interactions in the community for one incident to change a family's perception, and we have to make sure that does not happen. i also think, in terms of watching the snippets of video that i saw with calvin, is that it just takes one or two small things to change the tone of an encounter with a police officer, and sometimes, it is the tone of the police officer, sometimes, it is how you say something, the way you say something, the body language as you approach, the circumstances at the time, but once that tension starts, it tends to not stop. and so i think the important thing for us as police officers to remember is that we have to be very conscious of the way we approach people and speak to people. most people get defensive if they feel like you are being offensive. so being very respectful in

encounters and requests, if it is not a crisis, if it is not a dangerous situation, requests versus demands, those things change the dynamics a little bit. so that's what we try to educate our police officers the importance of encounters. you don't have authority and respect just because you have a uniform. i tell every rookie that. you don't. [applause] the uniform is going to represent either fear and oppression or hope and safety. you decide how people view that uniform. the uniform does not decide for you. ta-nehisi: i just want to ask somebody who is actually out there right now, when you have an interaction with the community member and you do not know what is going on, do you try to communicate? what is your approach when you are out on the beat? >> my main approach is to engage the community, ask some questions, see how their day is going.

on a regularbeat day basis, i will try to engage and say hello, good morning. sometimes, how is everything with you? we will engage in a conversation. my main approach is to get to know my community where i work at. because if something happens there, they are more likely to speak to you because they already know you. ok, maybe they might not speak to that officer, because they don't know them. matias, sheicer works here. i know her." they feel more comfortable. ta-nehisi: tell us a little bit, i think it is important about why you are a police officer. virginia: i always wanted to be a police officer, but several things happened when i was younger and older. when i was growing up, my mom owned a convenience store. i was around kindergarten at the time. she was robbed at gunpoint at her bodega, which is like a local grocery store. she always tells the story about that, and it was scary, because i could have lost my mom that

day. and then, as time went on -- a lot of my other family members own small groceries. one of my uncles owned a small grocery in north kansas. and it was around 2003. he was robbed and shot, and he died from that wound, so that really impacted me. i was like, wow. that really hits close to home, because i lost a loved one from an act of violence, so i think from there, i knew i needed to make a change in my community and felt like i wanted to help and make a difference. ta-nehisi: do you feel like you are making a change? officer matias: yes, i do. when i speak to, especially with children or i don't know what teens, type of encounter their parents might have had or what they are being told, but when i speak to them, they are like, hello, officer. when i grow up, i want to be an officer. i think that is great. that i am making -- they see me.

they think, i can do it. she is a female. also, when you engage them, you change their perspective. so they can see for themselves how they exchange for them. ta-nehisi: i'm interested, this is a wildcard -- i wonder if you can talk a little -- i wonder as a young person, i don't know your background, but what your relationship was like with the police, what your perception was of the police. did your parents have a talk with you? or -- and i do not want to put anything on you but i want to , know what your experience was like. you come from a law-enforcement family. what was it like? as i want to say officer mati is very modest. i want to start with that. not only is she an outstanding officer. she recently had a meeting with president obama with about five other officers and talked to him about what it is like to be a rank-and-file officer. it really helped to shape the views of the administration. to the question is she making a difference? yes, she is. [applause]

ronald davis: for me, my father was a cop. the good and bad, i had a lot of protection that young men of color especially do not have, in that my father was a cop. i could basically invoke that privilege. and that is what it is, a privilege. when i decided to be youthful and knuckleheadish, like most young men are. >> young people. [laughter] ronald davis: i have two daughters. i stand corrected. absolutely. [laughter] but now i stand here as a father. i work for the administration. people do not like to hear this, but i will say this anyway. now that i stand here as a father, my son just started his freshman year in college. i remember, when he first got his license, i faced the dilemma that every parent has, especially with a young man of color, has with his family, and that is to have this talk. this talk is mandatory for young

men of color in this country -- what to do when stopped by the police. i say that being very proud of the police. i say that knowing that the overwhelming majority have done a tremendous job and continue to do a tremendous job. but as a father, i still have to have that talk. so now that my son is in college, i have multiple worries now. one is that he gets stopped, and there is not an implicit bias that makes him a threatening person just because he is a young man of color. and he recently got stopped, which is interesting, after we had the talk. he said the encounter went well. he was speeding, got a ticket. so that part did not go very well. [laughter] nonetheless, he got the ticket. i also have to worry about he is going to northwestern and is in a major metropolitan area, and i have to worry about violence, i have to worry that he will get caught going out with his friends and get caught up and get hurt by gang violence. and then the one that every father has, i worry that he will not bring me a grandchild until i am actually ready.

i have an older child who has one, which is ok. he is 26. but when i grew up, i did not have some of the same challenges. i acknowledge that in that case, i grew up a little more privileged, if you will. but as a father, i am concerned about it. as a society, it comes down to one question. if i may say this. the number one question we have task, whether as police chiefs, community members, all of us, white, black, across the board, is how do we see our young men of color? how do we view them? if we view them as a threat, a lot of things become different. reaching for a driver's license is no longer reaching, it is a furtive movement. asking a question or being defiant in the classroom is no longer youthful exuberance. it is youthful defiance and becomes a crime. a lot of things come out of our fear and implicit bias. so we need to struggle with that as a people and answer the question how do we view our young men of color to make sure we treat everyone with dignity and respect. [applause]

ta-nehisi: and one of the things we were talking about behind stage -- and this is a kind of theory of mine. in a society now, where it strikes me as an observer and citizen that police officers are called into situations in which may be bringing someone into the criminal justice system is not the best answer. as i said to you, i particularly think about that case down in columbia, south carolina. but there are so many cases like many where you can see so other societal issues going on. a drug issue that could have been thought about from a public health perspective. walter scott, where it fell to the child support system -- and that is not to excuse the officer or anything, but that is there. so often, mental health issues, which is behind it. i wonder what your perspective is?

are we asking our police officers to do too much? chief lanier: policing has been pushing back on that for years and years. policing has become the drive-through 24-hour mcdonald's of services, right? we are the only 24/7, 365 days a year, out there in the community, available when a crisis hits, whatever that crisis hits or when , something has to be solved, and when there is no other resources for it, the police will handle it. and to some extent, the community, if they don't know who to call, are going to call the police. so i think yes, i think there are a lot of things that we in policing try the best we can to train and prepare for, but we know there are other people better for providing that service. if we could get police out of that business, we would. i think that is part of it. we really have to look at laws

and enforcement, enforcement versus regulation in some cases, regulation is one thing. you don't need a badge and gun to regulate things. so -- ta-nehisi: can you make it concrete? are someier: so there things that are violations of regulations, where officers are sent out to enforce. like minor violations of business regulations or maybe even minor, what is even criminal in some cases, minor single sale cigarettes. things like that. are these things you really need to have a badge and gun enforcing? or are these things more regulatory that could be handled through a civil process and eliminate the potential for things to go bad? i think there are a lot of things. we certainly need the mental health training. we are going to deal with people in mental health crisis. but i would love it if people in this country knew if they had a loved one with a mental health

crisis that they could dial another number other than 911 and get a mental health professional out who knows how to deal with that, versus a police officer who has been trained, but has been trained in a 40-hour course to try and deal with that. ronald: and one other thing. in this discussion, we need to go beyond the arrest. for the first time in 2014, we saw that our crime rates and arrest rates went down at the same time. so one, as a community, we have two accept that an arrest is not automatically equate to public safety. once the arrest is made, we have to take a look at our sentencing and how long we are keeping people in jail. this is an area where we are now seeing very bipartisan support. that keeping people in jail for extended periods of time is costing us $80 billion a year, and that is the kind of money that could be reinvested to providing services. it is $6,000 for treatment, $60,000 for incarceration. we are paying more to keep young men in jail than to give them a full scholarship to harvard.

