know what to do because of all of these different political considerations or diplomatic generations. susan: having 100% certainty before you point the finger in other words. deb: how do we know the government hasn't responded? we just don't know. damian: the u.s. and soviet have been doing this kind of thing for decades. i think what a lot of people believe, if vladimir putin is behind this, he sees it as an extension of a ping-pong match that's gone on for years and years. the u.s. is had involvement in elections all of the world going back to world war ii. i think analysts believe this is just the way things work. you want to send a signal to ever will emerge from the selection that russia is on to

you. that might be the signal they are sending. there is a big difference between vladimir putin telling his officials to do this and then some entrepreneurial hackers doing this on their own. thinking it will look really good in size. it does make it hard to respond. susan: we have hopeful cooperation on syria for a cease-fire. both of our countries have an interest in defeating isis terrorists against our respective states. it's a complicated relationship. more complicated than it has been in the past. deb: i can see secretary kerry saying to not do anything on the hacking yet. there could be a million other diplomatic considerations we are not aware of.

susan: were you surprised about his answer on homegrown terrorists? damian: he is a very cautious person. you never want to get out in front and say everything is fine because the next day there could he an attack. i think he was doing his best to focus americans on the successes that we have had. kind of klein back some of the territory. iraq americans are interested in stopping terror attacks. i think a lot of officials feel like they are not in the credit for the progress they have made. susan: thanks to both of you for being on newsmakers this week. thank you for your questions.

the smithsonian national museum of african american history and culture opens its doors to the public for the first time on saturday, september 24. c-span will be live starting at 10 a.m. for the outdoor dedication ceremony. speakers include president obama , first lady, former president george w. bush and mrs. laura bush. john roberts, congressman john lewis and smithsonian secretary david gorton and watch the saturdayeremony live september 24 at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span, the c-span radio cap and c-span radio -- c-span.org. evangelical leaders demanded support for donald trump. janet partial and bishop harry jackson spoke in favor of supporting mr. trump and political broader eric erickson

and other spoke against him and in favor of independent or write in candidates. religiousthe national rod jesters this is an hour and a half. participants, eric erickson, janet partial, bishop harry jackson will whip german. debate will have three stages. eric and janet will each make 10 minute opening remarks following which each will have five minutes to respond to the other will have 10d bill minute opening remarks following we will have five minutes to respond to each other. then i will ask a series of questions of the panel and they will engage each other. first, eric erickson is host of

news in atlanta and editor of the resurgent.com and he will resent the never trout position which opposes the donald trump under all circumstances. eric is a fox news contributor and currently pursuing a masters degree. applause i'm a star trek fan. one of the worst star trek movies was star trek five where everybody becomes brainwashed by that godis convinced and not a black coal is at the milky way. they go looking for god and sure enough they find god. trump asked the relegation, what does god need

with a center in the white house? maybe something that maybe nothing. i am not going to dissuade you. if you decide you will vote for him in the privacy of voting booth, go for it. i won't ask you to violate your conscience. but i do think that christians in america, particularly those of us who have platforms should not be supporting him openly because i think it is harmful for witness. do what the candidates. we have two candidates in this election. one candidate has asked -- been asked who jesus christ is an she referred to it as her savior. another candidate asked the same same question and he said jesus to me is somebody i can take about four security and confidence, somebody i can

revert terms of bravery and courage. god,vid brody he describes i think god is the ultimate. you will look at this, here we are the pacific ocean. how did i ever ole miss. i bought it 15 years ago. i made one of the great deals ever. i have no mortgage on it as i will certify to you. i was able to buy this and make a great deal. that's what i want to do for the country. we have to bring it god -- back, but god is the ultimate. one candidate says jesus is her --ior and the other one said when the new person interested in faith asks us, why do you not , you think he is a christian -- and she said she is

a christian and said jesus as her savior. why him and not her? please explain how you as a christian are advocating the man who has bragged about multiple a pet -- affairs with multiple women, has cheated widows and single moms and the elderly out of money through trump university, has stiffed the low income worker on his tilting, telling them if they want to collect they have to sue. how does he represent our values? we believe him. if you want to advocate for that, ok. how are you advancing the kingdom of god? donald trump has never asked for forgiveness. god has never asked donald trump for forgiveness either. list, in histhe

books he bragged about affairs with married women, he has taken money from the elderly, widows, single mothers. curse it is he who distorts the , from james, this is pure and undefiled religious to visit orphans and widows in keep distress and themselves on standby the word. he has filed for bankruptcy and let others foot the bill. he refused to play -- pay laborers. frank luntz in iowa he has never had to ask for for a business. anderson cooper he never have to ask for forgiveness. followed up he said the same thing. in june when he was asked if he has ever repented he said i will ask for forgiveness. he said he is a christian. he said he has never had to repent.

