presidential contest. presidential andidate jill stein will discujoin us to discuss the party and third-party candidate. you can also join the discussion twitter.ook and

we start bymorning, asking your reaction to the string in the latest terror months.over the last 18 202-748-8000. call republicans 202-748-8001. ndependents can call 202-748-8 202-748-8002. on you can also reach us social media at c-spanwj on and also on facebook. and good morning, a little bit those attacks in nice usa today headlines said, ointed out, as i the president addressed the nation friday night where he horror has struck france again, an apparent reference to january 2015 and november, that together left in paris.eople dead

we have dozens of people ho have are died in an attack in nice on bastille day, which s equivalent to the fourth of july in the united states. it says here that president apprised of the today.on, says usa ned price spokesman says the president spoke harbaugh words regarding the situation. behalf of the american in the i condemn strongest terms what appears to be a horrific attack in nice, france, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians. the president said in a tatement released thursday night, i have been directed my eam to be in touch with french officials and we have offered any assistance they need. at least two americans were last night.killed

the two victims were identified 51-year-old shawn copeland and his son broedy, who was 11. that aticials confirmed least two americans were killed but they have not yet confirmed those identities. we are talking to you getting the latest in what has been a string of terror attacks across the united states and the world. from e joe calling in georgia. good morning, joe. caller: thank you very much. c-span. been calling. you're a great network, for 35 years. it was a terrible thing that night, and we're going to have increase our defense and do a better job of the american people against these terrible attacks. i'm a strong supporter of donald just want to say

steve moore here is a great economic advisor and he's got a article in the wall street journal and also written a great freedom, d fuelling steve moore has. anyway, we need to be much more increasing our protection of our american people, increasing our defense. joe, let me ask you this. e focused a lot on terrorist attacks, but attacks like this targets where d someone used a truck. this wasn't using firearms or explosives, although there were reportedly both firearms and truck.ves inside this do you think it's possible to protect against this type of attack? caller: yes, we're going to have to. to increase our -- we've got to do a better ob of, you know, going after do these ople that things and prevent them.

an ounce of provention is worth cure.d of we need to do a better job screening these things. i understand the person that did a criminal and had a criminal record. he should not even have been on so we need to do a better job and i think donald trump will do that and that's strongly reasons i'm for donald trump. host: okay. in today's wall street journal, an analysis about how to wider variety a of terror attacks as we saw last night. t says u.s. government has launched thousands of air facilities, l redeployed its military, moved satellites, intercepted phone money transfers and made dozens of arrests in a state.thwart the islamic group, e after time, the its affiliates and sympathizers global ring fence

launching spectacular attacks of have killed hundreds people in europe and the united states. exploited weakas or nonexistent governments in to a, iraq, and libya fortify, recruit and plan attacks. hammered soft targets full of crowded people. an airport. a concert hall. nightclub and now after last ight, a group of revellers gathered right along the mediterranean sea to watch for bastille day. up next on democrats line we calling in from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. call.you for taking my listen, that last guy and people like him, what you're reading is not the ary answer. i don't care where you look on this planet, only thing people is justice.or that's all they're asking for. if there was justice in this country, we would not have the we've got here now.

if there was justice in the middle east when george bush and attacked e iraq and did what he did to the people over there, if there was with that, isil might not be here. host: let me ask you this, for soft target attacks like this by people who, directed by isis directly or inspired by the they hear that online, are you worried about here int target attacks the united states? caller: when we take a look at ho america killing, they're killing soft targets. when george bush attacked that country, who did he kill soft targets? when they attacked libya, who did they kill? soft targets. miss, play the game fairly here. if this man was wrong, he mentally ill or very highly upset about omething because he probably could not get no egress for his hing about him or family or tired of lying

politicians who talk out of both make of their mouth who the victim the culprit. this is going on so many years a shame american people have not woke up to understand that you're not going to get and ere by more killing more killing and more killing. people need to be addressed. eople's problems need to be addressed. jobs need to be brought in here. negotiations need to be talked about. they talked about negotiations one side and droning people on the other side, bringing in and that poor country over there have not had anything done other than just lip service and giving them more weapons. george bush, just like they're with tony gland blair. george bush was done the same way. host: that was john from maryland. next, we have david calling in on carbondale pennsylvania the republican line. caller: good morning. for an honest network actually giving you good news and so forth. start, butw where to i'll just say that hillary

clinton destabilized the middle east something terrible. she got herself messed up after benghazi. lying -- oh, i can go on and on. but this president is open arms, we don't know where they're coming from, what they're going to do. we can't be kissing the ducks. we've got to get serious. host: let me ask you this. attacks thatterror have happened on u.s. soil have been carried out by folks who citizens or erican american nationals. weren't recent immigrants. how do you propose officials home-grown t against terrorism? caller: home-grown terrorism is of hard to take care because there's so many separate over the place. you can't guard against the takenet, because then they away your rights by invading the internet and telling what you to o, where you can go and what you can say.

that's what's great about the united states. we're free. well, temporarily free. i don't know how long that's going to last. but everything is being taken fr -- away from us. there's no way. how can you stop people like that? i don't know what to say. i don't have the answer. i'm very disgusted. i don't even want to vote anymore, i'm so disgusted with the system. ost: we are in the middle of a presidential election and donald trump was scheduled to announce at 11:00.g mate he has postponed those plans in in eet last night, he said, light of the horrible attack in nice, france, i've proposed conference ews concerning my vice presidential announcement. thats been reported widely indiana governor ike pence as his presidential running mate. donald trump announced this morning that another announcement will be made today about the formal

introduction of governor pence as donald trump's running mate, we continue our discussion bout the attack yesterday in france. dozens of people killed as they bastille day. from e danny calling in clover, south carolina. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. thanks for c-span. you know, the french revolution happened many years ago, what do you the call it, the thing they cut their heads off with. guilatine. caller: exactly. and they cleaned house. need to rise ple up and discourage the french leader who have allowed this situation, with all these people who came into france with no to assimilate into the

culture, and this is the result of that. you a similar k question i asked another caller. in the united states, when we've een some of these attacks, there were people who worked with these people. either born here or lived here a long period of time assimilated. do you think it's getting harder to find people? aller: they have not assimilated. they have not assimilated. they have not adopted the people culture. they are simply -- in fact, the forbids them to assimilate. so if they take their religion seria seriously, they do not assimilate. point. the whole their whole philosophy is move into other countries, increase where mbers to the point you can take over that country. philosophy.r whole host: okay, up next, we have rochester, ng from

new york, on our independent line. good morning, carol. morning.ood one thing i would like to see is more human intelligence develop citizen or u.s. national goes overseas to one of hese isis training camps or whatever that, you know, steps should be taken to make sure that they don't come back. they have an unfortunate accident or something like that, but to let citizens go over there, just and come back, is crazy in my estimation. and another thing is i'd like to more heat put on the say -- i'm not going to saudi arabia, but it's the house all these t finance religious extremists, for more error, but they seem to get a free ride. host: carol, are you concerned to t how difficult it is combat these soft target like shopping malls or other places that are

we have heavy security at airports. these other -- host: having security at totally or theater are reactionary. but i guess you can't protect like t the soft targets the shopping malls and stuff like that, but i'm not going to live my life in fear. when my number is up, it's up, ut i'm not going to stay home and cower because i'm afraid somebody is going to drive a a ck into a crowd or at sporting event, you know, i'm just not going to live like that. host: okay, all right, a little nbc news about the and brodie ean copeland, who are reportedly among those who died in the attack. they live just outside austin in lakeway, texas, according to nbc news. a statement from the family says we are heartbroken and in shock loss of brodie

friend and amazing brother who lit up our lives and sean, the father, the news has been reported in austin paper said brodie played youth baseball and his father was a coach. emily calling e in from greenbray, california, on our republican line. emily.rning, caller: good morning. you.nice to hear i would like to make two points, and the first one is, i would entire world e warn us with an alarm at all all areas of in entertainment, and therefore, we if there's something in ng, and also, i think we the united states and the police department, we cover a perimeter, and that's how we the killer inatch dallas. so i would make those suggestions. i think there are

reasons why we have black lives we did was,use what nder president clinton, we increased 500 percent for the prison, someoing to of them for lights, no lights on that rs, some things should never have happened. host: emily, let me ask you a attacks, about these and you were talking about the warning systems. that police, local officials, need more resources these ble to respond to types of soft target attacks, i sorry, in aris -- i'm the nice attack, the first esponders clearly were local officials once this happened. would you like to see more resources to local officials? yes, definitely i'd like to see them have military weapons and i'd like to see them stop a truck if they

ecide in france not to put up arricades, a truck, you know, can get through and instead, how miles that man traveled at a very fast speed and he had to e toys and things just camouflage what he really had in mind, that he was innocent, in just give me a second to get back to hillary clinton. i don't believe she has helped country and i believe that we should be very careful ecause we've got the financial crisis under the clintons. we've got so many other things i hope that , and the american people take this in mind. maybe we need change. maybe we need republicans. host: that's emily calling in from california, a little bit about the attack last night rom today's new york times which says that french officials quickly concluded that the this attack was

terrorism as the scope of the of a ter grew clear, use large commercial truck as the principal weapon of death raised how to tions about prevent such attacks. the officials warned residents and canceled all further scheduled festivities, ncluding a five-day jazz festival and a concert on friday rihana. the singer we are getting a reaction to terror attack. we have david calling in from oakland, california, on our independent line. morning, david. caller: good morning. i just think people have to get a serious where dialogue has to be had as to what we're willing to do in the what we're not willing to do. i hear people talking about arack obama taking out all the troops out of iraq, but i don't hear them realizing how many have been saved by him

taking them out when he did. we're able to decide that when saddam hussein shows up or any of these other tyrants in the world, we're able to say you know what, that's your we're not going to be involved. problem. own host: well, david, given that, do you think it's even possible to prevent attacks like this who is -- of caller: definitely not and the back to on i was going having the truth pulled out of iraq is the fact that decisions to be made in this world. i don't think anybody expected have been pulled out.f iraq when it pulled but the reality that the and can people spent money blood, you know, trying to build iraq. military of for years after the war was

spent all this money and blood, at some point, we have to be able to say we ave helped you, we'll continue to facilitate what you need. but you have to be willing to self. your own host: okay. up next, we have gary calling in from bowie, maryland. good morning, gary. caller: hi, good morning. listen, i don't know what the lady was talking about arlier regarding the hillary being bad for the country and the mention of deficit. i don't even understand that she didn't even know that when the office, there n was a surplus. furthermore, this benghazi thing is so old. people need to fact-check what they're talking about. host: let me ask you a little it about your reaction to last night's attack and terror. or you concerned with either both presidential candidates in terms of what they've said about terror so to fight

far? caller: no, actually, i think clintons would be the trust here, that they would definitely know what to do in terms of protecting our country. there before, especially bill clinton. he knows how to deal with the borders.ross the and furthermore, he's able to another te with country. that's very important. keep that in mind, that you have door to be able to communicate with these countries, especially allies, get things done across the water. but if you have a president such the donald trump, which entire world basically despises, are you ever ld going to go over there to another country and talk terms conditions on what should be done to secure our borders or safety of the the people. people got to wake up. answer, and the

they are very, very forceful in trophying people think he is the answer. host: that was gary calling in from maryland. today aid, donald trump postponed in where he was set to his vice h presidential pick who is rumored to be indiana governor mike pence. us a little bit more about that vice ben dential pick is shreckinger, a reporter from politco. good morning, ben. uest: good morning, how are you. host: great. thank you for joining us this morning. tell us a little bit more about overnor mike pence and how donald trump came to select him. sure. so mike pence is very much the safe pick for trump. he served in the house. he's now governor of indiana. he's a staunch conservative at a many conservatives in

he party are withholding their support from donald trump and are only supporting him reluctantly. has someone that has the support of the coke brothers. ven with pence on the ticket, it's not expected that the coke brothers would support trump and really political team wanted pence -- other people in orbit favored newt gingrich, including his jar ed krishner who supported, and even people on the campaign trail supported grinch. stronger had a personal relationship with newt chris christie so his apparent decision to go with mike pence, and i would disclaim that anything could happen between now and it looks like tomorrow when trump will hold the announcement. but the apparent decision to go pence indicates that trump

