brother who conduct himself in a disorderly way and not according to the traditions. some people would argue they were writing these individual churches. matthew henry wrote they were to have no commerce with them, they were to have no commerce and shame them that in so shaming them they might bring them to repentance and it's not to shun him. for those who think this only applies to the individual church , you would come into conflict people.y all have written on first corinthians five and all have said this applies to the church universal. we have a man running for president of the united states who has bragged about his affairs, bragged about dipping others with the bill, cheated women, widows who had said he's never had to ask god for

forgiveness, who does not identify jesus christ as his lord and savior but says he's a christian. if we are in the public square advocating for someone like that, what good are we as christians to say we believe in scripture when scripture tells us we should not be advocating for a person like that. this election is ultimately, either way we've got someone we don't want. i realize some of you decided he's better than her. that is fine. some say he could be cyrus letting us back into the holy land. between the lesser two evils, god has never asked his people to choose the evil. he has done it for them. he didn't ask the israelites to open the gates, he open the gates. he did not ask the people to do that. i don't think we should be doing that. history, i am sure of it would show us there are people who told those in babylon it's just

a statue. we don't remember them, we remember the man who refused to bow. i believe in a god and a last day and a savior and i believe on the winning team. i believe i win in the end and i don't think this election affects my salvation and i don't think we as christians should advance a man we don't think will help the church because i thank god helps the church and we are here to help god. thank you. >> thank you, eric. next we have janet. janet is host of the daily two hour radio program in the market with janet partial. she has carried on hundreds of christian radio stations across the country. she is a long time and rb member and she has been a chairman of our public policy committee, she is a broadcaster from the nation's capital and has been doing it for over two decades.

she will argue in favor of supporting trump. it is all yours. [applause] word,, take their at his i think maybe he prescribes to the world you. i never vote for any become ipods against or he subscribes to jay leno's view as if god wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. let's just look at the numbers. as john adams said facts are stubborn things. there are 35 million evangelical voters in america. 28 million are registered to vote. in 2012, it was 335,000 votes state that made the difference. this is a profoundly crucial election where every single boat will count. the candidates are one point apart.

on a registered voters say they would vote for donald trump over clinton if the election was held to do. among gop voters who attend regularly, 84% said they would back trump if the election was today and in july a poll said 94% of evangelical republicans would vote for trump over clinton. research says churchgoing republicans were absolutely support trumpet i'm not going to use the word evangelical because that can be used as a bludgeoning tool by the media. it can mean anything from soup to nothing. in fact in 1975, time magazine said the rise of evangelical because it was jimmy carter who got 50% of the votes. how did that turn out? we are going to re- define the word evangelical and i'm going to use the term that george barna came up with. he has a new book called america at the crossroads i recommend it . he came up with the term sage cons.

for spiritually active governance engaged conservatives. spiritually active means you know you are a sinner and need a savior and that's jesus who took upon himself the penalty of sin and paid the price for all of us. he went to calvary kept his word and paid the price. he proved he was the messiah by resurrecting from the grave. those who profess that jesus is lord and god has raised from the dead will be saved. that is spiritually active. in addition to that, it also means they believe in the vibrant living, transcendent word of god. as such it impacts every single aspect of their life including, but not limited to their political perspective. using sage con as my lodging.let point, let me talk about what happened. they said, about 11%, go trump. then only 15% said they had a favorable impression. when it became clear he was the

gop nominee, that gop nominee, that support jumped to 70% and after the republican convention it jumped to 83% where has remained between 80-85%. the initial disappointment of seeing trump is the gop candidate cause some to say we are going to go third-party and that has now been cut in half. 8% expect to vote for gary thompson, joe stein or another candidate. 4% are undecided. mrs. clinton has never caught on with this group it she was in line to get 2% of the vote and she dropped down to 1% and now she has spiked to 4%. largely in part to confused writings who -- ready piece entitled you're pro-life vote for hillary clinton. i will leave that to your own imagination. i want to talk about this character issue because we've heard it over and over and over about character.

when all else fails go back and read the instructions. let's look at american history. let's look at the character of the presidents. thomas jefferson had an affair fathering one if not six children. william henry harrison conceived a child with a slave. john tyler was not to have at least one love child. james garfield had multiple affairs in the election was 1880. rocked that he had visited a new portland prostitute. -- new orleans prostitute. in 1873 cleveland was accused of a sexual assault and she was put in and the same and silent. she was released when it was proved that he was the father of the child. woodrow wilson, had an affair while his life was -- life was -- wife was living. the washington post noted that the president has been entering oedipal and golf regularly. that meant entertaining. the damage had been done. a popular joke emanated that

would like this, question, what did she do when the president proposed to her, answer, she thought to bed. harding had an affair with a married woman during the 1920 presidential election. they bribed her to stay out of sight sending them to asia with $20,000. then he then he took up with another way. she had a love child and then gave birth to a baby girl in harding had the secret service 1990. hand-deliver child-support payments. he had affairs while in office with at least four other women, two of whom who had his child out of wedlock. he said it's a good thing i'm not a woman, i'd always be pregnant, i can't say no. franklin and eleanor are believed to have mistresses in the white house. dwight d. eisenhower with his secretary. lyndon johnson didn't limit

himself to only one affair, he bragged that he had more women by accident than kennedy ever had on purpose. lbj had no problem talking to reporters and conducting business with officials while on the toilet because of the watergate tapes we know richard nixon could make a sailor blessed with his swearing. i could hardly need to talk about jfk and bill clinton when it comes to their sexual proclivities. that makes donald trump look tame by comparison. we will talk about character. we are not electing a messiah. last time i was checked he was appointed to office and is not term limited. i don't fear for having anything less than a sinner in the white house. last time i took, we had to -- checked, we had sinners everywhere. i myself join you as a center.

saved by grace. we have a representative form of government. noble shall be of themselves. opener cell received from midst of them. representative government is a blessing designed by god himself. when moses his father-in-law said you can't do this yourself, he turned to moses and said choose your leaders. the percentage of government is a god instituted idea. when we were going back in history to 1787, the constitutional convention was being held in strict privacy. people paced back and forth wondering what the outcome would be. upper and mrs. powell of philadelphia who went to ben franklin and said dr. what we have dr. the republic or monetary. that hesitation, he responded republic if we can keep it. i'm interested in keeping the republic. seventeen candidates strutted up on the gop state. we have the freedom in this country to run for office and

vote for whomever we wish. the the system works and the final candidates of forward. it may not have been what the politically entrenched wanted. he may not have been a person other voters wanted and he wasn't a career politician. he rocked the politician system. he challenged the conventional wisdom that a gop candidate had to be a professional politician. hamilton, madison and adams would have talent that concept as well. they wanted to be referred to as statesman and they would've passed out cold if they knew people held office for 20 years or more. the candidate this go-round is donald trump. that is the way the system works. for those who have been praying and fasting through during ed -- and for this process do we , now know the sovereignty of god did not apply? did he take off to philadelphia or was god sovereign in this entire process mark can god raise up a leader that doesn't look like what we want but is exactly who he wants?

