i think the second circuit put this back in congress' lap and say congress did not authorize this under 215 and if they want to be explicit about that, they need to ask. they made note of the timeline. there is an analysis of the 215 program that suggests they would not look kindly upon it the way it is currently constructed. i think there is politics in this. in the house you would not get a clean reauthorization of the program through, so the real question for senator mcconnell to take the legislation or do you let the program expire. mr. vitka: i want to highlight this was a reuters report, and it detailed and i will ask

patrick to explain it and bob to comment, but to present the severe dissonance that exists in terms of what this is. nancy, described it as phoning up investigations and said she'd never heard it anything like it. and senior dea officials called it decades old, a bedrock concept. and nancy was a judge, by the way. patrick? mr. toomey: to describe what and some of the critical -- criminal cases we litigate, and articles described, and articles have expended on especially to the dea's program and recent disclosure of bulk collection of phone calls out of the u.s.,

parallel construction is an effort to construct a parallel source for certain evidence in investigations. it often occurs in certain senses. where we see it or wait believe it happened where investigators obtain information using one authority, which is potentially controversial or novel or legally untested in the court and they rely on that authority to obtain information. investigation proceeds with a bit of it and on the base of the information, and they subsequently obtained the same information using a more traditional law enforcement technique, like a rule 41 search warrant or subpoena for billing records. one example would be relying on the hemisphere program or even the 215 book election phone records program to identify a person via their phone records. building investigation, using that information, and then using

a subpoena targeted at that now known person to obtain the same phone records and when you end up in court, at the point of a prosecution, telling the defense only that the records were obtained via the second amendment, via the traditional subpoena that does not raise eyebrows, and never disclosing the fact that agents were tipped off or investigators relied on information passed by intelligence agencies that was obtained through fisa, executive order 12333 215 or one of these were exonerated authorities written in our view and in the view of many of the defense lawyers and even former judges, this is a violation of the rules and the constitutional rules that entitled defendants to seek to have an opportunity to suppress the fruit of the poison tree, to argue before a court that the surveillance was unlawful and that the

government's evidence is derived from that surveillance. mr. litt: if nancy says she had seennever seen anything like this, she is disingenuous. if you take references to 215 out and substitute for them confidential informant, this is something that has existed for decades. the government does not have disclosed the identity of informant provided that tip that started an investigation. the relevant factor in terms of discovering opportunity is is the evidence being used at the trial against the defendant the fruit of other activities? and there is a well-developed jurisprudence about what is and what does and does not constitute the fruit of the poisonous tree, and including concepts like independent source, and this has long been the law. it is no different in the

concept -- in the context of these programs. the fact that a government agent was alerted to the existence of the defendant by a particular source does not necessarily give the defendant the right to suppress that basis unless the evidence was derived under standard fruit of the poisonous tree rules from that -- mr. vitka: do those rules apply in the context of bulk collection? mr. litt: why wouldn't they question mark -- why wouldn't they/? mr. toomey: i would add two things and say i strongly disagree that the identity of a confidential informant which it is true, there are cases that talk about whether it has been through a balancing test are entitled to get the name of the details about the -- mr. litt: or the existence of

the informant's tip? i was a prosecutor for six years. mr. vitka: does the judge know in that context? mr. litt: sometimes the judge knows and sometimes not. mr. toomey: sometimes prosecutors are arguing for themselves. that decision is never put before a court, ever obviously put before the defendant, and the government has an interest in reaching a determination and from what we are seeing in the dea disclosures, structuring its investigations and the trail of what is recorded in agents' notes reports and court applications to suggest that in fact those sources were not relied upon when they were. and that is problematic. the government has an interest in making the chain from point a to point b as attenuated as possible to avoid court review

of these programs, and we have seen not least in the context of 702 that the government has used an extremely narrow definition that qualifies of derived evidence. mr. vitka: to bring us to the oversight perspective but mieke, did you ever hear about this? should you have? ms. eoyang: i would not have appeared on the question of parallel construction, how information is used in a court case, the committee predominantly is concerned about how programs work and how they are used in the national security context for a very long time. that was the traditional espionage. there's a lot of ground to cover. the idea you would figure out how particular pieces of information be used by agencies not under the jurisdiction of the committee is not something you would normally look at.

this is also true when you talk about these old dea programs. there are two things working. what is the memento problem. while the dea might have briefed the committee at the time the program was initiated, members of congress and staff turn over, so over time you do that institutional knowledge and members of congress who come in a new congress will say i had no idea even the committee might have been briefed a few months before that. and the second is that the intelligence committee is more focused on national security agencies and not a law enforcement agency. we might not have spent as much time looking at what the dea was up to, assuming that was covered by people focused on other kinds of oversight. mr. vitka: bob it sounds like there's at least one path here where the information is collected and analyzed.

if an american turns out to be a defendant, the decision about whether or not the admitted -- the evidence can be admitted is not reviewed by judge, not reviewed by -- perhaps by judiciary, but other entities that was just discussed. at one point it does their oversight? mr. litt: is routine in all cases that decision about what evidence is turned over the the defendant are made by the prosecution. that is the way the system operates. it is the case that when intelligence surveillance authorities are involved there tends to be more disclosure to the judge of the existence of those on a classified basis than there is in non-surveillance areas. fundamentally, this is the way to criminal justice system operates. the prosecution has a large file. it looks at rule 16 and determines what is disclosed to

the defendant. mr. toomey: in terms of mistreating how deep the practice goes and what it keeps pendants and courts from considering, the dea program described in the usa today story is a good illustration. that is a program that has been around or was around for 20 years. it is a program that agents interviewed said they consulted virtually every day. yet that program did not come to like in a criminal prosecution until 2015, until january of this year. it is a program that is used that widely and i believe that program is not even classified, is kept from defendants in such a white grains of cases, there is a need to reevaluate how

parallel construction is used, and understand the legal rationale that underlies it within the justice department and how these government agencies are making unilateral determinations about what is derived from what. mr. vitka: i think we have to wrap up now. as much as i would like to keep discussing this. there was one last thing. this showed up. yesterday senator burr was voicing a serious and lengthy defense of the section 215 metadata collection program. he said, and i do not know if there has been time to clarify but in the statement he said that 215 provides for the collection of all phone call records and i.p. addresses. i do not know exactly if he misspoke or something else, and

so i am not going to propose to bob something about whether or not this is ongoing because i said that your answer be will you cannot answer, but want i want to know. mr. litt: we have been clear about what that 215 program is. it is a telephone metadata program. mr. vitka: could 215 b used to other raised -- be authorized -- be used to authorize internet data? mr. litt: probably not. it is not public knowledge that they instituted an internet metadata program that used different authorities. i think there was a reason for that. mr. vitka: i think that is fair. fritz, i just want to give one more chance you for you to comment. parallel construction

conversation detailed, but what is striking is there such a profound cap between understand -- gap between what is understood as legal or illegal. does that bring anything up for you? mr. schwarz: i believe the nsa had in addition to this program of picking up every telegram they had, they had a watch list program, and how people got on that and what happened to the data that was collect oned, i have the vague memory that two attorney generals looked at that and said they did not think the way the information was getting from the nsa to prosecutors was appropriate, and he tried to put an end to nsa providing the information from the watch list to prosecutors. with syria they had, i do not remember, but if i were looking for history -- what theory they