is willing to go outside of his personal comfort zone to do what thinks is going to be politically necessary and in cases, we've seen trump unwilling to go outside of zone so it may indicate a new personal dedication on trump's part to trying to win this thing. host: and speaking of going letide of his comfort zone, me redo a little bit about what wrote in today's washington post about mike pence and get your reaction to it. says pence's elevation to the ticket could help unify the party ahead of next week's republican national convention in cleveland. welcomed on capitol hill with house speaker paul ryan governor a good movement conservative. a deeply conservative former host, sman and talk show pence, who is 57, is a seasoned olitician who could help bring together disparate blocks of the

republican coalition. en, what do you think of that assessment? guest: i think that's spot-on. midwesterne's also a conservative, so in a place like wisconsin, where trump wants to competitive, but where a large part of the conservative really detests him and seems likely -- many republican likely to stay home in november. the addition of someone like help and d really could also help bring in money. someone like paul ryan is a very successful fundraiser. so i think that's absolutely one that pence brings. host: so talk about some of the actors that may have weighed against a new jersey governor, chris christie, who was seriously being considered by trump. they have a very long relationship. made mr. have are christie? select chris guest: sure, one of the more

interesting factors is that trump's son-in-law, jared, has become a very influential campaign and chris christie as a prosecutor charles, in father, jail back before christie was governor. made christie an awkward choice in some ways. has also spoken about someone with capitol hill experience. obviously, newt gingrich and mike pence have that in a way that christie doesn't. and pence comes from the midwest, which is a region that trump's trying to put in play. trump is also talking about put play, although not specifically in new jersey, sometimes new york and connecticut. christie ultimately is already doing what he can for he campaign. he's already making himself an asset in terms of helping with the transition talking with nd

fundraising, putting him on the in et doesn't add to that the same way that bringing mike would. host: okay. and also talk a little bit about ormer house speaker newt gingrich, a key donald trump surrogate. e was also under consideration and today has made some -- is making some headlines with very much in are line with things that trump has said after last night's attack nice. he called for deporting muslims n the u.s. who believe in sharia law, according to the hill. what weighed against him in this election? h law, accordin hill. what weighed against him in terms of this election? him, ben? ed against guest: sure, newt himself, it's him.interesting to watch he's sort of been a pundit about v.p. selection. he's gone on cable networks and discussed all over the place. describes himself as a

pirate. he said that if he were on the ticket with trump, it would be pirate, whereas pence balance, provides sort of a contrast of state predictability with trump's more off the s cuff and less traditional. nd gingrich, again, is someone who has already been participating in this campaign. ticket ng him on the while he clearly has a good trump, l chemistry with he and his wife have been friends with trump for some someone new nce is that they're taking of the fold trump's help round out image in a way that gingrich could not. host: okay. ben e talking with politico.ger of ben, there have been recent rncelopments in terms of the convention and the fight over committee rules. donald trump's delegates scored that this week.

can you give us the latest update on that? guest: yeah, sure, this went late into the night last night. here was a rules committee meeting. there were sort of two separate issues. anti-trump rebellion on this rules committee which has 112 members. people who were trying to -- laying a motion to the floor of the convention that all the delegates just vote their conscience, not be outcomes of the primarys and caucuses of their states. reforms from ome conservatiative minded or rules people like bers, the former attorney general of irginia, who wanted to ban lobbyists from serving on the rnc. states ted to penalize that held open primaries, that measure, with a trump-like figure, he had a lot of support from independents becoming the party's

nominee, again. movements failed after hours of negotiation. rnc committee the used -- what they said was a aper jam with a printer to recess for hours. it was really a pretext in some of these conservative delegates like ken cucanelli. again, the pro-trump delegates and pro-rnc delegates, they quashed the measure that would have made it possible for trump andto overthrow they also quashed some of these reforms. the most important change that happened was basically a of a requirement that whoever the nominee was had to win a majority of delegates in or territories. that went back down to five. there's a whole back story there with that one being raised last cycle by the romney people to ron paul from

beating him at the convention. noise but very little changes actually coming yesterday. meeting schreckinger, n reporter for politico. him on twitter. thanks for joining us. me. t: thanks for having host: we are talking to viewers getting reaction from yesterday's terror attack in which has left dozens of people dead and raising concerns about terrorism across the globe. next, we have jacqueline calling in from lewiston, california, on our republican line. good morning. aller: good morning, how are you. i'd like to send my prayers out o all the families and everything that's going on. that trump is ealli, what the reporter was talking about, compliment to

trump, his intelligence, about handle things,to and have really good people that too.how to handle things nd i think we stand together united, and divided we're going to fall and we're all connected earth, and this is world need i, and i think they to call an emergency united nations and see who is going to solution about hese terrorists and then we'll know who is against us. and after they get convicted for crimes, i think maybe the dictator of north korea hould be the one that gets to -- when incarcerated, he gets the punishment for them. host: up next, we have delma ohio, g in from delaware, on the democratic line. good morning, delma. caller: good morning. just concerned about

houghts of war, how many theires would want to see sons and daughters go to war. to think thathing ur young people, who are nnocent would be on ground and fighting, would mr. trump want grandchildren,his to go to war like that? i don't believe it. let me ask you this. do you believe there is a military aspect to this? i mean, the president has slowed down, for example, the reduction places like iraq terrorist the fertile ground that is there, there are there. needed to remain ost: i do believe there is an

attack. fear of, there's that you know, we in america have so fortunate to have the guide us in the right way. believe that mr. for would be to take over president obama. host: that's delma calling in from ohio. last night, donald trump reacted to the latest terror attack an appearance on fox news on the o'reilly factor. what he e a look at said. donald trump: this is war. if you look at it, this is war parts.from all different frankly, it's war and we're ealing with people without uniforms. in the old days, they would have uniforms. you knew what you were fighting. these people are allowing people into our country, who have no where they are, where

they're from, who they are, they ave no paperwork, no documentation in many cases and wants to allow 550% more in even than obama and he's letting them in by the thousands. out of control. host: and later on in that show, democratic candidate hillary also spoke on the o'reilly factor. she take a look at what had to say as well. hillary clinton: one of my to launch an intelligent surge. enough do not have intelligence cooperation between our agencies and those in other countries, including in europe, focal need to have a poi point. that.idn't know why is that happening. why don't we have the interesting? hillary clinton: i'll tell you, part, because there has been a reluctance on the part of some our friends in europe to be

as forthcoming in sharing like ation, for example, airline passenger list, i egotiated very hard with the europeans to get much more information. we've gotten some. we don't have enough, and one of their problems has been, and they better address this, and it affects us don't share enough information even across their borders. that we need strong, tough diplomacy, starting with to do our bilateral basis with individual countries, with the e.u., with ato and others, to do everything we need to be prepared to work with each ther, to ferret out those terrorists, and to prevent future attacks. ost: and that was former secretary of state hillary clinton talking to bill o'reilly last night. grace on our ve

democratic line calling in from lafayette, indiana. grace, what do you think about secretary clinton had to say? she's well, i think right. and i'd like to tell everybody out there what happened to me donald trump when i went through europe about 15 days month, andghter last we get to heathrow airport, and to e's this -- and i decide get a newspaper. there's this great big picture, like red letter color, of donald trump and underneath on earth st evil man and on the inside was all the reasons why. i didn't get to read them all. then i make friends with a lady melbourne, australia, who was originally from germany but moved there and raised her and we were reading the morning newspaper and i just casually said to her you see where somebody tried to shoot trump? was, too ly come-back

bad he missed. when the female anchors had to talk about him, i snarled.y so there's something going on in europe about trump. host: okay. ulysses calling in from copp copperas cove, texas. morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to to protect people in soft targets, when you have a you need n going on, put up barricades, have check points, i mean, because these people that are not expecting anything to happen. i'm looking at this truck through this thing, why are they having a celebration, driving is big truck down the street with nobody

checking it out before they got to the people. reports, rding to there are reports that the truck went through barricades in order the crowd but let me ask you, you've been to elebrations i'm sure to see fireworks on the fourth of july and other holidays. are you satisfied with the level see around those type of events? caller: i'm originally from new orleans. i mean, i've e, been to mardis gras. i'm sure you have. you satisfied with the level of security that are around events like that where there are of people? well, the last mardis gras i went to, it was before all this terror thing started. now, i would think they should put up better barricades just -- little barricades blocking the streets

in downtown new orleans but now the nk they need to put concrete up and have police officers there, if somebody try to run through that particular have them to warn people ahead that the truck is coming to be ready. being things the way they are now. but before they had the up in downtown new orleans was just for people. it wasn't no cars moving at all. up next, robert is calling in from aurora, indiana, on our republican line. morning, robert. caller: good morning. how are you. host: i am good. thoughts about security given last night's france? caller: okay. it's all been talk. democrats, they want to support hillary, which we done in now what she's terms.you know, obama's and i think it's time we need a what does god say

about evil? it.estroys and if we live backwards to what expects, and that's why we've got what we've got in this country. host: what would you like to see do, what would you like to see those in charge do to better protect in. eliminate ve got to this evil, these attacks on us, it's got to stop. i'm with trump on that. i'm with gingrich on that, and to be stopped. rumors of wars is going to happen. we're going to have war, and our stand and ke do the best we can. host: okay. e are taking your calls, getting your reactions to yesterday's attack in nice, france. democrats can call 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002.nts,

p next, we have lonnie calling in from dunedin, florida on our independent line. lonnie. ing, aller: good morning, it's dunedin florida. everybody pronounces it wrong. i'm sorry. thank you for the correction. caller: unfortunately, i think and all of the western countries are going to have many more of these attacks for actually, so we just have to do the best we can and defend ourselves. i think these people are just trying to wear down our we just leave aling it. we like mr. trump says, could spend trillions of dollars lose tens of thousands of soldiers, take them out. then we'd have to stay there forever because the second we leave, they'd be back again. the y main point is that

british and americans support creating these artificial countries in the middle east. think there's a need possibly, it probably won't happen for those countries, i to have a major international meeting where all the agreed parties can get together. i think borders have to be realigned and people, sunnis, sunnies, as much as possible. ost: let me ask you this speaking of international officials. paris is a close ally of the united states. the obama administration has assistance and support. would you like to see a stronger francetween the u.s. and or the u.s. take a bigger role helping our european allies fight terror? caller: oh, yeah. do that anyway. it's just i would like to see with a half million troops. i'd like to see their troops sent down there because they're by what's very much

going on. but i really do think that like -- the kurds went through their own division, and the have who are agreed just to have some big meeting and fight out what they're concerned about and make deals, create countries, and go from there. host: okay. lonnie calling in from florida, president re of obama's reaction to yesterday's attack. in a statement he said i condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific errorist attack in nice, france, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians. our thoughts and prayers are families and other loved ones of those killed. i've directed my team to be in french officials and we have offered any assistance they may need to investigate this attack and bring those responsible to justice. we stand in solidarity and artnership with france, our oldest allies, as they respond

to and recover from this attack. are getting your reaction to this the latest in the series to happen in cks europe as well as in the united states. democratic line, we have scott calling in from carson city, nevada. morning, scott. caller: good morning. host: and what's your reaction to the events yesterday, scott? well, it's just it's something that we're going to this is ome time, and because what we are doing over in the middle east is working forces. special and what we're witnessing now is witnessing the last gas of that's on its heels. they're lashing out in every and form that they can so of course it's going to disturb people. it's going to bother people and demand our g to government do more. host: well, scott, let me ask this. even if that is true, if

these -- the uptick in these are actually evident of -- evidence of terrorists strength, they still put a lot of people in danger and we by dozens of people killed one person acting in a truck. re you worried about similar attacks here? caller: well, of course i'm worried about them, but the you're not going to that. you've got one guy who, you know, takes a truck and does something that is, you know, as sinister as that, you've got to remember that the human mind is the worst weapon of mass destruction that there is. got to ride just through this, and people have to understand, we're going to lose lives, and as we go along, but it always gets darker before it gets lighter. host: okay. up next, we have james calling wichita, kansas on our independent line. james. rning,

