 20 million. the house of representatives you have such gerrymandering. it is just in outrage. they contribute to -- it

contributes to a lot of people -- votes don't count, even. if you are in california, for example, which has such a huge population, you still get to senators. that is gerrymandering right there. but forgets that. think about the house of representatives. you have such underrepresentation because we all know that gerrymandering is contributing to situations where there is underrepresentation of the more progressive viewpoint in reality. underrepresentation of cities and certainly underrepresentation of people of color. now we have a whole movement to suppress the vote. and it is not just anybody's vote that is being suppressed, it is people of color. i don't think people are understanding, it is also suppression of the women's vote.

right-wing opponents have decided they don't have the demographics, so they often suppress the vote of certain people. among them, women, jews, people of color. so we are lagging because of this, but i think there will be constant increase. and i think the country, as a whole, has got to worry about a democracy where we are now really spending, you know, let's face it, money has to much of an influence on political decision-making and voting. host: in new york, frank on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. ms. smeal, you had a call a moment ago where a gentleman after about your thoughts on the 50 million babies that have been aborted. heart of your response was talking -- part of your response

was talking about employment for women. and i just wanted to mention that it not see germany, for example, employment increased across the board but hitler made the choice to expel large swaths of humanity. i would like you to revert to those, if you could. guest: but what i'm trying to say is that when you say the 50 million babies or whatever, come on, those are not accurate to just. throughout life of the human race, women have had a need to and have had limited births. and basically limiting births also improves the quality of life. for many people. some people, they can have -- some women can have very large families. others cannot, for a variety of

reasons, not just for economic reasons, but for health reasons. i mean, it isn't -- it isn't a fair analogy at all. what hitler did to the jews is an atrocity that we are all uphold by and don't want to -- appalled by and don't want to ever see again. but basically, when you are giving women a chance to determine the size of their own family -- and women do this usually with their loved ones in their own families and their partners -- come on, you are giving them a chance to live a life that has a higher quality. and that they can be healthier. high maternal mortality rates does not help anybody either. and we know that lowering the fertility rate improves the long deputy of the woman's life, and of the family and her children

because one of the things that the report shows, not only did we have maternal mortality rates, we also reduced the rate of death for children under the age of five. both girls and boys. so we are for really improving the health of human beings. and i think these other comparisons are simply absolutely not fair. host: a little over five minutes left with our guest. joining us from new york, the site of this week's conference of the women of the united nations. and talking about the full participation report from the clinton foundation, and the bill and melinda gates foundation looking back 20 years. one of those former secretary of state, madeleine albright, who discussed the progress of women. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> there has been progress.

and there are more women and high-level positions, and more women kind of scattered through both the government as well as the private sector. but i think there is a long way to go. whether it is pay, as we have talked about, or the number of positions really open to women. so i do think that this continues to be a work in progress. there has been progress, but not enough. host: that is madeleine albright from her conversation with "usa today." let's move on to a couple of callers. the independent line. caller: good morning. ms. smeal, i don't know if you are aware of this. i am glad women in this country have the law to cover these women in the u.s. and obviously, you are helping a lot of people outside this country. but i hope that you will note

that the native americans are not protected. on their only and -- own land if a perpetrator does wrong against the native people. because congress has said that if the perpetrators were persecuted -- not persecuted prosecuted -- on the reservation by the native courts, the native people, the native courts would not be fair. john mccain was the leader for this. now, how can the first nation of this country, the great usa, not give any protection to their people? host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: actually, i think that

maybe the caller is talking about violence against women. and the 2013 reauthorization of the violent for women act, the reason it took us along to get it reauthorized -- we were behind by almost three years -- was because we had amendments that we fought very hard for. for example, to cover native american women. it is true, at one time, if her intimate partner, for example was a white person or an american citizen and not the native american, they could not be prosecuted if they perpetrated on a reservation. that has changed. the native american women are now covered under the violence against women act, as are students at college campuses,

gay and lesbians, and so it has been broadened. but it was very hard for us to get that through. but we did get it through. because it was terrible that for years, their coverage was -- this was not only a loophole but a -- it contributed to violence against women, as you say in the first nation. we hope that this change in the violence against women act will improve the situation. host: another legislative issue you are focused on helping impose -- trade must not trump women's human rights. you're right that any deal that forces women and human rights to take a back seat to profit and trade should be a non-starter. but right now, the united states is negotiating the transpacific partnership, with 11 nations, including brunei.