he is been asked to jesus is and he says he is a guy he can look up to. three:2. in those days john the baptist came in saying repent for the kingdom of heaven is near. to galilee and proclaimed the gospel of god. the time is for filled and the kingdom is here. repent and. the apostles went out of proclaim that people should repent. and peter said to them repent and be baptized. the time of ignorance of god overlook. love i will discipline so be so us and repent. he has not repented and he said he is not repented. we are going to say that this is a man who christians should advance in the public square. you are harming your witness if you go out and advocate for him.

it's not just that. let's look at first corinthians five. judge not lest you be judged. now i am writing to you not to associate with anyone who dares the name brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed or revile her or swindler, for what am i to do with judging outsiders? is it not in a church whom you are to judge, purge the evil person from among you. we instruct you brothers in the name of our lord to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way. argue that heuld was writing those individual churches. matthew henry wrote that they were to avoid all familiarity with those people and have no commerce with them. there were to have no commerce and were to shame that in so shaming them they might bring him to repentance and if not to shun him.

for those who think this only applies to the individual church of corinth or the thessalonian, -- would come into conflict all have written on first corinthians five dollars said this applies to the church universal. we have a man running for has bragged about his affairs, who has bragged about stiffing others with the bill, who has cheated women, widows, who has said he has never had to ask out for forgiveness, who has not identified jesus christ as his lord and savior but is a christian. if we were advocating for that wet good of it is us to say believe in scripture when scripture tells us we should not be advocating for a person like this. wes election is between --

have someone we don't want. i realize some of you has decided he is better than her. some people say he could be virus leaving us back into the holy land. between the lesser of 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 of jerusalem from nebuchadnezzar. he opened the gates. i don't think we should be asking the people to do that. , which, i am sure of it show us that there were people -- weld those in babylon don't remember them. we remember others who refused to bow. i believe in the god in the last day, i believe i am on the winning team. think this election affects my salvation, and i don't think we as christians should be advancing a man we

think is going to help the church. i believe god helps the church and we are to help god. thank you. >> thank you, eric. , shewe have janet partial is host of the daily to our radio program in the market, she has carried on hundreds of christian radio stations across the country. she is a long team -- time member and she is been the chairman of our public policy committee. she is a broadcaster from the nation's capital and has been .oing it for 20 years she will argue in favor of supporting donald trump. all yours, janet. applause take him at his worst i am researching my witness. i think there be eric subscribes to debussy fields worldview. i always vote against people.

let's look at the numbers. facts are stubborn things. evangelical million voters in america, 28 million are registered to vote and in 2012 it was 335,000 photos in swing states that made the difference. is a profoundly crucial election where every single vote will count and in light of last night's fox news poll the candidates are one point apart. among gop voters who attend church regularly 84 percent said the way back from. and in july. put out a poll that said 94% of evangelicals would vote for trump over clinton. i'm not going to use the word

evangelical. that is a term i can also be years as a bludgeoning tool. it can mean anything from soup to not secured in 1975, the cover of time magazine was the rise of evangelicalism. it was jimmy carter who got 50% of the vote for evangelicals. we will redefine the word evangelical. barna has a new book came out, he came up with a term called save -- sage khan's. it stands for spiritual active government engaged conservatives. spiritual active means you know you are a sinner. you know that you are in native the savior. you know the savior is jesus. went to cavalry kept his word and paid the price and proved he was the messiah by resurrecting from the grave.

they believe in the vibrant, living, transcendent absolute word of god. it impacts every single aspect of their life including but not limited to their political perspective. using sage khan's is my launching point let me talk about this. 11% said go trump. 15% said they had a favorable impression. once it became clear that he would become the nominee the support jumped up to 70% and after the republican candidate convention it has remained at 85%. some said they would go third party, that has been cut in half. vote for theect to independent candidate. 4% are undecided.