had, i do not remember, but if i were looking for history one was richardson, and there was another attorney general who said we do not like the way in which nsa information is getting to prosecutors. mr. vitka: with that, i will stop the conversation portion of this and move on to questions and answers. if that is ready -- and i know that dan has a question, and i want to give him time, but if you have questions, raise your hand and matt will come around and provide you a microphone. >> i work at the sunlight foundation. thanks for joining us today. mieke, you talk about the memento issue with congressional oversight. is there inadequate record-keeping around some of these things to make it hard to

track over congresses? i would like to hear more about that. ms. eoyang: i do not know if that problem has been fixed. we had transitioned between spaces, and the challenge of finding congress' own legislative history, even the classified history so you could look at what previous congresses had done going back for the house -- was quite difficult which reinforces the memento problem. try to go back and find information that would not be in executive branch control, but hearing records internal documents prepared by the committee, having classified annexes, not having that history on site and readily available made it more difficult for members to be able to do historical persons. mr. litt: one of the answers to

that problem which is a real problem, is the existence of the full-time professional staff and permanent staff of the committee and it is a disadvantage to have staff members covered each member, because every time you have rotation on the committee your staff turns over. these committees have people who have been staffers were many years and have the institutional knowledge that can help them with this. ms. eoyang: they have both professional staff and the person who well help an individual member through. mr. litt: i know that leadership does not give them enough resources. ms. eoyang: they are terribly under resourced. mr. vitka: i will quote you on that. dan: bob, a question for you. i wrote earlier this week about how the nsa computers can and do extract text from voice, and is a pretty transformative technology. it makes it easier to search phone conversations in bulk.

the public will not know about this, but for the snowden archives. how could we possibly have debate implications and establish limits for technologies like this, or is it none of our business? has congress been briefed on this? have they weighed in on this? mr. litt: that is example of what is wrong with a lot of media coverage, and even edward snowden said he thinks a lot of the press reporting has gone too far. that story made absolutely no decision between technical capabilities and legal authorities. there are all sorts of technical capabilities that and is. i am not commenting on the existence or nonexistence of any such authority. the question is when are they used and what are the legal authorities under which they are used. that is something that cannot of the press reporting completely ignores, including that story you wrote. [indiscernible] mr. litt: you know what the

legal authorities are. you know the authorities under which nsa can collect. it's not use any technical capability to do things that it is not allowed otherwise to do. mr. vitka: anyone else with a question? >> thanks for all the panelists coming out today. really appreciate it. mieke, i'm former staff and i do not work on the committee myself, but i have worked for one of the members, who i think bob, you knew and had interaction with. one of the things that he always complain about was the 20 questions problem. i think we have covered that a little bit, but the thing i really want to ask today, and this is maybe my 20-question moment, has the -- either by itself or in concert with the other agency i.g.'s conducted a

conference of look at all of the surveillance programs and activities carried out under these authorities that you have discussed, whether patriot act fisa whether 1233?3? mr. litt: the answer is no. other outside bodies have been doing does, president's review group and so on. two, the resource implications of that and the number of tasking that the -- gets dripping from congress are such make that impractical. so the icig -- there was a conference of look a number of years ago. we just released some governments that were declassified with a multi-i.g. look at earlier programs, and we have just released does. they're not been anything done in recent years. mr. vitka: i have a quick

questions and we have another one. fritz -- i do not know if most americans realize there's a secret court, if you will, in america. is that appropriate question mark -- is that appropriate? should america have a secret court? mr. schwarz: it is not so new, by the way. when you have search warrants granted in an ordinary criminal case, is done in effect by a secret court. and i think the existence of fisa among the public is fairly well-known. a fair question is, shouldn't fisa do more to hear the other side, and i think they definitely should come and they would be well served. it would make them better. it would make them more

believable if they did more to hear the other side in arguments and whether that is as counsel for target, which is difficult to do because they cannot really reveal that someone is a potential target, or it is a general amicus comes in, but in a way that remark of mine i think shows where fisa has been in my opinion this used recently -- misused recently, and where instead of it deciding particular cases which courts have jurisdiction to decide cases and controversies and doing it in secret when you're deciding someone's records be looked at, does not trouble me. but i think they were asked over the last years and they agreed to do tasks which really are not the proper role of the courts making judgments sort of on

administrative issues. mr. vitka: what about when they reach issues of law, to put it properly? the definition of relevance which is in context? mr. schwarz: it depends how it comes up. they should not sit around, as the second circuit in the case, deciding what relevance means great i do not think they should talk about abstractly what is relevant. i think to do that without an adversarial presentation is inappropriate and far more likely to have them take mistakes. so they would be better off in having a more adversarial process in any matter which is beyond should john jones' records be looked at? ms. eoyang: people talk about

special advocates, but that is a person who is making arguments hypothetically in the abstract. what about the possibility that someone who was served with an order from the fisc could have standing to challenge that order, the port adversarial this in the proper -- adversarialness ? mr. schwarz: what the usa freedom act is provide the ability for the creation of a panel of cleared lawyers who the fisa court could appoint that presents a substantial issue of law or policy to come in and make an independent presentation that is not now made. mr. schwarz: should the fisa court the deciding policy questions, as if they are little branch of the legislature? mr. litt: that is not different

from what courts do in other words situations -- in other warrant situations. the judge has got to make that decision and the judge makes a decision in the abstract without an adversarial presentation. the difference here is that we are setting up a method because there is less other review of fisa court decisions than there is of warrant applications, we are setting up a process, and i think the administration indicated it supports this whereby when those kinds of issues are presented to the fisa court, there's an opportunity to bring someone else into present a different view. mr. toomey: the decision or one of the decisions that fritz is talking about is the differs between a particular rise to demand for a criminal suspect or a suspected foreign agent record

and programatic review of the 215 program or minimization or targeting procedures that govern 702 surveillance. there is not a particular person who is the suspected foreign agent or is the target of that surveillance that ever comes before the fisc. the fisc is weighing in on whether the presents themselves, i can to whether the government intends to apply the right for middle and when it goes out and decides how to target people. but not any application to a particular person. and that even former judges of the fifth have commented that change for the fisa court has been a significant one from where it was started in 1978 and where it is today. mr. litt: i think it is true. what we've done is we've taken a whole category of activity that generally speaking and throughout most of the world

have no judicial supervision at all, and up until recently was considered an inherited a scan function, and we brought the courts into the system. so actually, what it has done is it has increased judicial involvement in activities that previously had no judicial supervision whatsoever. mr. vitka: this is one of the ways were parallel constructions becomes one of the odd points, because the bob's disruption of the fisc court does not translate into an adversarial setting where information has remain classified, is not end up for the defendants, or the existence of it does not end up before the defendant. i would add for the staffers in the room that the special amicus in the usa freedom act does not have access to privileged information, which would be great if that got fixed before it got enacted. mr. litt: what kind of information do think the special advocate should have access to?

