just the bendable-ness that our approach to terrorism has been. the most important thing is that we need to face our fears about terrorism. there has not been real accountability. that is one of the central problems. that is why the past is important. the past happened. we can deny it and pretend it didn't exist, but it will continue to perpetuate. i think accountability would be huge. i think the whole narrative about terrorism needs to be changed in some ways and dealth with more realistically. carol: i don't know how we get there between now and then.

i don't know how 91 men that are there today are gone by the time the president goes home, leaves office. i have heard lots of ideas, but i just can't see mechanically how it happens. the only way, i guess, is if you move them to the u.s. then you can close that detention center. you can close that zone at the base in cuba. you can call that subset of those 91 men prisoners of another place, but i don't see how you get them out of there and how the next system is not guantanamo. >> the political prisoners of the u.s., they are not telling the truth. carol: i want to add one other thing.

i wrote a story last night about a man that was offered resettlement. he was given a country that was willing to take him in and resettle him. when it came time to get on that plane yesterday, he did not go. his lawyer said he was afraid of the new country that might taken in. maybe he has become such an institutionalized being that he is unwilling to take resettlement. one way to close guantanamo under the bush and obama policy is that you don't send yemenis back to yemen. they need to agree to go to resettlement in other countries. while it was unheard of before

yesterday that somebody would guantanamo,leave this mandate. it makes it hard to imagine how we can get anyone out of there. karen: i want to end this on a positive note. [laughter] so i'm going to say this -- i think it's going to close. i think it will close by the end of the presidency. i don't think it will be closer in the way i would have liked to find closure. ironically, i think the hardest nut to crack will not be the yemenis or indefinite detention, but military commissions. i would suggest that the inability of the military commissions to function now, because that is resolvable. on that note, thank you so much for joining us. we will see you next year. [applause] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> senator ted cruz holds a news conference to address claims made by donald trump. after that, we year donald trump campaigning. later, senator marco rubio is endorsed by nikki haley. thursday, ahead of this weekends primary, c-span's coverage continues with jim bush at a town hall hosted by the columbia tourism and lodging association in south carolina. see it live at 11:45 a.m. eastern on c-span. later, john kasich holds a town hall with supporters at clemson university's strom thurmond institute. we are live at 2:15 p.m. eastern .

weekend, the c-span cities tour takes you to greenville, south carolina, to explore the city's history and literary culture on book tv. >> in 1939, when europe went to war, our allies looked to washington, d.c. for goods and materials they needed. washington, d.c. looked down to the textile capital of the world, and government contracts came funneling into this area, asking the mills to begin producing for the war effort. tv --american history >> we're standing here, and this was a nasty spot. hard to believe, looking at it.

this really was a very depressed , nasty place. it's a great story of how the community can get behind a park and start to appreciate and cherish its river and waterfall again. >> watch the c-span cities tour throughout the day on book tv and sunday afternoon on american history tv. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> senator ted cruz spoke at a news conference in seneca, south carolina to address his ongoing legal feud with fellow republican president candidate donald trump. this is 35 minutes. sen. cruz: donald's lawyer sent our campaign a cease-and-desist letter. this letter, i will say, having practiced law for many years,

this letter is one of the most remarkable i have ever read. mr. trump's lawyers contend that advertisement you just saw is "an attempt to materially mislead the public." he provides a bit more detail. he says "this attack ad is not only completely disingenuous, but replete with lies, false defamatory and destructive statements and downright fabrications." mr. trump's letter goes on to say the ad "blatantly represents to the public that mr. trump is pro-choice, and nothing could be further from the truth."

the letter concludes by threatening that if we will not pull down the ad, that mr. trump will seek immediate legal action to prevent the continued broadcast of this ad. and to hold me jointly liable to the fullest extent of the law for the damages resulting therefrom. i have to say to mr. trump, you have been threatening frivolous lawsuits for your entire adult life. even in the annals of frivolous lawsuits, this takes the cake. so donald, i would encourage you, if you want to file a lawsuit challenging this ad, claiming it is defamation, file the lawsuit. it is a remarkable contention that an ad that plays video of donald trump speaking on

national television is somehow defamation. the operative words in that ad come from donald trump's own mouth. i understand if a candidate has a record like donald trump's, how he could consider anyone pointed to his actual record being defamation. but if donald trump files a lawsuit that he threatens in this letter, that lawsuit will be frivolous, and it will result in both donald trump and any lawyer that signs his name to the pleadings being sanctioned in court for filing frivolous litigation. but before the lawsuit ends in sanctions for mr. trump, it will be important to try the merits of the case.