mrs. clinton has never caught on cons.he sage she was in line to get 2% of the vote in drop to 1% and she has now spiked to 4%. , ifly to confuse writing you are pro-life vote for hillary clinton. i will leave that to your own imagination. i want to talk about this character issue. we have heard over and over about character. when all else fails go back and read the instructions. let's look at the character of president. thomas jefferson is a lash to have a affair with sally hemmings. harrisonenry -- henry -- james garfield had multiple affairs and the election was rocked by allegations that he

a prostitute. grover cleveland was implicated in a violent sexual assault, she was put in an insane asylum and released once it was proved that cleveland was the father of the child. woodrow wilson he had an affair and when she died he started seeing a widow. a popular joke emanated under that chapter that would like this question what did mrs. gault do when the president of the united states propose to her? bed.r she fell out of

harding had the secret service hand-deliver child-support payments. he had affairs while in office two of whom had his child out of wedlock. fdr his affairs are widely known. eleanor are believed to have had mistresses in the white house. johnson didn't limit himself to only one of fear once bragging that he had more women by accident than kennedy ever had on purpose. lbj had no problem talking to reporters while on the toilet. because of the watergate case we know that richard nixon could make up light -- sailor blush

with his language. i hardly need to talk about jfk and bill clinton. looks like donald trump is tame in comparison. fear for having anything less than a sinner in the white house. last time i checked we have centers that the supreme court come in the oval office, in congress, i myself join you today as a sinner saved by grace. we are reminded that we have a representative form of government. representative government is a blessing, it was designed by god himself. representative government is god instituted idea.

when we were going back in history to 1787 the convention was being held in strictest privacy. people wondered what the outcome would be. in that hot hall when the doors opened up rent a mrs. policy is philadelphia who went to belle ben franklin and said do we have a republican -- republic or a moniker -- monarchy. 17 candidates started upon the gop stage area those who cared voted. we have the freedom to run for office and to vote for whomever we wish. the final candidate step forward. he may not have been the person that some other persons wanted, he rocked the system. he wasn't is this man and an outsider. he challenged of the wisdom that a candidate have to be a professional politician.

the candidate go round is donald trump. for those who have been praying and fasting through and during this process we now believe the sovereignty of god did not apply? did he take off to philadelphia as wc fields said, or was he in this entire process. can god raise up a leader that doesn't look right to us but is exactly who god wants for a time like this? a adulterer and murderer and call him the apple of his eye? andgod take it usually sure used him to other over half of the new testament? liaram lied jacob was a moses was a murderer sampson was suicidal,r eliza was

joe went bankrupt, peter denied christ. god has a track record of using flawed and broken people even when it doesn't look right to us. for me, i choose to keep the republic and secure the system. thank you area >> eric you have five minutes to respond. >> let's back up to the jeremiah lordence,, thus says the behold i will restore the fortunes of the tents of jacob and after fashion honest willingness. the palace shall stand where it used to be. out of them shall come songs of banks giving. i will multiply them and they shall not be few. i will make them honored and they shall not be small. their children shall be as a world hold in their congregation

shall be established before me and i will punish all the oppressed them. their prints shall be one of themselves, the ruler should come from their meds, i will make him draw near and he shall declares the lord appeared you shall be my people and i will be your god. people didn't have to participate in the process, god was doing it himself. let's go through the litany of character flaws. do any of you remember where war and hardy wrote the book where he bragged about his affairs with women? do any of you recall blake bill clinton going on national tv that he liked to have sex with his daughter if she was someone else's child? we are all sinners. we all fall short. the question is whether we revel in our sin or repetitive are sent. all of the people it's true, some terrible people. abraham doubted, david and best ,iva, peter rejected christ

sampson, you name it. they all have something, two things in common that donald trump does not have. god chose them and every one of them repented. every one of them asked for forgiveness. donald trump has said he has never had to ask for forgiveness. he said he is a christian but he has not had to ask goodness and he has written books bragging about his affair. are we to lower the bar? all these other people do terrible things so let's embrace the terrible? no. ourre supposed to aim for best use which is to glorify god and enjoy -- and enjoy him forever. when we say yes he is a center like all the other people brought about his affairs, said he wanted to sleep with his daughter, cheated the elderly and widows out of money and did not repent. if you want to go in the voting booth sure.

if you champion him huge you harm your witness. we may be wrapped up in the politics of the day. there are people longing for the lord that are looking at christians in this country saying if they are putting their faith and a guy like him, what is in their church for me? we supposed to advance the kingdom of god, say these people are terrible person that we will go with the terrible person. that does not advance the kingdom. thank you. i am going to be kind to eric, by term limitations we know that no president can serve the eight years. because eric has made a profession, this guy and i are going to spend eternity together. along just going to get right now here. first of all, first samuel, god looks upon the heart.