what is your organization doing to take -- make its voice heard? guest: that is what we are trying to do. that is why i wrote the editorial. but also, we are working very hard with the gay and lesbian movement, and with labor -- labor organizations. it is really an outrage that the introduced a very restrictive pinnacle to women. and they are getting oil with it. -- getting away with it. the way the trade agreement goes that -- is that anybody in it, their products will be considered as american products, even if they have her read this violations on human rights. and when i does have tremendous violations. -- brunei does have tremendous violations. we pulled our event from the

beverly hills hotel, which is owned by the sultan of brunei. we are trying to wake up people that these trade agreements sometimes i would countries that are just violating human rights. and we should have higher standards. as i say, trade cannot trump, you know, basic human rights and the rights of women. they will flog women in public, it is just an outrage. at a hope more people understand that, and that we can demand more from our trading partners. if they want to trade with united states, they have to have a better record on human rights. host: let's get one more call here from staten island, new york. catherine is on the independent line. caller: yes, good morning. miss meal, -- ms. smeal, i'm

listening to you, and how more equal do you want to be? with whom? guest: you want to have boys and girls, men and women equal. there should be equal education opportunities. and health care. there should be areas of health care in which women are -- i will give you an example. for the affordable care act, it was ok to charge more for women's health insurance -- and i am talking like 150% more -- and give less benefits. that is not fair. and now, under the affordable care act, you cannot have gender pricing. and cannot have benefit that are less for women. it is things like that. i mean, it is not little things. it affects women's pocketbooks

and entire families. and worldwide, come on, we have started girls's growth because there is a lack of adequate nutrition -- we are to third of the illiterates of the world because we lag in educational opportunities. and what we are showing is when girls and boys, when men and women are more equal, the entire society benefits. the national product goes up economics grows -- goes up, more well-being and peace and security. the united states has developed a foreign-policy position that is encouraging women's rights. not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it benefits the society as a whole, it benefits the united date, it benefits security of the world. host: eleanor smeal.

the president of the feminist majority foundation. thanks for visiting us with this morning. guest: thank you so much. also, i forgot to mention, we do publish. host: we appreciate that. next up, john cook of gawker.com of how he has tried, for two years, to gain access to hillary clinton's e-mails. former secretary of state hillary clinton talked about the four things she wanted the public to know about the use of e-mail. [video clip] >> there are four things i want the public to know. first, when i got to work as secretary of state, i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the state department because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails, instead of two.

looking back, it would have been better if i had simply used a second e-mail account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue. second, the vast majority of my work e-mails went to government employees at their government addresses. which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. third, after i left office, the state apartment asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away, and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related, which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though i knew that the state department already had the vast majority of them.

we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related e-mails, and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private, personal e-mails. e-mails about letting chelsea's wedding, or my mother's funeral arrangements, as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. no one wants their personal e-mails made public, and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. fourth, i took the unprecedented step of asking that the state department make all my work-related e-mails public for everyone to see. >> this week, c-span is in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage. tonight, beginning at 7:45

eastern live on c-span, we'll take you to a house party with former florida governor jeb bush. on saturday, live on c-span, wisconsin governor scott walker on a grassroots workshop. and sunday night at 9:35 on c-span, senator ted cruz and the annual reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york this morning and john cook. he is the investigations editor for gawker. we are here to talk about the use of private e-mail with hillary clinton. we'll start with our first question. for those who don't know, what is gawker? guest: gawker media is a network of eight websites the flagship, gawker.com, is a new site. there is a site called jezebel

that deals with women's issues. there is a sports site. but basically, we are in news media company. host: c-span and all the other networks covered this week the news conference with hillary clinton at the united nations of her use of a private e-mail server. but your organization, you in particular have been looking at this issue and trying to get her e-mails since 2013, correct? guest: correct. back in 2013. i was a reporter for gawker.com and a hacker, who had sort of in a spectacular series of hacks had gotten into the e-mails of: power -- of colin powell managed to hack into cindy blumenthal's aol account. and he released screen grabs of