now, any first-year law student can tell you in a defamation case, truth is an absolute defense. which means the substance of the case will be whether or not donald trump has in fact been pro-choice. i would know. in the ad, we don't say donald is pro-choice. we simply play video of him saying he is very pro-choice, and he is pro-choice in every respect. but if mr. trump follows through on his threat to file this defamation lawsuit, there are at least 4 data points that will be relevant in litigating this lawsuit. number one, the tim russert interview. his own words set on national television. they are a matter of public record, and by definition,

repeating someone's own words cannot be defamation. once again, what he said on national television is that he is very pro-choice, he would not ban partial-birth abortion, and he is pro-choice in every respect. a second data point that would surely be relevant is mr. trump's statement in august of 2015 that he believes his sister would "make a phenomenal supreme court justice." who is his sister? a court of appeals judge appointed by bill clinton. she has an extreme left-wing record on abortion. as an applet judge, she struck down the new jersey law banning partial-birth abortion. new jersey is a blue state. and yet, donald's sister

concluded it was "irrational" to ban partial-birth abortion. that is a fringe legal opinion. that is on the extreme left of the radical pro-choice world. and donald trump, not 10 or 20 years ago, but in august of 2015 thought his sister would "make a phenomenal supreme court justice." i think there are pro-choice democrats that might disagree. a third data point in any litigation where i would remind you mr. trump's lawyer said "the ad blatantly represents to the public that mr. trump is pro-choice. nothing could be further from the truth." third data point on whether it is true or not that he has been

pro-choice for the first 60 years of his life are the contributions to democrats. donald's political contribution history is truly remarkable. this is a republican presidential candidate who has given money to jimmy carter, to joe biden, to hillary clinton, to tom daschle, to ted kennedy, to harry reid, to chuck schumer, to anthony weiner, to john kerry. you are seeing a pro-abortion democrats that donald has not supported just once, but for decades, devoting his own money to helping elect and reelect those candidates.

now, for anyone in south carolina who cares about conservative supreme court justices, we know as a fact that donald trump does not care about conservative supreme court justices. why do we know that? because nobody who cared about conservative supreme court justices would make contributions to these democrats. that is fundamentally incompatible. you cannot be funding the democrats that are fighting for liberal judicial activists on the court and claim that you actively care about having conservative supreme court justices. the people of south carolina should know if donald trump ever became president, we would see justices consistent with his lifelong panel of he has supported. consistent with his statement that his sister, a radical

pro-abortion judge, would make a phenomenal supreme court justice. and indeed, i would note the daily caller reported in between 1989-2010, donald gave $314,300 to democratic groups and candidates. even in donald's world, that is not chump change. if you look at the 2006 election cycle, that is when the democrats took over congress. donald and his son together donated $77,200 to the democrats. versus only $24,250 to republicans. donald's excuse for this, he's a businessman, he has to buy influence. he was putting his money overwhelmingly on the democratic side of the ledger. and indeed, a large share-- "a large share of trump's donations to democrats were

given to committees dedicated specifically to gaining majority control of congress." that is not buying access. that is not being a businessman and playing the game. that is helping fund the democratic takeover of congress. so if the people of south carolina think it was a good thing that harry reid and nancy pelosi became majority leader and speaker of the house, you can thank donald trump for helping fund the political effort to make that happened. i would note that donald had been unsuccessful in helping democrats get majorities in both houses, we would have never had obamacare. donald trump is a direct cause of obamacare passing. because if either house had

remained in republican control, it never would have passed. and donald helped fund the democratic takeover of both houses of congress. nobody who cares about conservative judges would help fund during the senate over to the democrats. planned parenthood is responsible for the deaths over the years of millions of unborn