we need to look at our priorities and adjust accordingly so we are preparing our young people, across the board, for society. and as a community, we need to convince ourselves that we don't fall for the temporary satisfaction that comes with a lot of arrests that were made. these problems were not created overnight. they will not be solved overnight. they require you, the police department. you are a coproducer of public safety, working to make the community safe. if you simply asked the police to do it, it is like all i have is a hammer and everything looks like a nail, and it goes one direction and one direction only. chief lanier: i would go one step further than that. i was in a discussion with all the justice partners the other day, and there was a discussion about investing in drug treatment. you know, once people get into the system. and really the solution for the , criminal justice partners is for us to try to put ourselves out of business. isn't that ultimately the goal? you should have the investment long before the person gets into

the system, so how about before -- how about investment in prevention before you are incarcerated, not after you are incarcerated. because now it makes the challenges that much more difficult. [applause] chief lanier: i hate to say it in my profession, but more investments in social services and less investment in police and incarceration is probably the long-term solution. ta-nehisi: i know i have to open up to questions really quick. but i have to ask. you alluded to this bipartisan moment that we find ourselves in. i think there is a letter interest in overall criminal justice reform, not just police. i wonder -- not "i wonder." i think that that consensus is actually built on very thin ice. in the moment, where compared to 20 years ago, the crime rates are much, much lower, and yet even still we have heard quite a effect,t this ferguson that says quite a bit about this moment.

you have black lives matter activists filming police officers. that some of the crime rise we have seen in our cities, that there is a direct relationship between those two things. we have heard this from very high places in our government. i wonder what you guys think -- make of it. ronald: i think we are starting to see spikes in violence in certain cities around the country, and we have an obligation to do the research to find out why. to respond to the crime with empirical data so we go to the root causes of it. i want to be careful about doing that, because a notion that said just america's finest, that you are looking at on the stage, somehow does not do their job, i reject. that is not happening. also we know through history that we should not make that connection. we need to find out more data. we need to basically research. we need to ask the tough questions. but we need to have a conversation, so that we can have the courage to ask the tough questions. come up with the answers. although we are seeing a spike,

i want to remind the community this is still a 40 year low in crime. so before we assume there is a national epidemic of violence, and all violence is something we should deal with, we should take a look at what got us there. what is most heartening for me is i am listening to my colleagues, like cathy and others, saying, we need to do it by not trying to arrest our way out of a crime. we need to do it by building social services and options. the idea is that policing in a democratic society means that public scrutiny is not a threat to policing, it is the foundation of it. that you must demand community hold the police accountable. [applause] that is the only way it can work. if you think about it, the greatest exertion of government authority is the use of force by police. so it has to be criticized and criticized and -- criticized and scrutinized and evaluated. we have to do it fairly so that officers are treated with dignity and respect and all sides are heard before we make

our judgments. chief lanier: i agree with him. ta-nehisi: before we go to questions, i will put this to you quickly. i don't think you have been in this position yet. as you are doing your job and you see folks filming you on their camera phones, does that affect your willingness to go do your job? officer matias: no, i act the same way if i am on camera or off-camera. i always remain professional and always treat everybody with dignity and respect. ta-nehisi: so i think we have time for maybe one question. i can't see where we are going. here we go. beautiful. >> my name is desiree. so if both officers were in the video, what would you guys do differently or what would you do? chief lanier: you are asking about the calvin video? >> yes. chief lanier: i have only seen bits and pieces of the video.

i said i saw it just a few days ago. but i will say this. in 25 years i have been policing here, and i started policing here in 1990, when we had a huge violent crime issue in the district and relationships were not very good with police. i learned quickly that sometimes the simplest of things can turn a normal encounter between a police officer and a community member in a bad direction very quickly. and when i say the sublist of things, it is just the tone of voice or the way you approach a person, the level they perceive the way you respect them. that goes both ways. i have seen it, perceived lack of respect from the community member by the way or tone an officer uses. and i have seen the same reaction from a police officer. and so you just have to -- i have to say that i have spent the majority of my career making

sure that i am conscious, especially when i enter a situation where a crisis is am ady going on, that i schedule of the fact that i entering someone's home, am community, where there is something that bad has happened. that i have to be the one that makes the effort to calm things, be respectful, and bring things back down to atone to where we can have a reasonable discussion first. ta-nehisi: ok, we got one more. i think we still have time for one more. is largely for officer lanier. i am a community organizer, and i was at a community event where we were harassed by police officers. we had a sergeant called to the scene, and the sergeant continued to harass the other organizers. i was de-escalating. i asked in the sergeant about his tone and his level of respect. i said i have been trained in

the escalating, and i said yelling has never been used as a method. he was yelling at the citizens. he turns to me and says we don't have de-escalation training. we get verbal judo. [laughter] >> i would like you to speak to what verbal judo is and why we don't have de-escalation training for the metropolitan police department? [applause] chief lanier: so the first question i would ask -- and you do not have to answer is -- i asked this all the time. if ever you have an interaction with the police officer that you don't feel was appropriate for any reason, i would encourage you to make sure that you file a complaint so that the police department can look into it. you do not have to file with the police department here. you can file with the office of police complaints. so somebody outside can take a look at what happened and try to address issues. before de-escalation was called de-escalation -- because de-escalation has been taught in police academy since i came on in the early 1990's. it has evolved over the years.

it has been taught in a variety different circumstances. we try to teach it while we are in defensive tactics, while we are in different scenario-based training, but we have been doing it for many years. and yes, years ago -- this officer had to be about a 10 to 12 year veteran, because "verbal judo" was one of the best de-escalation trainings out there, and it was taught nationwide. it was very effective. so i do not know whether it was sarcasm or what without knowing everything. >> can you tell us what verbal judo is? chief lanier: it is de-escalation training. it is just a different name. you know, ron. ronald: it has been around since the 1990's. the concept of judo is you redirect energy. so you redirect anger and de-escalating so you are talking yourself down from situations. that is what it was designed to do. but i think since that time that , curriculum has been updated,

modified, and gets more into training with de-escalation, where you can test it. but we both kind of smile because that is going back a few years. chief lanier: that is going back a ways. but we still put them through de-escalation training as part of their ongoing training. if you have not talked to somebody about that encounter or you want to give me the information, or talk to someone i would encourage you to so that , we can look into it. >> -- and that it has saved them money and training and all of that. is that true, and is that the reason why it appears that black people and others are being treated less than human as enemies? ronald: let me start with that one. one, for a lot of people here, happy belated veterans day. i would say my office as far as , grants, we provide a lot of

grants for hiring, and absolutely support the hiring of veterans, not because it saves costs, but because these are young men and women who are sacrificing lives for this country, and we have an obligation to help them return back to the community and provide support for them. we also know that, in many cases, the military understands the disciplinary process. i think it is the training, not the idea that they are veterans. also keep in mind, that the voluntary veteran force, the diversity of force is pretty strong. one argument is that many of the volunteers are young men and young women of color, so i would be cautious about making that assumption. i think where i would agree with you is that we have to be careful that we do not militarize the police. will tellhe military you they're using different tactics. chief lanier: the military is teaching community policing in communities. and the military prior service does not afford you any opportunity -- you still have to meet the same hiring requirements, you still have to

go to the same police academy, so it does not lower the standards. what it does for me, and washington, is it allows -- we have a 60 college credit requirement. and some of our young men and women go off into the military , and they don't go to college, and this affords those folks an opportunity to come on the police department using their service in the military in exchange for the 60 college credits, which they can get when they come on the police department. >> for they are still enemies -- chief lanier: these are community members. these are local community members. they are. as i said, the military has been training community policing for the last 8 to 10 years. ifald: if i can add this -- there is the feeling very that communities are being treated as the enemy, i do not think we are pushing back enough. that may be the case where you are living. we are trying to change that.