can he use a pagan king to rebuild the walls of jerusalem ? and he use an adulterer and a murderer and call him the apple of his eye doctor --? for the record, noah was a drunk, abraham lied, jacob was a liar, samson was a womanizer, elijah was suicidal, he gnawed god has a track record of using flawed and broken people even when it doesn't look right for us. for me i choose to keep the , republic and secure the system. >> thank you janet. >> now eric, you have five minutes to respond or say whatever you want. >> let's back up to the jeremiah 3021 reference, but let's back up to verse 18 thus says the lord, behold, i will restore the

fortunes of the 10-inch -- tenants of jacob and have compassion dwelling. it should be rebuilt and stand where it used to be an out of them shall come songs and the voices of those who celebrate. i i will multiply them and they shall not be key. i will make them honored and they will not be small. their children shall be as they were in the congregation shall be established before me and i will punish all who oppress them. their prints shall be one of themselves, the rulers shall come from their midst. i will make him draw near and he shall approach me for who would dare of himself to prove approach me declares the lord and you shall be my people and i be your god. people didn't have to participate in the process, god was going to do it himself. let's go through the litany of character flaws of presidents. do any of you remember where warren hardy wrote the book where he bragged about his affairs with women? do any of you recall bill clinton going on national television saying he would like

to have with his daughter if she was someone else's child? i don't recall them publicly bragging about their sins. we are all sinners. we all fall short of the glory of god. the question is if we revel in all of the people in the bible, our sin or repent. all of the people in the bible, it's true, some terrible people. abraham doubted, you had peter reject christ, samson, you name it they all have something in common that donald trump doesn't. one, god chose them into every and every one of them repented. every one of them asked for forgiveness. donald trump has said three times he's never had to ask for forgiveness. donald trump said he's a christian but he hasn't had asked for forgiveness. he has written books bragging about his affairs. are we to lower the bar or strive for something higher? are we to say all these other people did terrible things so let's

embrace the terrible. no. we are supposed to gain for our higher and best use which is to glorify god forever and forever. we do not glorify god when we say yes he's a sinner just like everyone else, women, widows, the elderly, hasn't repented, that is our guy. go vote for him privately, but if you enjoy and champion him i think you harm your witness because we may be wrapped up in the politics of the day, but there are people longing for the lord that are looking at christians saying if they're putting their faith in a guy like him what's in their church for me. we are supposed to advance the kingdom of god. saying all of these other people were terrible people so we will go with the terrible person i , don't think that advances a kingdom. >> thank you, eric. okay janet you have five minutes to respond. >> i appreciate that.

thank you very much but i'm going to be kind because by term limitations we know no president can serve beyond it years. their cats made profession, here's what i know, we're going to spend eternity together. and if we are not careful, we may be bunk mates so we have to get along here. god looks upon the heart. every bit of information that gets squeezed to the mainstream media is doing everything within its power to denigrate donald trump your they are losing viewership. i don't know if donald trump has ever asked for forgiveness but i've never had that conversation . mammals on the outward the piercing goblets upon the heart. the silliness about one printing. he never comes on much about saying one john, when peter, when christians. every englishman i've said interviewed has said that. -- has said that. romans 13.

we have a relationship with government. that is what this is about. commendcipate dr. i this. we have dual citizenship. we are citizens of the united states and our mandate is to render unto caesar. that's a lot more than identified the face on point. he coin. -- -- responsibilities on earth and first possibility is to me as your eternal king. we are to seek the welfare of the city quoting jeremiah and one of the ways we do that is by absolutely influencing and letting our lights shine that they might see our good light to honor our father in heaven. we are to engage culturally. our -- our salvation does not come by way of washington. my god shall supply all my needs. left washington that does not mean i don't try to influence. here is daniel, a teenager turned prime minister who went to a pagan king and influenced him to the point that he went from eating grass to praising god because god's people prayed

for a bad leader. i believe we have more influence on our knees and we do in the voting booth. i believe god uses people to handle out his plan and goodwill. we are to obey. the pontius pilate option is not one for us as believers. we don't washer hand for this and step back. nobody could drop is but he forgot it it's a matter of math. the perfect is the enemy of the good. a flawed candidate should not prevent us form opposing a more dangerous one, one that has a profoundly articulated worldview. i don't care if she talks about her savior or not, i have -- i'm interested in whether or not you're deeds match your speech. do you believe in the denigration of marriage and the annihilation of the paper. you said you you were to protect american citizens, what differences does it make anyway. as a result we have dead american citizens. the questions we have to answer is this, what will you do for the country?

first, last and always. what will you do with the court. a president's term limited. there will be people appointed to the court. they could serve 30 years. that means my children and grandbabies. long after donald trump is in the asked sheep -- as keep of history. heap.h the difference is 180 degrees between their list of nominees. what is not debatable is looking for judges in the mold of antonin scalia. no further questions. will the president help us with religious liberty? hillary clinton, i doubt that. she has a basket of deplorable and i minute. donald trump has said that he would get rid of the johnson amendment which muzzles pastors. interesting to there. will the president protect our country? i have discussed benghazi. will the president build our economy? , candidate provide equal on the

punitive -- how will the president provide equal opportunity? there is a distinction between the two. which president will be hoping -- open to hearing and listening to opinions. which candidate has met with evangelical christians? cut, drive. the bible tells us to be sharp as serpents and innocent as doves. he told us that not only was our heart for nude, but our mind was transformed. he says you honor me with your life and heart, and also with sound speaking. seek wisdom. this is a time for followers of jesus christ to think biblically and think critically. where i sit, those are not between exclusive. >> thank you. we'll have time to follow-up even more. we look forward to that. our next round. switching the order.

next, bishop harry jackson. senior pastor of the christian church. founder of the high impact readership coalition. he's one of the chief conveners of the reconcile church, healing the racial divide movement and his book, high-impact african-american churches co-authored with your partner was nominated for the goldman going toward by the evangelical christian publishers. he will argue in favor of supporting from. >> thank you. -- trump. >> think you. i will start with a story. aftern pastoring finishing mba from a well-known easter business school. -- eastern is the school. i found myself stuck in a bible study.

folks came to the study, most of them happened to be white. the community had about 1% black. eventually started a church. i became in that setting pro-life, profamily and i also believe that we needed to engage in changing and transforming our culture through our political system. statement, i want issay that donald trump being challenged about race and racism and we are living in an interesting time where he may be the only one who is able to bring some substantive healing to the racial divide. god is in the details. the details are practical answers is where we stand.

one of the challenges and talking about race in terms of politics is that they are often -- black christian see things in hispanic christians see things through a lens of justice. they want justice now. things to be more fair and even an equal. on the other hand, white evangelicals often are hung up on issues. talk about marriage and life as though they are exclusive. the bible does not say righteousness or justice are the foundation of god because righteousness and justice. i believe that if we have the right relationship with the lord, we will want to create an atmosphere of justice in our land. beenoo often, blacks have and hispanics have been in a sense able to settle with the

politics of grievance. someone who says, i like you and understand you and that has been getting up -- good enough. no real answers are coming. i believe that hillary clinton will simply perpetuate the status quo, do which he done for utilization ofe the black committee and welfare dependency will be continued. seven brief reasons. i would vote for donald trump it the first three are for all general christians and the beaining four would really emphasizing the blacks and hispanics. first, religious freedom and liberty. the johnson amendment as was

artie mentioned is a challenge -- already mentioned is a challenge. donald trump says he wants to do away with that. he is for religious liberty and freedom. number two, supreme court justices. i believe that we are going to have to live with for up to 40 year impact to ever gets in those amazingly powerful seats. third, the support of israel. donald trump has articulated a position that it will be pro-israel and those of us believe the bible in a very literal sense believe that there is something to supporting israel as a nation, not to say they are always right on other policies, but rather we want to support and support the existence of israel versus its

annihilation. i want to talk more specifically about african-americans for my fourth point. i believe that educational reform is critical. the opportunity for charter schools is really important. my own daughter works in the city, charter schools for about four years. i believe that we have to aboutw change the thing education. 80% of people incarcerated in america today are functionally illiterate. we have a problem. one thing that we could do is that we could really guarantee that every person in the third grade in all of our urban churches could read. it would be amazing. theould empty out some of jails.

business empowerment. i believe that economic plan of donald trump will make a difference for urban improvement. under the bush administration comes 8% of the loans that were given to small businesses were given to black businesses. 1.8% byesident obama, the small business administration. capital formation is something starting in terms of and maintaining businesses. urban situation, the desert is like a rose. we are going to need to get jobs in urban centers. having some idea of more equity

in terms of business and empowerment will be very important for us. six, nonviolent offenders. returning home. getting a chance to redeem their lives is important. of prison the board fellowship. i think it is interesting that if you look at the recidivism rates of people going back to prison, he will find that oftentimes it isn't -- there is not a opportunity for these guys to restore and develop their lives appropriately. i think in some pragmatic ways, donald trump will look at these things. finally, fairly tax

incentive are important for all people, all christians if we are society perpetuate a built upon the foundation of families. i would argue that an african-american and hispanic indices, that family oriented tax incentives are significant. those seven points are some of the recent. i could go on and on. -- reasons. i could go on and on and delve into the more details around the critical side of things. i would also see that right now, status quo of the obama administration, the democratic party has a bias towards inactivity in terms of solving urgent urban problems. it is no secret that we are on the verge of explosive violent outbreaks and that there is a

generational shift going on. we also have a dynamic in the black community on how to -- there are two black americans today. one is upwardly mobile and thriving and another is trapped in a conundrum of class-generational poverty which is aggravated by racism. the same thing as in the hispanic community. which one of the candidates will be proactive to even think about solving problems? i also believe that having a citizen politician will be important for us and we are at that place in our culture the folks who control the system their are grasping -- fingers into be broken off the controls. we need to change.