mr. vitka: state secrets, exec the privilege. mr. litt: it is clear the amicus will have access to classified information. i do nothing amicus will have access to the internal opinions back-and-forth in the executive ranch. i do not think the amicus should have access to that. mr. vitka: do it is written is just that it shall have access to information that is privileged seems to be waiting for not yourself or anybody who is currently in office, but at some point it seems like there is wool to be pulled over their eyes. another question. >> i'm a frequent foia litigator, and i obtained documents that should the department of defense is developing not just speech to text, but also speaker recognition technology.

two parts my question. the first is, if the government does not believe it has the legal authority or the intent to use that kind of technology, why spend taxpayer dollars on it? it seems it would pare well with what the nsa is already doing. i do not think it is an accurate curly to like in a in informant to a government program like the nsa collection program. government program triggers certain fourth amendment protections that a private voluntary informant would not trigger, so that seems an inaccurate corollary. mr. litt: we disagree on that. on the first one, i am not saying the government is not using these technologies. i am saying they do not expand the authority of the government to do anything that he cannot legally do now. ms. eoyang: to the clear -- to be clear, there private sector entities that are developing

these capabilities. if you use -- the fact that the government the pumps additional technology and spends money should not come as a surprise to anyone. the government will spend more and do it more slowly. but speech detection capability is not necessarily something that is that automatically pernicious if you are talking to google or siri. mr. vitka: but when a private company does it, it is a bit for revenue. when a government doesn't come it is an expression of the will of the country. ms. eoyang: it depends. somebody who is driving a humvee down a road can talk to its navigation system without taking their hands off the wheel, that is a different reason for developing the technology than using it to do math searching -- mass searching.

that is an important question, where are these being used and underrun authorities there are benign reasons to develop some of these technologies as well. >> this is a technology specifically being designed to be used in telephone communication collection. it is being designed to be able to detect speech, then turn it into text and do keyword searches and recognize who the speaker is, specifically for surveillance scenarios. mr. litt: tell me what you think is wrong with that. >> not necessarily that anything is wrong with it, but looking for protections in place so there's not further privacy violations. you can see how this would be paired with telephone to selection capabilities the nsa already has. mr. litt: if nsa were to use that in ways that violated its authority, it would be a problem.

if they use that in furtherance of their existing authorities and within those authorities, it is not a problem. the technology is not the problem. the legal authorities are. >> i agree with you. technology is neutral. what we need our protections built around this technology and for that we need transparency. mr. vitka: i think the second circuit opinion reveals to us the critical issue of who makes that determination. this program, the metadata collection has been going on for many years. it was not until the leaks occurred that it ended up having standing to be challenged before a court of appeals. what is the alternative, if not transparency? frankly, an adversarial system that produces an independent decision on whether or not this is lawful. mr. litt: whether or not what is lawful? mr. vitka: the policy decision to develop technology -- mr. litt: there is nothing

lawful or unlawful about a technique that converts speech to text. what is lawful or unlawful is what communication the nsa collect, and under what authority. that is what we have been much more transparent about in the past. that is what is fully known to the intelligence committee, who are the authorized overseers. how it is that nsa is able to implement its lawful authority can frequently be the kind of thing that does in fact cause damage when it gets out there. i'm not specifically acknowledging or denying any particular capability. i'm only saying that the focus needs to be on what are the authorities the nsa is using and what are protections around the execution of those authorities? >> tell the fisa court we are

doing what? >> did you tell the court you were using speech to text and voice intercepts? mr. litt: i am not going to confirm or deny that that is true. the fisa court order specifically dictate what we can do and cannot do in conducting collection. you have seen those orders. you know what they say. we can do, the orders provide what kinds of processing we can do on them. we do what those orders authorize. if the orders authorize it, we are allowed to do it. if they don't, we are not. it doesn't matter whether we use these to text -- speech to text recognition tools or 800 monkeys at typewriters. >> so there is something in those words about speech to text processing? mr. litt: the orders speak for themselves, and i'm not saying

anything about speech to text processing. mr. vitka: i would point out one more thing. this highlights a distinction that exists when you have the opinion that we had. the question of whether or not an algorithm going through collected information counts as a search. that is a real question. and hypothetically speaking, i would be very interested. you may know about this as well. if searching against a database is a search under the second circuit, but not a search under fisc what is speech to text? is that a search? is that counted as a search? ms. eoyang: the question on that is the particular communication you are looking at that you want to convert from speech to text. the question is, how did you

pick that out of your haystack? that is the question that bob is trying to get out. what is that? is it that, if it was saying look, you have both collection of something and we are doing it on everything, that is a different question. if you are processing the entire haystack, versus processing select communications, that's the question about technology. you need to know, what were the criteria for that selection? we had this debate all the time. in order to find a needle in a haystack, first you have to find a haystack. people felt you needed a lower level of scrutiny about the haystack. but it's not like you were going back and saying, ok, what is the level of scrutiny on the selection? this is in the early days. things have evolved legally since then. there's a real question in the second circuit, at what level is

there a search? at what level is there any fact? -- and effect? that is a question, if a country, it is not clear where people come down, the communications they are putting out there into the world. a question about the third-party and metadata and the rest of that, i think different people might feel differently about it. but not until recently did we have a national conversation about it. mr. toomey: should --mr. schwartz: shouldn't the arbiter be something -- ms. eoyang: it depends on the context in which you are asking the question. if you are talking about the 702 program, then no, because you have a challenge within 702, a built-in oversight structure. if it is something that is in a title 18 context, then probably yes.

but i don't know, in the 12 333 context, i don't know if you could do judicial oversight. it is a different context depending on what communications you are talking about. mr. schwartz: last question. >> i'm wondering if you can discuss, i know there is discussion of this in the book, but attempts on the congressional oversight committee to get information declassified. it often seems that the tools of congress for doing that are limited. congress often does not try. what are the obstacles to try to get information declassified in congress? ms. eoyang: on the intelligence committee, i would say that the desire for declassification is lower because you are dealing with everything in a classified

space anyway, so you are having those conversations in a protected environment. it is only when you are having the conversation and externally that it is a challenge. for a long time before, we got through public debate starting with the 702 debate, it was difficult to get the community to break down exactly what was classified on what level, so you could actually have a public debate, a classification guide to help members have a conversation where parts of it were classified and parts of it were unclassified, to describe that well. i think members of congress are hesitant, for a variety of reasons to take unilateral action, which they could do under the speech and debate clause, or go to the committee to declassified things absent executive branch input, in part because they are so dependent on the executive branch for continued access to classified

information, and that really is, i think, the nuclear option in terms of putting information out there. they are cognizant of the ways in which it could become very difficult if they reveal classified information in a way that could undermine security. because they take their job to secure the nation seriously, they are hesitant to do things they feel might underline that. mr. schwartz: congress has the power to declassify, but they have to go through a process. and it is not easy. some individual senator getting up and reading a classified document and saying it is protected under speech and debate, i think, is not a desirable way to go. but the committee can declassify. they don't have to wait for the president or wait for the cia. and i think they are a little too subservient. but if you don't have a unified