children. being pro-life and supporting planned parenthood are fundamentally incompatible. nobody who is pro-life one out of the words, planned parenthood does do wonderful things. --ook forward to any lawsuit and let me note, one of the things i look forward to most of all, is deposing donald trump for that particular endeavor. take the deposition myself. , whether in as deposition or court of law, getting donald trump under oath, answering these questions -- i'll point out, it didn't work out well for bill clinton. donald trump does not want to be under oath, answering questions

about his own record. his position is that anyone who points to his record is somehow lying. lawsuit is the very definition of frivolous. donald has had a long career of using wealth and power, trying to bully others. have beeng lawsuits one tool he's used. that is not going to work here. thatl note in addition both donald trump and marco have followed parallel strategies. built on two elements -- number 1 -- whenever anyone points to their actual record, the responsive both donald trump and marco rubio is to yell the word liar. whenever anyone does as this ad

does and plays the actual words of donald trump on national television, his responses to yell liar. whenever anyone does as i did at the debate to point out donald still supports funding of planned parenthood, his responses to yell liar. when donald continued and send when that i support that, i said when we were having the fight over planned parenthood. to which donald responded by repeating on the stage in a republican primary that he thinks planned parenthood does wonderful things. i would ask each of you in the media, have you ever once in a republican presidential campaign seen a republican candidate for president praising planned parenthood on a national debate stage? mind you, he had just called me a liar for saying that was his

record. marco rubio does the same thing. marco rubio is behaving like donald trump. at the debate i made three points -- number one, that marco supports granting citizenship to the 12 million people here illegally. it's a fact he said on the debate stage that he currently supports it and he acknowledged this may not the majority view in my party, but i, marco rubio, support it. he said on meet the press with chuck todd where he said he would grant citizenship to illegal aliens with criminal convictions. the first point i made about immigration is a fact. it is his own record, his own

words. the second observation is in florida, he supported granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens. that is a fact. there's no gray area, no interpretation, it is a legislative fact. the third point i made, is marco went on univision in spanish and said on his first day in office, he would not rescind president obama's illegal acts. he said this on national television. it is this bizarre notion that words said on national television don't exist. marco's response was exactly the same -- to yell liar, liar i'm a liar.

indeed, to respond how would ted know what i said on univision, he doesn't even speak spanish. as the debate demonstrated, that was another false thing. but he did not answer the substance of anything i said. the facts were true and accurate. instead, marco and donald, their strategy is to simply yell liar, liar, liar. i will say it has been even more unfortunate that both donald and marco, in addition to yelling liar when everyone points to their actual record makes true statements about their policy positions, the second strategy both donald and marco have relied upon is utter fabrications.

yesterday, donald trump retweeted his own social media director who claimed senator tom coburn had said i was dishonest. i understand this amplified the attack donald is making. he's been screaming liar anytime someone points to his own record, so it was great to be able to point to someone else someone saying the same thing. there's just one minor detail -- the quote was a complete fake. within a few hours, tom coburn went on the record and said the quote was a "utter fabrication." in response, donald deleted his tweet. social media director deleted his tweet. then donald went on a run cast

and repeated the fabrication after he deleted tweet, after tom coburn said it was a utter fabrication, donald sat on national tv repeating things that are simply made up, that have no basis in truth, that are utter fabrications. that is a new level for presidential politics, and i would note the rubio campaign is doing the same thing. they are, right now, in the closing time of a campaign, not focused on a positive policy agenda, not focused on a sensitive difference between his record in my record, not focused on any accomplishments that mr. rubio has, but instead, devoting all their energy to screaming liar and focusing on two fabrications -- number one, the

fake facebook post that was allegedly put up retracting trey gowdy's endorsement. the facebook post was fake. we did not design it. yet the rubio campaign has over and over claimed we did. with zero evidence. falsely attributing misconduct to us with no basis whatsoever other than it did he narrative they would like to drive. and secondly, the rubio campaign is talking about the supposed push polls that have been going out. i have no idea if there have been push polls or not but our campaign has had nothing to do at that.