and getto organize strategic chaos for a moment. i believe that we need to redefine and reestablish some of our priorities. the seven points in my experience the me to say, this time, i will support donald trump. thank you very much. >> thank you, bishop jackson. bill would determine -- wickterman.special assistant to president george w. bush. he is legislative advisor in washington dc and international law firm. he worked as a mission or -- missionary in germany and he is currently president of faith and law. seeking to integrate faith with policy work. he will speak against the

candidacy of donald trump. take it. >> thank you, thanks for hosting. in a particular income i'm that we are focusing on the street i also want to thank bishop jackson, eric erickson, janet partial. great respect for all of you. even tooka far more difficult this election are than any last century election. the toys are divided. many good people on both sides. sadly, the division has also prompted the questioning of motive. this is unhelpful and unfair. we will let god judge. our attempt to be e pluribus unum are hard enough without assuming the worst of everyone else. a quick word about me, you will have a hard time getting to my right. i'm a republican because i am a conservative. a conservative because i'm a christian. i believe that a conservative

policy best reflects the christian worldview. i'm careful not to demonize my own politics. the driving motivation is the same as that for the rest of my life. to put the lord first in my heart and actions. i was ready to support any of the other 16 republican candidates for president but there was one i could not support and he won. this is uncomfortable for me, on many levels not the least of , which to be divided from so many allies inside my party. i cannot wait until the season is over and we can recover unity, that is my hope. >> amen. bill: i want to analyze the reason i heard for why evangelicals are supporting him. as best as i can tell, they boil down to three justifications. one, he is the lesser of two evils.

two, god uses bad people for good purposes. three, trump is a good man. the first argument, trump is the lesser of two evils, is the most compelling of the three to me. in fact it is an argument i have , used many times, trying to convince my friends not to vote for a third-party candidate because the republican was not sufficiently pure. i respect my friends who concluded they must vote for drunk cop -- for trump, however reluctantly. they believe the supreme court hangs in the balance and he is more likely to support conservative justices and i think they are right. as one who worked on judicial nominations in the bush white house, i care deeply about the court. yet, i've concluded this justification is insufficient. first, trump may be a threat to our democratic republic. this is a serious charge. unfortunately, trump's

statements have given me ample reason to be concerned. i care about the supreme court because i care deeply about the government handed down to was by -- handed down to us by the founders. the founders knew how difficult it would be to sustain the democratic republic. benjamin franklin, as we have given you a we have republic if you can keep it. just because we have preserved popular sovereignty for more than two centuries does not mean it will go on forever. i love the constitution because it reflects the framers' fundamentally christian views that we are fallen creatures and god made us for liberty. trump, on the other hand, has often demonstrated contempt for the rule of law. he's sounded more like a strong man impatient with traditional -- with constitutional constraints. he advocates death to the innocent family members of terrorists. he said you have to take out their families.

he advocates torture, not as a means of extracting important intelligence, but as a means of retribution. he said he would do a hell of a lot more than waterboarding. he said military rulers would do unlawful orders. if i say do it, they will do it. he has repeatedly praised dictators like vladimir putin. applauding him as a strong leader. gary kasparov a russian opponent deplored trump's praise saying putin is a strong , leader in the same way that arsenic is a strong drink. why would trump praise putin again and again unless he actually admires him? maybe it is safer to assume this time he is not lying. trump also said when the students poured into tiananmen square, the chinese government almost blew it.

they were vicious they were , horrible, but they put it down with strength. that shows you the power of strength. our country is right now perceived as weak, spit on by the rest of the world. trump's encouragement of violence against peaceful protesters should have no place in our republic, much less on the republican party. among his many statements are these -- "i would like to punch him in the face." "try not to hurt him. if you do, i will defend you in court. don't worry about it." trump admires strength, whatever form. not aligned with the gospel. this leads to the second and most compelling reason why i believe the lesser of two evils argument does not stand. trump corrupts us. some people argue the never trump crowd focuses on his

weaknesses and ignores clinton. not so. we know who clinton ends, and we are not supporting her. yet, it is true we have a higher standard for a republican nominee. trump corrupts what it means to be a republican. if we support him, we become complicit on his behavior. trump mocks disabled people, brags about how many married women he slept with says , prisoners of war are not heroes if they were captured. he accuses a nativeborn american judge of mexican heritage of being unable to rule on a case against trump, which speaker ryan called a textbook racist comment. he insists a fallen soldier has no right to question him. he accuses my old boss, president george w. bush as the , reason for the 9/11 terrorist attack.

he advocates religion for who is -- he advocates a religious test for who is allowed to enter the country. he charges the father of senator cruz as an accomplice in the murder of president john f. kennedy. many people who will not vote for clinton because they believe she is a liar are voting for donald trump because they hope he is a liar and does not mean what he says. as an aside, some evangelicals did not vote for romney because he was not conservative enough. trump is far to the left of romney. he supports government run health care, he opposes entitlement reform. in fact he says he wants to , expand them. he opposes free trade and has a long history of supporting liberal causes. when we line up behind this man, we underline our credibility. more than that, we do violence to our movement, saying the ends justify the means. another argument supporting

donald trump is god uses that bad people for good purposes. -- uses this is certainly true. but where in scripture does it peopleus to support that -- support bad people? god's ways are beyond us but our job is to support good candidate. i have heard some evangelical leaders say we need and that man to stand up to the bullying from the left. the implication is a good man or woman who plays by the rules is not up to the task. it is like we are hiring a hit man to play dirty for the sake of good government. this has nothing to do with our faith. it reflects a lack of faith in the power of virtue to do what needs to be done. we don't need to do bad to do good. in fact, that is impossible. ends and means both count in god's moral accounting.

the final argument mystifies me. namely, donald trump is not bad. in fact, he is a truth teller and humble. another reagan. trump has implied judicial nominees should be assassinated. he has played with fire by suggesting, without proof that rigged setting up , the possibility of serious civil strife if he loses. he is a man that never admits he is wrong and really asks god for forgiveness because he believes he rarely does anything wrong. if trump is a good man, and i have got an entirely different definition of what good is, i will stand against trump and clinton. instead, i will vote for evan mcmullen, a good man who is on the ballot in about half the states. he can be a write-in candidate in almost every state. if nobody wins all 270 electoral votes, the house of

representatives will decide the outcome and mcmullen will be elected. improbable, yes. impossible, no. no, especially because trump does not deserve our vote. it is an honorable path for those of us who want to be able to vote for an honorable conservatives. i hate the thought of hillary clinton being elected president and she will never get my vote, but i will not compromise core principles for the sake of party allegiance. if trump becomes what it means to be a republican, then i will not be republican. hopefully, his nomination is a case of temporary insanity, but i will not allow trump to be the face of the nation for the world. not with my vote. --ill not allow full gary allow full guarantee to stand in the place of virtue, not with my vote. i will not stand idly by while the national character is polluted, not with my vote. as christians, we are called to do god's bidding.

this means doing what we should and entrusting in the results. >> thank you, bill. bishop harry, your response. five minutes. harry: first, bill, thank you for your comments. i know that you have a sincere faith. and i think what i'm looking at is an individual who has run the campaign from a media perspective, almost like a shock jock. saying things that get attention. and then coming from a kind of , construction manager kind of perspective in new york -- i am looking at that as this candidate is growing, he is

making some strides. his approach to having the one-liners, other things, serves -- served him well in the primary. i will go back to this idea that america, and in the 11 or 12 years i have been working on speaking out on social issues, engaging as a conservative because of my christian background i think it is time , for us to face race issues with practical solutions and face class issues with practical solutions. i think that unfortunately i am looking at the choices. unfortunately, the democratic party has had somewhat of an adulterous relationship with the black community and the hispanic community.