position, you are not going to have the power to do it. we did it, sometimes. we did reveal some things that the executive branch didn't want us to. and we were right. the shamrock program was one example. we were right to reveal those things. but we had a sort of unity. right now, it is going to be very difficult, like in the torture report, to go beyond where they were, we would not get a congressional vote or a leader's vote to allow it to the committee. there's two or three ways it could be done. they have the power. they should be a little more willing to at least consider doing it. but you cannot do it unless you have a very solid backing for the decision. ms. eoyang: this goes to a

question that really addresses the quality of congressional oversight, the commitment of the leadership of the congressional committee involved. that varies from member to member. i worked for members who pushed very aggressively for agencies to declassify information, personally getting involved in the conversation and pushing through the bureaucratic process that declassification might normally take. then there are other members who would prefer that nothing be declassified at all. the level of a member's commitment to having the debate in public versus having the debate behind closed doors, and a member's commitment to aggressive, skeptical oversight versus a more friendly relationship really will change the quality of the ways the committees interact with the agencies. they set expectations for the agencies, when you have a long time with one kind of oversight

or another. they get used to that, and when change comes it is a tough adjustment. mr. schwartz: --mr. vitka: we are firmly over time. thank you especially to bob. it is critically important to have the intelligence community from the inside represented here. thank you, again. thank you all for being here. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> wrapping up this conversation about surveillance and transparency. if you missed any of it and want to go back and watch again, you can find it in our video library at www.c-span.org. this sunday, c-span present the children and grandchildren of america's first families, painter the two first ladies and remembering like in the white house. caroline kennedy, jenna and barbara bush, linda johnson roff , among others. here's a preview. >> she was the first first lady to ever invite an african-american woman to tea and it caused a tremendous scandal. she was the wife of a congressman elected from chicago, an african-american couple, and it was a tradition that they would invite all the

new members of congress' wives to tea. they knew it would be a scandal, or it could be a scandal, so they tried to handle it right away, but decided to go ahead with it because it would be a good move for the country. it did create outrage. to make her feel better, my great grandfather the next day invited her husband. so this was the first time an african-american was invited to the white house publicly. booker t. washington had been invited, but it was a secret meeting. >> conversations with the children and grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren, of america's first families, sunday on c-span. here is a quick -- >> here is a look at featured programs this weekend on c-span networks per set at a morning beginning at 10:00 eastern on c-span, live from greenville south carolina for the gop freedom summit. speakers include wisconsin governor scott walker, texas senator ted cruz, carly fiorina

ben carson, and florida senator marco rubio. mother's day, starting at noon eastern, america's first families member first ladies featuring the daughters of jackie kennedy, lady bird johnson, betty ford, and laura bush. on c-span 2, john krakauer on sexual assaults in the u.s. focusing on the college town of missoula, montana. sunday evening the first female four-star general talks about her life and military career. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday afternoon at 4:45 eastern remembering the liberation of nazi concentration camps with kurt cline, who as a teenager escaped persecution by coming to the u.s. lost his parents to auschwitz, and as an

interrogator for the u.s. question hitler's personal driver. and, the end of world war ii in europe, with dignitaries and veterans commemorating events at the one or two memorial in washington, d.c. a complete schedule of events at www.c-span.org. >> up next, a look at the book "clinton cash -- the untold story of how foreign governments and businesses made bill and hillary clinton rich" about the clinton personal finances. the author talks about the reception of the book. the book. peter schweizer joins us from tallahassee. on page 100 83, you write that the clintons are perhaps the most politically's -- of their generation. they know how things work in the corridor's of power and around the world. they know that foreign governments are trying to influence machen foreign policy and they know that bribery is rampant around the world. they have numerous avenues for making money.

some of those avenues may not be as lucrative as giving a $700,000 speech in nigeria, but they would be much -- guest: one of the defenses you hear from the clinton camp is that they are unaware of certain things, or perhaps there is nothing seriously afoot with all the money flowing to the clinton foundation or to them as speaking fees. but they have been players on the international stage a long time. a lot of the people who pay for speeches by bill clinton they are not an insurance company in the u.k. or a media company in germany. these are companies that operate in places like nigeria, south america, and some of these individuals have sketchy histories as it relates to issues involving financial crime. i think the clintons are not ones who would be shocked that there is gambling going on as

it was set in the film. they know exactly what is going on. that is what it is -- that is what is troubling, that they do not seem to have a filter that prevents them from taking money from sketchy characters. host: why don't some of these foreign governments or leaders give money directly to their own countries where it is needed rather than the clinton foundation? guest: that is a great question. christopher hitchens, a liberal writer, asked that very question and asked why is it you have these oligarchies in the third world in places like india or africa, why are they sending multimillion dollar checks 10,000 miles away to the clinton foundation, ostensibly to send that money back to do work in their own countries. the answer that hitchens gave was it is because it was a way of influence peddling.

with a former president and a former president whose wife is first a powerful senator and then the secretary of state. that is what i think is mystifying. if you are in india and concerned about development poverty, you name it, it does not make a whole lot of sense to send it to new york city. why not work with the legitimate charities in india doing the same thing? that is one of the things. in addition, the timing of these donations is puzzling. host: kazakhstan, walk us through what happened. guest: causing stone is an oppressive government that has ruled that there since the collapse of the soviet union. they are rich in minerals. they have a lot of uranium which of course fuels civilian nuclear technology and military

nuclear technology. in september of 2005, l clinton is there was a canadian mining investor -- bill clinton is there with a canadian mining investor. clinton says nice things about the dictator of context on. in a couple of days, the canadian investor is granted uranium concessions. he later spends $30 million to the clinton foundation. if that is not interesting enough, this uranium deposit becomes part of a company called uranium one, a canadian company. they start acquiring uranium rights in the u.s. his is a small uranium company but eight other individuals connected with this company also start making major contribution to the clinton foundation. the chairman rights multimillion

dollar checks. those contributions were never disclosed by the clinton foundation. we found them in canadian tax records. the financiers in the company are major clinton foundation contributors. you have a shareholder who was not only a shareholder in uranium one, he is also an advisor to the clinton foundation and a major donor to the clinton foundation. all of these assets are accumulated and is flowing to the clinton foundation. then the russian government arrives and does we want to buy uranium one, because they have had a long interest in cornering the uranium market. this is a personal desire of vladimir putin. he authorizes the release of funds to buy this uranium company. in order for russia to acquire 20% said 25% of all uranium assets in the u.s. it requires

federal approval. there is a committee that requires a number of government agencies to sign off on this deal including the state department. they do sign off on the deal. what is troubling about hillary clinton in this is that no other government agency that approves this is headed by somebody who received $145 million to their foundation from denying individuals connected with this firm. the second thing troubling is that hillary clinton had a history of opposing precisely these kinds of deals. where a foreign government wanted to buy a critical industry in the united states. both of those things raise questions about what her involvement was in this. the clinton campaign says she has no knowledge of this, was not involved in this. national polls show more than

half of the american people question her trustworthiness and honesty. i do not think her verbal statement on this is going to be enough. i think there needs to be further investigation to see what precisely her role was. if three years from now we had a secretary of defense who had a private foundation that received 145 million dollars from shareholders and a foreign company that had business for the pentagon, it would not be enough to say did you do anything to help them? they would be in investigation and i think there should be one here. host: page five. "given my previous focus on bipartisan self-dealing and corruption, why am i focused on one couple?" you write. do i simply have it in for billing hillary? what is the question to that answer? guest: the last five and six

years, my writing has been focused on following the money in politics. i wrote about insider trading congress members and both political parties, that this pattern of stock trading. in a book that followed up on that, i looked at what i regard as extorted fundraising practices by political parties on both sides. i got the displeasure of john boehner as a result of that book. the clintons are unique and fit into this pattern. no post residency has been marked by as much money making as bill clinton has engaged in. between 2000 and one and 2012, they took in some 30 $600 million -- that is impressive in school. they have created a new model. if this model is allowed to continue and is successful will be adopted by others.