caller: howdy. in earlier called to talk about justice and i'm calling to agree with him. the thing is, justice is restorative, reparative, it tries to rebalance the situation. and i don't think we can do this. imperial power drops on women and children and they're being killed in charge numbers in west central asia. he people there are sooner or later going to react, and they're going to react very badly. do you think there's anything that officials or anything you would like it see in the united states do to guard against these attacks? t caller: there's not much you can do. it's like whack-a-mole. you can guard against this tactic over here, and they will there.ething over

game ow, it's an endless of -- not much of a game. the united states has something military bases around the world. causes for ses are the people to react. sometimes, because of the things is the american government oing, sometimes because local distance is reacting against local distance and use the bases as an excuse. host: up next, elizabeth is calling in from michigan on the line.atic good morning. caller: good morning. host: and what's your reaction to the attacks in france yesterday? caller: well, it's horrible. here's no way whatever side you're on, any kind of thinking, nobody can say they're not horrible. the problem is that everyone jumps to this magic pill of the nited states should be doing this or they should be doing

that. it's not going to help. are all over the world with our bases and everything, but declared war. one guy gets in a truck and kills that many people, you that. foresee you can't prevent that. here's just so many things going on that are all over the place. path to a common actually doing anything. we can help when requested, but we just can't go in there, there are these people who are just so militarily war-mongering mind-set. that. can't -- we can't do and i hope obama with stands that and i hope whoever is next of stands that type pressure. we just can't go in there -- host: elizabeth, let me ask you make you less likely in the united states to go to an event where there may of rowds to go to a fourth

july or labor day event? those things could start being common here. been now it's mostly are citizens here that have caused tragedies, and some maybe haven't been there for generations like people be to be a ve to real american. stop living just your life, but you need to weigh things with your -- what age children are, what type of event it is. those are things i think you no matter what goes on. host: okay. e're getting a lot of reaction to the events, including from he chairman of the rules committee at the republican national convention, who commented on the attack in and let the group in. a moment of silence. let's take a look. brothers and sisters in france have just been victim to terrorism. act of in the past several weeks, we

increasingly been witness to too many acts of enseless violence and loss of life. and at this point, i would ask would continue to guide us in our deliberation, but also to bless our brothers and france, who have just suffered another terrible loss. and so i would invite you to in bowing our heads for a moment of silence. thank you. host: and that was the scene at committee yesterday, rnc rules committee members in a moment of silence after attack in france. we're getting your reaction to it as well. from calling in jacksonville, north carolina, on our independent line. david.orning,

caller: hey, good morning. thank you for c-span. in the military, i've done four combat tours and duty almost 23 years, and i've seen these types of things happen around the and i've come to the conclusion that this is this is just another roduct of individualism, western individualism being ttacked by this collective -- it's a collective movement that is tired of people eing told we're better than you, and again, this has been centuries.r there have been wars. there's been conflict. o when i look at it as from a totalitarian standpoint or from i'm not w standpoint, really shocked about it, but -- because people are tired. ook at what's going on in this krour. people are tired of being shown that they are less than everyone elites are more

powerful than they are, and people are tired of feeling that they're powerless. man gets in a truck -- i think had guns andere he grenades in the truck. i don't know whether it's not.irmed or this guy was intending on making the most negative impact on a people he didn't know because of what they represented. host: david, let me ask you you combat that? you said you're a member of the military. we have military in fighting isis and other terrorist groups. how do you fight a mind-set? officials are doing enough? caller: i don't think they are and i'm glad you pointed out the mind-set. this is an information war. we're dealing with a cyber environment where people have data.cess to they can feel empowered through the internet. empowered through propaganda, and there's nothing do nk, a bomb, a bullet can to information operations. we are so behind in this. the western world -- the i think, i was reading

an article. 800,000 civilians and military involved in cyber activity. we are so behind. do it, you se can know what the insurgents are pretend we're better than they are and are losing this conflict in the information age. it's us against them in the information age and we're losing. calling next, jimmy is in from greensboro, north carolina, on our independent line. jimmy. ning, caller: good morning and, again, thank you for c-span. can't -- what the gentleman just said makes total shocked. i'm not because i pay attention to what's going on in the world. combat evil? been trying to do that since the eginning of time, haven't we, as human beings and civilizations? it's almost impossible. he said about right.ation age, he is so

i mean, nobody should be shocked. and it's hard for people who see these w and they things, and they wonder what in humanrld is going on with beings in societies. host: jimmy, let me ask you this. re you satisfied with what you've seen from the two remaining presidential their tes in terms of plans to fight terrorism like that? we've heard clips from both of donald trump and hillary clinton speaking last night. are you satisfied with what you from them? caller: well, yes and no. saying what they at this point in this cycle of this election. somewhat so i am satisfied knowing that they can say what they're saying, but can they actually produce what they're saying? do for hard thing to any president anytime. sooner or know,

later, enough of these things re going to happen, i think, that we are going to collectively come together. see evil and, you now, we make a decision to finally try to end evil is going so be hard to do, but -- yeah, i'm somewhat satisfied ith what they say because we all know that, you know, they're speaking to their base or speaking to the media. they're speaking to, you know, elected to g to get have that seat of power for the nation and the world. and i think we're still looked leader ofou know, the the free world. host: okay. calling we have michael in on our democratic line from hyattsville, maryland. morning, michael. caller: hey good morning, c-span. having me on the

show. condolences end my to the people of france for what night.d last but i have to agree with the two gentlemen just a while ago in what they were saying, and as they were saying about the presidential election here they're saying anything just to get the vote in. and that is true, because a lot saying, they are know they can't really do it, especially donald trump. these promises, all these promises, and he even no, he can't fulfill them, nd i don't understand how come the people that are listening to them are really backing him on things he's saying because he can't really build a wall in people,ecause all these all these countries that he's they do business with the u.s. host: let me ask you this, satisfied with

what secretary clinton is saying as well? seems that donald trump has a lot of support based on his tough talk about fighting terrorism. you satisfied? aller: the difference with donald and hillary is hillary is a way.plomatic in donald trump is trying to use more brute force to do this. using force is not thing to y the right do because you're just going to the country into another war and the best thing diplomatic.y to be but he doesn't have the patience. that sn't want to do because he feels like he has the military. we are the strongest military in we do.ld yes, but because of that, that doesn't mean that everything you can throw the military into war. host: okay, we're getting the what we know about

this attack that's unfolding "wall street he journal" it says at least 84 including killed, children. dozens more were wounded after rammedack where a driver a truck at a high speed through crowd during bastille day celebrations, according to the "wall street journal" the driver of the truck was skilled, to the spokesman from france's interior ministry. truck show e white it was riddled -- the windshield bullets.led with he truck was loaded with weapons and grenades and the driver fired shots, according to the former mayor of the french riviera resort, the now regional official. and up next, we have debbie. secalling in from forest hills, maryland, on our republican line. morning, debbie. caller: good morning

of course me and so many other people were sickened by what they saw last night and we were for fourth of july and i just imagine being there with my three grandchildren and and then this terrific thing. i just pray that their deaths were swift and that the children were not suffering and others were not suffering. host: going to events like the one you mentioned, are you going to be more wary to go now? caller: no, no. host: ok. caller: i was brought up not to live in fear. to because she spent not to live in fear, and i will not be one that because someone does something like this that i'm going to be afraid and hide and stay in my house. no. i will stated that way. that is just me. up, we will be

talking with george washington university law prefers to -- law professor jonathan turley about the war of words with supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and donald trump. later on, dr. jill stein, running for the green party nomination for president, will join us to talk about the bid for the white house and the actions of bernie sanders's endorsement of hillary clinton earlier this week. stay tuned. ♪ >> the republican national convention from cleveland starts monday. watch live, every minute on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app. it is easy to download from the apple store or google play. watch live or on-demand any time yourw.c-span.org, on desktop, phone, tablet, where you will find all convention coverage and the full schedule. follow us on c-span at twitter and like us on facebook to see

video of newsworthy moments. the 2016ss a minute of republican national convention, starting monday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the c-span radio app and www.c-span.org. rough upbringing. the streetsed in and met some friends and they were selling drugs, so it was the thing to do and i started selling drugs, marijuana. cocaine came out and we started selling that, so i was in the streets from the age of 13 to 18, 5 years. >> sunday night on "q&a," veteran of the new york td discusses his book. he talks about his former life as a drug dealer and a police officer. lot,criticized police a but i criticize and talk about

the bad police and that is a small percentage. most of the cops come to work and do their job but you do not hear about them. you hear about the eric on their cases, the bad cops -- eric cops, andes, the bad once law enforcement starts, every time you see one of these cases, you look at the person's background, seven complaints, use of force, five substantiated. the guy was a mess, and we do not find out about it until they kill someone. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is jonathan turley, a law professor at george washington university, where he has been on the faculty since 1990. he is here to talk about the war of words between supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and presidential candidate donald

trump. good morning. guest: thanks. host: thanks for joining us. guest: my pleasure. rundown of how this war of words started but to a supreme court justice and republican nominee for president. guest: [laughter] this is really breathtaking because there is in fact a code with judges and the distinctions they draw, but the code of ethics for judges says you cannot make these types of speeches opposing or endorsing a political candidate, so people were taken aback when justice ginsburg when after donald trump and not one, but three separate occasions, and this can only be described as a tirade. this was calling him basically dishonest, he lacked control, driven by ego. it was quite wrong, and on top of that, she criticized republicans in congress for how they were treating president obama and not moving on his nomination of judge garland.

all of that is well beyond the line and what people consider to be ethical conduct for any juror. many less were taken -- many of us were taken aback. today's "wall street journal," they talk about the origin of this spat between ruth bader ginsburg and donald trump. they said over the past week, justice ginsburg, 83 years old and the courts liberal member, criticized mr.'s trump -- mr. trump and his candidacy in increasingly sharp terms. host: yesterday, she has apologized and she released a statement that she regretted her

comments, but she did not exactly apologize. guest: that is right. i think your point is a good one. when she went to the extent of repeating a talking point for the clinton campaign, which is you need to release your tax forms, and that really brought this to an unbelievable level. she did not apologize. she said this was revised, which is rather mild because this was , which is rather mild because this was a lack of decorum, judicial restraint, but she did say that she would not let this happen again. what was troubling about it was this was not some type of outburst. i was very critical of justice alito went during the state of the union, he started shaking his head and mounting "not true." i thought i was an outrageous act on his part, but it was a spontaneous act. the president had just put a

sized the supreme court over citizens united. o'connell was criticized because she said it was terrible that war would win florida, but she said that at a private party. would wine that gore florida, but she said that at the private party. there was an intentional and knowing aspect in this one. the important thing to remember is that justice just berg is very familiar with canon five, which is the touchstone of judicial ethics. host: talk a little bit more about the rules. to the same rules apply to supreme court justices as applied to other federal judges on trial on level courts throughout the united states? guest: you put your finger on the problem and that is the supreme court justices, and it may come as a surprise for many people in the country, believe that they are beyond or above the code of ethics that is

applied to lesser jurors. their position is not entirely self-serving. but they are saying is that the constitution creates the supreme court by name. thes an article three that constitution creates it. it is not the creation of congress. the are saying the records on the creation of congress, congress is allowed to do that, and the conference that controls legal ethics is a creature of those courts. that those rules, those conference applies to lesser jurists. what that means is that the united states supreme court is the only part of our government that has no enforceable code of ethics. many of us have been very critical. i have been critical of it for years. i think it is outrageous. what is really troubling is that the justices have proven to be truly horrible in regulating their own ethical conduct, even though the case and the court of appeals, when they get to the supreme court, they violate some of the rules that they used to

live by. the result is a blow to the integrity of the court. a majority of members of the supreme court have been accused of what most of us would consider serious ethical breaches. host: we are talking to george washington university law professor jonathan turley about the recent war of words between supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and donald trump. taking your calls on this conversation. the macabres -- democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. a little bit about donald trump's reaction to these events as laid out today in "the washington report." this initial comments made by ruth bader ginsburg and trump quickly fired back. according to the "post" saying in a tweet that she should resign and her mind was