her e-mails showing -- and some actual content -- showing that he had been sending e-mails to hillary clinton added e-mail account -- at a private e-mail account. i did a story on that. in that story, mentioned that she was clearly using an off the books server, which had been an issue that: rove and other bush officials did this as a deliberate way to avoid the presidential records act and keep the e-mails out of the hands of congressional investigators and potentially historians as you move all of the paper from the white house to the libraries. they eventually become public. so, it was clear that hillary clinton was doing this. i noted that in the story. i asked the white house for comment. i e-mailed the then secretary hillary clinton herself and

asked if she was specifically archiving e-mails on the server in accordance with the federal records act and the freedom of information act. and i got no response to no response from -- no response. no response from hillary clinton. i found a freedom of information request at that time specifically for all e-mail communications specifically between cindy blumenthal and hillary clinton. i spell that out in the request. and i received a response saying they had no such records, which is obviously false. i mean, maybe the state department and have access to those records, but hillary clinton had those records. host: so the screen grabs that you talked about, was the first time that that e-mail address had been reported on or revealed? guest: absolutely. there was no inkling prior to that hack that she was using a

private address. and i did not know at the time that she was exclusively using the private address. at the time, you know, there was actually nothing barring federal employees from using a private address, as long as they make sure they hand over custody of all government records on those accounts to the government. it would been perfectly legal and five for hillary clinton to use a gmail address or whatever she wanted, security certain -- concerns aside, but you could have used any e-mail address you wanted as long as you think care to head over those e-mails to the custody of the government so that when i file a request for those e-mails, they can have access to them and process them as the law requires. host: when you e-mailed this e-mail address, it didn't bounce back on you. so you know it went somewhere, correct? guest: it did not bounce back at

me, and now i know it was certainly can use by her at the time. i mean, i am sure she received that e-mail. and i know that the white house received my request for comment, as well. and i just got no response. host: part of the headline says gawker likely to sue over to your conspiracy to hide hillary e-mails. the associated press this week just a couple days ago said they, too, are going to sue over getting access to those e-mails. where does that stand in terms of the land sued -- lawsuit by gawker? guest: so, we are probably filing today a lawsuit prepared by two attorneys we are working with in washington dc. so, we have one active request with the state department. which is for e-mail correspondence between one of hillary clinton's top aides and

reporters at about 34 news organizations because he has been known for his sort of colorful e-mail exchanges with reporters, and are very brusque and someone say bullying style of how he manages the press. that was his job, to deal with reporters. so we wanted to see how he did that job on behalf of the american people, which is who he worked for at the time. so he filed a request back in -- i believe this was in 2011 request, actually. and we received an absolutely preposterous response from the state department, which was that they had no such records. there were no e-mails. we appealed that request, and --

and the state department said it would continue to search for those records. you know, years later, they are still searching and haven't turned them over. now that we know there was a plot at the highest levels of the state department to shield e-mail communications from senior staffers -- remember this is not just hillary clinton. one of her top aides also had a clinton.com address. as far as we know, felipe did not have one. he says he did not have one. but we are told and have reported that he did use a nongovernmental e-mail to transact state business. i don't know if he had to those e-mails over to the state department as he was supposed to. but now that we know that there was an effort at the top to disrupt the requesters. we are filing probably today, if not today, we will get it in monday for those records. host: john cook is the investigations editor for

gawker.com. we welcome you to the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. -- republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. this freedom of information act your request for information from the government, what is that process like? and how easily has it been for your request to the obama administration? guest: the obama administration has a terrible record on freedom of information request. ironically, when he came into office, he made a big deal out of an effort to make his administration transparent. and eric holder, the attorney general, issued guidance to all federal agencies encouraging them to be more productive in terms of how they respond to

requests, and to take less of a secret status. the bush administration actually propagated policy to all agencies in the federal pr christy saying, basically trying not to release -- if you can find a way not to release a record under the law, try not to release it. the obama administration reversed that. that has not happened at all. in fact, the reverse is true. this they department is one of the worst offenders in my experience in terms of denying request that there are clearly a record -- there is clearly a record four. i want to make clear, it is not for reporters. it is for anybody. this is a law that congress enacted in order to give any entity -- citizens corporations reporters opposition researchers, good government groups -- anybody who wants to compile these requests.