it is like they show up at midnight and want what they want the way they want it. after they have gotten what they want, the vote, we don't get no flowers, no dinner, no romance. i think this is going to have to stop. i think the trump candidacy is a manifestation of the fact that principled conservatives and republicans have failed to carry the water for us. we have talked a lot about high principles. they've done nothing. because of that, folks are looking for options. i am willing to take my vote and take a risk, to make a judgment and assessment that one definition of insanity, if we do the same old thing and expect

different results, then we are insane. i do believe that the thought behind the character comments you made, lesser of two evils, makes a lot of sense. i especially agree that there has to be a higher standard as we go forward for a republican nominee. that, in used debating about mr. trump in the wrong way, we're not addressing the fact that most liberals see all of us on this side as uncle toms or racists. that bag of deplorables.

i don't think we are going to change that by fighting among ourselves. i do think we will have to finally stop saying that big government is bad, all of these things, and start doing something about changing the way big government works in the world. we have to also show some compassion. again, i think trump started off wrong. his about-face and going into the black and hispanic communities is a sign that he may be a changed individual. -- may be a change agent. i'm praying. i wish we were not at this point , but this is where we are. for the reasons i have stated, i believe that pragmatically addressing and looking at class and race issues with an eye towards fixing them is the only way forward for america in a

practical sense. thank you. >> thank you, harry. bill, your response. five minutes. bill: thank you. i completely agree with mr. jackson that we could do a lot more to care for the poor. i have been deeply involved with the poor nationally and internationally. people say to me, how can you be a conservative and think about the poor? i'm a conservative because i care about the poor. i think there is a segment that has been working on this for a long time and another that say s, those people don't vote for us we don't have to worry about , them. inimical to the gospel. the fact you say he is a shock jock, i'm concerned about that for two reasons. first of all, let's assume he

does not mean it. that concerns me because he is saying things to get elected that he does not mean that are profoundly destructive for our society. the other possibility is he doesn't mean it. i come back to where are the recurrent themes? that notion of strength. in patients with democratic constraints. his admiration of people who -- why would be admire a guy like putin or the tiananmen square butchers? why would he say this? and not just once but again and , again. i think that is what he appreciates and we should take that seriously. one of the most profound statements he has made that concerns me is when he said in the debate that military leaders will obey. he walked it back this much the next day. how about the judicial

nominations, when he suggested on his, i would call it a dog whistle on the second amendment, that maybe they would be taken out. he walks back. i'm kidding, kind of. what does that mean? is that the kind of society we want, where we are killing one another over disagreements? we have worked within the rule of law for a long time and rightly so. we don't advocate killing abortionists or punishing women. we want to work appropriately within the rule of law. the rule of law is a precious thing. look around the world. see how many places that are punitive democracies. in many parts of the world if , you see the police coming, you run the other way. not because you are corrupt, because they are. to think that the rule of law is in violent here. it is profoundly reckless.

it makes my blood boil when he calls for extrajudicial things like beating up people knocking , the crap out of them. that is not appealing to the best angels of our nature. i think he appeals to people that are so mad and so angry at the bigotry and intolerance of the other side that they want their own guy to be the hitman. we have to trust god. please have to do things god's way. we cannot take shortcuts. my concern is trump is an attempt to take a shortcut. >> thank you, bill. we are off to a good start. let's do some follow-up. i want to push back from your position for each one of you. i will start with janet. you know trump was a democrat.

you know he donated to democrats he donated to pro-choice causes. you know he has, at best a , mixed record on planned parenthood. he has supported a lot of pro-abortion candidates, and abortion seems to be the most important question for a lot of evangelical christians. how do you reconcile that with a vote for donald trump? can you trust him now? janet: absolutely, i can trust him. my mind goes to the coat of dali -- to a quote, money is like the newer, you spread it around and things grow. he has given to pro-life, democrats, conservatives. he is a businessman. that is quite honestly the art of the deal. let me go back to what you said before. he said this is basically a family discussion, and in truth, this is what we will call a ecclesiastical conversation.

in truth, it'd probably conducted on the hollowed halls of our churches, not c-span. but as long as you are watching, we will have this discussion. why didn't we have this discussion four years ago? we had a man from massachusetts that was pro-abortion before he was pro-life supporting , obamacare before he said he was opposed to it. but far more importantly, because this is an evangelical conversation, i love my friends who are members of church of the jesus christ latter day saints. this is an ecclesiastical conversation. that candidate wore underwear that he thought would protect them from harm, believe that jesus had returned to the earth but only to the southern hemisphere. yet we have a member of our panel that is advocating another mormon. if we're going to have an ecclesiastical conversation about evangelicals, let's put doctrine on the table. >> thank you, janet. eric, eric, trump has been accused of denigrating

minorities. he has been accused of undercutting the christian view of the sanctity of human life, the image of god by the way he talks about them. i think this all started on june 16 when he came down the escalator and game that opening speech about what he felt, concerning mexico and the people coming across. i want to read the direct quote. "people that have lots of problems, they are bringing those problems. they are bringing drugs, they are bringing crime. they are rapists. and some, i assume, are good people. i speak to border guards and they are telling us what we are getting." that is the quote. i want to emphasize the phrase

"and some are good people." , can you deny that statement is true? or at least unclear, because of that caveat, "some are good people." if that statement does not show he is denigrating minorities, there is another quote or action you would use to justify he is a racist or undercuts the human dignity of immigrants? >> i think the hyperbole of the statement overshadows the point he was trying to get at. i do take him that he was not drawing a blanket statement. unfortunately, it was not heard that way by a lot of people. a lot of times, perception is more reality. i think the bigger issue was his treatment of the judge from indiana who, because of his

heritage, could not be fair in the case because he was mexican. he was a nativeborn american. my heritage is swedish but i'm an american. his heritage is mexican but he is an american. i think that, in and of itself, was extremely problematic. i have to tell you, you and i may not be hearing some of these things, but there is this group right, and they are. these people believe in tribalism such as, particularly, the white race as a tribe in this country. you engage them and they believe the policies that benefit white nativeborn americans are the policies trump advocates. they have gotten that impression from his statements. i first came into contact with these people because of their hostility -- because of their hostility towards adoption in evangelical circles because

christians have the greatest propensity of any group in this country to adopt outside of their race. they would very like laws that prohibit that, and i am troubled by the way that they hear donald and thinks he is one of them. i don't think he is. but, they certainly hear it and , i think the campaign made a very bad mistake in fostering those dog whistles for that group. >> thank you, eric. bishop jackson, trump has put forth a list of prospects of -- prospects for the supreme court. said, but i might add to it. at one point, i think he alluded , to his sister making a good judge in some context. here's the question, given the donor record, given the past

support of democrats record, past unevenness, at least, on the planned parenthood issue, why do you think he would keep the promise, why do you think he would go with that list of people like the ones on that list? is this part of the art of the deal? is this a bait and switch? is he playing us? what do you think? harry: i don't think he is playing us. i think he understands, at this point, i'm not sure he understood it at the very beginning, that he has really got to ingratiate himself with a certain demographic. i think he selected the christian community and the conservative christian community to be the folks he really wants to receive support from. i think he will keep the promise as much as any politician will

keep a promise, because they believe it is in their best interest for reelection and that kind of thing. what i see is a man who has been shaped in the debates and process, who is starting to understand these different groups are the groups that i have to have with me over the long haul. i think that is why the list was offered, in order to be specific, to tell conservatives and evangelical christians, i will do some things that are helpful for you. >> thank you. ok, bill, trump has been accused of mocking the disabled and i believe he used that phrase. there is a clip where he is quoting a reporter that seems to be antagonistic or questioning

way, hebe in an unfair thought. he flails his arm. this reporter is disabled. a group called catholics for trump put together a video analyzing this claim. the same arm flailing, the same slurred speech pattern, trump uses in the speech to talk about a general he does not like. in the catholics for trump clip, there is another video of trump using the same flailing and slurred speech pattern for ted cruz. he is mocking ted cruz, more or less. ted cruz is not physically disabled. the general is not physically disabled. what do you think of this analysis by catholics for trump? and, if it matters, do you know of any other case -- who and when -- that he has mock

somebody that is disabled? bill: let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say for a minute he was not mocking the disability of this reporter. i think a lot of times politicians get an unfair rap because there is something that happens out of context and that becomes the rat on them -- becomes the wrap on them. have we ever seen donald trump make fun of any other people on how they look or how they act? let me think. just about every day. fat people, yes. carly fiorina, yes. hillary clinton, yes. rand paul, yes. he regularly makes fun of it. ask yourself, i don't know about you, how many people in your life who were above seventh-grade make fun of people of how other people look? that, to me, is like middle school, elementary school

childish behavior. he is doing it on the national stage. that is corrosive to our national character and it says something deeply wrong about the man's character. >> thank you. i'm going to allow eric or bill to answer this question, whoever wants to shoot for it. most christians throughout church history have not been able to vote at all. probably most christians today still do not have a vote, places like china and so forth. those who have been able to vote in most of church history and even today don't get to vote for god and country candidates, candidates that make a good advertisement for the church or christianity. they are voting between a candidate that is controlled by an oligarch or voting for a candidate controlled by a drug lord, or choosing between that and a candidate chosen by the military.