"shocked." -- "shot." host: do you think this would be the end of it? guest: i hope it is not the end of it when it comes to the legal issue. first of all, i do not think there is any need and it is not appropriate to question the mental facilities or faculties of justice ginsburg. she has continued to write opinions.profound you can disagree with them, but there's no evidence at all that she is diminished in any way mentally. the does not take away from fact that she committed in my view a very serious ethical violation. non-apology, apology should not end this. the american people need to look at the supreme court and see its thes and not just

great aspects of that institution. there are a number of flaws. i have suggested to major reforms. one of them is in code of ethics. the others i believe are too small. i've advocated for the expansion of the supreme court for 19 members for about 20 years. he had the smallest court of any major nation, and it creates serious problems. the one we are happy now what a nomination that is frozen, a justice who creates a dysfunctional impact because she is one of the remaining eight. all of it as byproduct of the fact that our court is this functionally too small. host: on our democratic line, mark from florida. you are on what professor jonathan turley. caller: good morning. turley is not objective. he is on the record of being against the obama administration. they has spoken numerous times at republican

parties. cap political views. no law.sburg broke it might be unethical but she not break a law. host: all right, mark. turleyet professor respond. that was a lot to unpack in the short amount of time. fort: first, i voted president obama the first time. i am from chicago. the fact is i do not think people, whether democrat or republican, should make excuses or draw fine lines for what justice ginsburg did. what she did is serious. saying that it is not a crime does not answer the question. it is unethical. she is one of nine, now one of eight. he went through eight period in this country when our courts are filled with political hacks. people who supported the federalist or jeffersonian view. act to kille

opponents. returned a corner on that. in 1920 four, we adopted a code of judicial ethics. before that, alexander hamilton and number 70 of the federalist, said that one of the most important developments we have is a system to guarantee the integrity of justices, what he what hethe requisite -- called the requisite integrity needed to be a judge or justice. red state,re in this blue state phenomenon. everyone either has to go with one team or the other. can, asone time when we americans, say, that is not right. i did criticize justice thomas. justice thomas, justice alito, justice robert, justice breyer. i have been critical of them all because they are violating court ethical rules. the price of this to get to be on that court should be that you comply with ethics. host: is the court truly a political? i know it has that view and it

was designed to be asked such, but these are human beings who have opinions and this is a presidential the year. should we expect them to have opinions? guest: they are human beings and we have to recognize that they make the stakes for a justice ginsburg made a fairly -- make mistakes. justice ginsburg made a fairly large mistake. despite my criticism, if everyone treats the left and right as ideological, whatever do you do not agree with, the ideologicals the and political, i think they tried to get it right. people object to a jurisprudence, a consistency about them, and that is a good thing, but there is a serious problem going on right now. years ago, i wrote about the rise of the celebrity justice, justice is getting to speak publicly to the red meat advocates, like our last caller. just this ginsburg has -- justice ginsburg has been one of the leaders in that trend, with their friend in late justice theia, they crisscrossed

country like rock stars. she goes to liberal groups and he would go to conservative groups and others have done the same. they love it. , anydevelop this base ideological base. in my view, that is incredibly destructive to the court. i like the old model, like spokee john paul who primarily through opinions and they did not go on press stores and speaking tours. she has earned the , fromr, notorious rbg her followers. next, from virginia on the republican line. good morning, carl. caller: you know, i want to start out by saying i have lost all faith in the justice system in washington, d.c. you guys live by different set of rules that you expect the rest of us to live by, and i would like to say something about congress oversight. it is a joke.

it is a joke. congress somehow has some authority to indict and convict wrongdoers in the federal government, there will be no justice because whoever is president has the attorney general run an appearance for him. host: any reaction? guest: i think this is a common complaint and it should not be dismissed. we do have this growing gulf between washington, d.c., and the rest of the country. i'm not too sure the major parties have even register that. i think part of it is this feeling that everything is wired, that this is one big kabuki dance in washington. i'm not sure that view is entirely inaccurate. i think there are serious problems in the way the city runs. i think the anger that you see, which is driving much of the trump campaign, can be quite positive in one important way. it is really shocking

washington, d.c. but i think that what we will have to do is take that anger and try to put it toward reductive direct -- productive direction and that is to see reform. i do not necessarily disagree with him. host: next, jerry from florida on the democratic line. well, ruth bader ginsburg i think is correct because we see fascism begin in america and it is fascism started by the republican party and donald trump. she has a right to call it out. if you are historically accurate, you'll know that presidents have also been supreme court justices. in the past, they have been political. all these politicians, all these supreme court people are political. they have big statements in public, they say the president

aed before them in congress, political statement in public. come on, come on. host: let's let the professor respond. guest: i'm always astonished with citizens like jerry, who seem to be ok with justices being political. that is the worst possible thing you can have been a legal system. it is something that we have had a code of ethics since 1924 that says you cannot be in this business about justice is running for president and it shows a disconnect with history. yes, justices have run for president, but we adopted the code of judicial ethics in 1924, and judges adhere to that. the lower court judges buchanan five as the touchstone of ethics. even justice ginsburg has a knowledge that what she did was wrong. democratic leaders denounced ginsburg.

it is part of this red states, blue state. if you like what someone says, you find a way to excuse it. instead of looking at the principal and same, we have lots of people who could call out one candidate or the other, if you think there is ashes of in the world, you just spoke on c-span. that is a good place this become a but we do not need the nine justices to hold forth on politics. they have very few restrictions in their lives. one of them is to remain apolitical. i do not believe you serious they want to go down that road. by citing justice alito and shaking his head no in the state of the union is bizarre. many of us, including me, criticized him heavily for what he did. when he did was wrong. you do not say, since he did it, ginsburg's right to do it. what you say is, we want justices and judges to a pilot can and 5, the most fund -- cannon 5, the most ethical rules for federal judges. host: does it go the other way as well?

we have seen donald trump criticized a federal judge in university case strongly, suggesting that he was not even able to rule impartially. what about situations like that? guest: many of us criticized trump for that. he is not subject to the code of ethics. he is a politician, not a judge. he does not have lifetime tenure under article three. that is the price of the ticket. politicians have been criticizing judges and justices for a long time. there was a movement to impeach earl warren and that is only give them life tenure. he was wrong to attack that judge in the way he did in terms of his ethnicity. many republican leaders actually called him out for that. that we need to distinguish between what is the matter of judicial ethics. this is an important issue for this country and the conduct of politicians. host: we are talking to jonathan turley, a professor at g.w. law school and a former u.s. -- also

served as a council in the number of cases before the u.s. supreme court, including the clinton impeachment litigation. up next, joanna from maryland under independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to remind professor scalia sat justice at the fox news table during the correspondence dinner. he went hunting with dick cheney during a time when they were ving dick a case invol cheney. clarence thomas was interviewed on the rush limbaugh show. his wife is the head of some sort of tea party group or whatever. this is not unprecedented. i think the hyperbole of seriously wrong then this extreme whatever, professor turley's republican. he has been on various political

shows, very evident he is republican. host: let's let him respond to all of this. guest: i am actually not a republican. a democratic family. i am independent and pretty liberal in many respects, but it doesn't really matter. this is a type of call that really chills me to the bone. we criticize those justices for those ethical violations. it is not a fair or productive way of our increment to say, everyone else did it. windows justices did what they did, -- when the justices into what they did, plenty people called them out and said, we need the code of ethics but this is part of the corrosive effect of today politics. everything has to be personal. we cannot talk about the principal curricula think that we could at least rally around this very basic idea. none of them should be doing this. it is not enough. when we were kids, we would say,

well, he did it. all of those incidences that were cited were controversies that most of us condemned. it takes a degree of principle for people to say, i will not in who is up again supporting my side and the other side. beyond the to support the code of ethics. ofse justices, a majority them have committed ethical violations. that is not supposed to be how it is and justice ginsburg acknowledged that in her statement. in "fortune" magazine, commentary by roger, and it says, ruth bader ginsburg did step in it, now, get over it. it essentially says her remarks were inappropriate, she is human, not senile. i was making too big of a deal out of all of this? guest: no. we do not make too big of a deal over justice scalia, justice

roberts, involved in the case where he had financial interests, justice breyer. these are all important issues. they are all ethical violations. the idea getting over it. that is exactly what people in washington want. they want to have scandals and then they say they are sorry and they hope that people walk away. we should not walk away. the problem is that the supreme court is the only body that is not subject to an enforceable code of ethics. it is not much for the public to require that none of these types of incidents should occur. if people can just put away the partisan political stuff and look at the principles that we have a right to a court that complies with additional ethics, the most they sick, fundamental question, and what justice ginsburg did, what some of the other justices did, it would have brought them before a very serious hearing in terms of ethical violation. indiana next, jean from on the democratic line.

caller: good morning. turley, i have to agree with the other lady. i think the right link is showing more than normal this morning. i went to know how much exactly did you criticized the fbi director for his personal opinion about the other candidates? guest: the other candidate? this thinghave to was between judicial ethics and the ethics that apply to other politicians and executive branch officials. we are talking about judicial ethics. we have drawn a bright line. none of this is an ambiguous or unclear line in terms of conduct . lower court judges live according to these rules. these justices lived according to these rules. you can attack me all you want. i'm an independent. i support many things that president obama has done. i just do not support how he has done them.

you can attack me personally, but it does not change the fact that what justice ginsburg was wrong and unethical. she has admitted that, but that, but that's not in the question. and as we had the alito thomas controversies, all of where peopleersies just walked away. it doesn't have to be this way. we can have a supreme court that supplies with the code of ethics , but citizens on their worst pull because they cannot away this partisan lens that they see everything, that there are such things as tuples in this country. and one of the most basic is found in the code of judicial ethic. host: let's switch topics but staying on the subject of ethics. can you explain what the laureate international universities are and what the connections are to bill and hillary clinton? guest: laureate is a for-profit educational group that makes a

great deal of money, a company that is enormous and worth billions of dollars. a friend of former president bill clinton is the head and founder of laureate. it has been shrouded in controversy, with other for-profit educational groups. as teachers and professors, i have to admit a bias, have long educationr-profit because it turns it into a commodity. i would say the majority of us in education, including the teachers unions, have tended to oppose these companies. what was shocking to many people is that president clinton received over $16 million from laureate to be a sort of honorary chancellor. this was at the time when people were suing some companies or subsidiaries connected to laureate. it also occurred when hillary

clinton was secretary of state, so there was a concern that most of laureate's schools are broad and that certainly helped to have that connection. so there are various people who have raised the laureate connection. some academics, educators simply raising that because of the connection to what many of us view as a dubious business model of a for-profit educational organization. others have raised the question of grands going back and forth, payments to the clinton foundation, etc., so that has created another controversy in the election. that talk about the fact it has not the reported as much as, for example, the trump university issues with people .omplaining about that does this phrase the same sort of ethical issues in that case? guest: i do think they are the same issues. i think that the trump university case raises legitimate questions of

potential fraud. the people there are saying that they give money under false wasenses, that donald trump supposedly going to be a big part of it, he wasn't. they suggested that they did not give ritually anything for what was a large amount of money. the clinton-laureate controversy has not received as much attention, but it is beginning to grow as people wonder, what did you get for 16.5 lane million?- $60.5 why you have a connection -- $16.5 million? why do have the connection when hillary clinton spoke out against them when she was about to run and there is questions of money going to the foundation, grants, some organizations associated loosely with gloria, said those are different sets of questions and i think they often go to more of the question of judgment in terms of the clintons. texas ont, larry from independent line. you are on with jonathan turley.

turley, i thank you very much for your honesty. to me, money and politics go hand-in-hand. the clintons are a fine example of that. i question is -- we do accept a seat on the judicial supreme court -- would you accept a seat on the judicial supreme court? i wish they would nominate you. thank you and i will listen for your answer. guest: [laughter] i accept your nomination. i will go directly from here to the supreme court and assume my office for that is a great honor and not one i expect i will ever see, so the issue for me and i think for you, and i thank you for your comment, is whether we can get democrats, republicans and independents to step aside in this superheated political environment and see if agree on something that i thought was very basic.

we have a right to a supreme court that complies with the code of ethics. we have arrived to judges that are ethical -- we have a right to judges that are ethical. what we have seen in the supreme court is that when they became judges of their own case, something we have long which acted as a standard, they prefilled every stereotype of that. by the then doing what i hoped they would do, which is say, we are assuming a higher standard, we will be more demanding of ourselves, that has not happened . five of the past nine have committed what i consider serious ethical violations, both conservative and liberal because they have this community. what that does is create a type of arrogance and disappearance for the public that they have been anointed, not appointed. that is the problem, regardless of where politics lie. host: next, justin from ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i am good.