and they are there to make accountability possible. to make sure that the records that are actually owned by the american people are open and available to all within a certain set of exemptions. there are certain things that shouldn't be released, and that agencies can argue we don't have to release that. but on balance, congress wanted these records to be available. and the state department has been absolutely terrible. you send a request to them, and it is clear they do not even look at it. they just reject it for whatever reason they can come up with in the hopes of making you go away, basically. if you actually want the record that you are entitled to, you have to fight, you have to push, and now you have to sue. as a frequent request or end-user of the freedom of information act in the course of my reporting, it is ours and "and whether this is actually malicious -- it is always an

open question whether this is actually malicious. the good rejected because it is just some underpaid bureaucrat who doesn't want to do the work and just rectify the reason to send it back and -- trying to find a reason to send it back and make you work harder. it is a shocking to me to find out that there actually was. there was that dark impulse. is there really an effort to keep these things from reaching the public domain? and clearly, in the case of hillary clinton at her senior aides, there was. i should say, hillary clinton has now turned over these 55,000 e-mails. we know just one person who used these accounts, as well. i have not seen the list from hillary clinton's camp of who

had access to the server, who had accounts on it. there are many other people you to turn their e-mail accounts over to the state department. those records, which are also just as releasable under the freedom of information act, need to be so they can be made available. host: plenty of calls waiting for john cook of walker. let's go first to gerard illinois. michael, thank you for waiting. caller: a couple of comments. i am a small business owner and veteran. and all this talk -- us americans, we don't care about these e-mails. we care about jobs, why we can't get health care, why we are not investigating wild spending by the congressman. in my small town, i have people in jail because they cannot pay a $10 medical bill. they are in jail. single mothers. as no one investigating that? with -- we spent all this time fighting over things that no one cares. it does not affect their lives.

you have this organization investigate something that is going to change our lives and affect this on a daily basis. we don't see that. do something for us. thank you. guest: i mean, i appreciate that comment. we do cover other things. we are not exclusively devoted to this issue. and i certainly understand that this is not a bread-and-butter issue for the american people, but i think it is important. i think it matters how the secretary of state import with the law. i think the freedom of information act is an important tool that citizens can use. and can use to address issues of jobs. it is a way for the press and the people to hold the government accountable in all spheres of activity. if you care about jobs, if you care about how, you know, the

department of labor is conducting itself, if you care about how the federal bureaucracy and the small business administration is conducting itself, the request is one important tool to hold officials accountable to the people. obviously, it is not the only story. obviously, i do not think this will be a, you know, a political issue. i don't really care the politics of this, whether or not the people are going to vote on this issue. i doubt it will be a secret an issue for voters, but it is a significant issue for people who care about government transparency. host: here is andrew in san diego on our democrats line. caller: yes hi. john, i would like to ask you. you cited the initial source that triggered your investigation. and the name you said, i didn't

quite catch, but it's other like it was someone who was hiding behind a -- hacker. is the anonymous? and is he taking advantage of privacy rules that other people don't have access to? and here in -- then your sources really anonymous. what do you think about people like edward snowden? guest: yes, the name is [indiscernible] and he is in prison in romania. he was apprehended, i am not entirely certain, but i believe he was indicted in the u.s. but he is in a romanian prison. i am not quite sure why -- maybe it was a deal where he worked out that he is serving his time in rome he appeared but he has

been apprehended and is no longer doing those criminal hacks. he would e-mail -- black e-mail several news organizations. we didn't know who he was, we just knew it was him. he would send things to gawker to huffington post to a site called the smoking gun. you know, these were documents and artifacts that, you know, were clearly real and accurate and newsworthy. they were obtained criminally. we didn't induce that. we didn't want that to happen. but if -- he is out there sending out news information, we are going to report on it. in terms of snowden, i am a big admirer. i used to work with greenlaw who snowden worked with two release the nsa documents.