christians and where they are, living there, and they do cast a vote. we've been privileged to vote in -- they are sort of heroes.have we thought they were god and country candidates. do you see a distinction between this idea -- voting and supporting a candidate embarrasses the republican party or embarrasses the church or is a bad testimony and just this decision you have to make, as most christians throughout church history have had to make and in other countries have had to make, between just two choices, and you've just got to do the best you can do, and it betterhat trump is the of those two main choices? >> i've been asked this question a lot in various forms. i always go back to the apostle romansho did write in

that government is an instrument of god. as peter said, we are to pray for the emperor. we are to pray for president obama and his cabinet. but paul was a roman citizen who by right of his citizenship that we know from the history was -- historic record outside the bible was allowed to vote in the assemblies and forums in sis andand -- tar jerusalem. we knew that paul could exercise his vote if he wanted to as a roman citizen but he never wrote about it. if you want to vote between the lesser of two evils, do it. i don't think we should be compelling each other to violate our consciences to vote or not vote. that is why i am not going to tell anyone don't vote. but we don't have to. yes, voting is a right as an american citizen, but i have a higher obligation to advance the kingdom of god, and when the two come in conflict, i've got to go with advancing the kingdom of

god. >> janet or harry, either one of you could take this. picking up on what he said about the lesser of two evils, sometimes there is this view that a candidate is good or a candidate is evil. a decision is good or a decision is evil. if you study ethics, there is a whole field about this and various schools of thoughts about this. we heard a list of candidates earlier. people like j.f.k. and roosevelt and jefferson, some of the people that we say these are good, these are heroes, these are founding fathers, we have statues here in the city. but they weren't just good. they were also good and evil. and some candidates are mostly good with some evil, some are mostly evil with some good. it is always a mix. we are in a fallen world. i'm thinking about the difference between the greater good, deciding what is the

greater good, and what is the lesser of two evils? either one of you want to speak to that? does that make sense? harry: i will say this as this -- at this juncture. i think the checks and balances in our system we know come from a biblical perspective and understanding. and because we've got people with mixed motives and issues that they themselves may not even understand, we do have a system of balancing out the different powers of the three branches of government. i would say we will never have a 100% pure candidate. but in this system i think it would be terrible if we don't exercise our right to vote and commit to doing our best to grapple with these kinds of decisions. that is my answer. >> bill, i think you heard this.

i was in a meeting, and a congressman said, "i do not trust donald trump to always do the right thing on all of our issues all time." then he said, "i do trust hillary clinton to do the wrong thing on our issues all the time." how do you process that statement? bill: and that is where i come back to the lesser of two evil arguments being inadequate in this case. i want to bring in again, there is another candidate. evan macmullen. i don't vote based on faith. i vote based on virtue and character. i know many non-christians who have good character and many christians who have deplorable character. i care a lot about the virtue of the person. i am not looking for a pastor in

in chief. i'm looking for a commander in chief so the character issue is , hugely important to me. ultimately i do have another choice. i live in virginia, and i will be voting for evan macmullen. let's just say i didn't. let's say that really there were only two and there is no such thing as write-in. even then, there comes a time where i'm being put into an impossible choice, and it's one which i think there is a more virtuous decision in that situation. and it's because i do have a much higher standard for a republican nominee than i do for a liberal nominee. i care more about who we put forward and support. that is why i don't go by that reasoning. jerry: this is a different kind of a question. i want everyone to answer. i want to start with janet here. assuming your candidate wins in november, what is the one likely consequence or result that most concerns you?

janet: that most concerns me? jerry: if trump wins what, is the nagging doubt you may have? janet: that christians won't be praying and fasting for him on a regular basis. going back to the book of romans, paul did say we are to honor the king. that would be something i would encourage my listeners to do. we are to pray for those in authority because we are the beneficiaries when that happens. so i would be doing that on a regular basis. but i have to tell you i am struggling with the math. i'm so good at math, i went into broadcasting, but this one i can figure out. if you vote for evan or you don't vote at all, you have voted hillary clinton. it is math, absolutely math. so you may have the momentary i feel good and i feel righteous and i have advanced the kingdom of god, when you have done none of that. you haven't been pragmatic or practical. and you haven't done what was right by seeking the welfare of the city. so, i would have a problem with that.

there is a name that is in absentia. mike pence. he represents everything we evangelicals love and support. my husband worked diligently with him to make sure the airwaves were kept open to be able to proclaim the gospel of jesus christ. the character and the deportment. the record on capitol hill. he is, in a sense, one heartbeat away. i don't know what the future holds, but i know who holds the future. half of that ticket is absolutely, undeniably a person that proclaims his relationship with jesus christ. that needs to be discussed. jerry: erick or bill, there are those who say we can't trust trump with the list. he is making a lot of promses. -- promises. this could be bait and switch. he has made one executive decision, and only one, which is the vice president. you cannot really imagine any of the other 17 or 16 candidates

picking someone better than pence. i mean, he is not perfect. there was one big flaw that people criticize him for up in indiana, but it is at least remarkable. then i would say secondly, this isn't just about the candidates. it's about the party platforms. the republican platform has never been more conservative. the democrat platform has never been more liberal. what do you think about those two facts? either one of you want to take that? >> on mike pence, i worked in the white house. the vice president has precisely as much power as the president allows him or her to have. otherwise it has been likened to a position with -- essentially, you just attend funerals around the world. so, i have no confidence in that. does donald trump have a reputation as a man who likes to surround himself with people who

challenge his authority and likes to hear from dissenting opinions? no. quite the opposite. i don't have any confidence that mike pence, a good man, would be able to have any influence on donald trump. jerry: that is good. we only have about five minutes, but if you have a closing comment, we will start down with erick and work our way down here. closing thought, maybe a minute or minute and a half. erick: two thoughts. one, like janet, i went to law school. god help me in math. but if there are a million voters and one decides not to vote for hillary clinton or donald trump, there are now 999,999 voters. 500,001ead of needing to get a majority, they only

need 500,000 to get a majority. if i'm not voting for trump, therefore i'm voting for hillary, well, i'm not voting for hillary, therefore i'm supporting trump. i would disagree that the math argument works. it just takes one voter out of the vote pool. i will be voting for peyton manning, someone i can be proud of to become president of the united states. my greatest fear if he were to get elected would be that he would have a back ache. let me say this. if we take trump at his word that he gave donations to all sides because he is a businessman, if we take him at his word that he is going to appoint these judges, if we take him at his word that he is going to do all these things, then we need to take him at his word that he was quite happy to have these affairs with married women and not ask for forgiveness, and we need to take him at his word that he would like to have sex with his daughter if he was someone else's daughter and he didn't ask for forgiveness, we need to take him at his word that he was ok filing for bankruptcy and letting others carry the debt for him and he got off scott free and didn't ask for

forgiveness. if you want to go in and vote for him, fine, but i think as christians we harm our witness to advocate for him. janet: if peyton manning gets elected, the secret service name -- codename for him will be omaha. just for the record. i have two issues on this. number one, the process. the process said there were 17 candidates. the people spoke. not the people in washington, no the pundits, the people spoke. and when the people spoke, there was one man standing, and his name was donald trump. if we truly believe in the republic and we believe in the process, whether we like the outcome or not, i think we are convicted to support the process. but i am far more concerned about the church. i have never seen such infighting in my life. it is an embarrassment to the cause of christ. i am very concerned that once the election is now dust in the annals of history, we are going to wonder whether or not we are going to be able to unite arms and move forward again for the advancement of the kingdom of jesus christ. we are going to hold aught against other brother because they didn't vote the way we thought they should vote.