but the only thing i would say is i don't think it would be accurate to attach to one segment of policing being veterans. i think i would take a look at the training of all your officers, how they are held accountable, how they are relating to the community. because i know the former police chief, looking at the men and women who have, from service -- and i am a veteran, my daughter is a veteran. their sense of duty can be very positive. that does not excuse that department of not engaging and not supporting and not treating the community right, but we have to be cautious before we make that automatic link, but i understand the concern. ta-nehisi: thank you. thank you. ronald: thank you very much. ta-nehisi: thank you. [applause] ta-nehisi: outstanding. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's issue spotlight continues. the republican and democratic conventions are over, and now we look ahead to the november elections. associated press white house

correspondent josh letterman, what are the presidential candidates saying about race relations? josh: both of the candidates have really seized on this as a major issue in the campaign. donald trump has dubbed himself the "law and order" candidate. he is trying to show he is tough on crime, supports law enforcement, will be there for police officers when they are in these kinds of situations. he has spoken critically about situations where people who have attacked police officers have not gotten really harsh sentences. so he is really trying to take the hawkish point of view on this. hillary clinton has taken a slightly different approach. she is also supportive of law enforcement, but she has really tried to address the issue and concerns that a lot of african-americans have paid we saw in the democratic national convention a very full display -- she is trying to address the issue and concerns that a lot of

african-americans have. we saw at the convention a full display of trying to show support for black lives matter movement and other activists who are trying to say, this cannot continue to happen and we need to do something about it. >> how important is this issue of police and race relations to the 2016 campaign overall? josh: it is certainly very important. we don't know how many voters will make up their minds based solely on this issue, but we know this is one of the biggest issues in the news right now and one that has struck to the heart of concerns for people, so we know both candidates are talking about it almost daily. they are releasing ads that discuss these issues. they are trying to make it part of their core message about why best prepared to lead the country through a difficult time. >> now here is part of what a former st. louis police officer retta hunton told students at the university of delaware about what he saw on the job. >> i want to share some things with you about my experiences when i was on the department, and then i will get to my remarks.

to give you a sense, a foundational sense, of some of what this movement that you have seen grow from ferguson all the way around the world, it has been vilified wrongfully in so many corners, what it is really about. early in my career, i was working with an officer, and a female officer. it's not only white officers who abuse their authority. you have black officers, asian offices, hispanic officers that do it. it is the issue of abuse of authority and where it takes place. which is consistently in black and around communities and sometimes poor white communities across this country. officerrking with this

one day my career, and we got a call. and it was a call for an officer in need of aid. an officer in need of aid call, for anybody who is in law enforcement in the room or anybody who knows of law enforcement officer, an officer in need of aid call is a very serious call. it means all officers in the geographical range of this call, in earshot of this call, stop whatever you are doing and expedite to the officer's location. who put out the aid call. he or she is in trouble. serious trouble, could be. so this officer put out an aid call. he was in a foot pursuit, chasing a suspect in an armed robbery. and he was running, giving out his coordinates. calling out where he was. the aid call comes out, we expedite to his location, and we get there first. we see the officer who put the aid call out, but we don't see the suspect. we see the officer bent over like this, winded, breathing hard. we get out of the car, we go up to the officer. and the female officer asked him, what happened? are you ok? are you all right?

"yeah, i'm ok. i'm all right." he is breathing hard. "where did he go? did you see where the guy went? where did he go?" we were on a street called ashland, in north st. louis, missouri. that is the "black" side of st. louis, missouri. ashland is a long block of houses, long block. and he is bent over like this, and she asking where he went. he did like this. "i think he went in that house." he picked the house at random. we go up to the house, me and the female officer. we get to the door, and she is banging on the door. she had a mag light, flashlight, big, black flashlight, hitting the door as hard as she could. bam, bam, bam. "open this door. open this --"

i'm not going to use the language. "effing door. we are coming in here. we know somebody is in here. we are coming in here to bring you out." we don't know if anybody is in the house or not. but from the back of the house, with the ruckus we have created, we see a shape begin to approach the door. wooden door, glass in the center, and it is moving about this speed right here, slowly getting to the door. the door opens, cracked. standing in the door is a kid about 19 years old, african american, and i am standing here with this female officer. now mind you, i 6'8". ami am out of shape right now -- [laughter] but at that time, i was working out every day. i was about 265, 270, single-digit body fat. i had on a short sleeve shirt that was a size medium. [laughter] it was that small on purpose, so that i could look like i was just busting out of it.

[laughter] he opens the door and looks and he says, "lady, i don't know what you are talking about. i live here. i have lived here all my life. everybody on this block knows our family. they know me. i am here by myself right now. my family is not here. but you got the wrong house." i guess that was the wrong answer. because as soon as he got those words out of his mouth, she grabbed him by his throat and snatched him out of the doorway and took him to the porch. in north st. louis, the porches are elevated on some blocks. they sit up real high. if you go to the edge of it, you will fall to the edge of that floor. you will fall maybe 10 feet. she had him by his throat over the edge of the porch. bam, she cracked him right in the face. and i'm looking at this, and if

somebody hits you like that, and i always say that if somebody hits you like that, generally speaking you're going to do one , of two things. you're going to put up your hands and try to block something else that may be coming at you, or you may offer up some discouragement for that kind of behavior. but given that this was a police officer, that was not likely. he threw his hands up. i don't know if she thought he was trying to engage or what, but she hit him again, pow, to the face, pow, to the groin. she is holding him, man. it's happening. i'm telling it slow, but it is happening fast. i see this. at this point, i do not know if you can picture this, i go and grab the uniform officer in my uniform. and get him -- her off of this the edge ofher to the porch. but i tell you it was an officer

, in need of aid call. it means every officer in the area to expedite to the location. he canceled the call, but it slowed them down some. it did not slow them down completely. people want to see what the call was about. they came anyway. here come the rest of the officers. now, up the steps of the porch we are on comes the black officer. black male officer, he comes up the steps. he looks at me, looks at the veteran officer i had in the corner, he goes "what's going , on? what happened?" she points at the guy who is laying where she left him. at the edge of the porch. she says that sob, so and so, he assaulted me, tried to interfere with what i was trying to do. black officer says, "oh, yeah?" he goes over to the guy and says "man, get up." he said, "you can see i can't get up."

the officer said, get the fill in the blank up. the kid said "man, you can see i can't get up." he grabbed him, picked him up, bam. slammed him into the house. face against the house. his hands are behind his back. he cuffed him up. still leaning against the house. said not get down this porch and get in the car, because i am taking a in for assault of an officer and interfering with interest. the kid is looking at him. he said, man -- i will never forget the look in his eyes. the mix of anger, hurt, surprise, fear, all of that. because he was looking at this brother in front of him, thinking "why are you doing this to me?" he said it one last time. he said "man, you see i can't go." the officer said, "i know."

kid by his ankles. -- he dropped down and grabbed the kid by his ankles. pulled him up like that. if you have your hands bound behind your back, can't move them, and somebody grabs you by your ankles and pulls up toward the ceiling as hard as they can what do you think happens? , you hit your head pretty hard, don't you? and he did. he drug him down that porch and down the front of the yard threw , him in the car. and we got back to the station, and we are all in the sergeant's room. we all get into it. first a female officer says to me, "redditt hudson, let me tell you something. if you ever interfere with me again while i am doing police work," that's how she characterized what she had done, police work, "i will never ride with you again." i'm thinking, "that's already a pretty damn good idea. i'm with that." the other officer, me and him go back and forth a little bit.