you are on with jonathan turley. caller: he is a fantastic rest. he really is. i went to say that i think that justice ginsburg did donald trump a huge favor and mitch mcconnell. it is a political advantage for the democrats and i would say that she completely neutralized it with their political stint. she just blew it for them. i don't know how effective it is as a political tool, but i think she just tossed it. guest: i think that is true and no, asee garland going, she turned to him on the list of political statements and that this is not a good thing. heart of the problem here is this corrosive effect of justices becoming celebrity justice and they seem to be speaking primarily to your base

and liberals go to the american constitution society and they throw these audiences. lawyers, you are not doing a good thing for them or for us by having these events, and you see this effect, they are human beings, so they go for the audience. that is the reason i like the old model. i like john paul stevens, this book through his opinions, and most people would not even recognize them if you walk down the street. he is one of the great justices. i'm not taking away from justice ginsburg. she has an externally legacy, and that is what is so tragic about the spreadsheet tarnished and externally legacy with what was an unethical act. at on now we have ap op the independent line from pittsburgh. caller: thank you. mr. turley, i have a general comment about justice ginsburg

and the american people. i, myself, being an american citizen and the shame, the shame of the american people and andtude that they have their lazy action when it comes to getting up and going to voting and knowing to your candidates are. you get what you get because you do nothing. that is why the country is in the shape it is in today. host: do you have reaction to that? guest: i think people are getting more involved and that is a good thing. what i worry about is that as the anger grows, as partisanship grows, blindness grows. if i was going to make one change in this country and if i could do it with a magic wand, it would be growing up in chicago, i remember my father saying, the worst thing you can be as a chump.

do not be a chump and the american people are become chumps. we buy this blue state, red state phenomenon and we do all issues to the political bands and that is what washington wants. they want us to walk away from scandals and say, it is over because no one apologized, instead of creating reforms. the framers believed we had that power and gave it to us, and they wrote the constitution, not just for times like ours, but during times like ours, poisonous political times. we can transcend that. we can find that we have more in common with each other than perhaps our politicians and we can get things done, but it takes the ability of people to step back and break free of this red state-blue state phenomenon. and: speaking of politics the election, you wrote a piece recently in "usa today," where you talk about which candidate is more than-like.

you wrote, it has taken on the 50 years, but the democrats have found their inner nixon. hillary clinton is the most nixonian figure in the post-watergate period. they have reached the more compromise that nixon waited unsuccessfully for republicans to accept or eat some 60% of democrats want quentin to run even issue she were indicted. explain that more. what the column says, i am surprised by the polls that democrats are saying, even if she is indicted, she should run. it shows this type of urban partisanship that comes into play. i have been critical of donald trump and hillary clinton. the column criticizes both of them, but with hillary, what surprises me is this nixonian aspect which he has a problem -- aspect, -- in

which she has a serious problem herealing with this and stack around to worry me. you wonder, where is the john dean in this group? who is going to walk into president clinton and say, you cannot do that for what you are doing is wrong? i think it is a serious concern when you see the public saying, i do not care she is criminally indicted. aspect to nixonian it. these are the two least popular candidates in the history of modern politics. be 30% ont there will either side, republican and democrat, do not care about this. for the rest of us, i think that we have legitimate moments where we can say, how did we get here? how is it possible that these two most unpopular presidential candidates in history are the two main candidates being offered in the united states? that is troublesome. system,a democratic

yet, this is we see the anger. people feel like there is nothing they can do. i think that is what we are looking at. from up next, bill calling kentucky on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? honest,o the completely i do not even know where to start after hearing him say different things you said. my first inclination was to call to speak to you about your naivety. it seems are living in a fantasy world because the reason that there is such turmoil over the next justice that will be picked is because everybody knows it is a political thing. that is the reason mitch mcconnell is taking the stance that is taking. it is because he wants to get that there is a possibility that trump can win and he will hope that trump will or someonenservative

who would do what the conservative ideology is. host: let's give professor turley chance to respond. guest: i may be living in a fantasy world. i admit, more often i feel more comfortable back in the 18th century then today, quite frankly, as an academic. that we canfantasy actually unite around certain i would saybut what is what you just said is exactly what folks in washington are hoping that people do. democratic and republican. they want everything to be treated as raw politics. it is true. the selection of the supreme court justices comes down to politics because of the political body in the senate has to confirm them, but that doesn't mean that this process needs to be political. that is what is so disappointing . we come to accept that everything is politics, that principles are naive. even a fantasy.

it was a time only did not the principles were fantasy and without ethics were something you should expect and require as a citizen. what is crushing to me is to hear citizens like yourself who are saying, that is just fantasy now. that is naive. it is not naive. from ourt we demand government, but we cannot do it unless everyone comes to the view that it is not fantasy to require ethics. host: up next on the republican line, charlie from kentucky. good morning. good morning. i think the biggest disappointment to me, when i was going to school, i got the supreme court were judged according to the constitution and the rule book. justicefind now is a admitting that they are willing to put their, the scale and it causes -- willing to put their

and you havescale to ask if they are politically-based or traditionally based? justicen defense of ginsburg, i believe she is ethical and how she writes opinions and she tries to get it right. they all do. people tend to say, oh, my god, i cannot believe justices on the right and the car they ignore the justices on the left comes of the other side always looks for the goal and ideological and your site looks consistent and thoughtful. the fact is that both sides are following a jurisprudential view and we should one that. we should want them to be consistent about how they view the constitution. i do not want to catch any aspersion on the legacy of justice ginsburg. i agree and disagree with her opinions but they are all well written. she is a strong rider on the court with a vision that comes iter on the court

with visions that come out. how do we trust her in the future, i will say this, she is insignificant trouble if she were to sit on the case like a e that might come out of this election. having said that she might potentially move to new zealand, rather than face president trump, i think is legitimacy of basis for people to say you need to recuse yourself. host: that was brought up in the editorial by "the wall street journal," which says, despite her comments that she would be more circumspect in the future, that does not end the matter. in these cases, if there

is another bush v. gore or cases involving donald trump, is that the problem? guest: i think that is a problem. the couple of tables with the editorial, when is the word have, the word have to recuse yourself. recusal's are left to the justices and more often than not, they dismiss what are strong demands for recusal. we have had that on conservative and liberal justices, where many believe you should recuse yourself because of financial interest or other connections. they often dismissed those, so she doesn't have to recuse herself. that is i we need an enforceable code of ethics. more importantly, when it comes to accusing yourself in a bush gore, i'd be surprised if she could sit on such a case, but beyond that, i do not think she would recuse herself and i'm not sure when you look years down the road just because the

case involves president trump, i would not expect her to recuse herself. ,ost: professor jonathan turley thank you for joining us. coming up, we will talk to jill stein to talk about her bid for the white house and the reaction of bernie sanders' endorsement of hillary clinton. first on "newsmakers" this week, executive director kelly ward talks about house races, donald trump impact this year and what the democrats can win back the house majority. here's a bit of that discussion. >> a little over three months from the election, democrats have to invest the house and are you in position to do that? >> that is our job but it is too early to tell. it represents the pivot into the general election. it is the beginning of real people, people who are busy, starting to pay attention to the election and look at what is happening. they have been watching donald trump this entire time and they

have strong opinions about him. they are now going to reflect their opinions to the rest of the election. conventions begin that. it is too early to know how far the environment is going to take us into the map with the overall environment and what it will look like. the house is at that mercy of the top of the ticket, so that presidential dynamical go to the house races and down ballot races underneath it. once we see how that starts to solidify, we will know how many seats to pick up and how close we are to the 30 we need are the majority. i would rather it be us than them. >> do have a baseline of how many seats are comfortable to pick up? wetheir predictions that watch closely. i think we will be very excited that are outcomes on election night, regardless of how far we get, but i think we will pick up seats and we will push it to the max. democrats lost 13 seats in

2014. if democrats gain back the seats in 2016, would you be happy? push toward went to the 30 and picking up doubled its is a victory. i also think that we have a lot of districts that the republicans are renting. there are districts where the district has the democratic [indiscernible] where they reflect in the craddick values and it is time for them cap representative that reflects their values, so as far as that will take us, absolutely. our job is to get as far as we can get. host: you can see the entire the executive director kelly ward this sunday at 10:00 a.m. and at six :00 p.m. on c-span. you can also hear it on c-span radio and "newsmakers" is available online at www.c-span.org. is jill stein, the green party presidential candidate for president, and she

is here to talk about her candidacy and bernie sanders' endorsement of hillary clinton. good morning. guest: good morning, kimberly. good to see you. host: thank you for joining us. let's begin with -- no, let's start with your candidacy. why are you running for president what would you like to do in the race? anst: i think we are in historic moment and we have seen unprecedented crises across every dimension of life, jobs that are low-wage, part-time, wages that are barely above poverty are the majority of workers, we have a generation of young people locked in to print terry student loan -- predatory student loan debt with no way out in the foreseeable future given the economy. black lives are on the firing line, mass duplications, wars for oil, and the climate is a meltdown. we have a problem.

the american people have really had it with this rig in the economy, they are tired of being thrown under the bus and they have had it with a rigged political system that has delivered this disastrous economy. it is really time for transformational change that will not come from two political from the usual suspects, banks, profiteers, pharmaceutical companies, oil giants, health insurance companies, etc. the usual suspects are making out like bandits while everyday people are really struggling to get by, so we can fix this with a variety of solutions. i am the only candidate in this race with only national political party that is not poisoned by corporate money, by pac's, so iuper have the unique ability in this race to provide the american people the real solutions that

people are clamoring for. that is an emergency jobs program that will fix the emergency of the climate crisis, health care as human rights, canceling student debt like we did for the bankers, we bailed .ut the crooks on wall street it is about time we bailed out the on people who are victims of that waste, fraud and abuse on wall street. we need higher education as on humanly for free rights, which pays for itself for every dollar we invest and we get back seven dollars for every dollar we put into this. a foreign policy based on international law and human rights. host: i'm sorry. i do not mean to interrupt, but it seems echo a lot of what you are talking about is part of your platform on the green party is aligning with what we heard from senator bernie sanders and his the to be the democratic nominee. how does the green party differ

from his aggressive democratic platform? guest: the main difference is that we have a political party that actually supports that platform. i think what we have seen happen over the course of the last year is really proof of principle as to why we need an independent political party for a truly progressive agenda. really,cratic party shall we say, has a system deeply tilted toward hillary clinton from the get-go. we have seen that in leaked e-mails, in the superdelegates and super tuesday's that really give incredible advantage to the insider candidate. we celebrate like stripping of the voter roll in brooklyn, 2 million votes not counted in california, so one. minimized senator sanders, so what we are seeing is that you cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside the counterrevolutionary party.