i am a fan of what he did. host: on the line from coleman, alabama. janet. a republican caller. caller: yes. this is concerning hillary clinton. if you read the book titled "hell to pay," you can see hillary from her college days up until the present. and it will really open your eyes to hillary clinton's deceptive ways. thank you. host: do you know anything about that? guest: i have never read that book. no. host: here is alan in new york city, the democrats line. caller: yes. i want to remind you that hillary clinton took part of the investigation of next and and the watergate tapes. she knows how damning -- when a

20 minute gap in the next and tapes resulted in his impeachment. i wish she would resign and stop meddling of the situation. host: just a reminder, callers. 30 days. give 30 days notice before you call in. guest: it certainly is very next tony and -- mix and -- nixonian. and, you know, it is about controlling information and one of the things i think it's interesting is the idea that this was for convenience because she didn't have -- she didn't want to devices is just preposterous insulting to the intelligence of the american

people that you think that would be a reasonable explanation for why she took the extraordinary steps of setting up an e-mail server, apparently in her home monitored and administered outside of the bounds of the state department team that is there to ensure security of communications. it is preposterous. the reason that they hatched this scheme was so that when i filed a request to those communications, the state department would say, we don't have them. the reason they hatched this scheme was so that when congressional investigators asked for e-mails about benghazi or whatever other issue they might be investigating, that her e-mails wouldn't be included in whatever they turned over. it was about controlling information. it was also about controlling information -- if you really don't want to use state

department e-mails, there are other e-mail services available to you. you can use gmail, yahoo! whatever. frankly, gmail would have been more secure, in terms of what experts have told me. gmail would have been more secure than simply a server sitting in your basement because gmail -- google has hundreds of employees, if not thousands, whose jobs are specifically to protect those e-mail accounts from attacks from various adversaries who try to gain access to them. but they didn't use google, they didn't use gmail. the explanations, as far as i can come up with that come is that they don't want google having custody of those e-mails. she wanted to own those e-mails so that if there was a subpoena if there was an effort to -- to gain access to them, she was the one who would control what got turned over. which is exactly what happened. she and her staff went through

her e-mails and decided which ones would be releasable to the american people. host: the republican line next. patricia is in minneapolis. welcome. caller: good morning. yeah, he just mentioned yeah, she cherry picked up 55,000 pages. and i just have a few more points. ap they didn't request any information around and about benghazi, so i hope in your lawsuit you do that. trey gowdy said there was like a three month time. missing and what she turned over. also, this whole thing is preposterous. like you said, you can't have two e-mail accounts teco you have to have -- accounts? you have to have a different phone? how insulting to us americans. it is a big deal to me. the other preposterous thing about this is that obama again said -- i heard it from the

news. the first i heard it was in the news. what the heck is he doing in their? -- there? he never got an e-mail from hillary clinton echo host: several -- hillary clinton? host: several points there, patricia, thank you. guest: some of the e-mails that cindy blumenthal sent to hillary clinton did concern benghazi, but those were actually leaked. you know, curiously, cindy blumenthal was not an employee of the state department. he was a longtime aide of hers. the e-mails he was sending care were actually very -- they were formatted like diplomatic cables. they were not conversational informal enough. they were actually intelligence reports. the included source intelligence about benghazi -- a source in

the german ministry of finance said that. they were official report by a citizen not to put by the state department. we are very curious about reporting on what that relationship was and why there was this sort of freelance agent out there who was -- seemed to be doing work for the state department. was he paid? but we are not specifically seeking anything about benghazi. we are looking for her comedic isn't with one of her deputies and reporters. the initial request that we made -- because we did not appeal it, we do not have grounds to sue right now.

the deadlines have expired to appeal that request administratively. we could refile it, but we know that those e-mails are being processed right now. the 55,000 that she released. and so, you know, we will see if they are in there or not. if they are not in there, that means they have been destroyed. host: just a couple of comments. a couple of comments on twitter for john cook of gawker. this one from vivian who tweets, i am thinking that because no one knew really had a private e-mail server, no hacker would even try to find to hack. all the government employees who use private e-mail accounts under the old rule were the ones to decide which it was determined. and from mary who says, why do you have a in the security of antiquated government servers echo hers was probably more secure -- servers?