the model is getting around rules and laws we have in place that prevent foreign entities from influencing american politics. a foreign company cannot give campaign contributions to american elections. with the clinton foundation and the ability to pay speaking fees to the spouse of the secretary of state, foreign entities have a way of giving money to families of elected officials in the hope of influencing them. i think that is troubling. host: peter schweizer a way for america and media matters have with lists of what they say are errors that you made in prison cashbook -- in "clinton cash." from -- from media matters schweitzer admitted he omitted key information about clinton

foundation donors. schweitzer's owing -- is anything you think hillary for america or media matters have gotten right in the book? guest: no. what is surprising is they say the book is a doubt, but their actions do not indicate that is what they believe. if you look at the list of errors -- i am glad to go into details on every of them -- it is a classic example of misdirection. one of the things in the video they put out from the spokesman was this statement that in this uranium deal, the shareholder sold his shares in the company before hillary clinton became secretary of state. i point that out in the book, we do not know if he has shares or not. the problem is the spokesperson does not talk about the eight

other individuals who are giving to the clinton foundation and our shareholders of the deal, who are chairman of the company engaged in the company giving to the clinton foundation during the time the state department is considering this deal. they want to selectively steer the conversation one way without looking at the larger fat. they are hoping people will not actually read the narrative of the book and they will take their word for it. i think that is remarkable on their part. host: "clinton cash" is the name of the book and peter schweizer is the author. phone numbers are on the screen. you can also go to our ace book page facebook.com/cspan. we have a discussion there on the book and the topic. we begin with john in montana. you are on with peter schweizer. caller: hello peter. i would like to speak to the fact of people like george

stephanopoulos and your host the other day attacking you, personally, on your ability to do research on the clinton project. all they look for is personal attacks. i would like for you to defend yourself there. guest: i do not feel that the current conversation is a personal attack. i think it is fair to raise questions about the research in the project. i will say that the stephanopoulos interview was a little odd in that george stephanopoulos worked for the clintons. he was part of the war room for the clinton campaign. he mentioned that for four months, i was a speech writer in the george w. bush white house. but he certainly served the clinton administration longer than four months. i thought that was an interesting decision on the part of abc news.

i do not mind a vigorous conversation. what is troubling is the allies of the clintons who have engaged in vicious personal attacks against me. they try to misinterpret or dredge up a book i wrote 17 years ago and they do not want to talk about this. they want to talk about everything but this. i am encouraged by the fact that a lot of media outlets the new york times, abc news, have all confirmed reporting in the book. i think it is now incumbent on the clintons to stop the sly statements that former president clinton has said about me and engage in the conversation about eight troubling fact pattern. host: you ask in your book "i realize how shocking these allegations may appear. are these activities illegal? that is not for me to say," you

write. guest: if you look at the tone of this book, and the wall street journal has a column about this. i am not a throwing, contrary to the clintons's claim. i'm not making outrageous accusations. i am laying out the fact. that is what i am doing. i am not and do not pretend to be an attorney. if you look at some of the recent cases of political prosecutions on corruption whether that is mcdonnell in virginia senator menendez in new jersey, or the case in oregon with the governor and his resignation, i contend that from what we know now, the fact pattern with the clintons is far more troubling and developed than in any of those cases. i inc. this warrants investigation by either the fbi a federal prosecutor, or by a

congressional committee with subpoena power. you need to look at communication, have people under oath, and ask serious questions about the flow of funds and the decisions she made as secretary of state and how they benefit those who were giving her family money. host: california, democrat. caller: good morning. i have one question. please, not a short answer. do not answer this shortly. i want an explanation. would you show as much enthusiasm if you are writing about the koch brothers? thank you. guest: i focused my research on elected public officials. i think that private citizens -- we can have a rigorous debate about the role of money in politics, about if there is too much or whether there ought to be restrictions. the koch brothers do not actually vote or chart policy.

i look at you elected officials. that is what i did in extortion. i took to task both political parties and got criticized by john boehner and other republicans for those books. hillary clinton was america's chief diplomat. she charted america's foreign-policy. she had enormous power over national security and our posture overseas. her husband took in tens of millions of dollars in funds from foreign governors, foreign corporations, and from foreign financiers over her tenure that had business on her desk. the results are astonishing. one example the caller might be interested, consider this. hillary clinton, as secretary of state, is reviewing the environmental impact and making a designation on the keystone xl pipeline, a very controversial

issue. during that time, her husband signs up to do 10 speeches for about $2 million to a financial firm in canada, one of the largest shareholders in keystone xl pipeline stock. they had never paid a speech for him before, when she was not secretary of state or reviewing the keystone xl pipeline. suddenly they offer him $2 million to do the speeches and heat badly does them. -- and he gladly does them. three months after that, hillary clinton green lights that pipeline. you see that replicated over and over again. i would ask the caller cannot give me a short answer as to whether he would read the book, but actually read the book. if you do not want to put money in my pocket, go to the library. give it serious consideration. these are troubling patterns of behavior.

they have not challenged any of them. the payments, the timing, who they got their money from, the decisions hillary clinton has made. host: politico recently reported that you are looking into jeb bush for a potential book. guest: yes. we are engaged in research for about four months. as governor of florida, you do not have the global scope as the secretary of state. with the clintons, you have a longer time in public service then jeb bush. but we are following the same methodology. flow of funds. it is always follow the money for me. it is about flow of funds, did decisions benefit those contributing to campaigns are giving to jeb bush's foundation, what he did a couple years after he left the governor's mansion that was connected to it individuals that benefited when

he was governor. we're looking at airport and land deals, things related to educational reform. we expect a major report out in september. we are following the same model that we did here. partnering with major investigative units of major publications because they have a capacity to get answers from political figures that i cannot, as an author. authors tend to get ignored by political figures. if you get a call from the washington post, the new york times, abc news, you will engage because you kind of have to. host: john is in pennsylvania. go ahead. republican. caller: thanks for having me. you have done a page out of duty. -- a patriotic duty. for you to partner with the new york times, the washington post -- these are far left organizations. you are very credible.