i don't know if donald trump has ever asked for forgiveness. on the outward appearance and god looks upon the heart. can we put to bed the silliness, dr. jeremiah johnson never comes on my show about saying one peter, one john one corinthians. camels, that is ridiculous point. romans 13, we as believers have a relationship with government. who we participate. i commend to you the city of god, we have dual citizenship, we are citizens of the united states and our mandate is to render unto caesar. he said you ever stress abilities here on earth and then you have responsibilities to

manage her paternal king. we influence and occupy, let our light shine that they might see our good work. engage culturally for the sake of the cross. our salvation does not come by way of washington. my god shall supply all my needs, not washington. that doesn't mean that i don't try to influence. , a teenager turned prime minister who went to a pagan king and influenced him so much that he went from eating grass to praising god. they prayed for a bad leader. i believe we have more influence on our knees than we do and the voting booth. richard lamm said the pontius pilate option is not one for of his believers. we don't wash our hands.

not voting for trump is not voting for clinton. candidates should not oppose us from opposing a more dangerous one, a profoundly, articulated worldview. i don't care if she talks about her savior or not. i'm interested if your deeds match your speech. you believe in the denigration of marriage, the annihilation of the pre-born. you said you would protect american citizens. what difference does it make? as a result, we have dead american citizens. the questions we have to ask the president is this, what will you do for your country? first, last and always, what will you do? there will be people appointed to the court, three or potentially for justices who could serve 30 or more years. that means not only my children, but my grandchildren will be impacted. that is something i care about. hillary put out her list, donald trump has put out his list. the difference is 180 degrees.

it is the difference between darkness and light. what donald trump says, i am not asking about forgiveness, it is debatable. what is not debatable is the mold of antonin scalia. no further questions, your honor. will the president help us with religious liberty? hillary clinton, i doubt it. she has weaved together a basket of deplorables and i am in it. will the president protect our country? i don't need to elaborate on benghazi. how will the candidate provide equal opportunity? one candidate has hired thousands of employees and the other has not driven her own car in years. there is a distinction. which candidate has met with evangelical christians? cut, dry. the bible tells us to be sharp.

he tells us that our heart was renewed and our mind was transformed. you not only honor me with your life but with sound thinking. seek wisdom. this is a time for power, not only believe it to think critically. >> thank you, janet, thank you, eric. we will have time to follow up during the q&a. now to our next round, and we are switching the order on the pro or anti-trump this time. we are going with bishop harry jackson. he the senior pastor of the hope church in maryland and founder of the high impact coalition. he is one of the chief conveners of the reconciled church, healing the racial divide movement.

his book was co-authored george barna, who was nominated for the gold medallion award. harry: thank you. i want to start with a little bit of a story. i began pastoring in upstate new york after finishing mba from a well-known eastern business school. i found myself starting a bible study. folks that wound up coming to the bible study, most of them happen to be. -- happened to be white. the community had 1% black and eventually we started a church. and i became in that setting pro-life, profamily, and i also

believed that we needed to be engaged in changing and transforming our culture through our political system. with that as a beginning statement, i want to say that donald trump is being challenged about race and racism. 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, because god is in the details. the details of practical answers is where we stand. one of the challenges talking about race in terms of policy is that terms of politics is very often black christians and hispanic christians see three -- things through a lens of justice. they want justice now, things to be more fair and even an equal. white other hand,

evangelicals are hung up on righteousness issues. they talk about marriage and life as though they are exclusive. the bible does not say --ht justice or injustice righteousness or justice is the foundation of god's throne. i believe as we have relationships with the lord, we want to create an atmosphere of justice in our land. all too often, blacks have been and hispanics have been, in a sense, able to settle with the politics agreement. someone who says hey, i like you, i understand you. and that has been good enough. no real answers are coming. i believe that hillary clinton will simply perpetuate the status quo, do what she has done for 30 years, and the aura of criminalization in the black

community and welfare dependency will be continued. i have several reasons why between these two, i would vote or donald trump. the first three are for general christians and the remaining four, with i believe, the emphasis on where blacks are and hispanics are. first, religious freedom and liberty, the johnson amendment as was already mentioned, is a challenge. donald trump says he wants to do away for that. he is for religious liberty and freedom. number two, the supreme court justices. i believe we are going to have with up to a 40 year