the sergeant comes in, squashes the whole thing. "look, we got work to do. we don't have time for this." puts us all back in service. and we all went back in service. and that was that. what always bothered me about that encounter, what always has stayed with me to this very day, was the reason the kid kept telling the officer, "you see that i can't go, you see i can't go," the reason he was saying that was because when he first came to the door and saw me and the other officer standing there, he cracked the door open, he was standing there on crutches. she snatched him off his crutches to do that to him. and nobody was in the house. and it was his home. he was in violation of no law. no law. i got one more for you to set the foundation. then we will talk.

college. young kid, 21, 22 at the time. 2006. comes to us, brought to our attention. this is when i was with the aclu. about an assault committed on him by a police officer in st. louis. a traffic stop, one of those checkpoint situations. where they set up a checkpoint, and every car that comes through has to stop. and he is at the checkpoint one night. he stops for the officer, but the officer is at a distance. he cannot understand what the officer is directing him to do. what he wants him to do. so he gets out of his car to find out more about what he needs to do, because he has somewhere to be. he has somewhere to be.

he gets out of the car. the officer says, "get back in there, blanking car." and because he has somewhere he urgently needs to be, he approached the officer anyway in an attempt to explain that and find out what he needs to do. so you can move through the checkpoint. instead of offering an explanation for his simple act of noncompliance, which these days can get you killed, the officer proceeds to assault him physically. he maces him, chokes him up. eyes burning. they are getting ready to arrest him for assault on an officer, again resisting arrest. , any time an officer beats you up, they charge you with resisting arrest. i do not know if you know that or not. anthony pleads his case. at some point, one of the supervising officers arrives and

a decision is made to finally let anthony get medical attention, which they initially denied to him, and to release him. this was largely due to the fact that, at some point, they realized the assault the officer committed on anthony had caused him to miss his flight back to iraq for his second tour of duty in the united states army. i interviewed anthony at length. to hear anthony, this black kid, this soldier, describe to me how he felt, that he had no rights here in the united states, that anyone was bound to recognize how he had always felt this way because the police had always treated him this way and his family this way, including his

mother, was disappointing, to say the least. these kinds of experiences are part of the daily lived reality of black people everywhere in this country, particularly in the urban cores of america. you need to fully understand. when you see black lives matter, this is what they are talking about. it's not the only thing they are talking about, but they are talking about the real, lived experiences of people. they are tired. we are tired. this is generations old. fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, have all experienced this from who knows when. and there has been zero accountability for any of it. because as police officers, we can always fall back on the narrative of heroism, sacrifice, risk -- some of the

favorite words of many of the most public police apologists that you see all the time in the mainstream media. people like harry help, -- harry hulk, former new york city detective, the town crier of police apologists. people will justify anything the police will do on the street. this is where we are. equal treatment under the law, it is not the american reality. we are going to have to dig deep and ourselves. i will tell you this. to make the decision -- the discussion more comfortable, let me say this, and not just in this room, but nationally, for the nation, here's how to make this racial discussion -- and we talk about black and white, but we have other races in the country, too, black and white, here is how to make the discussion more comfortable. understand it, accept it, and we can go forward. the problems of talking about

here tonight, and i talk about in all the places that i discuss it, institutional racism, our history with it, no one in this auditorium tonight is under indictment, white people in the room, is under indictment for any of this. why? because you didn't create the conditions. we were all born into this reality. it was like this when we got here. this is what we were born into. you didn't do this. it was like this when we showed up. if you're alive now -- our responsibility is to acknowledge fully what that reality is, not the narrative, the reality of the history is, and then do

-- where it has us now and then , do something about it together, collectively. that's our role. that's what will allow us to have this discussion. as i prepare to close, because i was told i will have 30 minutes, and i know i am getting there -- there are things we can do. betweene the dynamic police and communities they serve. the police community relationship. and the breakdown in it. genesis of the movement we see. it has expanded to include discussions of race and its impact across our systems, whether you're talking about education, employment, health care, you name it. but relative to police and community. peace we and foremost have to address is accountability. accountability. there are already plenty of good training. this newabout

training, that new training. we have great training already. the officers receive. but it is worthless if you do not have officers who adhere to the policy and are held accountable when they do not. whilearner, murdered officers violated their own policies to take his life. and nobody is held accountable. all we get is somebody with his chin up and chest out, looking like a doofus. accountability is everything, and it starts from inside the system. one of the things i would like to see in the national coalition of law enforcement officers, a diverse group of current and former officers from coast-to-coast, l.a. to new york, one of the things i would like to see is the column involved in is building a movement within the criminal justice system itself nationally. starting with people who come from affected communities, black and brown communities, who work in the criminal justice system, judges, attorneys, correction

officers, police officers. youver you are and wherever are in that system. we can collect ourselves within that system and demand and enforce the changes we see relative to how it operates in our community. there are enough of us. and it is right. we have the moral high ground. that is one of the things i would like to see. another thing i think will go a long way towards resolving some of the issues we have seen is a special prosecutor. in all cases involving use of force by a police officer resulting in serious injury or death. the relationship between prosecutors and police departments are too close to have a reasonable expectation afterhe officers going any officers in the department, they work in alliance almost 100% of the time. there is a prime example of that. a man was recently sued after mike brown's case, in the last

month or two, by a grand juror that he illegally removed from the grand jury, because he thought he had a propensity to look at things differently. he was a former aclu attorney. i think i know who he is. they have not announced his name presently, but i am pretty sure. ut he takes them off the grand jury in violation of state law. you think they don't shape our outcomes? you think they don't decide who gets justice and who doesn't? it leads me to my next point in -- it leads me to my next in point. cases involving police misconduct and the use of police force that results in serious injury or death, eliminate the grand jury. yes. eliminate the grand jury. it is a secretive process that into too many cases involving police misconduct result in the elimination of accountability for police officers, because the prosecutor has advocated for the

officer in front of the grand jury, so they don't have to be tried on the facts. either that, or have the argument for indictment take place where the public can be present. the last thing i would tell you is to support the movement that you see. it's an american movement. don't be afraid of black lives matter. these are young people who are citizens, just like you. they want their rights recognized. and their right to live and right to dignity recognized. and it is not negotiable. for them. it is not up for, really, discussion. they are citizens here as well. and they fully understand the history. so as i close my remarks, i am first of all amazed i was able to get through them. i thought i was off my feet when i came into the room. they ran me ragged today. i'm telling you.