that is why we are here, and we are here to keep that movement going. host: we are talking to green party presidential candidate jill stein, joining us from massachusetts. we want to hear from our caller s. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans (202)-748-8001. .ndependents, (202)-748-8002 we have a special live the green party voters, (202)-748-8003. critical, as we said come but the candidates and you are also critical of senator sanders for his decision to endorse hillary clinton last week. you tweeted --if you jot want to or billion,armonger there are other options and you also treated that hillary takes their money, remind us again of saudi arabia's human rights

record. are you still upset that senator sanders endorsed to the clinton, criticism? guest: absolutely not. this was completely expected. it is what he has said from the beginning. he is a manager's word and he has been working with the democratic party and caucusing with them ever since he has been in washington, d.c. to sit down with senator sanders and explore how we might collaborate, willing to put everything on the table, but i was not holding my grasp that that would have happened. we have been attempting to have comes issue with senator sanders for many years. host: you invited him to take over your spot on the green party ticket. that. let me clarify the nomination is up to the

delegates, and i am currently the presumptive nominee, but it is not like you can give away your slot for you my offer was to sit down and collaborate with him and if he had truly learned from this very disturbing experience that he has had over the past year, where the democratic party uses every underhanded technique in the book to basically sabotages campaign, if you learned from that and became persuaded about why we need independent politics, that is not controlled by insiders and big-money behind-the-scenes, if he had learned from that and became a proponent of the green party as the alternative to this predatory politics, as a people's politics, then i think it would have been very exciting to have brought him to the convention. and appeal to the delegates to consider him as the lead candidate, and i would gladly

have stepped aside, but that was all in contention of whole bunch of hypotheticals, so it was never really a concrete possibility. i'm not critical of senator sanders. i'm critical of the political system as it exists, which is drawing us over the cliff right now and with which we have no future, so i think it is very important to be honest about what is happening and to speak to that as a human being. host: we have a lot of callers waiting. first, kevin from charlotte, north carolina on the independent line. you are on with jill stein. stein. hi, miss i have seen you recently and you have been very intriguing to see as a different choice, so i look forward to your answers. inh all the bad choices republican and democratic parties, you have a real strong chance of winning if you assert yourself enough, like calling local tv channels, so on, etc.,

but my questions are -- what is your take on the black lives matter movements? do you see the difference and why they say all the -- why they do not say all lives matter? and because the question of womenth is always placing running for political office, how will you [indiscernible] guest: wonderful questions. thank you for tuning in and asking those important questions. matter,n black lives yes, i support black lives matter. we have a crisis of racial justice that we see all over the news thanks to the efforts of black lives matter, who have made this a matter of public attention because i believe this is not a new crisis. this is really a continuation of a crisis that began with the origins of this country, using

essentially slave labor, and integrating the criminal institution of slavery into our economy and culture from the beginning. a catastrophic human rights dilation from the get-go. while we had the emancipation rolledation, slavery was over and then interventions and and jim crow, segregation redlining of communities and incredible economic discrimination in our schools, thehousing and ultimately war on drugs, which was a racist war on drugs, which still is with mass incarceration and police violence. what changed is to got bigger on our cell phones and the curtain came up on this ongoing crisis of racial justice. i think it is very important to fix this great i do not think we can address the devastating

economic inequality in this country without addressing economic racism and i don't think we can address the epidemic of violence that we have in this country without also coming to terms with this living legacy of the institution of slavery. i think we need a truth and reconciliation commission said that we can address the many dimensions of ongoing white extreme racial discrimination. as far as that term black lives matter, yes, we need to note specifically black lives matter, period, full stop, because we have a culture and centuries of experience that basically say white lives matter and black was enough. -- on that important second point after what happened in france yesterday, what is

your platform in terms of fighting terrorism? we have yet to understand fully what went on yesterday. it has many of the trademarks of a terrorist event, but whether this was an extremely deranged and violent individual who had his own agenda, whether he was suffered in a buying with -- self identified with isis, we don't yet know exactly the facts of the matter, but there is no doubt that this is related to ,he ongoing crisis of violence of politically charged violence, dimensions that is related to these wars and the so-called war on terror. i think this illustrates that we

need a bigger solution, and this happened in the midst of the state of emergency, so it is an oficator as to how the state emergency and surveillance and security measures by themselves are not the solution. we really have to address the driving forces here. we know that isis itself is an that goh of these wars back many cycles, ultimately back to 9/11 and the beginning of this war on terrorism, but it is acknowledged that the wars are not working and what each cycle, it becomes worse. it is very important that we need the weapons embargo to the middle east, the u.s., basically applying a flamethrower by arming all sides and combatants. we and our allies have been sponsors of terrorist organizations for you can go back to the jihad in in afghanistan, which is where the whole so-called jihadi terror

movement was started as a u.s.-saudi strategy for dealing with the soviet union. , so bad blood in here repeating the cycle with bullets does not fix it. we need to create weapons embargo and we need to stop funding that our allies in particular are provided. we cannot simultaneously fight terrorism while our allies are funding terrorism, arming terrorism and training terrorism. bottom andget to the address the underlying injustices and inequities. host: next, we have gus calling from our democratic line. caller: it is a pleasure to see you live to see and hear you on television. it is been one of the first times to see what you look like.

my first problem is with the media having to be brought to give any candidate the chance to express their opinions. it is absolutely unfortunate. there's nothing in the constitution that says we're a two-party system and all other parties need to be excluded. it's just a pleasure to see you. i am so very taken by the idea that you cannot possibly -- you're going to waste your vote by voting for someone other than the two clowns that we have running for the two parties. host: do you have a specific question for dr. stein? caller: i do. my question is, do you see any way that any of this can be rectified so that parties like the green party and the congressional party and other parties might be able to get a little bit more media attention so that they can possibly

express what their platform is? thank you. i'll hang up. guest: thank you, gus. really critical, pivotal issue. i couldn't agree with you more. fortunately there is a simple solution. the public actually owns the airwaves. we own the public airwaves. sthrs every reason for the president to in-- there is every reason for the president to insist that the f.c.c. revise their rules, because the president appoints the head of the f.c.c., the president can change hat the f.c.c. the rules so that the american public actually has access to the airwaves that we own. that means for issues of great public importance like a presidential election and other elections for that matter, that candidates who are qualified to be on the ballot have a right to be heard by the public. and that air time should be

provided for free without discrimination, without buys ass to any ballot qualified candidate at the time of an election. this is simple. this is a no-brainer. and it should be done. and this is the kind of lutions that i will bring to our very difficult situation. it's not rocket science how to fix it. it's about asserting our right to real democratcy. host: next we have larry. larry is calling in on our green party line from charleston, south carolina. good morning, larry. caller: good morning. dr. jill stein, it is a pleasure to see another party candidate. it is unfortunate that we did not get to see you during the debate. i think being a veteran, that's very appalling we don't have a better system in place so that the voters could actually see what is available to us. like the previous gentleman

said, only two persons who are not clearly candidates. they are just jokers in a sense. in regards to the situations going on in america, how would you prioritize the situation such as the black lives matter as opposed to whether or not a person can use a -- a male can use a female's bathroom? and how would you work out the persons who are the product of isis, disenfranchising people from their cities and downs, how would you work that situation? would you bring more persons to the u.s.? how would we resolve these people fleeing these crises? guest: a lot of important questions there. i'll try to address them briefly. personally i don't think these issues compete with each other. where there are issues of fundamental justice, they can

all be addressed. let me just say the blanket statement, right now over half of our budget, half of our discretionary budget of the united states of america, is spent on these wars, which are butonly making us bankrupt, they are also putting soldiers, u.s. service men and women, and people like you who have been veterans, in harm's way without due justice and without good purpose. we have been squandering -- it's estimated $6 trillion since the trade towers in 2001, $6 trillion on these wars for oil which are not making us safer. they are making us less safe. that comes to $75,000 per american family that we have spent over the past 16 years. when you include the ongoing health care expenditures that we need to provide for our service men and women. and there have been tens of thousands who have been injured

or killed in these wars that are only making us more dangerous. as a blanket statement instead of bankrupting ourselves morally, spiritually, and financially, on these wars for oil, we need to put those dollars into true security here at home. we need to use international law and human rights and diplomacy as the basis for our international foreignpolicy. and if we do that, we have all the money. we don't have to choose between, say, black lives matter and housing, or health care. and on the issue of bathrooms. people are their gender identity. we know that for all kinds of scientific and human studies that for various reasons people develop different sorts of gender identity. they should have the right to use the bathroom based op their gender identity. there's been no demonstrated sk to anybody else by having

transpeople use the bathroom of the gender that they currently identify with. and for immigration, maybe we can come back to that on another question but i'll just say the most important thing we can do to address this immigration crisis is to stop the things that are creating it in the first place. like these very unjust wars. like economically dominating other countries as through nafta, for example, that put a million farmers out of business south of our border by ending these predatory economic and military policies we can stabilize people and allow people to flourish in the countries of their home and their origin. host: we're talking with jill stein, the green party candidate for president. she's also been a green party candidate for several other offices in massachusetts, including secretary of state, and state representative. and also a physician.

next, we have ed. calling in from arizona on our democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning. dr. stein, i have a few comments or questions that are quick. first one being is it true, i have read articles about you that you're not on every state poll. you're not going to appear on a ballot. is that correct? guest: yeah. we're in the process of getting on the ballot because the system tries to keep out political opposition. so six months ago we were on the ballot for about 60% of voters in about 20 or 21 states that. number is now up into the 30's, i believe, and growing. we expect to be on the ballot in just about every single state. so voters all over the country will actually have the option to

vote for my campaign. and already we're on enough ballots it be the choice for the vast majority of voters so that if an election were actually held today, we do even today have the mathematical possibility of winning a majority of voters even today to be able to win the election. so we have every right to be included. it's not my right as a candidate, it's your right as a voter. you have a right not only to vote, but you have a right to know who you can vote for and who your choices actually are. host: speaking of candidates who are outside of the democratic and republican parties, it's sometimes difficult for those candidates not only to be scene but even when they are seen, to launch really viable campaigns from this piece from npr, it notes that even during a time, 1992, the last time we saw any sort of successful nondemocratic or republican candidate, ross

time, pew at research shows that voters were disappointed in their candidate choices, as they appear to be this year, yet perhaps even more so than voters are today, that helped open the door to the most successful third party candidate by popular vote in more than 100 years, ross perot. yet he won less than 20% of the popular vote and none of the electoral vote. why is it so tough? uest: we have a system that is routinely and systematically and pervasively suppresses opposition voices. i think we're at a very different moment in history right now. we have an entire generation of young people who have been locked out of the economy who are struggling to pay their student loan debt and who don't have the jobs that they need, who don't have a place to live. the birth rate is plummeting. this is signs of a society in

crisis with a generation in crisis. let me just say that that generation alone has the ability to come out and dominate this election and transform it. if you include all the people not only debt, it's that generation, it's all generations. as people learn i am the one candidate who will do for young people what the powers that be already did for wall street, they bailed out the crooks on wall street who crashed the economy, it's about time we extend that to the young people who are trapped, who are held hostage by this economy and by that predatory student loan debt. as people hear about that, they begin to mobilize. that's how we have been coming up in the polls because the mainstream media has been locking us out in the same way they try to lock out political opposition and getting on the ballot. they lock out coverage. so the system is very biased against us, but we have enormous potential power in this race. if that word gets out, 423 million people, the -- 42

million people, the number locked in debt who have nowhere to go except my campaign if they want a future, that number is actually a winning portion of the vote in the three way race. it is a winning plurality. it's important for me to know we're not just talking about so-called splitting the vote. we're talking about flipping the vote so that those who are underdogs, who are really locked out of the future, can become among the top dogs. from underdog to top dog. we need an economy working for much. my campaign in this election provides the ability to do that. host: next we have don. calling in from pittsburgh, kansas. on our independent line. good morning. caller: it's an honor to speak with you, dr. stein. guest: thank you. caller: i think you're a very brave person. the core of my question is, do you really think that reform of capitalism, and we're dominated by finance capitalism now, is

possible? i fear that the forces of reaction and power there will resist us in every way. just becoming president doesn't mean you take over the state. john kennedy tried to do t he was the last person who tried to bring sort of a renewal of the new deal, and he was dealt with pretty severely, thank you. guest: i agree with you. this is not an easy fight. it's not -- it's not just me as a candidate or bernie sanders to the extent he was trying to do this. it's not just our fight. this is the fight of the american people. and we finally have a majority, clear-cut majority, who are struggling in this current rigged economic system that puts corporate capitalism ahead of people. that puts profit ahead of people , ahead of the planet, and our survival as a planet, and ahead of peace and our ability to survive this nuclear arms race

that has been revived not only by barack obama but bill clinton o took us out of the nuclear disarmament talks. we're living in very dangerous times. from my point of view the biggest danger of all would be to allow this madness to continue because there is no doubt where we're going. it's very important that we stand up and resist and not only resist, that we transform. we do have another way forward. i have no doubt that we have the numbers of people that it takes to turn this around. and if we had a president who was actually an organizer in chief and not just a commander in chief, but who could help mobilize and support the american people in our struggle for a new economy and new society based on principles of cooperation and human rights rather than on principles of predatory exploitation and cutthroat capitalism, we can make a profound transition right

now that's not just in our interest in an academic way. i think our lives really depend on transforming the system. this is something we have the power to do. and we're going to make that happen. host: yesterday cornell west, the activist, endorsed you. he formally -- formerly supported bernie sanders, but he wrote in the guardian newspaper in an op-ed. he says i am with her. the only progressive woman in the race because we have to get beyond this locked off situation. west who is a member of the democratic national committee's platform drafting committee. you can speak about that endorsement and what would you like to see him do as part as a member of this committee? guest: as a member of the platform? host: platform drafting committee. guest: i know he's fighting as hard as he k and ultimately he

abstained -- as he can. and ultimately he abstained from the vote at least some of the platform positions because he felt like it wasn't working. and that the platform committee was not willing to take really example,positions, for standing up against the transpacific partnership, which is kind of a joke because hillary clinton herself felt enough pressure in this campaign that she flip-flopped, as she often does, and adopted the position, against the transpacific partnership. here you have her advocate in the committee who i'm told and it's reported her advocates were saying, stay the course. don't support the progressive position here. support this rigged corporate trade bill again. it's a microcosm of what's wrong with the democratic party. i'm so honored to be joined by leading lights, visionaries in

the public discourse out there like cornell west, for him to be standing with our campaign as the campaign of justice and the way that we're going to create this transformation that needs to happen on so many counts. host: up next we have clarisse calling in on our green party line from peach tree city, georgia. you're on with dr. jill stein. caller: high, dr. stein. i did call in on the democratic line. my -- this is what i want to say. i am in agreement with almost everything you say. i would also say that hillary and bernie probably agree with a lot of what you have to say. i'm dismayed by your timing. i just think that the time to launch a campaign such as yours, virtually an unknown to most of the american people, is not during an election year.