impact of whoever gets in those amazingly powerful seats. third, the support of israel. donald trump has articulated a position that will be pro-israel. those of us who 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 their policies, but whether we want to support and support the existence of israel versus its annihilation. i want to talk more specifically about african-americans, my fourth point. i believe educational reform is critical, the opportunity for charter schools is really important. my own daughter worked in this in charter schools for

about four years, and i believe that we have to somehow change this thing about where education is going. 80% of the people incarcerated in america today are functionally illiterate. we have a problem. one thing that we can do is we could really guarantee that every person in the third grade in all of our urban churches could read. it would be amazing. it would kind of empty out some of the jails. fifth, business empowerment. i believe that economic plans -- -- fortrump has one urban improvement would make a difference for us. it is interesting that under the bush administration, 8% of the loans given to small businesses were given to black businesses. under president obama, 1.8% by

the small business administration's figures were given to, or used in minority businesses. so, capital formation is obviously something important in terms of starting, maintaining businesses. we know in urban situations, if the desert, if i could call it this, we will need to get jobs in urban centers. having some idea that there will be more equity in terms of business and empowerment will be very important for us. i think, sixth, nonviolent offenders returning home, getting a chance to redeem their lives is important. i served on the board of prison fellowship. i think it is interesting that,

if you look at the recidivism rate of people going back to prison, you will find oftentimes there is not an opportunity for these guys to restore and develop their lives appropriately. i think that, in some pragmatic ways, donald trump will look at these things. th and finally, and this family tax incentive is important for all people, all christians if we are going to perpetuate a society built upon foundation and family. i would argue that in african-american and hispanic communities, that family oriented tax incentives are significant. those seven points are some of the reasons.

i could go on and on and try to delve into the whole, more details around the political side of things. i would also say that right now, status quo, the obama administration, 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 outbreak. there is a generational shift that is going on. we also have a dynamic in the black community and i believe in the hispanic community where there are at least two black americans today. one is upwardly mobile and thriving and another that is

trapped in a conundrum of class, generational poverty which is aggravated by race. i believe it is the same thing in the hispanic community where one candidate will be proactive, solving problems. i also believe having a citizen politician will be important for us and we are at a place in our culture that the folks who control the system, their little fingers need to be broken off the controls and we need a change. we need some organized and strategic chaos for a moment. i believe that we need to redefine and reestablish some of our priorities. those seven points and my experience lead me to saying that this time, i support donald trump. thank you very much. >> thank you, bishop jackson.

next, we hear from bill. he is a special assistant to president george w. bush. he is a legislative advisor and washington, d.c. before entering politics, he worked as a missionary to turkish workers in west berlin, germany. he is currently president of faith and law, a ministry to congressional staff, seeking to integrate faith with their policy work. he will speak against the candidacy of donald trump. bill: thank you for hosting this debate. it is an important question and i am grateful. i want to thank bishop jackson, eric erickson. i have respect for all of you. you have been laboring in the vineyards along time. evangelical faith is a far more difficult choice this election year than any we've seen in the last half-century.

the choice has divided us with many good people on both sides. sadly, the division has also prompted the questioning of motives. this is unhelpful and unfair. we will let god judge motives. our attempts to be e pluribus unum is 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 and a conservative because i am a christian. i believe conservative policies best reflect the christian worldview, but i'm careful not ivinize my own-- d politics. i don't pretend to speak for god. 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. >> i want to analyze the reason i heard for why evangelicals are supporting donald trump. 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 republicans were not sufficiently pure. i respect my friends who

concluded they must vote for donald 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, donald 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 us by the founders. the founders knew how difficult it would be to sustain the democratic republic. benjamin franklin, as we have heard, said he has given you a 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. trump, on the other hand, has often demonstrated contempt for the rule of law. he's sounded more like a strong man in patient with restraints. 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 use waterboarding. he said military rulers would do unlawful orders. " if i say do it, they will do

it go it." he has praised dictators like vladimir putin. a russian opponent of putin implored his 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 donald trump is not lying. trump also said when the students poured into tiananmen square, the chinese government almost blew it. then 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 -- in 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. knock the crap out of him. he admires strength, whatever form. it exults faithfulness and meekness, that are strong because they rely on god. 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 hillary clinton is -- 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 in his reprobate behavior. trump mocks disabled people, brags about how many married