i had no idea what i was in for when i got up at 4:30 this morning to fly to delaware, but i'm glad i came, and i appreciate you giving me your time and valuing what you thought i might have to say enough to be here tonight. i look forward to engaging you. the questions need to be respectful, and they do, but nothing is off limits. you can challenge me. you can ask me. or you can say, because i believe in free and open dialogue -- i believe that is the way forward. thank you for your patience with me tonight. thank you. [applause] redditt: was that too long? >> no. you are fine. thank you so much for being here. you are the final speaker in this series we have had all

semester long about race in america. we have talked about the black lives matter movement, we have talked about the civil rights movement. so you are here kind of in this unique role as having served as a police officer and now kind of speaking out against the uncivil things you saw. what, as the cofounder of the national coalition of law enforcement for justice reform and accountability -- a long name -- how did you go from being a police officer to seeking to hold those same officers accountable? redditt: it wasn't a huge transition when i came to the department. i came with the same ideology, same personal philosophy, the same disposition, everything about me was the same when i joined the department. i think ultimately, that is what led me to leaving that work. because i am who i am. i was profoundly disillusioned, though. was before i became

a police officer. i became profoundly disillusioned with the criminal justice system in the united states, and the conduct of some of my colleagues in particular. knew i had to stop being part of that system. let me be clear about this, because i realize i have not said this tonight, and i think it important i do. there are good police officers. there are good police officers. there are good people doing a very difficult job under very difficult circumstances, who have to do -- make very difficult decisions sometimes, and they deserve our support, because it is a tough job. my contention is that the number of officers that will willfully abuse your human rights and your civil rights is too big a number to not have a systemic policy response in place to deal with those people. but there are good officers in the country. >> we invite you to watch each of the programs on this issue

spotlight on police and race relations in their entirety. plus, many more in the topic on our video library at c-span.org. 2016 busescampaign in chicago at the national conference of state legislatures, asking elected officials what issue is most important to you, your state. >> i am aced the other senator from south dakota. . am at the convention the number one issue that i believe will face the state of south carolina -- south dakota will be the potential expansion of medicaid. the governor seems to want of this particular program expanded. there are many of the legislature who oppose it. it will be a very interesting session. thank you. the am a legislator in district of columbia. i am here to talk about a really important issue for residents of the district this year.

in addition to voting for president, we will vote on statehood and self-determination. we are getting out the vote to show everyone across the country we want to be the 51st state. that is because just like everyone else, we pay taxes. we fight in wars. we serve our communities. we want the same equality and representation as all of the residents in the united states. >> the issue most important to me in the 2016 election cycle is raising wages and benefits so we can grow our economy. >> this is kate from political life. exciting to be at the convention. this federal election has been really exciting to follow. as a female, i am excited we have a viable female in the candidacy. >> i am a state representative from louisiana. what is important to me in my state is education. education and critical services. we just did a wonderful

expansion of medicaid. it has affected thousands of people in our state. as you focus on continuing to get the health we need in this country. america is great. >> voices from the road on c-span. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton has released her 2015 tax returns today. ofy show an adjusted income 10.6 million dollars. her federal tax rate was 34.2%. her vice presidential running mate, virginia senator tim kaine and his wife also reported an 13 -- of and a new candidate poll is out. it shows hillary clinton leading in key states. colorado, virginia, north carolina, and florida. leadows her increasing her

and some. says that it is possible rubio and portman hang on, while senator mccain and burr loses. donald trump says he thinks he will have a tremendous birder turnout from evangelicals, ers, and steelworkers. we will have live coverage of a campaign rally in pennsylvania today at 2:00 p.m. third party candidates are excited to have a bigger impact election.l in the --ight, i garrett johnson gary johnson will be our guest on "newsmakers. "atch "newsmakers tonight on c-span. it will be followed by your live reactions.

hillary clinton and vice president joe biden will campaign in scranton monday. we will have live coverage of that on c-span and c-span radio. sunday night on "q&a," a documentary film instructor rdlks about his students' awa winning documentaries. some of which were grand prize cupers in our studentcam edition. >> i am not the kind of teacher who will look at something not "oh, thatand just go is nice, you did a nice job. i will say what is not working. " eventually, every one of my kids makes a better piece than they did in the beginning. eventually, the kids who do really well in internal as all their ownuff, so brain is saying these things to them. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

on c-span "q&a." >> this morning, "washington journal talked with a technology expert about security of the u.s. voting system and the investigations of the democratic national committee hacking. this is about 45 minutes. host: joining us at our table is eli dourado, who is the technology program director at george mason university's mercator center. thank you for being here. hackto talk about the dnc and security around the voting system. i want to talk about the dnc. we learned yesterday that it is even wider than the democratic national committee, that whoever hacked, that this may have also breached personal accounts. guest: thank you for having me. we know for certain that the

hacker of the dnc was called an advanced persistent threat. was in the dnc computer system over a year. to theme may have been advanced system of threats, simultaneously operating without knowledge of each other. probably two different agencies. most likely to different agencies of the russian government. relatedbly one threat to the kgb and another to the g rdu their military intelligence. and certainly, knows of prizes that they would be interested in personal accounts, in many other sources of information related to the political process. host: whose personal accounts are we talking about? guest: i would be surprised if there were not any dnc officials -- anybody involved in politics today that was not targeted by foreign intelligence.

there is a difference also between what we may call a legitimate spy target, or a legitimate tradecraft of knowing what is going on in america. and what it seems russia is doing with the information they are collecting, which is selectively releasing it. putting it out in the public sphere. wandering it through organizations. we do not know if it has not been altered. it is another issue. whether it isa the genuine article. we know some of the is the genuine article, because it has garnered resignations and apologies and so on. we know some of the israel. some of it may also be doctored and forged. and somebody is playing games with our electoral process.

host: how do we know it is the russians? what are their goals, what do they want to do? guest: russia is trying to increase their freedom of action around the world. they have had a long-standing toolkit of engaging in information warfare. this goes back literally over a century. they forged and anti-somatic track in 1903. they did phony resistance movements in the 1920's, to try into a placeenters where they could be captured. supportedunded and conspiracy theories in the united states. so the conspiracy theory that -- cia was involved in this in the kennedy assassination, that the moon landing was faked. funded the anti-vietnam war

movement. movement, and whatever the merits of that movement, they thought it was a good investment . fighting a proxy war with united states, they spent more money bankrolling the anti-vietnam movement than they did in direct aid to viet cong. they have always engaged in a policy of information warfare. putting out misleading ,nformation, skewed information it causes division in the u.s.. less eager to participate on the world stage. they would love to weaken nato, we can -- we can the european union. this is to improve their freedom of action in the world.

freedom of action the world. in the last 10 or 20 years they have taken to the internet as a way to amplify their message, and to do it even more effectively. host: jeh johnson earlier this concernked about his that there could be interference in this electoral season system. here's what he had to say. i do think we should carefully process our election critical infrastructure, like the financial sector, like the power grid, the election process contributes to -- there is a vital national interest in the election process. we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical

infrastructure, which has several implications. it becomes a part of our focus. there are some short-term long-term things i think we should do to bolster the cyber security process. we're considering communicating with election officials across the country about best practices in the short term. there are some best practices that exist, and i think we need to share those best practices with state and local officials soon. i think there are probably longer-term investments we need to make in the cyber security election process. there are various different points in the process that we have to be concerned about. this is something that we are very focused on at the moment. host: why is he concerned?

guest: i think he has good reason to be concerned. the concerns need to be kept in proportion, but voting machines are not very secure. they are typically just normal pcs running a specialized interface. to malware,ceptible easy to hack. fortunately, i don't believe we use anymore election machines that are connected to the internet, so that is an improvement. honestly, it would be very difficult for a foreign government to radically change the outcome of the u.s. election. i think nevertheless, moving away from these electronic machines and maybe even moving back to paper ballot. how this all started,

after the 2000 election, congress passed the -- voting and appropriated a lot of money for voting machines. including some voting machines that didn't have a paper trail. ,hat did not produce a receipt purely electronic voting and a handful of states. have otherstates , one system ine one county and another in another county. think election officials around the country are thinking maybe they made a little bit of a mistake and going all electronic signal good. host: james and mississippi, independent. caller: good morning. i wanted to add to the in man, what do you think about debbie

wasserman schultz and the e-mail , and most of the media, especially cnn, talking about russia. i am looking at america also has a hand and going into other political politicians campaign and other countries. but in this particular case, bernie sanders refused to say dammedg about the e-mails. these e-mails are very serious about these campaigns. the media does not focus in on the the evidence.