especially this election year. i remember the raffle nader, -- ralph nader debacle in florida and how we lost -- won't even say we lost to president bush, but president bush ended up being the president of the united states. host: we just have a few seconds left. caller: i don't have very many bad opinions necessarily of president bush, but the neoconsequence he surrounded himself with killed a lot of our youth. i have friends whose children did not come home from that war, that hellhole over in the middle east. i just think the timing is off. as far as dr. cornell west, dr. west has been against president obama since he got into office. so of course he's going to jump on your bandwagon. host: clarisse --

caller: i think you are wonderful. i really do. i just think after this election you need to continue to strife on and launch this campaign. host: let jill stein respond to that. guest: thank you, clarisse. i very much appreciate your thoughts and i have to say i used to be in that camp myself. i have a lot of sympathy for people who are, shall we say, intimidated by this campaign of fear. that tells you we have to vote your fears. you have to vote against what you're afraid of rather than what you believe. i think it's important to look at the track record of this strategy which has certainly een in full force since bush -nader-gore in 2000. what that strategy brought us is voting your fears has delivered everything we were afraid of. all the reasons that you're told that you had to vote for the lesser evil because you didn't want the expanding wars, you

didn't want the meltdown of the climate, offshoring of our jobs, you didn't want massive wall street bailouts, you didn't want the expansion of mass incarceration in the prisons states, all of that is what we have gotten by silencing ourselves. and allowing political parties that are funded by the predatory banks and the war profiteers, by allowing them to speak for us with a lesser evil candidate. that's sort of what you're saying when you say don't vote for who you believe in but the least of the two alternatives. unfortunately that has delivered all those bad stuff. when you vote for a lesser evil candidate, i think the reason people like cornell west opposed president obama was because the first thing he did was appoint larry summers, the architect of wall street deregulation, and the meltdown, that has basically created chaos in our economy.

that was barack obama's first act was to appoint larry summers. then it was all downhill from there. it's a case in point of the lesser evil doesn't deliver for people. you know what happens then? people don't come out to vote in that party. so we had congress flip from being blue to being red. and state houses flip and governors flip. and we kind of went from blue to red all over the place because the lesser evil is not a solution. it just paves the way to the greater evil. i say reject that propaganda. we need to reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good. we have the numbers to actually do it. we need the strength of our convictions to stand up and make it happen. host: we thank you for joining us, dr. stein, green party candidate for president. thank you again. guest: thank you so much. host: next we're going to be going back to your calls.

getting your reaction to the attack in nice yesterday. democrats can call 2202-748-8,000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. be right back. >> before next week's republican national convention, this weekend c-span cities tour along with our charter communications cable partners will explore the history and literary life of cleveland, ohio. on book tv, we'll talk with author, john grabowsky as he tells how ground transportation shaped the city. then we'll visit the cleveland public library and explort its langs ton hughs collection relating to the social activist while he lived in cleveland. >> it was central that he developed his love of writing and he was introduced to the work of carl sandberg and walt

whitman through his teacher, and he also composed a poem while there that's kind of famous, when susanna jones was red. >> on american history tv, we'll visit the cleveland history center and take a tour of the power and politics exhibit with the chief cureator, highlighting items in the collections relating to ohio presidential history and cleveland's past political conventions. then tour the crawford auto aviation museum with the curator of transportation and hear why cleveland was nicknamed motor city before detroit. >> the kilo case of cleveland we're on lake erie, one of the great lakes, we also had the railroad. there were a lot of railroad shipping routes that would be taken. we also had the steel industry here which is very important in

the automobile industry to have the steel you need. and there was also a lot of lumber in this area. it all came together. >> this weekend watch c-span cities tour to cleveland saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2 on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the contry. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're continuing our discussion about the attack at yesterday in nice, france, during bastille day celebrations where a an apparent terrorist drove a truck through the crowd killing at least 84 people and leaving others gravely, gravely wounded. many of the wounded are still in critical condition, according to the most recent report on that.

we're taking your calls, getting your reaction to that. up next we have glenville calling in from suitland, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment was that every time i see these attacks, whether it's something that happens here or in another country, terrorism to me is not a united states problem, it's not eastern europe problem, it's not a middle eastern problem, this is a global problem. i think it's high time that the rest of the world kind of come together. instead of trying to deal with this from our separate pockets, pretty much come up with more global unified effort to deal with terrorism. host: let me ask you this. same thing asked of our callers yerl. even given this global effort, how do you think officials should fight against folks who are inspired from what they read

online, sort of take lone wolf or actions like this one individual did in france? couldn't that happen anywhere? caller: yes. and that's the big quagmire in this whole discussion. i really can't think of a way to deal with the byproducts of the this ic that comes from ideal. somehow we got to be able to deal with that. and that's just the type of problem that i believe we elect people to try to lead us into seeing how we do deal with that, because that goes into so many different areas where they talk about mental health or people attitudes toward their own governments. that's just a hard crack to

seal. host: ok. authorities have, according to the guardian, authorities have named the suspect who they believe is responsible for yesterday's attack. it says the police have name the suspect as 31-year-old franco laho arbyian humidity uaiej-bouhlel. neighbors portray him as a solitary figure who prayerly spoke and did not return greetings with their paths crossed in the four-story block of where he lived in a working class neighborhood of nice. so authorities there have named who they believe is the suspect in this attack which claimed the lives of at least 84 people. we're getting your reaction to that. up next, andy calling from from

owensboro, contract c good morning. caller: good morning. my t of all i'd like to say heart and prayers go out to the ones that lost their lives and to the families and everything. my comment is, i know the united states is in this, and everybody that's against the terrorists and everything, we need to find out where they are at. when you can go over there, everybody needs to get together, need to go over there and need to wipe them off the face of the ap once and for all. bombs or whatever we need to do. just wipe them off. that way that would take care of it. we keep playing with them. we keep toying with them like a snake, and if we don't put a stop to it once and for all, they are probably already over

here watching us. they'll be attacking us next. we need to go in and wipe them off the face of the map and be done with it once and for all. host: next we have lois calling in from california on our democratic line. good morning, lois. caller: yes, good morning. thank you. my comments this morning is about the in fighting and division in groups. can recall years ago that employees of states and government were not permitted legally to participate in divisions such as these. i feel like something has been has some legality comment been eradicated from the process of our governments.

all of these people working and divided against each other, it pears to be church and state or doctrines and things and a lot of money is being spent and nothing is being done. so that is a problem in this country. i think everyone has a right to their beliefs, but everyone does not have a right to have all of this large money going in all directions to choose against what's right for america. so that's my comment this morning. thank you for your time. host: representative among those reacting to the attacks including representative john mica, who talked about the tragedy in france. at the opening of a hearing on terrorism prevention before the house oversight and government reform committee. let's take a look at that. >> probably can't start this hearing without just maybe a

moment of silence both to remember the 49 individuals who were killed in orlando and then as we all saw last night in nice, our great allies, french lost some 84 people. we'll just take a minute and pause here and remember those folks. thank you. host: that was congressman john mica, responding to yesterday's attacks in nice, france, that has left at least 84 people dead. and dozens others -- dozens of others injured. many critically. up next we have bob calling in from virginia beach, virginia, on our independent line. good morning, bob. caller: how you doing? host: good morning. what's your reaction to yesterday's attack?

caller: more video cameras up in certain areas, towns, places where people gather at. more video cameras so when you have been watching a lot of things, you should have video cameras up there. now we're watching the police watch us. more video cameras across the country in various locations, hidden cameras, they should have both. no criminal activity caught on tv, whatever. host: do you worry about the privacy implications of having more cameras all over? caller: not really because if you want to cut down on crime, nobody wants to be on camera. i don't have nothing to hide. i'm not going to hide from everything. if you're hiding something, you know a camera looking at you. no criminal, so-called criminal. they don't want to be on camera. the more video cameras up, that

will cut down on your crime. some have to be hidden. some i don't know where they are. that's how you does it to cut down on crime. host: next we have ken, ken is calling in from cleveland, ohio, on our republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. first my heart goes out to all the people in france and all the victims of terror all over the world. i'd like to make one comment. you keep answering the phone the democratic line. i would hope that everybody's democratic. it's the democrat party. -- on and obama would whether you agree with iraq or not. if they could have nipped isis in the bud. then we have no business at all being in afghanistan. nobody in the history of the world has ever won anything. let them people do what they are going to do over there.

just keep residual force over in india and keep an eye on what's going on over there. that's it. i agree totally with donald trump. i'm a vietnam veteran. i served 15 months from april, 1967 to june of 1968. korean war, vietnam war, iraq, afghanistan. put more and more restrictions on the roles. donald trump's right. you got to go over there and wipe out every one of them guys. i'm sorry, their lives, their kids, their grandmothers, and their aunts and uncles. host: that's ken calling in from ohio. president obama is among those that have reacted to this attack. he said in a statement, i condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be horrific terrorist attack in nice, france, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians. our thoughts and prayers are

with the families and other loved ones of those killed. i have directed my team to be in touch with french officials and we have offered any assistance that they may need to investigate this attack and bring those responsible to justice. we stand in solidarity and partnership with france, our oldest allies, as they respond to and recover from this attack. that's the response from president obama and headlines from this morning's paper including, the "los angeles times," are reflecting this horror. again strikes france. those headlines say. showing some photographs of those still in the street covered by blankets. 84 people at least killed. people killed over a mile this truck traveled along the route for those bastille day celebrations. up next we have kim, kim calling in from detroit on our democratic line, good morning, kim. caller: good morning.

my comment is that we need to really work as the superpowers to end countries where there are third world countries, they shouldn't exist anymore. i know they are on the decline. however this is where these terrorist cells are coming from. we can't stamp them out. if that was the case we would have another vietnam. we did win that war. it was just a guerrilla war. that's what it would be. we really need to rectify some of the imperialism that has gone on by the superpowers since the 18 hundred's. we -- 1800's, we all enjoy our american lives and western lives, but there are too many people in this world who don't have the comforts that we have -- think if we stamp out if we don't support some of these dictators who don't solve

some of the problems in their country, then we will continue to see this kind of terrorist activity. host: ok. up next we have guy. guy is calling from glen bernie, maryland, on our democratic line. guy, you're on, good morning. caller: how you doing, thanks for taking my call. can you hear me? host: we can hear you barely. if you could turn down your television and speak clearly into your phone. that would be better. go ahead. caller: can you hear me now? host: yes. caller: ok. this seems to be the problem. my heart goes out to the innocent people that are collateral in this whole situation. it's unfortunate that one individual that has been persuaded in his mind that he's doing the right thing can do so much damage to so many people. but i do believe it's going to take many opinions about what to do about this situation. you can't go over there and just think you're going to bomb every

terrorist. you don't know who the terrorists are. you don't know who the innocent people are. just like it's almost impossible to determine here in this country who's been radicalized and who hasn't. we don't know who's been radicalized until after they have done something. and that's unfortunate that after they have done what they had planned to do, then we realize that this individual wasn't too stable in mind. but to think we're going to blow our way out of this situation, i don't think it's going to happen. host: guy, let me ask you some reaction to some other proposals such as newt gingrich who says, according to the hill, that muslims who believe in shari'a law should be deported. should u.s. officials be trying to investigate people here in the united states who may believe in. so same things that some of these terrorists reportedly believe in? caller: the key word in your comment is, may believe.