so we have extrapolated something out of scripture that in no way, shape, or form is there. so i would end with this. it is an old saying. we are not quite sure to whom it can be prescribed but still , profound. in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity. jerry: very good. bill? bill: i don't want to give into the self-fulfilling prophecy that it is just a binary choice. the framers never assumed as such. they didn't have janet's confidence in the majority, which is why they had so many checks on the will of the majority, including something called the electoral college. in terms of the process, i am working well within the constitutional framework put out by the founders when i am voting for evan macmullen. the math can work if we make it work. i think we need to take seriously trump's words, and we need to stop hoping that he is just a huckster and a charlatan and just lying all the time. i think there are words we need

look for -- we need to look for and listen to what he says them again and again and believe them. harry: well, i am excited about this election for this reason. i believe that the only healing balm possible for america is going to come forth from the church if she rises up and stands in the gap, prays, votes and exercises her liberties. i believe that there is a redefinition going on. it is a time of tremendous change. and, ultimately, god is allowing us to see some of our biggest cultural flaws through the flaws of these candidates. so, i am hopeful that god is not through with america yet. i believe the church needs to be more unified, and i am anxious

to see who ultimately wins, and the gospel will be preached no matter who is elected. i'm excited about the future and what it holds for us. jerry: let's thank erick erickson, janet parshall, bishop harry jackson, and bill wichterman. [applause] i am jerry johnson. we want to thank you for watching on c-span 2. i want to remind you that christians vote. it is just one of the things we do. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute]

>> c-span continues on the road to the white house. rump: we want to make america strong and great again. mrs. clinton: i'm running hard for everyone to support their families. everyone who has been knocked down but get back up. >> live coverage of the

presidential and vice personal debates on c-span, radio and c-span. work. monday is the first presidential debate from hofstra and on four, the vice presidential candidates debate. on sunday, october 9, washington university in st. louis posts to second debate, leading up the final debate at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice president shall debate on c-span. . or watch live or anytime on-demand and c-span. org. >> we check in on her congressional race on southern color on you. -- in southern california. >> how a congressional race in

santa barbara, california, became one of the most expensive in the country. the reporting of javier panzar, who is covering politics for "the l.a. times." thank you for being with us. the democrat is retiring in california's 24th congressional district. tell us about the two candidates. javier: democrat salud carbajal is a supervisor in the county. he was a chief of staff for a supervisor before that. he has been making his way up through local santa barbara politics for about 20 years now. and he has the backing of lois capps as well as nancy pelosi and pretty much the whole democratic establishment. justin fareed is a 28-year-old. his parents own a medical devices company in santa barbara. he, after graduate from ucla, work for congressman ed whitfield of kentucky for a year

before moving back to the district, working for his parents' company. now he's making his second run for congress. he ran in 2014 but did not make it out of the primary. >> as you said an expensive race. when all is said and done, how much will be spent by the candidates and outside money? >> right now it is $5.5 million. $1.5 million in outside spending. i expect that to go up. i don't know how much it will go up by, but i would expect because santa barbara is a cheap media market compared to los angeles and the bay area that, easily, you can see another $1 million coming in in outside money alone before election day is over. both campaigns are sitting on around $200,000 for fareed and $500,000 for carbajal. it is going to get more expensive. >> here are some of the ads now on the air. we will begin with salud carbajal and then follow that with republican justin fareed. >> when congress can't agree on

a budget, they shut down the government and keep their salaries. salud carbajal sees things differently. when the great recession hit and hundreds of county workers were furloughed, carbajal stood with them and gave up part of his salary as county supervisor. >> everybody was trying to make ends meet. i was thought it was important if we are asking our employees to sacrifice that we do the same thing. i believe that's what leadership is all about. i'm salud carbajal, and i approve this message. >> justin fareed, a third-generation rancher, born and raised right here on the central coast. at santa barbara high, he was unstoppable running back. building a small family business, he would never take no for an answer. justin went to washington long enough to realize the place desperately needs fresh ideas. someone unstoppable.

choose fresh, choose fareed. >> on justin fareed, and i approve this message. >> just two of the many ads now on the air in california's 24th congressional district that includes santa barbara. joining us on the phone from "the l.a. times" newsroom is javier panzar, who is following the story for "the l.a. times." a very different approach and generational approach between the younger republican candidate and the older more seasoned democratic nominee. >> you couldn't really get two more different candidates in that area. justin fareed is only 28 years old. his experience in politics, he was a staffer for congressman ed whitfield out of kentucky or a year -- for a year. salud carbajal has spent 20 years in local politics. he is fairly well-known for his fundraising apparatus. he raises a lot of money, not only for this race, but he was running for county supervisor -- but when he was running for county supervisor. he has most -- the backing of

most of the powerful democrats in california. nancy pelosi, lois capps, lois capps' daughter, who for a period of time was thought to want to run for her mother's seat, is backing him. he's been hit with a lot of attacks from fareed for being a career politician. whereas justin fareed doesn't really have much of a career in politics, so he gets to come at it from the angle of "i'm young, i'm a new kind of republican" and really run against the dysfunction in congress. >> let's talk about the demographics of this district. santa barbara and san luis obispo, the two largest cities in california 24.

who does it favor? >> it's an interesting district. for a long time, because of gerrymandering, it was known as the district of shame. now it goes further inland. you start off on the coast, with liberal cities like santa barbara, and you go more inland and you get into more of the old country club republican crowd. you get some more farmers, more ranchers, and there is a significant agricultural economy in santa maria, california, which is actually the largest city in santa barbara. that is a city that has produced more republicans. abel maldonado came out of santa maria. he was a republican. it's an interesting area in that sense. the democrats do have the advantage among the registered voters. they have a 6-point lead over republicans. it being a presidential year, that alone should favor the more

-- favor salud carbajal. >> a race that's becoming one of the most expensive in the country. javier panzar, joining us from "the los angeles times." his work is available online at latimes.com. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> president obama will give his seventh and final keynote address at the congressional black caucus foundation today. hillary clinton will receive the inaugural trailblazer award as the first woman presidential nominee of a major party in the u.s. live coverage at 7:30 eastern, here on c-span. >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day. with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, louise radnofsky will join us to discuss the exit of major health care areas like that from the

affordable care act health insurance exchange. and president obama's plans to meet with insurers next week over the future of the health care program. then, a reporter for the investigative fund on his investigation uncovering health care problems with federal prisoners who are housed in private prison facilities. and a retired rear admiral of the council for a strong america will be on to talk about their report titled, "america unprepared," which warns the nation's youth is unprepared for the workforce, military service and many have criminal records. evil discuss recommendations outlined in the report. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on saturday morning. join the discussion. >> of the associated press and 15 other media organizations are asking the vc circuit court of appeals -- d.c. circuit court of appeals to order the release of graphic videos showing a former guantanamo bay inmate being force fed during a hunger

strike. the videos show former guantanamo bay prisoner jihad dhiab being forcibly removed from his cell, strapped to a restraining chair, and force fed meals through a tube. the three-judge panel heard oral argument last week. it is just under an hour. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, your honors. may it please the court, catherine dorsey, on behalf of the respondent appellants'. the district court are -- ordered 10 classified videos evicting the forced-cell extraction and interval feedings of mr. dhiab in this case without any determination that those videos were not properly classified. the court did so finding that it abridged intervenors right to free speech under the first amendment to deny them access to those classified videos.

that was an error. it is well-established the first amendment is not a freeman of it -- freedom of information act. it requires a qualified right of access to traditionally public, unclassified judicial records. here at the district court -- here, the district court relied on the press enterprise case, which is an exception to that access. >> you would agree that is an open question? >> open question whether -- >> a number of circuits have disagreed with your statement. >> i'm sorry, your honor. i'm not sure which statement you are referring to, whether that press enterprise doesn't apply? >> whether the first amendment right of access is limited, as you suggest. >> i think -- your honor, i'm not sure what cases you are referring to,

because i think this court has certainly indicated the number of times that the first amendment is a qualified right of access, not the freedom of information act. >> no question. >> i don't think, on that point, there is any question. it is a qualified right of access, your honor. >> i said no question. >> ok, sorry, your honor. in this case here, the district court relied on press enterprise, which we don't think applies in this case. press enterprise was a limitation on the judiciary right to seal unclassified records, judicial records that were presumptively public because they were unclassified. that exception does not confer on the judiciary authority to seal -- unseal properly classified information and, in fact, press enterprise did not deal with classified information and it did not address that

separation of powers problem that endures in this case, where there is a first amendment right and also the executive's prerogative to decide who gets access to classified information. >> is there much daylight between the test for proper classification and the press enterprise test? >> yes, your honor, there is. the proper classification entered that has traditionally been applied -- standard that has traditionally been applied, in prepublication review cases like mcgehee, is typically affording a substantial weight to the executive's statements about why something is classified and the press enterprise test requires a compelling interest and a substantial probability of harm. so, it's a much more demanding standard than has typically been applied to determine whether something is properly classified.