bernie sanders was already chosen by the democratic party. host: that's a separate issue. we focusing on the technology aspect of it. eli dourado is a policy program director at george mason . willsity mercatus center keep it focused on that. i got my alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. ofaking of the hacking american computers, donald trump made a statement that he hoped hillarysia would hack clinton's e-mail, which i think was out of character as well as

stupid. why do you tell the left-hand what the right hand is doing or however they put it? russia in recent years try to interfere with other countries elections? guest: absolutely. especially in the baltics and balkans and eastern europe. the have been very active with propaganda. from --d to provide -- promote islamophobia. they have become insular and cause division within countries, it sort of suits or interest. with regard to state department e-mails, it's likely that russia is in possession of some of those e-mails to my think.

that secretary clinton used may very well have been compromised. i would not be surprised if it came to light in some point during the election at a strategic moment were released. that we can necessarily trust the contents. agent wanted to create the maximum amount of chaos, i would release them in october and more incriminating than in the original e-mails. they would be difficult for her to deny in the weeks that to the election. be on the lookout for additional e-mails and be suspicious of them -- what is an initially

reported about what is in them. we have to be careful and reserve judgment. gru is the russian military , kgb is the unit unit that is most familiar to americans. they are responsible for gru does security and more internationally. how sure are you that russia did the hacking? 50% or 100% or somewhere between? saysd an article that there is a possibility that a criminal group, hungry or romania, that gets old of this

information for blackmail purposes. say 100%,ould not much much higher than 50. well into the 90% range at this point that it was russia. the way we attribute these weacks to various actors is figure out the digital fingerprints of the type of attacks they are using. we correlate them with on another across time. i think i said earlier, these groups have penetrated the inferve names that we from these digital fingerprints, and we knowtt 29 from previous attacks is likely that these were russian units.

host: russian hackers, how does that compare with u.s. ability to do the same? guest: very good. for a long time, the u.s. we were much better. we are backing off the claim. up about -- they are about as good. u.s. has some advantages but they are very good. host: has u.s. done the same in russian politics? guest: it would not surprise me to know that the u.s. has spied on political candidates or politicians in russia or any country in the world. that's part of legitimate spy craft. what is different about this is the release of the information in a way to embarrass the politicians, to

cause a little bit of chaos, the election system, undermining democracy. that is what is unique about russia's activities. and it is something that no other country does. mark and bus to come independent. what do you think, mark? things,a couple of really fixated on the russians. a cold war type of thing. in any case, julia a signed is the person who released these e-mails. e-mails,d read these it shows collusion with the media and the dnc. that's one thing, you should and sets rich,s,

the person in the fbi who is the assange put, julian out a -- on his murder. likely who is most -- guest: my claim is not that these e-mails were dr.. red.cto wikileaks could be doctored and very strategic's -- documents could be leaked. the dnc seems to have colluded bernie sanders campaign from taking off. that is a legitimate grievance ,hat they will have to work out

that dnc officials have apologized for. they will have to resolve that. murder of the the dnc staffers -- stafford, i theoryhis conspiracy that it was the dnc that did it is exactly the kind of doubt that the russians are trying to so in american politics. host: their family and the police have come out in recent days and said there is no evidence of that. guest: there is no evidence of that. planting these stories on are a little bit conspiratorial is a strategy the russian government has used. host: minnesota, democrat. you are next. caller: i wondered why there is no news about the russians

hacking the republican party, and why or how donald trump knew about the democrats supposedly being hacked, and where the e-mails refer to the democrats. that sounds suspicious to me and it sounds to me like the republican party may be part of the collusion. .hey may have started this know if theto republicans have ever been are they the russians, not being hacked because of the relationship between pugin and donald trump? vladimir putin and donald trump? guest: they are an equal opportunity intelligence collection.

for whatever reason, their -- they found it in their strategic interest to release the democratic e-mails and not the republican e-mails. i think it is not that they haven't been hacked, it's that they haven't been leaked strategically. host: baltimore, michigan, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is it would be naive arehink that all countries attacking other countries to see what is going on. my question is, is america hacking other countries? if they are, what agency in our government is doing it? guest: it is almost certain that the united states is hacking almost every country in the world. thearily this is done by national security agency.

much of the information about these programs was released through the snowden documents in 2013. absolutely, we are engaging and espionage and every country does it including the united states. stress that what is happening with the dnc hack is something different. it goes beyond espionage and goes into what the russians have called for a century active measures, taking active measures in the country to manipulate the public through selective or in formsases very misleading of information and disinformation. host: how do you research this stuff. to knownow you're able the signatures of a russian hacker versus other countries?

-- i am notnew doing the forensic on the computer systems. it's how information can be used as a weapon. just reading a lot of history about the soviet union and how they did it. as you may note that kate gb -- with the soviet union, but they just change the name of the agency and called it something else. they are using a lot of the same tactics. came up to the kgb and was the head of it before he became president. about theents internet, about how to regulate the internet are consistent with

the spirit he said that no illusions that you can block everything, he doesn't want to censor, he said we have to work more effectively in this area in order to get our views are. that is the strategy they have use. good morning. havingnversation we are to rush it takes me back to the 2012 elections. remember when mr. romney and mr. .bama were having a debate mr. obama was laughing at mr. romney. how come nobody is laughing now? there seems to be a lot of stuff going on now.

they made fun of mr. romney over this. that's a good very good point that mr. romney has indicated -- has been vindicated by that comment. one cyber security specials -- some security professionals have they are was right, being very proactive in the cyber domain as it is called. it's unfortunate to be proven right, sometimes. host: and the headlines today in the lust or journal, military alert over crimea.

host: stephen indianapolis, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning thank you to for taking my call. , like theattack previous caller, they would do anything to win this election. this shows the desperate mess of the republican party -- .esperate mess

cyber attacks on our own political system come as fine with them just to win some tight -- points. the words to matter. donald trump calling on russia and with julian assange, i'm sure he's welcome to help both e-mails. host: what about wikileaks role in all of this? guest: that is a fascinating organization. they defy easy categories of good and evil. they are very interesting. i am fred some of his writings from a decade ago -- i have read some of his writings from a decade ago. very skeptical of authoritarian .overnments he would classify the united states as authoritarian. he wants to undermine the

ability of authoritarian organizations to operate, to deal in -- and engage in conspiracies. he thinks by leaking documents he can force these organizations not to be -- to become less transparent, to be less nose ofent -- cut the the conspiracy out of the picture and make it less effective or in that is his strategy. it's very interesting. this point is being used as a tool of the russian state. tool of they as a russian state to advance our agenda. host: raleigh, north carolina, a republican. caller: i just want to say to the caller who say trump and pugin have a relationship --

vladimir putin have a relationship. they don't have a relationship. for your viewers, if they want to know what is going on in america and around the world they need to look up the new world order and that host: will answer all their questions. host:an atlas, and independent. is the my question mystic security policy. we put out a framework for infrastructure. i'm curious if you think there should be a mandated baseline for cyber security both for companies to practice and for the products they put out or should it be incentivize? guest: i think there's a lot we can do on cyber security policy to do a better job. i'm generally skeptical that government standards -- this is what you have to do, you have to

meet certain criteria. that doesn't tend to work out very well. this is a dynamic field. clear problem that we have had is that we have underestimated the cost of ofhholding the disclosures computer vulnerabilities from companies and vendors that are providing products. when the u.s. government, the nsa, the best people in the world discover a new vulnerability in doesn't automatically get reported to apple to microsoft or apple, cisco, whoever the vendor is. they go through a process to decide, can we use this offensively? or we could also disclose it and get the vulnerability fixed. benefit, also. which one has the higher set of benefits. onhave consistently erred

the side of using it to spy on other countries without keeping american systems safe. one thing we should about is get very serious every time we find a vulnerability, immediately disclosing it to vendors and getting our systems patched. host: mark, d.c., democrat. to bring up a couple points. we are talking about russians hacking the dnc e-mails. affecting elections. not doingend we are this to every other country in government, wer are living in fantasyland. dangerous, the media and the united states.