women he slept with. he says prisoners of war are not heroes if they were captured. he accuses a nativeborn american judge of mexican heritage of which speaker ryan called a textbook racist comment. he said the father of a fallen soldier has no right to question him. he accuses my old boss, president bush, as the reason for the 9/11 terrorist attack. he advocates a religious test for who is allowed to enter the ourtry, contrary to why nation was founded. 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. 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 undermine our credibility. more than that, we do violence to our movement, saying the ends justify the means. another argument employed by evangelicals supporting donald trump is god uses bad people for good purposes. this is certainly true. but where in scripture does it direct us to support that -- those people? god's ways are beyond us but our

job to support good candidates. after some evangelical leaders say we need to stand up to 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 government. this has nothing to do with our faith. it reflects a lack of faith in the power of virtue. we don't need to do bad to do good. that is impossible if scripter -- scripture is to be believed. ends and means both count in god's moral accounting. the final argument mystifies me. mainly, donald trump is not bad. in fact, he is a truth teller and humble. another reagan. trump has implied judicial nominees should be assassinated and has played with fire by suggesting that the election is

gged, setting up the possibility of serious civil strife if he loses. he is a man that never admits he is wrong and rarely asks god for forgiveness because he believes he rarely does anything wrong. if trump is a good man, and i have a 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. he can be a write-in candidate in almost every state. if nobody wins all 270 electoral votes, the house of he can be a write-in candidate representatives will decide and if mcmullen can be elected, improbable, yes. impossible, no. no, especially because trump does not deserve our vote. it is an honorable path. i hate the thought of hillary clinton being elected president and she will never get my vote, but i will not compromise

core principals for the sake of party allegiance. if trump becomes what it means to be a republican, 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. now with my vote. i will not allow vulgarity 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.

i think what i'm looking at is, as 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 him well in the primary. i will go back to this idea that america, in the 11-12 years i've been working in this area of

issues, out on social 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, again, 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 wanted, after they have gotten what they want, we don't get no flowers, no dinner, no romance. i think this has 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. they talk a lot about 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.

on, concerned, if i can go i am concerned that us 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 we are in the bag of deplorables. i don't think we will change that by fighting amongst ourselves. i do think we will have to finally stop saying that big government is bad and all of these things and finally 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 community and hispanic communities is a sign that he may be a change agent. this is where we are. stated, iasons i have 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. finally, bill, your response. five minutes. bill: thank you. i completely agree with bishop jackson that we have to do a lot more to care for the poor. i've been deeply involved with the board nationally and

internationally and people have said to me, how can you be 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 those people do not vote for us, we don't have to worry about them. again, and in local to the gospel. the fact that you say he is a shock jock, i'm concerned about that for two reasons. one, 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 that he does mean it. themes, thecurrent notion of strength and inpatients with restraint. his admiration of people who

admires in this country. why would be admire a guy like putin or the tiananmen square butchers? this is not just an offhand remark, this is 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 what he said in the debate. military leaders will obey me. he walked it back this much the next day. how about the judicial nomination? when he suggested, i would call it a dog whistle on the second amendment, that maybe they would be taken out. then he walks back. i'm kidding, kind of. what does he mean? is that the kind of society we want, that we are killing one another? we want to save babies, but we

do not advocate killing abortionists or punishing women. we want to work appropriately. the rule of law is a precious thing. look around the world. see how many places that are punitive democracies that really are not. there 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 inviolate here. it is profoundly reckless. it makes my blood boil when he calls for extradition will the crapke knocking out of people. i think he appeals in people that are so mad and so angry at the bigotry and intolerance of the other side that they want own guy to beeir

the hitman. we have to trust god. we have to trust god's way. we have to trust 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 us 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 and you know he donated to democrats. you know 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 and can you trust him now? janet: absolutely, i can trust him. my mind goes to a quote, money is like maneuver, you spread it around to get things to grow. he's given to pro-life, democrats, conservatives. that is quite honestly the art of the deal. let me go back to what you said before. you said this is basically a family discussion. 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 for life, supporting obamacare before he said he was opposed to it. far more importantly, because this is the evangelical conversation, i love my friends who are members of church of the jesus christ latter day saints.