i have been aware of the -- i was troubled, personally, back from as soon as president clinton left office. he immediately embarked on this page speechmaking. he went before financial institutions, lobbyist. getting up to $500,000. as you indicated earlier, they made the clintons, between the two of them with look advances and speeches, they made over $100 million in two years. as far as this foundation, this is a whole new idea. if are getting all this money and this foundation. as i understand, they are spending on the actual -- helping the poor about 15% of

the funds of that, into the foundation. the rest of it goes to salaries and headquarters -- host: guest: i think the color brings up a lot of good points. i think we all recognize ex-president are going to the lecture circuit and i don't think we might it at a certain level. with the clintons it is troublesome because bill clinton's wife at the time is a powerful u.s. senator and has become secretary of state. when you look at the pattern of the money they are from the speeches, it is troubling. consider one statistic. bill clinton has been paid 13 times a total of -- a total of 13 times during his speaking career $500,000 or more to give a speech. of those 13 times, 11 occurred while here -- while his wife was secretary of state. it is hard to not see them for what they are.

bill clinton has never given a paid speech in nigeria when his wife was not secretary of state. she becomes secretary of state. a businessman in nigeria who is very close to nigerian government is highly corrupt contracts for him to give to speeches for $700,000. as secretary of state, one of the things that secretary clinton has to do is look at foreign aid recipients at the government of nigeria and if they have rampant corruption and they are not improving it, federal law says they are not to get a. --aid. the only way they can get u.s. aid is at the secretary of state grants them a waiver. which secretary clinton did. you can look at this and say one is a coincidence, but you find a pattern repeated over and over again. with regards to the colors question about the foundation they give about 10% of their money to other charitable organizations.

the clinton foundation model is incredibly unique. you look at the website and you see bill clinton and chelsea and hillary clinton holding children in africa or in asia. but the clinton foundation really does not do a lot of hands-on work with people in those countries. they partner with other organizations that do. they function as a kind of middlemen. the world needs its middlemen but it is not like doctors without borders or american red cross or some of these other organizations that are actually doing the hands-on work. the foundation is more like a management consulting firm working in the area of charity. this is the reason why for example a charity navigator which is well regarded as a evaluator of charities, they will not rate the clinton foundation because what they call "a unique is this model." and they lack internal controls as early as two finances and governments, etc.. host: eugene in kentucky.

go ahead. caller: first of all, i am not a republican democrat, did libertarian. i am an american and i do not believe in being affiliated with a party. might question is -- my question is if you and i or any other average american were brought up in question by congress and asked to give over information and we destroyed it, would we be walking the streets or would we be behind bars? congress gives them 30 days. they gave them 30 days to destroy evidence and that is exactly what they did. if we did that, they would come into our home.

host: eugene, i think we got the point. peter? caller:guest: you are referring to the e-mails and servers and i think it was a big problem. hillary clinton was on the watergate committee as a junior lawyer. there were 18 minutes that richard nixon erased. we are talking about 30,000 e-mails that it just vanished. on top of that, you have the additional problem is a point out that hillary clinton, as a condition of becoming secretary of state, this was something that resident elect obama insisted on, they were required to give all the conservators of the clinton foundation. hillary clinton promised the same thing in her testimony before the senate foreign relations committee. bill clinton went on cnn and said we will have complete transparency. as we were researching this book

and went through canadian tax records, we found that low in the hole that was not true. there were undisclosed donors, including the chairman of this russian owned uranium company that gave $2 million. those donations do not show up on the clinton foundation website. it is now betting knowledge that there are more than 1100 donors that have been non-disclosed. i think we're going to find there are more. think about this for a second. the president-elect of the united states, barack obama, signed a written agreement with him that you were going to share all the conservator information that you have. annually, on a basis for you taking the job. some of these donations start flowing early in 2009. almost immediately you violate the agreement. that is shocking. really, to me, raises huge amounts of questions. i think that's one of the

reasons you have such a high percentage of the american people in these recent surveys that say they do not trust her or believe she is honest. host: greg is calling in from virginia. a democrat. caller: good morning. i appreciate the research you have done here. i am a democrat, but i'm definitely against the clinton dynasty as i see it. and also the bush dynasty. i have to ask. it does sound bad and i'm not surprised at all. i think it is one of those absolute power corrupts absolutely and this is not surprise me in any way. i have to ask you with your resources to me i am wondering if you would ever consider researching dick cheney and george bush in regards to the iraq war and the halliburton connection and all those things where i really feel like there was a lot of money made through that bore --war where we should never have gone in there. i think it was a lie. i think it is much worse than

the corruption that the clintons i'm sure are involved with. we have wonderful american soldiers losing their lives. that to me is a far worse sin so to speak. have you considered -- host: peter? guest: i have considered looking at things in the past. i tend to look at things that are contemporary. i always think it is a legitimate issue in a fair path of investigation and i know there are people that have done some work in that area. i think it is always legitimate to ask questions about when an elected official is making decisions, who is making money on it. i am not suggesting that every elected official, that it is the only tech elation they made. i think there are other things that factor into it. maybe the money does not matter. what i am most troubled by in those concerned by is looking at patterns. that is what your me to the

insider trading of the stock market. it is one thing if a guy makes a lucky stock trade at a certain time, but when you find an elected official who seems to be really good at predicting the stock market and he is buying stocks that are in an area like health care where he is on the committee that looks at health care, that is a problem. what drew me to the clintons is the cluster and the consistent pattern of the flow of funds. i think it is always a legitimate issue and should be researched because any elected government official, republican or democrat, when they are in a position of power, they have enormous livability to hurt -- capability to hurt people or help people. i think it is always there to say he was being helped and hurt and if there is any financial motivation or connection there. host: if you want to participate you can go to our facebook page for the conversation is happening about clinton cash. here are some of the comments. james says, "why don't they help

the american people with that cash." josh says "if the book is full of lies in the clintons should sue for slander." john gutierrez posts, "quit making the sky credible. he is a conservative flamethrower from back in the day." host:next call for peter comes from peter in valley cottage, new york. republican line. caller: thank you very much for what you have done. i think you are a patriot, but unfortunately this investigation will go nowhere. the fbi director will not investigate the attorney general -- the attorney general would not investigate as you recall. with the lois lerner situation director mueller did nothing to investigate. mrs. clinton was part of the obama administration and his appointees will not do anything

that turnage is his administration. -- tarnished his administration. former president clinton, he stated and when he was being interviewed that he did not say he -- they did anything wrong. he said there is no evidence here it you know as well as i do that if it were uri and we did what we did with our server with our e-mail, the fbi would of been there that very day to confiscate your computer. this is good because it exposes it but as far as justice is concerned, nothing will be done. i propose that they should change the way these appointees are appointed. they should be from the opposite party in order to get a little bit of transparency. but when it is a friend of the president is the attorney general, there were none would be justice. thank you, sir. guest: i think the caller raises

a good point. when the department of justice or fbi chooses to investigate, there are clinical pressures that are brought to bear. i am not an attorney. i do not pretend to know exactly how the process works. i think by any objective standard if you compare the evidence that we have in this case in this book, and you compare the two cases, whether it is in virginia or senator menendez in new jersey or out in oregon, it is far more compelling here than it wasn't in -- was in those instances. that's why this information is crying out for attention. i am encouraged because i think a lot of news outlets are pursuing the stories. they sort of get the structure now of what is been going on. they see how the system works that the clintons have set up around themselves or self-enrichment. they are mining these rich veins for further information and i think we will continue to see stories on this. it will not go away.