they may not believe that. so this is what you end up doing. you end up harassing the ones that don't feel that way. to catch the few that may feel that way. of course you want to get the few, but at what cost? because -- let me tell you as devil's advocate. if i'm being harassed because you think that i'm a certain way, after pushing on me so much you can almost push them to becoming that way. we have to be very careful about who we target and who we don't. because we don't want to radicalize those that aren't radicalized. host: ok. today's "wall street journal" it gives a little bit more about the atmosphere right now in terms of terrorism throughout europe and the world. it says the nice attack comes as voters across the u.s. are

beginning to focus more squarely on the presidential elections, with the national party conventions just days away, both leading candidates, republican donald trump, and democrat, hillary clinton, are being pressed to explain how they would rework u.s. counterterrorism policy to better thwart the resilience of islamic state. their counterterrorism strategies will likely face sharper scrutiny now. up next we have mark calling in from more ravea, new york, on our republican line. what would you like to hear the candidates say in response to terrorist attacks like in france yesterday? caller: it's just horrible. this is just getting completely out of hand. things need to be done, absolutely. that's what my remarks was. i know they are trying to figure out how to weed some of them out or pick up on some of them. host: mark, are you satisfied

with what you have heard from the candidates, donald trump and hillary clinton, in terms of how to fight terror? caller: hillary, not so much. and i think donald's got -- he's got good ideas. he's got to get them straightened out. my comment was you got these guys, they do this. and their families are sitting at home. everybody's saying well their family must have known something. which chances are some did, some didn't. but what i was thinking is, if some of these people are doing this, why don't they put it out there if you commit something like this, your family gets deported. and if that's put out there, the family members may be a little ok, yeah, maybe my cousin's brother, whatever,

something going wrong with him. i don't want to be deported. host: ok. caller: i think we should have him checked out. host: next, we have larry. larry is calling it in from albany, georgia, on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what's your reaction to the attack in nice? caller: it is absolutely terrible to say the least. i would like to comment and add to a few things that i have heard other callers say so far. the first one, there was a gentleman from virginia about five calls ago, he was talking about pugget up the cameras. and more heavily populated areas and stuff like that. i agree to an extent, but i also would like to say on top of that, you know, someone else brought up the -- trump is actually talking about just go over there and knock them out. well, i agree with both sides, but i say that we should take a more calculated strategy to the whole thing. if you look at the cold war, a

lot of russian spies were trying to get into the country. yet some were successful. almost every attempt to spy on the u.s. government by the ussr was completely thwarted for the most part. you even had an instance where they actually planted a bug in a government office hidden in a plaque, even that was discovered. one thing i think we should take away from that, how calculated our intelligence was at that time, but i feel our intelligence agency has turned their eyes to the wrong direction. they are looking a lot here on the home front, but yet if you look where a lot of these people are coming from, they are coming from the middle east. host: let me ask you about that, larry, because in most of the cases in the recent terror we have seen across the globe over the last 18 months or so, most suspecterpetrators, the here was from nice, a lot of the folks who committed terrorist

acts here in the united states are nationals or citizens. it seems that most of these people are from the local area where these attacks take place. caller: and i do agree with you. but i say that still going to the root of the source would actually solve the problem. now, i'm not saying go in and annihilate everybody. everybody over there's not a terrorist. but those that are, our intelligence agencies are superior, far more superior in technology than any other country's common technology, the commercial side of things. if we would take when our intelligence agency has, go to the root of the problem, and work its way up the treat, it would find our beliefs, no problem, instead of blindfolded shooting in the dark over here. i do agree there should be a lot of scrutiny here and still look here. i'm not saying turn our eyes completely away from our home turf, but still go over there, set up the type of security measures we have here in

america, and other advance countries, where the intelligence agencies of those countries actually do track and monitor this information. our intelligence agency can do it. go over there, see what -- who is doing what, and stay planted over there and work their way up the system. host: up next we have doc. calling in from marion, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what's your reaction -- caller: you addressed the issue of the nice killings. all the information that we need in order to understand and predict who the violent jihadist enemy is, all that information currently available on line in sources that anybody can access. the game plan has been published. the ideology of the with a had

sunni -- wahabish, radical violent jihadist is well-known to everyone who has studied this enemy without being frightened away by political correctness. or by memoranda that says you can't use the term islam or slim in the same phrase as errorist, jihadist, martyrdom. the attack in nice was actually in shed in the al qaeda iraq magazine, inspire , a number of years ago and it described, using a truck to run over a bunch of people in a .ensely populated place

the whole thing was outlawed. host: let's take another look at what republican presidential candidate donald trump said about the attacks yesterday on fox news. >> this is war. if you look at it, this is war. coming from all different parts. and frankly it's war. and we're dealing with people without uniforms. in the old days we would have uniforms. you knew what you were fighting. these people, we're allowing people into our country who we have no idea where they are, where they are from, who they are, they have no paperwork. they have no documentation, in many'ses. and hillary clinton wants to allow 550% more than even obama. and he's letting them in by the thousands. out of control. host: hillary clinton also called in to fox news o'reilly factor yesterday. here's what she had to say. >> one of my priorities is to

launch an intelligence surge. we still do not have enough intelligence cooperation between our agencies an those in other countries, including in europe. we need to have a focal point. >> didn't know that. why is that happening? why don't we have the intelligence? >> well, i'll tell you in part because there has been a reluctance on the part of some of our friends in europe to be as forthcoming in sharing information, for example, like airline passenger lists. i negotiated very hard with the europeans to get much more information. we have gotten some. i'll give them that. but we don't yet have enough. in fact, in europe, one of their problems has been, and they better address this, and a effects us, too, they don't share enough information even

across their borders. o i think that we need strong, tough diplomacy, starting with our friends, to do a bilateral basis with individual countries collectively with the e.u., with nato, and others to do everything we need to be prepared, to work with each other, toer if rhett out these -- ferret out these terrorists and prevent future attacks. host: that was hillary clinton speaking on fox news last night after these attacks first began to come to light. next we have vicky. calling in from fayetteville, north carolina, republican line. good morning, vicky. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is that our country was founded on god. and if we could return back. the christians are sitting back and letting everything go back. we need christians to stand up for god and get god back in our

schools and get in the white house. the white house is fighting among themselves. yet they are not telling us what they can do for our country and for us. they are letting the -- bickering back and forth. and then special encounter with our president, and they don't get impeached. then second and whatever else up there. and things need to be cleared up out there and people need to get saved. host: up next we have ann. ann's calling in from garland, texas, on our independent line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that after the carnage that we had in dallas last week i was very proud of our police first responders, and how we continue to try to improve race relationships in

our city and in our country. host: ok. we're talking, we're getting your reaction to yesterday's terror attacks. democrats can call 202-74le 8-8,000. republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002. s, up next we have deborah calling in from milton, florida, on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i think hillary has the best idea in regards to what we need to do in letting immigrants into the contry. donald trump does not have a clue of what he would do. we just can't go over and start bombing people. and donald trump gets in there and the republicans, we're going to syria, we're going -- there are going to be boots on the ground and back in the iraq situation then. it just terrifies me about

trump. people, just think about where this country is going to. and we can't go anywhere with trump. vote for hillary, please. host: let me ask you this, deborah. does the fact that these soft targets attacks are occurring, i'll ask you what i asked other viewers, does it make you less likely to go to events where there will be large crowds of people or places such as shopping malls or other potential soft targets? does it make you think again before attending an event like this? caller: yes, it does. i'm struggling with it. i live in milton, here, we call this lower alabama. e have a lot of -- when i go out i'm watching behind my back for terrorists, it's really got me upset. i am absolutely afraid to come

out of my house. host: ok. ok. a little bit more update from the guardian. here's more from french president france with a hoeland's statement translated by the bbc. he is wanting to fiend out if there were more accomplices to the attack today and whether there is still a threat to the population. he says there are 50 other people who are still receiving emergency treatment. they are between life and death, president hollande said. among the victims are french citizens as well as foreigners who came from all continents. and a number of young children who came to watch fireworks who have been struck down to satisfy the cruelty of one individual or possibly of a group. french president france with a hollande is calling for -- francois hollande is calling for more. emma calling in from

russellville, arkansas, on our republican line. good morning. aller: good morning. talk to him. -- ountry is getting more inaudible] >> you go down to the office. you don't see anybody. somebody dump him and murder him. he kill babies.

host: ok. next we have ralph calling in. ralph is calling from new york on our republican line. good morning, ralph. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i lived in new york all my life. i'm a republican and what i wanted to speak to is earlier you had a call on black lives matter, which is very important. and i'm more concerned that with trying to heal and trying to get everyone together, especially i'm white, but i'm not. my parents came over here from italy. so i'm really italian. so people look at me. white privilege. it's not the way to approach this. jesse jackson, the reverend jackson, sorry, rainbow coalition. when that thing started, that is where we should pick this up from. and move forward.

and as a new yorker when you walk down the street, and i'm getting tired of people saying white privilege. i don't have white privilege. i dug a ditch. my father was called a w.o.p. and he dug a ditch. you know what, start from the bottom, you work your way up. sometimes it's not white privilege. you look at someone and i look at black person and i don't judge them that way, either. host: we're continuing to take calls in response to yesterday's terror attack in nice, france. next we have bill calling in from silver city, new mexico on our democratic line. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. good morning. let me just say that you don't et the fox in the hen house. host: what do you mean by that, bill? caller: what's the problem in europe? the problem are muslims. what kind of muslims?

they are arab muslims. the problem is arabs that are muslims that believe in jihad. and the simple answer is, rather than waiting for them to cause more havoc, is tell them all, you know what, it's time for you-all to go home. go back to wherever you came from, tunisia, whatever. host: how difficult do you think it would be for these countries? you are talking about upwards of a third of a population. caller: in france it's 10%. how difficult will it be? well, it will take a while. it took europe 300 years to get rid of the muslims before. they finally drove the last of them out in 1492. it can be to be. -- it can be done. if people can't get along, what you do is send them back to their own homes. host: next we have bill calling in from lubbock, texas, on our republican line. good morning, bill. caller: this is quite

interesting. you know until, if you look at our current administration, if we can get someone in there, don't think it will be hillary clinton and i don't know if donald trump has sense enough to do it or not, but until we get somebody in there that we actually go into those hot spots, we know where isis is working out of. but until you send the military in there to actually take care of the job, untie their hands, and let them get this done, this problem is going to continue to escalate. host: bill, let me ask you, might it still continue even if we do have a stronger military solution being that a loft these people are recruited online and act alone? caller: it will continue, but not at the level that it's at right now. which will make it easier for the intelligence service -- the reason i say this. 25-year retired military, and i have seen what has happened under this administration and the way these soldiers' hands

have been tied. they are not allowed to do their job. they know how to do it, but they won't let them do it. host: ok. next we have bill calling in om chefer in, florida, on -- florida, on our democratic line. good morning. what's your reaction to the nice attacks? caller: my reaction is this, i believe that we have to start with our young kids, elementary age kids. we have to have a way of evaluating whether or not these kids are susceptible to radicalization or not. and then have a way of treating those that we find that are susceptible to being radicalized. host: how would you do that? because a lot of the folks who have committed these crimes, you would talk to their family and they have absolutely no idea that this was coming. caller: that's what i'm saying. if we can educate our teachers, people that can -- we got some of the honest people here in the

world in the united states. but people that can come up with a system, a way of evaluating these kids that young age to see if they may be susceptible to being radicalized once they get older. they come up with a way of educating se kids, them so we can be more or less assured that they won't be radicalized. turning them away from being radicalized. host: next we have ray .p next we have ray what is your reaction to the attack? guest: i believe it's terrorists. the way for us -- caller: i believe it's terrorists. the way for us to keep is out -- they've been killing each other since the beginning of time. let them fight it out among