i have been a lifelong democrat, but i am losing faith. the way they manipulate and spin what is happening and affecting elections, you have nine out of 10 media sources are all liberal and they are looking to do nothing but stir up trouble when it comes to race relations. it comes to burying a conservative anyway they can. media and hollywood, and every part of the education system affecting elections. a span of bias in our media. it is sinful. c-span, cnn, msnbc, fox news. host: allen, good morning. i do not believe we know who hacked us. i don't think we do. barrisr did, does not a

-- does not embarrass us. hillary does a great job on her own. these e-mails don't have to be doctored. they are going to explain to everyone what is going on here. i suggest people quit protecting hillary. there are going to be more e-mails coming out. they don't have to be doctored. they are going to explain what has been going on here. let me ask eli about russia's capabilities. what other countries out there spying and are good at it? countries, the united states, russia, china, israel, some of our european partners.

the kinds of strategies these other countries have gotten are very different. for strategic reasons decided not to engage in the u.s. election. they have their own view of what the best candidate would be. they are not involved in the u.s. election the same way. toterms of countries able attacks using cyber security systems to affect physical damage, it is only the u.s. and israel, it is only the u.s. and russians with a steel plant. nongovernment entities, some of fairly sophisticated

. budget required for a persistent threat. something out of their reach, typically. an individual hack might be pulled off by nongovernmental organizations that can be very impressive. at the same time, in terms of these repeated threats, it tends linked actors. host: mary, tennessee, a democrat. wrong number -- i am not sure. we will move on. randy, georgia, republican. good morning.

good morning. mr. genius there, i guess we are taking everything you are saying as fact. i have not heard anything that is fact that proves russia has hacked anything. i think you are a democratic hack. what do you know about encryption? the possibility hillary's server had encryption on it. it hasn't.ng it would make it easy to hack. anst: encryption is excellent tool and we should use a more of that. i was dismayed earlier this year when we had an issue about encryption on smartphones. that the clinton server had encryption on it. i agree that it is very likely it was breached and that the

e-mails were available. how is it that when james comey testified, he said it is likely it could have been compromised, but there did not seem to be evidence of it, or it is difficult to find evidence. why is that? and are very good at covering their trail. leave some fingerprints. track them. we get an you cannot absolutely 100% verifiable calling card without them making a mistake. robert, clayton, missouri.

caller: good morning. familiar.s so watergaterush up old and break them out of mothballs? every time they get in trouble, they come up with a new scheme and blame the russians. this sounds like the republican party when they are fearful of losing. it is unbelievable. i cannot believe what i'm hearing this morning. i don't believe it was the russians. host: what are you watching for going forward? shed more light on what happened with the dnc hacking and the

state department. guest: even the dnc information gleaned from the dnc hack, not all of it has come out yet. i think that will come out in a drip. e-mails, from her time at the state department and clinton foundation documents. those are things i would expect to see. as we get closer to the election, the thing i would worry about is manipulation of the public. commons credence to the set of donald trump loses, the election would be rigged. russia would benefit from a loss in faith in the u.s. electoral system, they want to call us hypocrites. they want evidence we are

corrupt. we are not as squeaky clean as we say we are. to point to us and say they are therefore democracy, they are not really. it is all rigged. looking forward to seeing that. host: >> hillary clinton released her tax returns today and cbs news tweeted out the democratic ticket is upping the pressure on donald trump to release his returns. the advisor of the boston globe tweets about a new web ad from hillary clinton and showcasing

republicans whacking donald trump for not releasing his returns. in this tweet from abc news, mitch mcconnell says that republicans maintaining control of the senate is very dicey. a campaign rally and giri, pennsylvania, we will have live coverage of that today. third-party candidates are expected to have a bigger impact than normal. gary johnson will be our guest on newsmakers and will discuss his candidacy and talk about his policy proposals. clintonrump and hillary , and followed by your reaction. hillary clinton and joe be campaigning on monday. on c-span and

listen on c-span radio. on saturday, c-span's issue spotlight looks at trade deals, the impact on economy, jobs, and the election. secretary clinton: we will say no to bed trade deals like the transpacific partnership and unfair trade practices. mr. trump: pennsylvania lost one third of their manufacturing jobs since the clintons put china into the wto. it includes a look at mastec, the free trade agreement between the united states, mexico, and canada. >> it will have more jobs for our people, more exports for our markets, and more democracy for our allies. united states was not a free

trade nation for most of american history. the u.s. is a terrorist protect the economy. tariff protected economy. >> the wto or its evil smaller sister, nafta. when these two were being negotiated, the u.s. had official advisers. 500 corporate advisors. >> saturday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. pv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend.

here are some featured programs. the supreme court of warren focus of thehe book, the burger court that the rise of the judicial right. she argues that the u.s. is splintering into two countries which they call coastal america and flyover america. you can't run a country never been to. she's interviewed by a fox news contributor. i think they are targeted, you have the right and the left pulling them in one direction or another and we need you to show up a certain way to vote or support this particular issue. that divide is scary because politics is affecting whether or

not we will be able to equally defend ourselves against a major threat. howonique morris looks at policies in school or having an effect on black female students. she argues that schools that are supposed to help are the very places criminalizing black girls. go to book tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. and this morning, we talked with reverend william barber that spoke the democratic national convention about defining morality in american politics. we will sure you as much as we can until donald trump's rally kicks off at 2 p.m. eastern. here with us now is the reverend william barber to talk about what you are saying, mobilizing people of faith to a moral revival. what does that mean? revival in american politics? guest: well, that's not actually

a nuance. if you look at the abolition slavery, the end of that was a moral movement. if you look at the reconstruction movement, it was moral movement between blacks and whites and clergies to reframe america. at the social gospel movement at the end of the 19th to early 20th century. movement, teddy roosevelt and franklin roosevelt impacted that said in public square, our deepest concerns ought to be fair wages andhealthcare and education protect an environment, and votingy when it comes to rights. the civil rights movement had deep moral underpinnings. believe, in 1967 -- this was before dr. looked at militarism, materialism, and racively. -- racism. he said we needed a radical of values, today. when we see a kind of -- an moral to limit the

discussion to abortion, prayer in the school and where you homosexuality, and isgested that the better way deny y living wages, reform, voting rights and make gun to rybody can get a have a vote is an expression of moral values, our constitution, is justice, mercy, how you care for the least of hese, how you care for the vulnerable, how you embrace all people. those are the deep moral values hat we believe we need to recover that and in some ways challenging the attempt of the so-called religious rite and so-called definition of evangelism to limit the moral that has been expanded based on our deepest values. host: how are you going about this revival? actually, i'm traveling -- it's interesting james, at the river simoan, ch, sister

tracy blackman with the ucc church and myself, on a tour.n-wide over 20 something states between now and november why we are doing what they call the revival time for moral revolution of values. jewish persons have joined us, uslims have joined us, unitarians have joined us. we've written up a higher ground declaration. we've attempted to deliver it to the rnc, and they basically arrest us. when they saw that we're elivering it to the dnc, elivering it to governor and gubernatorial candidate. we have over 1500 clergy around the country who have signed onto his higher ground moral declaration looking at seven different areas of public policy and declared that healthcare is moral issue, living wage is a moral issue, public education is a moral issue. health, environmental justice is a moral issue. rights, lgbt, equal