>> can you pin down the exact meaning of substantial probability? it gets above all that. >> your honor, the way the district court applied press enterprise here certainly was a different standard, because the district court concluded that the fact of classification was irrelevant to press enterprise and also stated that the standard for proper classification was too lenient. it's clear the district court applied higher standard in determining a substantial probability of harm. the district court did not review to determine whether the information was properly classified and said that would be relevant. so, i think there is a distinction here between those two.

and in this case, we don't think the first amendment is an appropriate vehicle, even to seek access to classified information. the intervenors here could have filed a foia to get access to the videos. that would have been the proper way to challenge whether the videos were properly classified. here, there is no first amendment right of access to these kinds of classified videos and no case has recognized that the press-enterprise applies to classified videos in order to disclose over the government's objection. even if the court were to determine that press-enterprise is applicable, which we don't think it is, the result would be the same, in that there is still no first amendment right of access. we think it is clear under the experience and logic test of press-enterprise that there is no history of the right of access to the classified information in the guantanamo

habeas proceedings. >> i find that test totally mysterious. how could there be a history, if guantanamo only started to use, relatively recently, for detention of prisoners? >> the guantanamo case -- habeas cases have been going on for 10 years now, your honor, and in the context of those proceedings, it is certainly clear that there has not routinely been an access to classified information. there is no -- this court has recognized -- >> a request and in denial that -- and a denial that have gelled into some sort of precedent. i'm not sure how it could gel into a president. >> there have been a number of challenges in the context of the guantanamo cases, where the government has sought to keep

under seal unclassified information and the court has made it clear -- this court has made it clear that that is this court's responsibility and the government would need to some information that would justify such protections. it has not apply the same standard to classified information. >> what about history and tradition? and you mentioned this. the habeas proceedings in gone -- in guantanamo are rather extraordinary. the supreme court went to great lengths to canvass the history of the writ as it existed in 1789 in england and then came up with the decision that they came up with, that -- the only substantive, procedural statement in the opinion is that

the habeas has to be, quote, "meaningful." that was it. tradition, tond documents with the way that habeas was conducted in 1789 in england -- because, if you do, there is history with respect to access to documents under the ancient writ, and that was, unless you had a proprietary interest in the document, you didn't get access. the english case, i can't remember, cited in the supreme court opinion, which i haven't dredged up, but it's an old opinion. think that would support our position here, your honor, if you are looking back to the writ of 1786, i would suggest also there is no right of access to information habeas

proceedings, much less classified information. they also said that classified information in the national security interest involved would be adequately protected in these habeas proceedings. there is every indication the supreme court did not expect that classified information filed in the habeas proceedings would, all of a sudden, be publicly available. >> i've heard it said it was not marked classified. no document is ever marked classified, right? it's either top secret, secret, or confidential, eyes only.

what's the other one? >> correct. for official use only or special access. >> special access, yet. i've seen a lot of classified documents, but i've never seen one that says classified across it. >> when we say marked "classified," we mean marked with the appropriate header of secret, confidential, special access, but in terms of how we -- what we've talked about, the court has the role in the foia context to determine proper classification. it is not just that the government submits the document with the classification stamp on it. >> as i understand it, the defense attorneys who are representing individuals that are detained at guantanamo have to go through a security clearance. is that clear -- correct? >> that's correct. he received secret clearance -- they receive security clearance and are cleared to receive classified information. >> did the intervenors get security clearance? >> they did not get security clearance. >> the intervenors' attorneys, i mean.

>> correct, your honor. they do not have security clearances. when the outcomes of this district court decision is that if this release is -- classified information will be released to the other, to the intervenors, to the petitioner himself, theoretically, even those -- though those individuals have not been granted security clearance or have been determined to have access to classified information. the supreme court testified that who gets access to the classified information is the prerogative of the executive branch. >> what you say to the -- that there was no objection by the government to the cheney -- the detainee counsel, to the motion of the detainee counsel to file the videos as court records? >> the government did object to the discovery, but the government did not object -- >> when the district court

denied that motion and granted it in part as to redaction. i'm talking about the motion to make these videos part of the court record. there was no objection by the government. >> and the reason the government didn't object is, pursuant to the expectation of --, that classified information would be litigated in these cases, but that that information would only be given out to counsel who were cleared or granted a security clearance and cleared for access to classified information. >> the sophistication of government litigators. the district court had argument pretty clear that its approach was looking at this case somewhat differently and that it viewed the decision it had to make -- was not necessarily predetermined by the government's classification

decision. so, if there was ever fair notice that the nature of these documents might be changing, why wouldn't the government have interposed an objection? >> i disagree, your honor. >> you disagree with what? >> i disagree that the government was unreadable notice -- was on reasonable notice. >> there was a motion filed. >> but there was a protective order that prevented the release of classified information in these cases. >> the district court had already made clear it was going to make the decision. >> i don't think at that time, your honor, there was anything that was clear, that the district court was not going -- that it was going to be a decision the court -- >> it's a different court. it would have ended the matter and denied the motion for

intervention as futile, basically. >> i think, at the time, when the government did not object to the finding of the videos after they were ordered discovered, there was -- the government had every reasonable expectation that the videos would only be provided to detainees' counsel and to the court. there was a protective order in place, and nobody else had a security clearance in the case. and egan and other established law, the court routinely -- the district court routinely protects pacified information filed in court -- protects classified information filed in court. >> so you're saying there was a reasonable reliance by the government, and that explains its failure to object? >> absolutely. and the government was doing its part to give what information could be given to cleared counsel, as directed in these cases. the government has made a real

effort in the guantanamo cases to provide what information it can to cleared counsel. consistent with that, the government did that, but it certainly had no expectation that the record could later be publicly disclosed. so, the guantanamo cases have been going on for 10 years, and there is a vast amount of pacified information that has been filed, pursuant to protective orders -- classified information that has been filed, pursuant to protective orders, with the expectation that information will only be shared with the court and cleared counsel. if the court has no other questions, i see that i'm out of time. >> i guess i do have a couple questions. you have an alternative argument? >> yes. >> even under the district court's approach, you win. >> yes, your honor. we think, even if you were to apply press-enterprise, as we start to discuss, under the experience and logic test, we don't think there would be a first amendment right of access here. >> i'm beyond that. your third alternative? >> we think the government's

declarations here did show a compelling interest to protect national security. the declarations that are set forth for national security concerns, they explain in detail how the videos could be used by detainees to develop countermeasures. >> on that third argument, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. >> i think that -- well -- yes, your honor, although, again, we think that the legal question here about whether it would be correctly applied - -- >> we are on the third option. the third option is, even assuming the district court properly proceeded -- >> yes, then i agree, i think you would be of use of

discretion, your honor -- i don't think we believe the district court applied the correct deference to the substantial harms and the executive's weighing of the harms and the concerns. the executives and the military officials who wrote these decorations are the ones with expertise to judge the seriousness of the concerns, and they relied on both the countermeasures, that more forced-cell extractions might be necessary, and the concern that if these videos were released, it might dilute the protections afforded to u.s. citizens. >> you haven't argued the case, have you? >> not this case, no. >> how do you distinguish a situation where an intervener comes in and there is a discovery that is pending and the case gets settled? the actual case.