what is a push poll? a push poll is a poll not conducted to measure public opinion, not conducted to determine where are the candidates in which messages are resonating. a push poll goes out very widely and designed to push negative messages to reach lots of voters. often, push polls are pushing information that is nasty and false. i don't know whether there have been push polls in this campaign, but i know our campaign had nothing to do with it. and yet, marco, his campaign sent out 500,000 robo calls with a major campaign surrogate of his, accusing our campaign of being behind the push polls. he was asked today what evidence he had.

he had no evidence for that, no basis, whatsoever. it is unfortunate -- his campaign has not gotten the traction he wants. i recognize the rubio campaign is disappointed with the third-place finish in iowa and a fifth-place edition in new hampshire and the consultants running his campaign have apparently made the decision that they are one hope of doing well is to make false attacks with no basis whatsoever -- i will note the one person we know who has done a push poll is senator marco rubio. when you send 500,000 robo calls , you are not trying to measure public opinion, you're trying to push a message. what message was the rubio campaign trying to push? that the cruz campaign was unethically driving these push

polls. let's be clear -- how do we know it's marco rubio? the call ends with this was paid as for by marco rubio for president. that's how someone responds pointing to evidence. ethics matter. when you have donald trump and marco rubio repeatedly putting forth fabrication, just trying to throw mud and attack, i get that candidates want to tell voters that everyone is dirty and everyone is unethical, but that's not true.

their strategy of screaming liar whenever anyone points to their record and relying on him fabrications is not indicative of candidates running an honest campaign. with that, i'm happy to answer questions. >> [inaudible] mr. cruz: from the beating of this campaign, we have taken the high road. you have seen attack after attack and i do not respond in kind and i'm not going to. i'm not insulting anybody here. i'm responding with simple fact. mr. trump has sent me a cease-and-desist letter saying stop telling the voters my record.

that is objectively legally frivolous. i will point to substance, policy and record and say that should be the bread-and-butter of politics. the insults and falsehoods and fabrications have no business in politics. it is incumbent on all of us to speak the truth. i cannot change and impact what others do. my record and the record of donald trump, marco rubio any other campaigners. >> [inaudible] that a reality tv show is not the presidency, do you agree with the president? mr. cruz: i think a great many south carolinians are concerned that donald trump is not prepared to be

commander-in-chief. that he does not have the basic judgment and temperament to keep this country safe. as we have seen the rise of radical islamic terrorism, that has become the most important determination the voters must make. when donald trump, at one of the prior debates, evidence he did not know what the nuclear triad was, that is a real problem for someone who wants to be commander-in-chief to have no idea about the basic to defend yourselves from nuclear aggression. likewise, justice scalia's passing this weekend elevated the stakes of this election, that the people of south carolina are asking a very simple question of who do i trust to nominate principled constitutionalist supreme court

justices. there's a reason donald trump is attacking this. nobody looking at donald trump's record could believe for a moment that donald would appoint principled, conservative justices. if you look over the past decades, any time a republican nominates a judge with a proven conservative record on the bench, you had a nasty, not down, drag out title. -- knockdown drag out metal. the democrats care about court and will invest all their energy defeating a proven conservative. it is why republican presidents have decided the court didn't matter that much and they would go with a stealth candidate with no record because they are not willing to invest the political capital. the democrats are always willing to invest everything they have in confirming far left-wing justices. if donald ever became president,

we know for a fact he would not invest any political capital in confirming a conservative justice because he's been supporting left-wing democrats, writing them checks, many of whose core missions was preventing conservatives from getting to the court. no one who cares about conservative justices could write those checks. i would note the stakes -- we are one liberal justice away from losing our fundamental rights, one justice away from losing our religious liberty, one justice away from the second amendment being written out of the bill of rights. for the people of south carolina, a vote for donald trump is a vote to erase the second amendment from the bill of rights. i would note donald's response

for this is to scream liar because that is his response for everything. in this instance, i'm not basing this on a specific statement he has made. he claims he will not, but i am basing it on his lifelong record and reasonable inferences anyone can draw. he says i support the second amendment. he did not support the second amendment when he supported bill clinton's assault weapons ban. but even if you take donald at face value, that he has had a transformation, there is no reason whatsoever to think he would spend the political capital needed to appoint a conservative. which means the only reasonable inference is donald would go for the stealth candidatth