protection under the law is a moral issue. host: all democrats? guest: no, no, no. that's one of the good things. i'm a part of the movement in north carolina that has spread a number of places. we had something like 1200 people go to jail, civil disobedience challenging extremism in north carolina. had 10-12% republicans and independents. other day from a republican who heard me spoke at the dnc saying thank you for this recovery. in fact, when you go back to the 1800s like 1868, it was lincoln republicans, not extremist that is we see today. lincoln republicans who pushed a moral agenda. roosevelt was a republican when he said -- ensuring -- 100 years before president obama, ensuring healthcare for all citizens was issue.l he said that en public education was -- is important -- was a national

security issue, and chief warren ruled on the '54 brown case, they declared it was with l issue along thurgood marshall. it's been -- but we've had battles. instance, you had this moral focus in the 1800s during reconstruction. then you had the redeemers that said we want to redeem the country from the sin of black and white fusion. they took to the limit. or you had the so-called moral attempted to limit the moral discussion after the civil rights movement had moral discussion once again and declared civil rights and voting rights and were all moral issues that we had to take up in the public. our constitution is a moral document. speak at the democratic national convention, not at the republican national convention. one party is more moral than the other. host: i don't think you look at of just a party. i would have spoke at the epublican convention if invited. in fact, we're going a lot of places and challenging the

framework. what i think: our constitution says the first "we" not "i." for can dy that says, "i alone do anything" is constitutional out of order, in the form of political idolatry. secondly, the constitution says justice, establish justice, the defense, the general welfare. welfare is in our constitution. tranquility. all of the moral tenets from hich we begin to be a more perfect union. our constitution confesses that we're not a perfect union. it.ave to work toward when you look at our deepest religious value. for me it's a christian. testament, jewsd and muslims, or the new estament, paying people what they deserve, help lifting the healthcare, caring for the least of these, children, are all moral issues. say is when you examine any party or any person, you're not going to find

perfection. perfect.s you look at are where those policies line up in terms of our deepest moral values. what i will say is that we list at least five. sustainability, addressing poverty, unemployment, which includes verything from infrastructure development to fair taxes, to a reen economy, to addressing warmongering that undermines our ability to help us here in this all, ry, healthcare for access to public education in college. dealing with the criminal in the justice system that impact black, brown and poor white eople and expanding and protecting voting rights, lgbt rights, immigrant rights, and never giving up on equal under the law. that's the moral parameter. and when we look at policies, we this question: are these policies constitutionally consistent? defensible? ally and are they economicably sane?

to calls.s get maryland, democrat, you are up here first for the rev lend. morning. caller: good morning, reverend, i want to say, hallelujah, i am in this fight. i was alive and kicking and part f the revolution -- the moral revolution of the 1960s. eep up the good work, young man. thank you. host: she mentioned something, the moral revolution. at times has always a to have a reframing of moral revolution. for instance i listen to mr. and what is interesting about that -- i think we miss it when we just focus on him. 1968 and back to listen to george wallace's in ch running for president madison square gardens, you hear the same thing. yesterday, hefore said that president obama was the founder of isis. at the politicians that suggested it was president obama's fault. ook at the way in which they

continue to fight against him. and look at how the strategy -- you cannot in rstand the moment we're now without understanding the southern strategy that was that ped by kevin philips as promulgated by nixon and even promulgated by ronald reagan. what we're learning in the moral in areas in ork north carolina like mitchell county. mitchell county is 99% white, 89% republican. but we have organizing up there. we have people up there saying republican, but i'm not an extremist. hour-lincoln republican. and i believe in the deep moral values of the scripture beyond hot-button issues. in fact, when i go up there is it gretchen? host: greta. carry there's a bible i with me. it's in the car. poverty and justice bible. evangelical. 'm a theo logical evangelical,

conservative liberal biblicyst, okay. n that bible, it marks every scripture that deals with love, justice, how you treat the least that.ese, the poor and all it's 2,000 scripture. 2,000. there are only about three or scripture that the so-called religious rite hangs its basis on. ow is it you say so much about what god said, and so little about what god says so much? we havehe question that to raise and i think we need that debate in this country. host: all right. from tennessee, independent caller. hi, richard. caller: good morning, greta. morning, reverend barber. guest: hey, my friend. listened to when you made the comment about these ing the least of and the most vulnerable, and you to make one reference abortion. but i haven't heard -- i don't hear your idn't speech during the dnc, so i on't know what your stance is

on abortion, and whether you allowed, if een opposed to abortion, would you to make that wed statement from the platform? guest: and there, again, is a good question. you have those who want to say, you stand on abortion is an evangelical position. okay, so let's work with that. it is possible for you to say you're against abortion. but you respect the right for a to choose. ou also do not throw away a person if they make that decision. and in addition to that, if if you going to be -- say, are you against the death penalty? pro-healthcare? because right now in this country, according to the arvard study that says for every 500,000 people that are enied a healthcare through the medicaid expansion, 2,000-2800 people are dying.

there are 20-something states that have denied a healthcare. my state, for instance, have 500,000 people. according to that statistic, that means at least 2500 people since 2013 have died, have died. hat means thousands have died in those 20 states. not because god called them home. have cause their lives been aborted through the process of not receiving healthcare. but some of the people who deny the healthcare claim that they so-called pro life. you can't be prolife if you're you're living wages, if not pro-healthcare, if you're not pro-public education. counter intuitive and that is what we mean by a moral critique. host: elcid in north carolina, democrat, your turn to ask a question. good morning. barbara, in rend ministers, and cordell

west turned this state over to time publicans the first in 140 years, that the klan in they tate tried to do and didn't do, and we lost it, thing what -- one main is because they have run this pay-day lenders out of town, and marching to washington for healthcare. the problem is not in washington. in the state re house. and that marching -- if you're you call yourself marching and you don't know where you're marching to, you're just watching. that's all you're doing. guest: exactly right. hat's why the moral monday focused on the state house. that's why 1200 people did civil house.ience in the state hundreds of ministers have joined us challenging our state denied ure that has healthcare, cut public education, denied a vote on living wages and passed the worst voter

that is deeply moral deeply constitutional anti-poverty pro-justice roll labor fusion movement that brings all people together around the moral agenda , not a left right agenda. host: we are talking with william barber, president of the

naacp. guest: repair of the breach is an organization that spot sponsoring the healing of that nation. it is a traveling seminary and activism. we are training clergy of all different things and

they save a lot of coded language. what are you saying? and used it asup justification for summerland is things? >> donald trump saying he was

being sarcastic about the founder of isis. appeal tos evangelical christian leaders, saying we need religious voters to get out and vote. we do. but the term "evangelical" has been co-opted. before it was created by the asiness structures, there's young man -- the blessings of business, how corporate nature shapes conservative standings. wordirst time you use the "evangelical" in the bible. i'm not talking about how people use it. but it's in reference to jesus and his first sermon where he begins with a critique of property -- poverty. systemic poverty.

word that means those that have been made poor because of systemic injustice. i have a problem with one saying that i'm in evangelical. and so loud on the issue of prayer in school. and where you stand on homosexuality, women's rights, women's issues and quiet on living wages and health if you look at the scriptures, the majority of the concern when it comes to public square is about justice, how we treat the poor. from a matter of systemic and government policy. so, yes, evangelical -- i'm evangelical. they have allowed people to claim to be evangelical without bringing