then there is the question of political courage. whether it is people that are at the department of justice. whether it is people on capitol hill that have subpoena power. whether it is a u.s. prosecutor somewhere. to have the courage to take on a very powerful political machine that very aggressively goes after people that even question the practices. there is no question is going to take courage. i am an optimist by nature and i think that is how we have to approach these things. that justice will win out in the end. host: eugene from jackson, michigan honor democrats line. "clinton cash" is the name of the book. caller: this book to me is what your guest is made a living from. the entire republican party is -- has made a living off the clintons for 25 years.

the more books and stuff, the more popular they are in the better off they are. this book year is one of the best things that hillary clinton's has got to be elected president. well, you make a living off of this. that is "clinton cash" and that is what you were making. if you would you change something, have the fortitude to run for public office. you know there is not as much money and that is what you are doing right now. host: mr. schweitzer? guest: this is the first book i've written on the clintons and i think if the color's --caller's thesis is correct that i look forward to purchases from the hillary clinton super pac. they have done two things simultaneously. they have claimed there is nothing to this book, that it is a dud.

they have also belted a very aggressive campaign against me. so what is it? is it a debtor something you are concerned about? i think they are concerned about it. they are see the recent poll numbers. well over half of the american people do not consider hillary clinton trustworthy. their approach to this matter, i think it reinforces it. she has not discussed these issues at all. she avoids it when the press for ask your questions about it. when the book was first coming out they selectively leaked it to allies in the press. they even had chelsea come out to vouch for the wonderful work the foundation is doing and the ethics of the family. when that did not work they had bill clinton make these sort of bizarre statements about me from africa. it still has not gone away. the question becomes does an individual that wants to be the leader of the free world president of the united states doesn't she want to just come out and answer some simple questions about this? that is

really all that people are expecting. host: as this book will try to show you, speechmaking doesn't happen in a vacuum. it is part of a larger pattern of activity that is never before been exposed to public scrutiny." you go on to say there is nothing clearly illegal about these payments. "their source, size, and timing raises serious questions deserving of deeper investigation." mr. sweitzer's book is published by harpercollins. a close associate of the clintons will be on "washington journal" on monday morning to take your calls as well. alan in michigan. guest:caller: you guys are always doing the same thing. you're trying to hate a lot of hate and discontent over every little episode the goes on.

i recalled you saying earlier that you want to do bush-cheney, halliburton, but it's all about chasing the money. you would to chase the money but you don't want to go i too far. you go back to far, you are dealing with cheney and bush and halliburton and iraq and weapons of mass destruction. foxnews and you guys like you all you do is put hate and discontent in the country. let amulet -- ambulance chaser lawyers and hustlers making money off of hate and discontent. host: peter? guest: i am not sure of the caller heard the part of the conversation. we are doing an investigation of jeb bush. unlike dick cheney, he is contemplating running for president. we think that is relevant and people ought to see what information is there. i would encourage him in

september, if he is so inclined, to see what our reporting and what information comes out. on this larger point, i would encourage -- he probably does not want to buy the book. go to the library and read it. there is not a hateful word in the book. it is very dispassionate. there is a column in "the wall street journal" talking about is just basically recounting the facts and laying up the narrative. you have guys like professor jeffrey sachs from columbia university who is hardly a conservative who heads up the institute, and is on msnbc this morning talking about the fact that yeah, it is right. the clintons are lowering the lines. there are some trouble some things going on. i am not sure what to tell the caller. i do not think it is helpful -- hateful to bring up concerns about foreign money flowing to the family of the secretary of state while she is making decisions that affect them. i think that is a legitimate

story. host: page 113. "the ericsson corporation decided to sponsor a speech by bill clinton and paid him more than he ever been paid for signal speech. $750,000. according to clinton financial disclosures, ericsson had never sponsored a clinton speech but now it apparently thought would be a good time to do so." what you mean by this a big a time? what was happening? guest: this was in 2011 when they decided to give them the single biggest payday ever. $750,000 racing will speech. as you recounted, they had never paid them for a speech before. ericsson, the swedish telecom company, was in trouble with the state department at this time. they had been selling telecom equip into a run. --iran. they had been named in state department reports about selling

a club into belarus, another oppressive government. they were state department cables a came out the wiki leaks that the state department officials under hillary clinton were pressuring the sweetest foreign minister -- swedish foreign minister on companies like ericsson that were dealing with -- doing this. why would they decided this point in time to pay bill clinton this outrageously inflated speaking fee that is higher than he'd ever been paid before? i think that context is extremely important. you can look at that case and say, well, maybe it is coincidence. but you have the same thing with the keystone xl pipeline case i brought up. you have a case involving the united arab emirates that takes place. there are multiple examples would just the timing of these payments and the size just is not pass the smell test. it deserves further scrutiny here it host: host: next call comes from taylor in south carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you for having made.

i want to talk about big money and politics. especially from foreign donators. that really raises my eyebrows. it was donating and what their dating for because they could potentially inhibit a national security risk. you never know what their agenda are. we know when they come around barely go this way or go that way. i seriously think that taking foreign donations from anybody outside of united states is a big no-no and essentially we should put a gap on the national amount you can get. that way we can get a little bit more content there here for the american people and they're not can be bought and basically -- and another thing, jeb bush -- host: i'm going to stick with the foreign money concept that you brought up. guest: i think the caller brings up a great point. that is what a think is so

troubling to make the situation with a clinton so unique. we have a vigorous debate in the united states about the role of money in politics. is it free speech? should there be recessions on it? are the restrictions too low or too high? that is a vigorous debate that we are going to continue to have. what we do not have a debate on is the fact that anybody seriously think scott have foreign money and living -- influencing our political process to there was a case brought a couple of years before the supreme court were couple of foreign nationals sued to say it was unconstitutional to prevent foreign nationals from intervening to campaigns. the supreme court came back 9-0. when was the last time that happened? nine have been zero to say no, this is an eminently sensible rule. we have this national consensus on foreign money. what you have of the clinton foundation and bill clinton's speechmaking is a conduit for foreign businesses, foreign governments, and foreign financiers around those rules.

and to say they are tossing tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars of the clintons, but will have no effect strikes me as absurd. especially if you're the same person concerned about domestic more -- money in politics here it. in one case you're dealing with u.s. citizens and the other case you're dealing with citizens who should have no role in influencing our leaders. host: michael from georgia. caller: good morning. this is really funny listening to this republican powwow. for the next year we're going up to listen to clowns like this here it i have worked in the government. there is no way publicans working in the state department because there are republicans working in the state department would sit back and allow hillary clinton -- president clinton to be bought off.