hers was probably more secure. guest: that is what secret experts i have talked to enter reporters -- and our reporters have talked to have told us. i don't know how long he knew before he publicly released this cindy blumenthal e-mails. that is how easy it is. he was a romanian taxi driver. and he was able to hack into cindy blumenthal's account and see that he was a -- he was communicating with hillary clinton. he chose to release that information. i have no idea how many other people gained access to people that hillary may have been communicating with. this address was operational. foreign adversaries are very sophisticated. and they are very, very hungry for information. it is -- it is -- it is by no means a stretch of the imagination to think that the

chinese or the iranians or the russians may have learned through their various streams of intelligence about this address. in terms of whether the state department servers are more secure, there are security personnel at the state who are -- whose job it is to ensure the security of stick communications. they are not perfect. there is a lot there for adversaries trying to penetrate those networks, but there are teams of people are very good at what they do. i don't know how the people were on duty 24 hours a day to monitor the server that was sitting, apparently, and hillary clinton's home. i don't know what efforts they undertook. i don't know how up-to-date they were on security patches. there are so many unanswered questions. if it turned out that the the department -- that hillary clinton state department e-mail

address has been hacked, there would be accountability. we would find out. there would be an internal investigation. we would know what steps were taken by our government to secure the communications. we have no idea what steps were taken by security -- by hillary clinton to secure her communications because she undertook, on her own, unilaterally, to move those communications onto a private server that, as far as i know the government didn't know about. you know, no electronic comedic asian is totally secure, but there -- electronic comedic asian -- electronic communication is totally secure your host: -- secure. host: we go to madisonville kentucky. keith on the democrats line. go ahead keith. caller: yes, my question is -- hillary is rejecting the facts

we want to have her server. and i was wondering if maybe the reason for this is because bill was using it also at one time? and if it were turned over to the government and the government had -- done there, -- [indiscernible] guest: i mean, i have no idea. in processing records under the freedom of information act, you know, like communications between government employees and her husband -- what time are you coming home tonight, honey -- would not be releasable. i would not have exit to that. no one would have access to that. if bill clinton were sending her advice on how to handle issues of state, those would be releasable. potentially, depending on those e-mails. host: the individual would have

a say at -- over what was a personal or official business e-mail. guest: that is true. so, in the normal course of operations, if -- if i am a -- first of all the employees do not have a say on what is a personal e-mail and what isn't on state e-mails. if i am a state department employee and i e-mail my wife on my state.gov e-mail account saying i will be home for dinner, i do not get to say whether that is personal or not. the request process, the attorneys who reviewed those, would look at that. if you filed a request for all of john cook schemas on the state department, they turn up the e-mails of my wife saying i will be home for dinner. a request -- a state department request staffer or attorney would make the judgment about

that e-mail. and they would likely say it is not releasable, it is covered by a privacy exemption. if those employees are using a gmail -- let's say imf the state and i use my gmail account to say to a coworker, we need to get that reported by 6:00 today. that is a government record. that is releasable. i make the judgment to forward that to the state department and say, hold on to this record. if anybody request my record this should be in it. host: lets her from albert, california. the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to say to mr. cook, good job. in reference to your other caller and said that they were pretty much condemning you, i would say ignore that. you are doing a really good job simply because you are actually allowing us to make a credible

decision about hillary clinton and whether or not we should vote for her. i don't think that we should have a president in office that wants to hide different information from the people they are supposed to serve. thank you very much for taking my call. host: on to dallas, texas. hayden is there. the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just want to say that it is so troubling and disgusting that 30% of our population except hillary clinton regardless of the outcome. the problem with that 30% is it probably makes up about 99% of the media. my question is, you know, without going into the murders are, she has clearly hidden things, broken laws, done under the table deals for money. my question is, how do we get past the liberal media going

forward and get to the actual end result of getting the real information and maybe even prosecuting it if it warrants that the echo -- that? host: let's hear from john cook. thank you, hated. guest: it would be a very, very stretch -- big stretch to ring up criminal charges. defrauding the government has been defined as frustrating the government's ability -- or, it is a crime to conspire to defraud the government. the government's ability to carry out its normal duties intercourse. that is not going to happen -- in due course. that is not going to happen. host: if the -- could they subpoena her and force her to testify? guest: as far as i know, yeah. i believe they could.

but, you know, in terms of a liberal media issue, i made, the liberal media is the one pushing this story. you know, i am a liberal. i was the first to report on the existence of this e-mail address. the "new york times" has a standing of being -- i don't think you can make the case that there is any effort to cover this up. host: i want to ask you about another issue in the story about her use of a blackberry. her spokesperson yesterday addressed that. i want to play you for comments. [video clip] >> secretary clinton was also not issued a state department blackberry. and that wasn't a requirement. no one is required to be issued a state department blackberry. >> it would presumably require a higher level of security that an -- than an ordinary blackberry?