but this is an ecclesiastical conversation. this is from a man who believed jesus was satan's spirit brother , and yet we have a member of our panel that is advocating another mormon. if we are going to have a conversation about evangelicals, let's put doctrine on the table. >> thank you, janet. eric. trump has been accused of denigrating minorities. he has been accused of undercutting the christian view the sanctity of human life. i think this all started on june 16 when he came down the escalator and gave 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'd take that he was not trying to make a blanket statement, but unfortunately was heard that why -- way by a lot of people. to make a blanketi think the bis treatment of the judge from indiana. he says because of his heritage he cannot be there because he of mexican heritage, a nativeborn american. my heritage is swedish but i'm 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 a group alt-right, ande they are. these people believe in tribalism such as, particularly, the white race in this country. they believe the policies that benefit white americans are the policies trump advocates. i first came into contact with these people because of their virulent 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. i am troubled by the way that they hear donald trump and think he is one of them. i don't think he is. 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 the supreme court. said, i might add to it, is not necessarily the list. i think it one point he alluded that his sister might make a good judge in some context. here's the question, given the donor record, the past supported democrats record, past unevenness, at least, on the planned parenthood issue. why do you think he would keep the promise? what 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?

>> i don't think he is playing us. i think he understands, at this point. i'm not sure he understood at the beginning, that he has 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 in the 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 you use that phrase in your talk. there is a clip where he is quoting a reporter that seems to be antagonistic or questioning him in maybe and unfair way. he flailed his arms, his speech is slurred. this reporter is disabled. a group called catholics for trump put together a video analyzing this claim. the same arm flailing, the slurred speech pattern trump uses in the speech again 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 did you think of this analysis by catholics for trump? and, if it matters, do you know when he isr case, mocked someone that is disabled. >> let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say for a minute he was not mocking the disability of the reporter. i think a lot of times politicians get an unfair rap because things happen out of context. 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 them. ask yourself, i don't know about you, how many people in your above the seventh grade, make fun of people of how they look? that is like middle school, elementary school childish behavior. he is doing it on the national stage. that is like middle school, that is corrosive to our national character. 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 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 betweenrch or choosing that and a candidate chosen by the military or someone corrupt. christians do cast a vote. we've been privileged to vote in the past for candidates we have identified with, they are sort of heroes. we thought they were god and country candidates. do you see a distinction between that voting and supporting a candidate embarrasses the republican party

or the church, and just this decision you have to make as most christians have had to make between two choices, and you have to do the best you can do. it seems that trump is the better of the two choices. >> i have been asked this question a lot in various forms. i always go back to the apostle romans thatte in government is an instrument of god. we are to pray for president obama and his cabinet. paul was a roman citizen who by right of his citizenship that we know from the historic record was allowed to vote in the assemblies and forums in jerusalem. we knew that paul could exercise his boat if he wanted to as a

roman citizen but he never wrote about it. we don't have to vote between the lesser of two evils, if you want to, do it. do not violate your conscience. i don't think we should be compelling each other to violate our consciences to vote or not vote. that is why i'm not going to tell anyone to not vote. the we do not have to. yes, voting is a right as an american citizen, but i have a higher obligation to advance the kingdom of god. janet or harry, either one of you can take this. picking up from the idea of the lesser of two evils. there sometimes a view that the candidate is good or a candidate is evil, a decision is good or evil. if you study ethics, there is a

whole field 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? >> i will say 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? >> 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 wonderful character and many christians who have deplorable character. maybe you don't run in the same circles i do. 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. >> 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? >> that most concerns me? if trump winds, what is the nagging doubt you may have? >> 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. number two, 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 every 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 who proclaims his relationship with jesus christ. that needs to be discussed. or bill, we are close to the end. there are those who say we can't trust trump with the list. he is making lots of 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, 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 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 that influence on donald trump. >> that is good. we only have about five minutes, but if you have a closing comment, we will start down with

eric and work our way down here. closing thought, maybe a minute or minute and a half. >> 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. so instead of either candidate needing 500,001 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 voting for 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 of 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 did not 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 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, not 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 obligated 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 subscribed, but still profound. in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity. >> very good. 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 and listen to when he says them again and again and believe them. >> 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. >> thank you. 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. and to remind you that christians vote. it is just one of the things we do. >> thank you, sir. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight on c-span, new york university professor james traub is our guest. we will talk about his book on john quincy adams.

then it is prime ministers questions. later, we hear from president obama at the 2016 oceans conference. ♪ announcer: this week on q and a, new york university professor james traub. professor traub discusses his adams -- john quincy "john quincy adams, militant spirit." brian: what would john quincy adams say if he was here today about what he sees in the world? james: john quincy adams did not like his own word.