this guy is going out a bunch of accusations and this and that. and he has no proof. c-span should be a ashamed for having him on for an hour with nobody to speak another side. thank you. guest: i'm sure lanny davis will do an adequate job when he appears on monday. all i can say to the caller is i would encourage you to at least read the book. you condemned it before you even read it. your statement about people that were not allowed this to happen. one of the things i point out in the book is -- and a book called "the clinton blur" is how at the state department hillary clinton rot in people to senior positions and gave some of those people sge, special government employee status, which allows them to maintain their outside commitments. you have commit -- individuals doing the work for the clinton foundation that are also working for the state department at the

same time. they did this by abusing a law that i've been set of years ago. this law was set up so if you had an astrophysicist at university that nasa needed their expertise and they would not have to give up their tenured position, they could come to work for nasa for six months to help them on a project and then go back. the clintons abuse that and put political operatives in as as ge employees. -- sge employees. i understand the caller has his views and i respect them, but it is a little hard to condemn something when you have not read it and do not even aware of what the book contains. host: in the clinton book blurb chapter chapter five has a story about going. -- boeing. peter schweitzer is the author. the untold story of how and white foreign businesses made bill and hillary rich is the

subtitle. peter sweitzer will be both tv's guest on july 5. he will spend the hours talking about all of his books and taking calls as well. lanny davis will be on the washington journal on monday to respond to some of the things that mr. spicer -- esther sweitzer >> this sunday, c-span presents the children and grandchildren of america's first families. paying tribute of first ladies and remembering the life in the white house with caroline kennedy, barbara bush,. here is a preview. >> you don't know that mrs. hoover was the first first lady

to invite an african woman to tea. it was the scandal. she was the wife who was elected from chicago. it was a tradition that first lady is always invite them to tea. they were quakers, socially progressive's in the context of their day. they knew it would be a scandal or could be so they tried to handle it in the right way and decided to go ahead with it. it did create an outrage. to make her feel better, my great-grandfather invited her husband to the white house. this was the first time in african-american was invited to the white house publicly. teddy roosevelt invited booker t. washington but it was a secret meeting. >> conversations with the children, and great-grandchildren of the

american first families. >> they were wives and mothers. some had children and grandchildren who became presidents and politicians. they don't with the joys and trials of motherhood. the pleasure and sometimes chaos of raising small children and the tragedy of loss. just in time for mother's day first ladies looks at the personal lives of every first lady in american history. many of whom raised families in the white house. lively stories of fascinating women and illuminating, entertaining and inspiring reads based on original interviews from c-span's first lady series, published by public affairs -- first ladies is available as a hardcover or e-book and makes a great mother's day gift. from your favorite bookstore online bookseller.

>> today is the 70th anniversary of ve day which marks the end of world war ii in europe. ceremonies are taking place around the world, including today in the national mall and another in germany. this ceremony is from london. david cameron was invited by other party leaders at the event. this is about half an hour. ♪ >> the prime minister david cameron. he has returned from buckingham palace. he held a press conference today that his resignation would take effect after this server. ice. he's holding -- the prime minister said we should start by

remembering those who paid such service and sacrifice to save our country, but also to save our democracy which we have seen in action today. the first minister of wales.

announcer: his royal highness the duke of york. on the 70th anniversary of victory in europe as we prepare for a two-minute silence, all the elements are in place to pay tribute to that generation, to all the men and women who helped secure peace and freedom for our world. [bells ring]

[bells ring]

[horns] ♪ [horns] ♪

>> wales, scotland, and northern ireland. here comes nicola sturgeon, the prime minister since 2014. and the first minister of wales. ♪

[horns] >> representatives of the service chiefs. the army, the navy. ♪

the next wreath was laid by the president of the legion. 100 years later, and after lives have been sacrificed, the legion supports the armed services. vice admiral sir peter wilkinson.

the last wreath laid by randolph churchill and robert gale. robert gale was loading his landing craft with ammunition after the amphibious invasion in 1945 when he heard about the end of the war in europe. ♪

>> on this day, at this hour, we commemorate the 70th anniversary of ve day. we give thanks for all who play their part in achieving victory in the second world war. we remember with sorrow all those who were killed and whose lives were changed forever. >> the right reverend, bishop to her majesty's forces. randolph churchill will now read extracts from his great-grandfather, winston churchill.

randolph churchill: the extract from winston churchill's speech, the eighth of may, 1945. yesterday morning at 2:41 a.m. at headquarters, general jodl, the representative of the german high command, and grand admiral doenitz, the designated head of the german state, signed the act of unconditional surrender of all german land, sea, and air forces in europe to the allied expeditionary forces, and simultaneously to the soviet high command. today is victory in europe day. hostilities will end officially at one minute after midnight tonight, but in the interest of

saving lives, the cease-fire began yesterday, to be sounded all along the front, and our dear channel islands are also to be freed today. the german war is therefore at an end. after years of intense preparation, germany hurled herself on poland at the beginning of september 1939 and, in pursuance of our guarantee to poland and in agreement with the french republic, great britain, the british empire and commonwealth of nations, declared war upon this foul aggression. after gallant france had been struck down we, from this island and from our united empire maintained the struggle single-handed for a whole year

until we were joined by the military might of soviet russia, and later by the overwhelming power and resources of the united states of america. we may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing, but let us not forget for a moment the toil and efforts that lie ahead. we must now devote all our strength and resources to the completion of our task, both at home and abroad. advance, britannia. long live the cause of freedom. god save the king.

>> oh, almighty god, grant that we beseech you that we honor those who died in service of their country and the crown. may be so inspired by the spirit of their love and fortitude that

forgetting all selfish and unworthy motive, we may live only to thy glory and to the service of mankind, through jesus christ, our lord, amen. ♪ >> [singing] ♪ >> teach us, good lord, to

serve you as you deserve, to give and not count the cost, to fight and not heed the wounds, to toil and not to seek for rest, to labor and not to ask for reward, except knowing that we do your will, through jesus christ our

lord, amen. our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as earth as it is in heaven. give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom the power, and the glory forever and ever, amen. under god's gracious mercy and protection we commit you. lord bless you and keep you. the lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. the lord lift up the light of his countenance upon you and give you his peace this day and always.

amen. ♪ >> ♪ god save our gracious queen long live our noble queen god save the queen send her victorious,

happy and glorious long to reign over us, god save the queen ♪ >> the duke of york leaving by the foreign and commonwealth office. leading the dispersal. the politicians take their

leave. they joined this pause in national life. they've come here to pay their respects. robert gale, the royal naval veteran, wreath layer. representatives of the three services. the navy, the army, the air force. terry charman, a respectful moment.

>> beautifully done with the simplicity that marks a lot of the remembrance in britain. all over the world as well. beautifully-maintained memorial. >> today is the start of the ve day weekend. it is the solemn remembrance today. the mood will change. >> i think the mood will change. there was a lot of solemnity in 1945, but then of course the mood did change to one of celebration. though not as a riotous celebration as greeted the armistice in 1918. >> do you think it is because the second world war went on that much longer, the end was that much longer and coming? >> the people of britain were

much more affected by the second world war than the first. rationing, intensive bombing destruction of cities. the invitation now goes to the public to lay a wreath. to take part in today's service of remembrance. >> represented by three soldiers wearing they polish eagle allies who served alongside british in the second world war. >> germans, jewish and non-jewi sh loathing the nan