>> correct. any employee, including the secretary, is not required to receive a state department issued blackberry. >> why not? why wouldn't you want to control the security of the devices being used for officials? >> one, i'm just getting what our policy is. i am answering your question. there is no reason to take that tone. the second piece of it is that you out as they had a personal device. i can't speak to what was done on that personal device and what was not. host: john cook of gawker.com. what did you hear and those comments by the state department spokeswoman? guest: i certainly her defensiveness. it is astonishing that, you know, the security of the communications of one of the most -- of a key government official were just completely privatized. outsource to whatever facility

she decided she was going to take or not take. and we just -- we have no idea what -- how vulnerable she was or her communications were to interception. what steps she took. it is shocking. host: washington, d.c.. dog. good morning. the democrats lie. caller: good morning. i give her taking my call. mr. cook, you have used words. i think you clearly have a biased -- biased here. can you tell me why it is important for the public interest and not just feeding the media medical complex that the story be covered so aggressively? and you think there is a double standard, where governor bush had his own private center and used to private e-mail account secretary powell is the private e-mail account echo thing -- account? thank you.

guest: i think it is in the public's interest for the simple reason that the law matters. it is the freedom of information law. and compliance with that law is important, and it's important because the principles embodied in the freedom of information act -- they are important enough for bill clinton, excuse me, barack obama to pay lip service to and say he cares about transparency. indicate about transparency, he wouldn't have permitted this kind of scheme to have operated at the highest levels of his administration. it goes not just the hillary clinton, it goes to prove -- barack obama and his hypocrisy and failed, false commitment to transparency. i think transparency matters. i think he's -- secrecy breeds lack of accountability. and we have a huge problem with over prosecution and secrecy and

our government. in terms of a double standard, with: power -- look hillary clinton is running for president, colin powell is not. that is wider is a lot more attention paid to the hillary clinton side of this. it is not a story that gawker is covering. jeb bush, you are absolutely right. jeb bush's reported e-mail release is a con job, as far as i'm concerned. what he released were e-mails from an e-mail address at jeb @jeb.org. most of them are from random citizens saying -- with municipal problems. and gawker has filed a request in florida for other e-mail accounts that jeb bush used.

and i'm confident that he used other e-mail accounts. the reason i'm confident that if you go through what he released from that jeb@jeb.org account, you will find from not a clock a.m. to 1:00 p.m. he got three e-mails -- 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. he got three e-mails. it is impossible for me to believe that the governor of the state in which the president was at the time of the 9/11 attacks only got three e-mails on that morning. i am confident that there are other e-mails that he was using that he has not released. we have taken steps to try and find out if there were. at obtain those e-mails. host: let's hear from tony in sugar land, texas. the independent line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i would like to thank mr. john cook. without those two organizations

most of americans wouldn't know what is happening in the country. my question is two parts. what is the difference between the tray is -- patreaus and what he did, and what hillary said? and as a former government employee, when i retired, i signed a clearance form. now, the clearance form came up i believe the other day from a lawyer, and in reading it, it does say there -- as far as you could be guilty, and on and on. i'll take your answer off-line. thank you. guest: yeah. in terms of what the tray of did -- patreaus did, he released information that was known to be classified. i believe he also stored classified information on an insecure system.

it will be very interesting to me to see whether any of the information in the 55,000 pages you know, when the story first broke, her defenders said to debit things that we now know -- one of which we now know to be false. which is this does not matter because hillary clinton was only e-mailing people at state.gov addresses, so all of them would have been captured anyway and it is a non-issue. then we found out that her aides use those addresses and that means 30 medications to one another would not reach state department service. another thing, it they said categorically, she did not discuss classified information on her e-mail. maybe that is true. if the state department goes through 55,000 pages of e-mails and processes them under th