the discovery request is still outstanding. is that discovery request not moved? >> i guess it would depend. it might be one of the situations where it is capable of repetition and occurring, so the question might be -- >> capable of repetition thing only applies to capable of repetition between the same parties with the same issue. so, i don't think that would apply. how do you distinguish that situation? that's essentially what we have here. >> but it's -- >> i'm entitled to discovery because its first amendment -- it's first amendment. if the case is moved, then they still have a remedy. it is the freedom of information act. >> well, certainly, your honor. we agree that the remedy is under the freedom of information

act. >> the case that i mentioned is nixon vs. warner communications, 1978, citing an 1829 english decision, habeas, i think. >> ok. if the court has no further questions, we would ask the court to reverse its disclosure order. >> thank you. intervenors? >> good afternoon, judge. david schulz for the intervenors, who are news organizations who are asking for public right of access to evidence admitted into the record in a civil proceeding. at the outset, there is a great deal the government argues in its position that the intervenors have no quarrel with. we do not disagree the national security and protecting national security is a compelling interest. we do not disagree that a court should give substantial

deference to the executive's determination of the national security. but the government, in this case, is asking this court to do what no other court has ever done, it's asking this court to accept the premise that the executive and the executive alone can determine when court records are sealed and when court proceedings will be closed. that would be a fundamental change -- >> the government asks a whole series of things be done as alternatives. one of them taken is that it is proper for us to turn whether or not the classification was proper, right? [inaudible] so, it does not resolve the case standing alone. >> sure. i really do think that the fundamental dispute, probably, between intervenors and the government is what the proper standard is.

just to back up, our position is that what the district court did here was to apply precedent that there is a first amendment right of access to this proceeding. >> who owns that first amendment right? >> i'm sorry. >> who owns that first amendment right? >> the public. >> so, that means that in any habeas proceeding from guantanamo, anyone in the united states can intervene in that proceeding to get classified information? >> well -- it's not just the press. it is everybody there t. >> if you look at the richmond newspaper case and again at case and the gannett case, they said there is no personal right to access. it's an enforceable, affirmative right. it was a watershed case. it was the first time the supreme court said that the public could come in and enforce this right of access. that's one of the fundamental mistakes, misperceptions in the government's positions.

when they quote this statement saying that it is not a freedom of information act case -- those cases deal with information in the hands of the government. the supreme court has never said the public can compel the executive branch to turn over information in its possession. things are fundamentally different when information is brought to the court where there is a constitutional right. it goes back centuries. jeremy bentham in the 18th century -- >> in habeas corpus, at least according to nixon versus warner communications, the only party -- person who could come in and get access to documents is someone who had a proprietary interest in those documents. what do you do with that? >> i think you may be overeating that a bit. in the next part, the 1866 hideous -- habeas case, the court is very clear that the records were available on a public record.

>> i'm talking about the writ as it existed in 1789. >> i would submit that's not the for right way to -- that's not the right way to look at the first amendment right of access. in press-enterprise ii -- trials have been conducted publicly forever. >> criminal trials. >> does it apply to pretrial proceedings? the court had a problem there, because there were no centuries of access to pretrial proceedings. most of the proceedings at issue in that case were things that developed in the last 20 or 30 years because of rulings by the supreme court about procedural rights that criminals have. we don't need this whole history because we can look at the experience. every state that has adopted these pretrial proceedings has done them openly. >> to borrow from the last case, the supreme court said that the pretrial proceedings in a criminal case where the functional equivalent of a

criminal trial -- were the functional equivalent of a criminal trial. >> sure. what we're talking about here is a civil proceeding. we are talking about evidence admitted into the record as a civil proceeding. this report has only addressed this in a criminal context. every circuit has addressed -- the supreme court has only addressed this in a criminal context. every circuit that has addressed this said that it only -- >> we had a case today where part of the record was sealed, as it is here. that means that somebody can -- anybody can come in and demand, this is my first amendment right, i want to see all the sealed stuff. >> there certainly is that potential. i do agree, judge, that there are certain ending requirements -- certain standing requirements the government has imposed. there might be circumstances where there would be a standing issue, do you really have a unique harm? i don't think that's an issue in this case. >> if we take foia as an analogy, everybody has standing. >> it is a public right.

it's a substantially different right then foia. foia is a statutory right. congress said in this area you can only get things that are not properly classified. to go back to judge williams' question, that's the standard in foia. >> that's a different question. you're talking about standard best standing. everybody has standing under foia. you don't have to show the i need this document or it's going to help me or anything. just i want the document, period. >> i was going back to judge williams' question. i'm having a little trouble hearing you. >> if something is awry in the public, as you point out -- is a right in the public, as you point out the supreme court said, then it is hard to see how there is any more standing requirement than to be a member of the public. >> is not an issue in this case. there is no question of standing.

the government hasn't raised it. it has been discussed in some of the court cases, but there is no issue here. i want to go back -- >> the questions of the hazards of a broad reading. it raises a question about the hazards of a broad reading of press-enterprise. >> i think press-enterprise is very clear in what the reading is, what the holding in that case is. a very specific holding of that case, which is --was that a state statute in california that said the pretrial proceeding could be closed on a reasonable likelihood that open proceedings would violate the defendant's fair trial rights or jeopardize the fair trial rights failed to satisfy the fed first amendment -- the first amendment. that was the specific holding. it's a reasonable likelihood is not sufficiently protective of the constitutional practice -- access right because of the criticality of the public's access to -- >> florida has a statue that

protects the identity of a rape victim in a criminal case. this is a great -- there is a supreme court case where, despite negligence -- just by negligence, the police in the press room later piece of paper down and some court reporter got it and published the name of a rape victim. that's neither here nor there. but under your theory, if there is a red case and the florida law is applied -- a rape case and the florida law is applied to protect the victim, the press or any individual can come in and force that identity to be disclosed to the public. >> absolutely not. that is absolutely not our position. our position is that the first amendment right of access applies as a qualified right. there is a standard that have to be met -- a compelling interest. the government fundamentally -- >> the identity of a rape victim is a compelling interest, but the national security is not? >> national security is very

often. we do not disagree with that proposition. we need to understand. it's very important that the proper standards get applied. what the government has argued is that classified information -- well, we are not going to apply the first amendment here. it does not make sense in the rights the supreme court has said the public has. a corporation's trade secrets can be sealed. the identity of a police informant can be sealed. there are interests to do that. what the supreme court has said is a judge must decide on a case-by-case basis if the interest exists. we need this field. the judge must say, is it a trade secret -- this sealed. the judge must say, is it a trade secret? all they did was apply the same standard to whether something needed to be classified because

it applied to national security. >> just a moment. in a hypothetical, if program a is classified by the government and, in this type of proceeding, that occurred here, there is evidence that program a has in fact been made available by the government to the public, that classification may have occurred in year one. it is now year 20. and i'm thinking of the reynolds case as sort of an analogy here, where time passes and the government class interests may -- the government's interests may change. the other scenario, program a is classified. program a has been released to

the public. but the government's position is that program a still should remain classified. i need to understand what your understanding is of, what is the standard a district court is to apply in that circumstance, assuming, for purposes of this hypothetical, that we are in the third alternative presented by the government brief? >> where something is still classified. the standard to be supplied -- applied is the press-enterprise standard. this standard is has the government shown that there is a compelling interest that requires secrecy? that's the standard. >> that's the standard, but what i'm trying to get at is this whole notion of egan, national security, expertise -- >> absolutely.

and what the district court did hear, -- here, which we think is entirely appropriate, number one, national security can be a compelling interest. i need to apply the first amendment standard, not whether it is properly classified, but the first amendment compelling interest standard, and i must give rougher difference to the executive -- i must give proper different -- deference to the executive. when the government is making national security -- all a judge may properly ask for is that the government has given us a logical and plausible basis to believe it is properly classified. judge lesser -- kessler said, has the government given me a logical and plausible basis to believe it is a threat to national security? paula has been known, videos --

all -- based on all that has been known, videos on the internet, they haven't shown any grounds to meet the first amendment standard. >> i can think of a number of responses to the point i'm about to ask you. but in the correctional context, the supreme court and the lower courts have deferred very heavily to the opinion of the correctional official as to what is likely to cause a problem. all right. chief justice rehnquist writing, these people are responsible for maintaining the discipline, the conduct within the facility. why doesn't that approach apply in this context? i understand this is national security, so there is a much greater governmental interest and interest to all of us at stake, but i just want to understand that aspect of the case and why that isn't